Concealed is Concealed

[BlackBearME]

Why would you not not enter a friends home unarmed?

The simple answer is this: Why would you not enter anyplace unarmed? Put more simply, why do we carry concealed? Because we are taking steps to protect ourselves and our families (and because it hurts your back a lot less than carrying around an LEO. Their duty belt is not the most comfy thing on the shoulders, either) You never know where/when a bad guy will hit. He could hit in my home....which brings me to...

Do you routinely carry on your person around your own home?

In short, yes. I carry 18/24/7, and the only times I'm not are when I'm sleeping (under the pillow) and in the shower (on the sink right beside the shower.) We don't know when we're going to need it. If you don't carry every time you can, it sort of invalidates carrying at all. What makes carrying any more necessary when I'm on the stret, but less necessary when I'm in my house? Along the same lines, if they could hit my house, why couldn't they hit a friend's house?

I consider my friends home as their place and they make the rules... use a coaster, don't correct my children, don't feed my dog from the table, don't make phone sex calls from my phone, take your shoes off before entering.

Whatever the rule, it is their rule and I should respect it. I can't quite wrap my head around why I would not enter with a firearm?? Can you help me out?

Yes, but there's another option. You could choose not to go there, which is what I believe poor_richard was saying.

I personally don't have any friends who are against CCW, thankfully. I believe that your personal property rights trump my right to carry on your property, and I will respect your decision. However, I don't have to let your decision restrict my right to defend myself; in other words, I don't have to go to your property.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Law of the Land

Secondly, the Constitution is not the law of the land. It is the framework or template upon which the laws of the land are supposed to be based.

I'm gonna have to ask one of our more legally schooled members to step in here.

My understanding has always been that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Yes, there is some "meta-law" in there, but there are also explicit declarations ("the right . . . shall not be infringed") as well.

So, rather than having me go on at length about a subject in which I am not particularly well schooled, could one of our esteemed legal minds offer their observations here?

 

[Gordon Fink]

My observation has been that most gun owners are law abiding to a fault. Licensed concealed carriers routinely disarm before entering post offices, where firearms are allowed for lawful purposes. Californian gun owners routinely abide by non-existent purchasing restrictions.

~G. Fink

 

[poor_richard]

That particular portion of your opening has just stuck with me. Lots to discuss on the entire issues you brought up, but that one thing stuck with me. Why would you not not enter a friends home unarmed? Do you routinely carry on your person around your own home?

I am not picking... I am just trying to get a handle on that frame of mine, i.e. never being without it. I don't have that ... by necessity, company policy or choice I am very often without a sidearm. I consider my friends home as their place and they make the rules... use a coaster, don't correct my children, don't feed my dog from the table, don't make phone sex calls from my phone, take your shoes off before entering.

Whatever the rule, it is their rule and I should respect it. I can't quite wrap my head around why I would not enter with a firearm?? Can you help me out?

We all have to make our own choices in life and determine our own path. If a friend requests that I not carry arms into his home, then I’ll respect his request. I would allow that while I was generalizing, every situation is different, and some may require exceptions.

That said, you have to decide what is best for you. If you need to understand my frame of mind in order to make those decisions, then I would submit that there are some things you have to work through, and I’m probably not the one to seek that advice from.

As long as your presence on the property remains your choice, your assertion tramples directly on the rights of others.

Selective acknowledgement of rights is a toughy-feely dem/lib tactic. You're better than that.

Brad

Brad,
Thanks for the vote of confidence.

As to your question, tie it into the following. I do realize it is kind of “touchy-feely dem/lib” as you say, and that is why I struggle with this one the most. If one is injured on the job, the company usually (don’t know about other states) must pay workman’s compensation. The company is responsible for workplace safety.

If these companies (this can also extend to government buildings) are going to remove my right to protect my life, shouldn’t they also be held responsible for it? If a company banns it’s employee’s from carrying, then they should be responsible if that person is killed or maimed during the period that they have disarmed that person. I understand that there is a choice to work there, but that is a lame excuse. People have to earn a living to survive. If a company is going to remove there right to life, then the company should assume responsibility for their employee’s safety. Individuals can then choose whether they want to leave their safety to someone else or not.

My understanding has always been that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Maybe this will answer that part.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, but there's another option. You could choose not to go there, which is what I believe poor_richard was saying.

Correct.

While you may believe this to be true, keep in mind that your belief doesn't change the law or your ability to be prosecuted under the law.

Hence the reason why I used the word “believe”, instead of stating it as fact.

 

[Markbo]

We all have to make our own choices in life and determine our own path. If a friend requests that I not carry arms into his home, then I’ll respect his request. I would allow that while I was generalizing, every situation is different, and some may require exceptions.

That said, you have to decide what is best for you. If you need to understand my frame of mind in order to make those decisions, then I would submit that there are some things you have to work through, and I’m probably not the one to seek that advice from.

Thank you Richard. My mind about my decisions is actually quite clear. That is why I was a little confused about your decisions. I am trying to remain open minded... not necessarily because I have 'things to work through' but because I realize I don't know everything.

 

[fletcher]

If they are a friend or someone I trust, why would I care? If they are not trustworthy, then they are not welcome in the first place.

+1

 

[Markbo]

But that is putting the shoe on the wrong foot... People seem to forget that WE are in the minority. I was not talking about someone coming to my house. That is entirely different than me going to a dear friends house that were not CHL's and not part of the gun culture.

Believe it or not, some people are just not comfortable around guns!

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Ideally, for a law to stand as law, it must be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution - and that consistency to the template is decided by the SCOTUS if it gets challenged, not by you or me.

Who challenges a law if not you or I? Laws may be changed by following the procedures set out in the Constitution itself (by government fiat) OR by a common citizen who stands up and says "this law is wrong and Unconstitutional." And, in fact, for ANY law to be declared Unconstitutional requires just five people -- you and four Supreme Court justices. Too bad it's not that easy in reality!

Thirdly, in theory, your private property rights are guaranteed by the same Constitution that guarantees your RKBA.
[snip]
Similarly, you have no constitutionally guaranteed right to carry a concealed weapon on my property without my permission, because your RKBA rights stop where they intrude on my private property rights.

My RKBA is guaranteed under the 2nd amendment. Which amendment guarantees your private property rights again? Well, no matter. In this case, I believe, you and I agree. I'm just being pedantic on this issue.

However, here you jump to

So, if I am a business owner, and I own the property upon which my business is conducted, I do have a right to determine a whole array of things concerning the disposition of my property; from what kind of trees I will plant, to whether or not I want others carrying guns on my property.

Unfortunately, as others have said far better than I in this thread, there are all kinds of regulations and laws governing what can be and what cannot be done with, on, or to a business or it's property. A business is an artificial construct and as such, does not have any inherent rights as you or I, only those rights given to it. Even a sole proprietor operating out of his/her home has additional rules that govern the home. A kitchen table FFL, for example, must follow certain storage rules, certain record keeping rules, and allow agents of the government to inspect at any time whereas a private home does not.

 

[Nebor]

I carry everywhere there isn't a metal detector. I do my best to follow the guidelines of the law, but some laws just aren't right. I feel no obligation to follow laws that I feel are contrary to our constitution, and to my freedom. So I carry in schools, sometimes drive above the speed limit, and don't register any of my property with the NFA.

If "they" have a problem with that, they're more than welcome to come kill me over it. "They" can name the place and time.

 

[poor_richard]

Thank you Richard. My mind about my decisions is actually quite clear. That is why I was a little confused about your decisions. I am trying to remain open minded... not necessarily because I have 'things to work through' but because I realize I don't know everything.

I think BlackBearME did a decent job of getting across the main points in post#51. There are some people who carry only at certain times. Some only carry when they are taking long trips, some only carry if the know they are going into bad neighborhoods, etc... Then, there are some who chose to carry whenever they legally are allowed. One of the things mentioned by the NRA instructor who taught our class was that, it is important to have the gun with you. This is because, you really can't predict when you will need it.

You ask, "do I carry in my own home". The answer is, Maybe. If you truly are just trying to be "open minded", then I would suggest you take a look at the following.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=175078&highlight=slaying

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3407703

Bottom line is, there are reasons both for and against carrying "whenever you can", and that is a decision that each individual has to deal with. Often times people people want to make that decision for others, when it is really none of their business. If you truly are interested in learning more about the topic, I would suggest you start with the "Strategies and Tactics" sub-forum. There are also other such similar sub-forums on other boards, as well as forums dedicated to that specific topic. Good luck in your endeavor.

 

[TallPine]

I was not talking about someone coming to my house. That is entirely different than me going to a dear friends house that were not CHL's and not part of the gun culture.

I don't see how it is different other than the fact that if you come to my house as a welcome visitor, then then you are going to be under my protection while you are here (that is, I will defend everyone in my home from whatever attack might occur to the best of my ability - if you can help, so much the better).

Who is going to protect you when you go to visit your friends, and some random no-goods decide to bust in and rob (or worse!) everybody? I guess you could try offering the poor misguided miscreants some wine and cheese. Sure, it is a very remote chance something like that would occur at that house on that particular evening, but then that is true almost everywhere including your own home.

But then every house that I can recall visiting in the last five years or so has had guns leaning in corners and/or sitting on wall racks in plain view.

 

[Liko81]

Back and forth and back and forth; at what point of publicity, size or purpose of ownership does a landowner cease to have control over what he can and cannot allow on his property?

It's very simple; my house, my rules. That applies whether I rent a 500 sqft apartment or own 50 acres on which I build and lease storefront space. And that also applies regardless of how many people I allow on my property and how freely they have access. You may not like my decision to ban guns if I did so, but it it no more or less than that; my decision.

That decision can be on many grounds; not the least of which, which has nothing to do with the expectation that a gun will be used, is that guns simply scare many people. Kids are taught from a very young age: "don't touch guns, guns kill, people who have guns other than the police are the bad guys". It's simple, clear-cut, and very easy for kids to understand. Only later, in gun-friendly households and areas, are those teachings modified to "handle guns with care, mishandling a gun can kill, bad guys with guns are really bad guys". Many people however never get that additional lesson, or simply find it easier to equate guns with bad guys; you have to admit it's a very easy way to sort people out. How many stories have we seen in Virginia news about open carry in public causing undue alarm? People show up with guns to a restaurant and the police are called, when carrying a gun into a restaurant openly is perfectly legal. Being notified of that fact after the police arrive and assess the situation doesn't make someone who is scared of guns any less so; it DOES make them more apt to avoid that business which allows people to have scary guns right out in the open, and to work to change laws so that people can't have scary guns in the open. Such people, it is sad to say, comprise the majority of Americans; even many of those who support the Second Amendment as an individual right are probably thinking of a guy in camo 50 miles out in the woods hunting ducks or deer with a shotgun, not a guy with a handgun on their hip behind them in line at the grocery store. When you are a big box store catering to whomever walks in the door, you want as many people walking in the door as you can, and those who are scared of guns form a bigger market share than carry advocates.

In addition, the right to make the rule that guns aren't allowed does not shoulder the owner with the responsibility to otherwise provide for the security of those on private property. If you were sued because as a homeowner you required a carrying individual to remove his gun and place it in your coat closet while he was in your home, and then a gunman busted down your locked door and shot him, you would say you were entirely within your right to require your guest give up his gun in your house, and the fault lies squarely on the criminal's shoulders for his reckless disregard for human life. That holds whether its your apartment or the White House, which is often open to public tours as a national treasure. And it applies whether that's your home or business, and whether your business is in your bedroom or if it's Trump Towers. It also holds regardless of how many millions of dollars you have at your disposal either personally, through your company, or through your insurance company to provide to settle any damage that occurs on your property; you should not be a target of liability merely because you have the ability to make restitution (it would, however, be a good gesture of the homeowner to pay for medical bills out of homeowner's insurance IF THEY COULD AND SO CHOOSE).

To think otherwise is similar to the argument for which I was torn to pieces elsewhere on the forum, that a gun owner could be held liable because they failed to secure a weapon that was stolen and used in a crime. In both cases a gunman is enabled because of the action or inaction of the owner, and in both cases the criminal is obviously not going to worry about a technicality like trespassing with a firearm or burglary when their intent is to kill; but in both cases the criminal is breaking either the owner's rules or the law in obtaining, entering with and/or using the gun, and in both cases blame lies solely with the criminal, who broke the rule and the law both to have the gun where he did and to use it. Seeking restitution from anyone other then the criminal and/or his next of kin is nothing more than looking for deep pockets.

Therefore, the property owner's right to control their property must be allowed to infringe on your RKBA. There is no line in the sand for private property that divides property on which the owner can restrict firearms versus property where the owner cannot; if you own the property, you make the rules. You as both a homeowner and a guest on someone else's property can't have it two ways regardless of your exposure to potential harm.

What you CAN do is educate the public; those who own and carry guns are not criminals. Those who use guns for personal gain or simply to hurt are criminals. I'm thinking you could do a commercial similar to that line in the grocery store; someone notices that a guy is carrying a big scary gun and is frightened, then further up the line a guy tries to rob the cashier at knifepoint or with a snubby and is subdued by the person carrying concealed. "This crime was prevented by a responsible gun owner, carrying a handgun. A public service message from the NRA."

 

[medic15al]

On a person's private property that has no public access such as a store, I agree 100%. But if a property that by nature allows access(a buisiness) can not and will not guarantee or even try to provide security and safety for the public that is on his/her public access private property cannot override a civil right. Your private property rights in this case will take a backseat to my and my family's right to be secure and safe. I will avoid the property at all possible reasons, but I will still conceal carry my firearm for MY, not yours, safety if I am unable to avoid it. I won't advertise it, I will leave if you ask me, But it will be concealed so as to avoid these unpleasant situations.

 

[evan price]

The Founding Fathers of the United States felt strongly enough about the right to own property and to be secure in your property, possessions and effects they made an Amendment that codifies exactly that. Life Liberty and Ownership of Property (The "Natural Rights") were the cornerstones of freedom, anyone who has read the papers and documents of history in that time period would know that too.

That being said, the right of a property owner on his/her own property is supreme. My right as the owner of a home, store, farm, wherever, means I have the right to do as I please. I am free to exclude anyone I want (However this has now been modified according to the Federally Protected Classes such as Race, Creed, Color, Sexual Orientation, Disability, etc).

If I, as the property owner, wish to post signs saying NO GUNS ALLOWED it is my right as the property owner to do so, and have a reasonable expectation that it will be obeyed.

There are not two seperate types of private ownership, "Private" and "Private, but with invitation". It is all PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY regardless of if there is a sign and a posted public open hours.

Once you enter my property my rules apply.

Your choice in this is simple. Enter my property and comply with the rules presented OR go elsewhere.
It is a very rare place of business that is so unique that it cannot have a competitor that allows CCW.
If enough people choose NOT to patronize that business because they do not agree with policies, the business will lose money, close down, etc.

Alternatively, if somewhere is so dangerous that you would absolutely not go there unarmed, I suggest you find somewhere else to go that is not so dangerous if you must use that service.

Should you choose not to comply with the rules I set forth for use of my property, you are not invited to come on my property.

If my rules are no guns allowed, guns are not allowed, regardless of the 2A. The Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, Ownership of Property are THE guiding force for the entire US Constitution.

For a good example, consider casinos. Gambling draws millions to casinos. But casino games are stacked in the favor of the house. If you can make the odds go in your favor, by counting cards (Which is legal) and start winning too much, the casinos will eject you and bar you from entry. You are doing nothing illegal. You are not even violating the gaming rules if yo ucan do it with no external assistance. But the casinos will throw you out anyway, because THEY are the ones who are supposed to win big, not the players!!

The US Constitution is also a set of rules for dealing with the US government. It does not apply to states or private individuals. You do not have a First Amendment right to free speech on this web site, for example. Why should some store guarantee your 2A rights?

HOWEVER:

It is *my* right as a gun owner with a valid CCW license to carry a gun anywhere that is not specifically forbidden by the CCW statutes. In Ohio those are .gov property, schools, etc. Ohio law also states that a private property owner may post in a conspicuous location a sign to that effect.

In OHIO the penalty for knowingly violating a posted sign is a trespass warrant, and that may only be cause for arrest if you are asked to leave the property and refuse.

With that in mind, there are many who recognize that a property may be posted, but knowing that they are not specifically barred by a possible felony charge, or that the signs are not "conspisuously posted" or that they feel that expressing one's 2A rights supercedes a silly sign, they will continue to carry well-concealed to protect themselves and are willing to face the consequences of that set of actions should they ever arise.

IN terms of consequences, how about speed limits. We all know speed limits are the law. How many of us drive in excess of posted limits? I personally drive 5-10 mph over habitually and sometimes much more than that. I am fully cognizant of the penalties should I be caught speeding and I am prepared to face those penalties. Therefore, I speed. Similarly, Criminal Protection Zone signs are just like Speed Limit signs.

After all, the law abiding gun owner is not the problem here, it's just the GFW's don't recognize a difference between a criminal with a gun and a CCW with a gun.

In Ohio prior to passing the CCW laws we had what was called "The Prudent Man Defense" which was not a CCW law, but rather a set of circumstances that were a defense to a Carrying A Concealed Weapon charge- if a prudent man would be having reason to go armed it could be presented that you were armed for that reason. Open carry in Ohio is actually legal, BTW.


So, to answer the OPs situation, people say "Concealed Means Concealed" because we are simultaneously satisfying our own desire to protect ourselves and our loved ones while also assuaging yet another GFW's irrational fear of guns by keeping it out of sight and not scaring the sheep.

How would a CONCEALED gun ever be a problem to anyone, anyway, as long as it stays concealed? Ohio does not have Texas-style brandishing laws if your CCW is printing out.

Does anyone think criminals are going to stop an armed robbery because as they enter the joint they see a no guns sign and realize they aren't allowed inside?

Please.


Concealed means concealed.

Carry on.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It's very simple; my house, my rules. That applies whether I rent a 500 sqft apartment or own 50 acres on which I build and lease storefront space. And that also applies regardless of how many people I allow on my property and how freely they have access. You may not like my decision to ban guns if I did so, but it it no more or less than that; my decision.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. In a private home, someone who enters without the express permission of a homeowner or authorized occupant is already breaking the law. Hence, you have the authority to dictate who may or may not enter for any or no reason. A Business that is open to the public gives up the right to arbitrarily decide who may have access. This is made perfectly clear in those states with "make my day" or "castle doctrine" laws; you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe that someone intends to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry. Business's that are open to the public aren't covered by this, as unlawful entry is not possible during business hours.

Some states have granted business's the authority to dictate the allowance/disallowance of firearms on within the structures. Colorado is not one of them. I promise if you open a business in CO and post a no weapons sign, I will ignore it. If you figure out I'm carrying and ask me to leave, I will do so and then proceed to make it known on every blog nad message board out there. BUt in states like mine, a no weapons sign at a private business does not carry the weight of the law. Only if an armed patron refuses to leave is there legal recourse, and it's trespassing, not a weapons charge.

 

[TallPine]

Alternatively, if somewhere is so dangerous that you would absolutely not go there unarmed, I suggest you find somewhere else to go that is not so dangerous if you must use that service.

Oh, you mean like malls, schools, and churches ...???

 

[medic15al]

My point exactly. Like I said, I will remain concealed carry because a public access property owner cannot provide a safe area by nature of the public access. "Your property, your rules" nonsense will be ignored by criminals and honest people who believes in self preservation alike. Behaving like a petty dictator just because you own the property will guarantee I will ignore your "rules" and only shows a disdain you have for others, thus reinforcing the notion that only I am responsible for my well being.

Your rules WILL take a backseat to my and my family's well being and safety.


Saying that, I will avoid your property if I can, but if not, oh well.


Bear in mind, I am talking about Public access private property, not residential, non-public access, or land property. I will respect those.

 

[alex_trebek]

Personally, I firmly believe that a companies private property rights do not exceed someone’s right to life. The reason for carrying a handgun for protection is directly tied to defense of one’s life, and I think nobody should be able to restrict someone’s right to life in public places, or places open to the public.

I completely agree with an individual's right to life trumping personal property rights. However no one has the right to enter private property unwelcomed, except perhaps with a LEO responding to an emergency. When the no carry sign is posted it means a the carrier of a concealed weapon is not welcome. I dont see how this is anything other than tresspassing. Regardless of who owns the land, or what the intentions of the tresspassee are.

 

[poor_richard]

Here’s something interesting to throw into this topic. I pulled it from the FAQ of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners website. I know it only pertains to Michigan, but may be something to think about.

Q:

My CPL has the box labeled "Exempt from Pistol Free zones MCL28.425o(4)" checked. How does this affect my carrying my firearm in an establishment which has a "No Firearms Allowed" posting?​

A:

Even those who are exempt from the Pistol Free Zones established in the statute must still honor the wishes of any party in control of real estate regarding the possession of weapons on the premises. If you disregard a sign or a verbal or written notice that guns are not allowed in a particular location, your legal status is that of trespasser. One of the results is that you are no longer covered by the "Stand Your Ground" law that went into effect late last year. The Stand Your Ground rule allows individuals to use proportional force in self defense without having to retreat, so long as they are in a place where they have a legal right to be. Even a CPL holder who is exempt from the Pistol Free Zones loses this legal protection while carrying in violation of a posted notice that guns are not allowed on the premises.

A quick review of proportionality: Any use of a firearm will probably be considered an application of deadly force. Deadly force is only appropriate in self defense when it is proportional to the threat. So, a firearm may only be used to prevent death, great bodily harm that could lead to death, or rape. Deadly force in defense of others is allowed so long as the person being defended would have been justified in using deadly force to protect him or herself. Think of yourself as "stepping into the shoes" of the person you are defending. Ask yourself the question, "If I were that person, would I be justified in shooting?" If the answer is yes, your discharge of your firearm will be considered an action taken in the legally protected defense of another.
​

http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_ccwfaq.asp

 

[Liko81]

Bear in mind, I am talking about Public access private property, not residential, non-public access, or land property. I will respect those.

What's the difference? Why should you care if I allow people to parade through my apartment from 9 AM to 9 PM? Why should you case if I own and live in a building that anybody else would call a shopping mall? Zoning rules and primary use of the property means nothing; it's MY PROPERTY. I can execute and control it as I see fit, and if I were to say I do not want guns on my property, that is my right, and while on my property you will respect the rule or you will be held responsible for breaking it.

You have the right to life; that does not give you the right to be on my property with a weapon if I state that weapons are not welcome. You are now trespassing. Your right to life means only that I cannot COMPEL you to enter my property leaving your gun behind. You are free to choose; enter my property unarmed or keep your gun on your hip well off of my property. That is what a gun-free zone essentially says. You may not like it, but it's the rule, I am within my rights to make and enforce it, and the fact that someone else MIGHT disobey the rule does not give you permission to do so also.

Some states have granted business's the authority to dictate the allowance/disallowance of firearms on within the structures. Colorado is not one of them. I promise if you open a business in CO and post a no weapons sign, I will ignore it. If you figure out I'm carrying and ask me to leave, I will do so and then proceed to make it known on every blog nad message board out there. BUt in states like mine, a no weapons sign at a private business does not carry the weight of the law. Only if an armed patron refuses to leave is there legal recourse, and it's trespassing, not a weapons charge.

If a "no weapons" sign, for whatever reason, does not carry the force of law, then fine, walk right in. Here in Texas, such a sign IS binding, and trespass with a concealed weapon in a properly posted area carries immediate force of law; it is a Class B misdemeanor specifically mentioned in concealed handgun law as grounds for revokation of your CHL. Therefore if I open a business in Texas and post such a sign, and you carry in TX (your permit is valid here) and ignore my sign, you are going to jail and you will not be allowed to legally carry concealed again for a very long time, in Texas OR Colorado. Illegal concealed carry can cost your your RKBA. If you want to have a manhood-measuring contest with a business owner who does not want guns in his building and can back it up, you just go right ahead and see where it gets you.

 

[Jomax]

The arguments over the differences and nuances as to what State allows what, etc. are without end but it's the criminals and the whackos who are shrewd and cunning enough to know exactly WHERE law-abiding citizens can and cannot carry by law. Restrictions on lawful carry only serve to make gun free zones all the more dangerous for everyone.

 

[Hot brass]

In class we were told where we could carry, and where we could not. Like it or not, it is a privilege to carry now. I don`t do anything to loose the privilege to carry.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

So, if I am a business owner, and I own the property upon which my business is conducted, I do have a right to determine a whole array of things concerning the disposition of my property; from what kind of trees I will plant, to whether or not I want others carrying guns on my property.

Sure you do, and others have a right to ignore your wishes until you discover them and ask them to leave. You also have a right to put up a sign with 10' tall letters and install metal detectors for everyone coming into your store. Good luck with your business unless you are Disney World.

I own and live on a 40 acre rural homestead. But how would I know if someone came onto my property carrying a concealed gun? If they are a friend or someone I trust, why would I care? If they are not trustworthy, then they are not welcome in the first place. I have "no trespassing" signs posted that I can point to and say "leave now!" just for that reason.

I am all for property rights, but sometimes you have to season your rights with a dash of practicality.

I find no disagreement whatever with your response.

There is only one body that ultimately gets to interpret it, and that is the Supreme Court.

Incorrect. Through jury nullification anyone chosen for jury duty can decide. Additionally, the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable the overthrow of the government when it becomes tyrannical, thus, the people are supposed to have the final say on what they believe is acceptable and unacceptable.

Point conceded, but those juries, plaintiffs, and defendants only prevail based on precedent which is either directly upheld by the Supremes, or indirectly upheld because there is nothing there to challenge the prevailing interpretations of con law which would bring the Supremes to bear on the issue.

Thank you poor_richard for clarifying the "supreme law of the land" statement. In any case, my primary intention in my original post was to simply point out that my property rights are as inviolate as the other man's gun rights. BTW, I feel much like TallPine, in that, if I don't trust you to carry a gun in the first place, then I don't want you on my property anyway. As to practicality, if I were a mall owner, I would post a sign at every entrance saying "Lawful CCW Welcome Here" in bold red letters 1' tall. That would solve the issue entirely, and make it clear to prospective thieves, muggers, and rapists that they are entering dangerous territory. Even so, I completely support a mall owner's right to decide the opposite, and to ban CCW from the premises. I'll just shop elsewhere, that's all.

 

[rampage841512]

I tend to avoid places I can't carry if at all possible. I respect a property owner's rights by taking my business elsewhere.

 

[anygunanywhere]

I always obey laws intended to disarm me as well as respect those Texas 30.06 signs. I trust my fellow humans and know that everyone obeys those gun free zone signs.

Where has all of the trust in this world gone?

Anygun