Concealed carry at a gun show?

Status
Not open for further replies.
By your failed logic there should not be armed guards in courthouses, hospitals, schools, or banks.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with them. But, they aren't liable for my protection. In fact, they generally are charged with protection of specific people and/or things *other* than me. (Bank guards are charged with protection of company assetes, for example.)

Until I can hire my own guard to protect my life, I'll have to take care of that for myself. No one else has that responsibility.

By the logic that I've used all through this thread, there should be armed citizens everywhere.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear!

By ANY logic there should be armed citizens EVERYWHERE.

Worrying that folks can't be trusted to carry responsibly in one place is a logical fallacy if you maintain that they can be trusted to carry responsibly in some other place.

If you don't beleive that folks should be trusted to carry, I have no sympathy for your position, what-so-ever. As the wise Mr. Adams once said, "go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Though he was prone to hyperbole ... ;)

-Sam
 
I can actually agree and understand the logic for being ALLOWED to carry concealed IN a government bldg, court room, etc... Those are places you HAVE to go into for certain reasons. And being the Proprietor of the facility isn't able to guarantee your safety against personal attack; I can understand and partially agree to the individual being allowed the RIGHT to protect themselves. Again; you are FORCED to do business there at times. A PRIVATE property business/owner however is 100% voluntary and by your choice to be there. You have NO rights there; (Other than the right to leave); only privileges.
 
PRIVATE property business/owner however is 100% voluntary and by your choice to be there. You have NO rights there; (Other than the right to leave); only privileges.
Click to expand...
You still have the right to not be assaulted or otherwise wronged. That's like saying if I chose to go into a Wal-Mart the employees could shoot me if they wanted to. Simply entering private property doesn't take away any of my rights. Entering someone's house does not in itself give them the right to shoot me. They don't have that unless my manner of entry or other actions cause them to fear for their safety.

You have the right to not be wronged or harmed even when you're on private property. The property owner has those same rights. However, my concealed weapon is neither wronging him or harming him in ANY WAY.
 
2 Things.

1) Gryff; you can't say that a concealed weapon doesn't harm a business owner in ANY WAY. I can think of 2 groups; Jehovah Witness and Possibly Amish (Certain sects) who are opposed to weapons. While I was in the military, a girl who worked for me had 17 years in the military. She converted to Jehovah Witness; which doesn't accept being in the military. She could have kept her mouth shut, but she was willing to give up 17 years (only needing 3 more for a retirement pension and benefits) because she believed strongly in her convictions. If she or similar was to open up a store, shop, etc...; there is the possibility that because of convictions, they might choose such a sign. And while physically you may believe that they aren't being hurt; it could be a moral issue for them. And as such; they put up the sign. And please don't mention "IF THEY DON'T KNOW I HAVE IT". That's not relevant. NOT going in their business with a "CONCEALED" weapon is a matter of respect and honor. To say you respect but you don't follow their policies is hypocritical. But that point has already been made. I'm just stating how it COULD HARM a person morally within their beliefs.

2) I just came back from the gun show. There were no signs at all about weapons. As you entered; if you had a gun, even in a visible case, they made you unload it if it was loaded; put a sticker on it to prove it was yours; and a tie wrap through the hammer/bolt/etc... assembly. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED the attendant about concealed carry weapons; for the curiosity of this thread. Both the lady and the gentleman at the entrance said that they only cared that VISIBLE weapons that could POTENTIALLY be handled; we unloaded, tie wrapped, and marked as personally property. So; at least for here and this gun show; there wasn't a problem.
 
I SPECIFICALLY ASKED the attendant about concealed carry weapons; for the curiosity of this thread. Both the lady and the gentleman at the entrance said that they only cared that VISIBLE weapons that could POTENTIALLY be handled; we unloaded, tie wrapped, and marked as personally property. So; at least for here and this gun show; there wasn't a problem.
Click to expand...

Seems to me like I heard that somewhere before
 
She converted to Jehovah Witness; which doesn't accept being in the military. She could have kept her mouth shut, but she was willing to give up 17 years (only needing 3 more for a retirement pension and benefits) because she believed strongly in her convictions.
Click to expand...

Wow. What commitment. :rolleyes:
 
While I can respect religious devoutness that leads the believer to lay down her own weapons, it's an infringment to ask me to lay down mine for her belief. It would be equal to my insisting she go armed.

Parker
 
And while physically you may believe that they aren't being hurt; it could be a moral issue for them. And as such; they put up the sign. And please don't mention "IF THEY DON'T KNOW I HAVE IT". That's not relevant. NOT going in their business with a "CONCEALED" weapon is a matter of respect and honor. To say you respect but you don't follow their policies is hypocritical. But that point has already been made. I'm just stating how it COULD HARM a person morally within their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Weirder and weirder.

You're suggesting that I could be imperiling their immortal SOUL by carrying a gun onto their premises, against their wishes, which they have no knowledge of, nor control over? So, you're saying that, even if they have no CONCEIVABLE responsibility or even knowledge of the situation, their deity would hold them accountable for MY actions? Or, rather, my PRESENCE NEAR them?

So...if it isn't control and willful action on their part that condemns them, it must be what? Proximity to a weapon? Is that how you imagine that this belief system, which you don't understand or represent or adhere to, condemns it's adherents? So, what's the "radius of sanctity?" Can they be within 5 feet of a weapon? Ten feet? 100 yds? What if they're just walking down the street and pass me carrying my gun? They're going straight to he!!? Or is it not THEIR corporal proximity...maybe the proximity to property they own?

Of course, I'm merely lampooning the odd religious aspect you've brought up to illustrate that there is no more validity in the point if the property owner has a religious reason, or an anti-gun reason, or space aliens told him not to allow them. He still isn't responsible for what's in my holster and still isn't responsible to ensure my safety.

(And, obviously, I reject the possibility that I can affect the status of another person's immortal soul, or lack thereof, against their will or without their knowledge. Hmmm...maybe if I learn some Voodoo... Hmmm...My wife is right. We really ought to get some chickens... :evil:)

-Sam

P.S. --
NOT going in their business with a "CONCEALED" weapon is a matter of respect and honor.
Click to expand...
You've been asked before, but haven't answered: You DO ASK each business owner that you patronize while armed if you may enter with your concealed weapon, RIGHT? To not do so while holding the beliefs that you've espoused would be CATASTROPHICALLY hypocritical.
 
CC: If she or similar was to open up a store, shop, etc...; there is the possibility that because of convictions, they might choose such a sign.

And if she or similar was to work in a store that didn't post such a sign, it might be an indication that she accepts certain limitations on her religious beliefs directing the actions of others.

To say you respect but you don't follow their policies is hypocritical. But that point has already been made.

If that statement refers to my posts, let me see if I can help you understand my position a little better. I respect her right to direct her own actions in accordance with her religious beliefs, to the extent that they don't harm others. But her policies directing MY actions to conform with her religious beliefs, not so much.

If her religious beliefs demanded the human sacrifice of a redneck in a big ol' truck, and she chose me to be the one (from all the supremely qualified candidates around here), my respect for her beliefs would give way, perhaps reluctantly, to the assertion of my right not to be sacrificed. (And who would polish my diamond-plate bumper if I were gone?)

Parker
 
And while physically you may believe that they aren't being hurt; it could be a moral issue for them.
Click to expand...
I'm just stating how it COULD HARM a person morally within their beliefs.
Click to expand...
And please don't mention "IF THEY DON'T KNOW I HAVE IT".
Click to expand...
If the only potential hurt they could receive from my gun is a psychological one, then then if they don't know I have it they cannot be hurt by it. I'm not going to mention something that makes perfect sense just because YOU think it's irrelevant.
 
Yeah, that's a little weird. I enter the store with my hypothetical twin brother, identical except that I am CCW'ing and he is not. We are both quiet and polite, smiling and peaceful. Which one of us is she morally hurt by, again?

Parker
 
Cat; where we disagree; and probably will NEVER come to terms; is that you believe that YOUR rights and the PROPERTY OWNER'S rights; are somehow on an even keel; and that they; the property owner; shouldn't expect you to give up or compromise your Rights. I understand that. And I believe; that when you VOLUNTARILY enter another person's property; whether it's residential or business; you do so freely. And as such, many of what you WANT to call RIGHTS; and no longer Rights, but rather privileges. That's where we will definitely butt heads. If there was some way to "RANK" different Rights; I'd basically be saying that the property owner's rights (On their property); trumps your rights every time. ASSUMING; you maintain the right to leave at any time you choose without delay or detention. So, that's where it's at. You can talk about your Rights as much as you want. I understand them. I understand what you are saying. It's not going to change that I believe that the RULES and POLICIES that the private property owner has, out ranks yours. And that's because you aren't forced to be there. You are free to leave or not set foot on their property.
 
It's not going to change that I believe that the RULES and POLICIES that the private property owner has, out ranks yours.
Click to expand...
Hey, if you want to think that a property owners preferences based on their own hoplophobia outrank your right to protect yourself and your family against injury and death, with no one affected in any way unless you're attacked, go right ahead. How are you going to determine whether carrying concealed is something the property owner is comfortable with? If there's no sign do you just assume you can carry? That seems like quite the assumption. Do you ask every time you enter any establishment whether you can carry concealed there or not? If you don't I think you're being quite the hypocrite. If you want to go so far as to say the property owner's rights trump yours every time, you'd better be darn sure to find out what the property owner wants you to do.

I don't look at it as their rights vs. mine. I think the rights themselves should be weighted, not whose rights they happen to be. Right to self defense trumps someone else's opinion. Always.
 
I'd basically be saying that the property owner's rights (On their property); trumps your rights every time. ASSUMING; you maintain the right to leave at any time you choose without delay or detention.
Click to expand...

Again, your idea of rights has no grounding in law, the Constitution, or even intelligence or logic.

If what you are saying is true, when I am on your property, I have no rights, then the following is true:

1 You can kill me if you want. After all, I have no right to life while on your property, if you choose to take it. After all, my rights are just privileges.
2 You can force people on your property to have sexual relations with you. They have no right to say no.
3 People have no right to expect a safe environment on your property, so a person who is electrocuted by exposed wiring on your property has no right to sue you. After all, they were on your property.
4 You can punch anyone you want if they are on your property. After all, if they didn't want to be punched, they shouldn't be there.
5 Anyone who eats in your restaurant and gets food poisoning cannot sue. After all, if they didn't want food poisoning, they should not have eaten on your property.

Obviously, the above situations are not the way things are. They are no more ridiculous than your ideas.
 
gryff and dive; you both can argue your point all you want. But the one thing you can't argue, and as such will never allow your position to hold any water, is the FACT.... YES, it's a FACT; that other than by YOUR CHOICE; you don't have to be on that property owner's property.

You can argue your RIGHTS all you want. But as long as you aren't FORCED to be there, you have absolutely no moral, legal, or logical argument against a person/business saying: "No Guns"; "No Children"; "No Dogs"; or anything else they want to put on the window. As long as it applies to ALL PEOPLE, you have absolutely no argument.

Now; if you want to argue something that you have a point with; argue that you should be allowed into a government building with a concealed weapon. That makes sense. There are times when you MUST go to a certain government building. When you are FORCED without choice. And government bldgs, schools, etc... are probably MORE likely to get threatened by some ***** than you getting harmed at the local florist shop that says "No Guns". Argue that you SHOULD be allowed "If you're a concealed permit holder" to carry on school property, government bldgs, etc...

But you can't argue the private property argument. You can't make a case for it. It's not a matter of right and wrong. You arguments about your rights on private property is desperate. You're grasping for straws that aren't there. We're not going to argue that you THINK I'm saying the private property owner has the RIGHT to Kill you on their property. That argument is STUPID and you know it. (The argument, not the person). You know as well as I do that there are laws, both federal and state, that OVER RIDE YOUR RIGHTS!!! Just like your RIGHT to Free Speech DOESN'T give you the RIGHT to slander or racially degrade an individual. So please; if you're going to try and argue your point, at least KNOW THE LAW. I do! But sorry, you can't logically argue the point of PRIVATE PROPERTY rights as long as you are VOLUNTARILY entering that property; are free to leave at any time; and that LAWS are being observed.

And dive; I know you're passionate about this, but everyone of your arguments in your last post has been answered DIRECTLY. I'm sorry you don't like the answer. But it's the truth AND the law. I.e. #1-4 are specifically covered BY LAW. Sorry, don't try and argue it. And #5 was SPECIFICALLY answered in that in the case of a BUSINESS; the Owner IS RESPONSIBLE for any PRODUCTS and SERVICES they provide; but not necessarily the environment. PLEASE READ: I.e. Disney World IS RESPONSIBLE if a RIDE they OFFER their patrons malfunctions or doesn't operate as intended. They are RESPONSIBLE if the FOOD they offer is bad. BUT THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE if you are Robbed, pick pocketed, etc... while on their property.

Please, if you want to speak "LEGALLY" we can. I'd rather not. That is not what the intent of this thread is for. Neither is the other variations of this thread. But I won't make this point in those threads because I DIDN'T start those threads. But I DID start this one. And as long as you aren't FORCED to be on someone else's property; and as long as you are receiving the GOODS and SERVICES that you are expecting; either paid for or free; (Assuming it's a BUSINESS) and as long as the Private Property owner adheres to any and all local/state/federal ordinances concerning building codes, fire codes, ADA requirements, etc...; (Assuming it's a Business), then the property owner IS ALLOWED to post ANY rules, policies, etc... they wish to, so long as it applies to ALL patrons. I.e. You can't post "No Blacks", "No gays", "No Women", "No Short People", etc... because that doesn't apply to "ALL PATRONS".

Anyway; if you can come up with some LOGICAL argument that hasn't already been answered numerous times and/or hasn't been covered by logic; I.e. there are LAWS that clearly state; than please feel free to present your argument. But personally, I don't think you can. Not as long as the main argument that YOU VOLUNTARILY enter the private property exists.
 
YES, it's a FACT; that other than by YOUR CHOICE; you don't have to be on that property owner's property.
Click to expand...

true. but that does not grant the owner's sign the force of law.

You can argue your RIGHTS all you want. But as long as you aren't FORCED to be there, you have absolutely no moral, legal, or logical argument against a person/business saying: "No Guns"; "No Children"; "No Dogs"; or anything else they want to put on the window. As long as it applies to ALL PEOPLE, you have absolutely no argument.
Click to expand...

Wrong. What if I put up a sign that says "no animals"? Dos that mean that the blind are out of luck? What about a sign that says "By entering, you hold the owner harmless from all torts"? Does that mean that the property ower is immune from all lawsuits? Your argument holds no legal water.

Show me one time where a person was arrested for violating a conditional no trespassing sign, unless that sign was given the force of law (like TX 30.06) I can tell you in Florida that no such case exists.

So much for the LAW. There is not one law in this state which grants a conditional sign the force of law (unless it is a "no trespassing" sign that bars everyone from the property). Not one. Other than your opinion, find one. I will be waiting.

if you can come up with some LOGICAL argument that hasn't already been answered numerous times and/or hasn't been covered by logic; I.e. there are LAWS that clearly state;
Click to expand...

OK: Florida statute 790.251

(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.--No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

Again: There are two issues here, the moral, and the legal.

Moral question first: Morally, many people feel that they have an obligation to respect the wishes of their host, and disarm when requested. Others feel that the property owner has a moral obligation to safeguard his guests, and to provide for their care whenever the owner's policies cause harm to the guest, wither directly or indirectly. I fall in the second camp, you are obviously in the first.

Legally, property owners hide behind "third party intervention" when a robbery happens, although there are cases where a property owner can be held liable for crimes committed by others on their property, for example failure to provide security lighting, etc. The reason for this is that the courts require a property owner to take reasonable precautions, and so far a store owner has not been required to provide armed security in a disarmed victim zone. Why is that? Because you VOLUNTARILY disarmed, and were robbed as a result. The property owner (rightly, IMO) claims that since he did not force the criminal to rob you, and since you were not forced by law to follow his wishes and disarm, he is not responsible for your decisions.

Since the law does not require me to disarm, I choose not to, and unless and until the law DOES require me to disarm, I will not even consider it.
 
Last edited:
Still waiting for you to explain what you do to determine you're acting according to the property owner's wishes. If you think they're harmed by something they don't know about it seems that it's your duty to make sure you're not going against their wishes without you knowing.

I'm sorry YOU don't think what we have to say doesn't hold water. Too bad we think the same thing about what you have to say. Sorry we don't think you're the judge of all things moral.
 
They are RESPONSIBLE if the FOOD they offer is bad. BUT THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE if you are Robbed, pick pocketed, etc... while on their property.
Click to expand...
No, they're not. I am. And if they want me to disarm they'd better take that responsibility.
 
NO griff; they aren't disarming you. YOU ARE CHOOSING to disarm yourself, IF YOU WANT to enter that property. And the FOOD is part of the GOODS and SERVICES that you are being provided as being on that property. I.e. That is the reason you are there. So for that, they can be held responsible. For other activities that aren't related to the goods and services that they are providing; and within the laws/ordinances set forth for codes such as building, fire, ADA, etc...; they are NOT responsible. e.g. "We are not responsible for theft or damage to vehicles or their contents on this property". (This has been upheld NUMEROUS times in numerous states/jurisdictions.

Dive; you are speaking of EMPLOYERS in your example. 1) A totally different animal, because to an extent, your employment FORCES you to be on the property. And 2) There is a law that clarifies that. If there WERE NO law, then the employer would be within their rights to have such a policy. My employer in my state has such a right. I am NOT ALLOWED to bring a weapon in their facilities or their vehicles that I use. Matter of fact, the last 3 employers I had in this state had the same rules.

Still waiting for you to explain what you do to determine you're acting according to the property owner's wishes.
Click to expand...
Gryff; that TOO has already been explained and discussed in a prior post. Just like if there is no LAW that clarifies property owner's rights, then the property owner is given the lean; so in reverse. Whatever the property owner DOES NOT PROHIBIT knowingly to the patrons, is considered PERMITTED. (Within the constraints of the law). I.e. he doesn't have to say no drugs, because the law says so. He doesn't have to say NO DESTRUCTION of property, because the law says so. However; if there are NO SIGNS posting a certain activity as being prohibited, then it is permitted. It is NOT UP TO YOU to determine the property owner's desires, wishes, intent, etc... It is the responsibility of the property owner to DISCLOSE all rules, policies, prohibitions, etc.... That TOO has been held up in many courts in many states. Especially with the "No Trespassing" laws where there was no clear fence, sign, etc... Out where we live, there are many PUBLIC roads that go through the MIDDLE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. (That's what happens when you have property/ranches in the thousands of acres. If there are no signs, fences, etc.... restricting OFF ROAD TRAVEL; then the property owner has no right other than to ASK the individual to stay ON the road.

And I don't have to be the judge. But when it comes to property owners and their rights, you have made it quite clear that you DON'T CARE about their property. If you did, then there wouldn't require any laws; we wouldn't be having this discussion. You would simply see the intent of the property owner; via a sign or verbal statement; and you would RESPECT it. It really is THAT SIMPLE. You're making it to mean more than that, because you WANT your rights and you WANT them any place. In other words, you're looking for a LEGAL LOOPHOLE. And this SHOULD have nothing to do with the law and what's legal. It should have to do with RESPECT for private property owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Concealed Carry at Gun Show
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
3K
Maximum1
M
Bazoo
  • Locked
Carry at gun shows.
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
5K
shafter
S
S
  • Locked
Gun Show Carry Event
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
tegemu
T
F
  • Locked
Open vs. Concealed carry stats?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
NavyLCDR
N
The Night Rider
  • Locked
Is Concealed Carry A "Lifestyle"?
2 3 4 5
Replies
116
Views
4K
shafter
S
Back
Top