Concealed means concealed

Status
Not open for further replies.
SAS, I don't know where you live but, in NC the property owner is not responsible for the actions of a criminal unless he facilitates them. In other words he has to lawfully encourae the criminal to take action before he is liable on a personal level.

At least that is my understanding.

I can see the issue possibly arising if you have a sole proprietorship or partnership. However, every one I know has found a way to incorporate to limit all (or the vast majority) of their personal liability.

Paying for a victim in store is a moot point nearly every where. You getting shot in a person's business is a matter for you and their insurance at best.
 
If you hold the position that a store owner's wishes should be respected, do you extend that thinking to cops? Do you hold that a cop serving a warrant should disarm? What about a cop without a warrant who has some legitimate work-related reason to enter a store with a NO GUN sign?

State constitutions are all about restricting government authority. If the storeowner has a 'right' to a legal-gun free zone (not to be confused with a gun free zone, which is imaginary), then that right would logically apply to civil servants.
 
If you hold the position that a store owner's wishes should be respected, do you extend that thinking to cops? Do you hold that a cop serving a warrant should disarm? What about a cop without a warrant who has some legitimate work-related reason to enter a store with a NO GUN sign?

I like where you are headed with this. Good point again showing that there are ALWAYS exceptions to "rights". Fire in a theater etc.... Those arguing that these rights are 100% and inviolable will have a hard time with this one. There simply has to be some flexibility.

This gets us back to the original question which was "Do you have a moral problem with carrying somewhere with a no guns sign". This example of the cop is a good one and what it means is that we are assuming the property owner has SOME room to allow for the carrying of guns, surely he doesn't expect LE to not enter if he's being robbed right?

So, now as private citizens were playing a guessing game trying to figure out what the property owner means with his sign. Does a "gun buster" sign REALLY mean no guns at all? Probably not. He is probably OK with cops. And, if I assume that if he's OK with a cop he would be OK with me as well having passed as much of a background check as most cops. Maybe what he really means to ban is unlawful carry of firearms? Is it morally acceptable of me to make those assumptions? I believe it is. If I come to the conclusion that he means to ban only unlawfully carried guns then I am not violating his property rights if I go armed legally.

Something to think about anyway.

A personal example:

I have a friend who owns several tanning salons in Texas. He is a concealed handgun carrier. His stores do not carry the legally binding 30.06 sign required by Texas law, but they DO have the "gun buster" signs. I asked him about that, reminding him that they carried no legal weight. He told me he is well aware they carry no legal weight, they are merely to comfort some of his customers. So here's a property owner who is posting a no gun sign but doesn't care at all of someone actually brings a gun on his property. The sign doesn't by itself reflect the true beliefs of the property owner. That could be the case for many of these non legally binding signs so again if I carry there the property owners rights are intact. It's up to each of us to try to guess what the sign really means, it might not mean what it says.
 
We had an incident in my town where an off duty cop was asked not to wear his pistol into a local health club. He refused and his membership was revoked. It would have been different if he was there on official police business to answer a call but he wasn’t. He was just swaggering around with it in the locker room to prove that the rules did not apply to him. After being asked repeatedly to leave it in the car just like all the other members, he refused to comply and was ejected and the balance of his dues refunded.
 
You do not HAVE to go into a bar or a sporting event.

Correct. And I will typically avoid places that post no guns signs as a matter of not wanting to offer financial support to a place that I disagree with on a fundamental level. But when my family wants to get together for dinner somewhere, I'm not going to stay home or ask that they choose another venue, and I'm not going to disarm and limit my ability to protect them. I'm going to go, I'm going to carry, I'm not going to drink, and we're all going to have a good time, eat some food, pay and leave. And unless a violent criminal comes in and threatens me or mine, the staff/owner will be none the wiser and completely unaffected by my decision. This is why I have no moral qualms about doing so.


Stay out of the bar if you don’t like breathing smoke or hearing loud music, stay out of my church if you don’t want to wear a shirt and stay out of property posted with NO GUNS signs if you wish to carry concealed.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the differences between these analogies you keep creating? Once more, the carrying of a concealed weapon does not affect anyone who does not try to attack the person carrying (or his family). Every other example you try to give does negatively impact one or more party just by being carried out.

If you were arguing against open carry, we'd have some common ground, because that may negatively impact patrons (unnerved by seeing the weapon) or the business (loosing money because patrons are bothered and leaving rather than buying). But this thread's title is "Concealed means concealed" That means NO ONE KNOWS.
 
Last edited:
Thank You "Mike Nice" For Your Response..

SAS, I don't know where you live but, in NC the property owner is not responsible for the actions of a criminal unless he facilitates them. In other words he has to lawfully encourae the criminal to take action before he is liable on a personal level.

At least that is my understanding.

I can see the issue possibly arising if you have a sole proprietorship or partnership. However, every one I know has found a way to incorporate to limit all (or the vast majority) of their personal liability.

Paying for a victim in store is a moot point nearly every where. You getting shot in a person's business is a matter for you and their insurance at best.

I looked up "facilitate" in a online dictionary.

fa·cil·i·tate

   [fuh-sil-i-teyt] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -tat·ed, -tat·ing.

1.to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.)
2.to assist the progress of (a person).

(Q.) Wouldn't having a "No Gun" sign fit into the above? The store owner is in fact making it easier and assisting in the progress of having the BG do his/her dirty deed much easier.

Now getting back to the money side of things, ie: "operating costs occurred".. a small fee of less than $50 and a small claims suit can occur. Look at the lost time and money incurred by the store owner to defend such a suit. If his/her lawyer's involved then it goes up into the "Thousands" of $$$$!

Now where does that leave the store owner if he/she's.. "Using that money to pay a tutor to help his kid that has dyslexia learn to manage the problem and catch up in school."

Another way to also look at it is this. You have two identical type stores a half mile apart (or just around the block). One has a sign, while the other doesn't. Now we have to take into account the money being lost through reduced or no additional sales with the "signed" store.

Even though the store owner is Anti-2A/CCW, one would think the extra money $$$ lost in sales would be enough to change their mind.. let alone knowing BG's don't follow the law anyways!

Single Action Six
 
Facilitation is often used in court when conspiracy can't be proved, like in a mob trial. How do I know that, because it was used by a judge on a friend of mine and quicklly set aside during appeal. Judges cannot levy charges because the case can't get proved only the state or DA in federal cases. As far as signs go, we have been here before. It's an individual decision weather you obey them or not. I personally am usually in a hurry and don't stop to read signs.
No kidding, my wife always tells me ddn't you see that. Usually the answer is, see what. Conspiracy as you all know is hard to prove sometimes, without audio tapes. so it often unravells in a court of law. The problem usually starts when one guy says he did something illegal and his counterpart says he didn't. This scenario the guy who pled not guilty was out in 9 months with charges dropped, the guy who took the plea, did 5 years.
You can't choose where you were born but you can move. I moved, one of those guys pictures sits on my desk, he was gunned down at a traffic light in his new 928 Porshe, waiting for the light to change, closed coffin. The other went on to become an actor, and appeared in a bunch of those Soprano type shows, things aren't what they appear.
I don't let anyone hold my life in their hands, I grew up that way, whatever happens I want the last word, not some bum with a gun pointed at me again.
He doesn't get that privalidge. If a store owner want's to walk next to me with a weapon while I shop, fine, otherwise tough luck, you know what you can do with your sign.
 
I have a problem with morality versus constitutional rights that are based on religious based concepts. I am religious and I follow the bible. I follow the constitution that tells me I cannot be denied certain actions in public places. What is the morality problem with a concealed weapon that is not seen and does not offend the store owner? If there are weapon detectors that presents a practical problem of revealing the concealed weapon. Why do we CCW folks have to be on the defensive. Just live your life as a free person.
 
@jiminhobesound: I just met with our pastor today and revealed to him that I have a CCL and may or may not be carrying on any given Sunday morning. He was a little shocked at first. We should follow Jesus, and we should not only know our rights, but help our brothers and sisters understand them.
 
Do you hold that a cop serving a warrant should disarm?
This is not at all a valid comparison. An LEO with a search warrant is entering your premises by force--legal force, but force. Try to stop him for any reason.

On the other hand, let's say the officer comes to the door, says there was a disturbance outside last night, and can he come in and talk. "Not with that gun you can't." Perfectly within your rights.
surely he doesn't expect LE to not enter if he's being robbed right?
Under the theory of implied consent or exigent circumstances? In either case, it doesn't prevent the owner from refusing the LEO entrance under other circumstances.
He told me he is well aware they carry no legal weight, they are merely to comfort some of his customers.
I like that story. But it doesn't mean that every "no guns" sign, because of this one example, may be ethically ignored.
 
Well, then: an attacked person just has to take his beating, or killing, without defending himself. It's for the good of the other patrons, after all.
Incorrect. It's for the good of the business owner, who has received a lower insurance rate for posting the sign. And occasionally the family of the business owner.

What about your right to eat and provide food for your children? Would that mean that you have a right steal food from "publicly owned" places?

of course not. Your rights end at the door. If you go to the store you must follow the rules and pay for your food. You may have to follow other rules like wearing a shirt or leaving your pistol outside.
That's not the rules they're following by paying for their food, it's the law. As much as you would prefer otherwise, your rules are only yours. Rules for everyone are the law.
 
Just by making a few lifestyle adjustments people can still ensure they carry more than 90% of the time. Carrying a back up non lethal weapon can help with the other 10% of the time. A small flashlight/stun gun combo, mace, and/or pocket knife can aid in stopping an attack or fighting your way back to the gun.

I just don't find a way to justify carrying where I'm asked not to by a property owner. I've also taken the time to write the government and several businesses lobbying them to change certain policies regarding carry. I believe we should work torwards opening up areas that have been denied to us.

I also carry OC spray and a knife, I agree that a gun isnt and shouldnt be our only tool for self-defense.

And I do not criticize your personal ethics at all. You feel strongly and follow up on your beliefs.
 
As far as carrying into the store and waiting to be asked to leave, I think it shows poor respect for the property owner and is bad form. That would be the same as walking into your store and running your mouth until asked the leave, because its your 1st amendment right and its not trespassing until you refuse to leave. But it's definitely rude and shows little class.

...

In my case, I'm not waiting to be asked to leave....that business owner will never know that I am carrying. We're right back to the original title/post..."Concealed means concealed." Think about this for a minute...why exactly do you think we have to 'carry concealed?' So that we dont frighten the public in general? If not for that, we could all be open carrying. (And some can and do...it depends on many factors and locations). I think it's a sad state of affairs that the general public is scared of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

My weapon...no matter which one (because I'll also have pepper spray and a knife) will not accidentally affect anyone else in that establishment. And not being a jerk, I dont normally run my mouth just for my own ego. (However the Constitution doesnt pass judgement on people's personalities luckily...you can be a jerk and carry a gun or be insulting to others...)

And if you want to pass your judgement on other people who choose self-defense for the sake of themselves and their families...feel free. That is also your right.
 
If this were so, the 2nd amendment would be the only one protected in other people's businesses. Currently, people cannot say what they want in a store, should that be protected as well? Many bars and nightclubs perform pat downs and use metal detectors. Should we be protected from this search via the 4th amendment? Rights are different than a protected class, because you can't stop being handicap or a certain race, but you can waive your rights if you feel so inclined. Whether or not you do so if your choice, but coming into someone's store armed against their will seems like a violation of their property rights that should not occur, no matter how lame their reasons are for not allowing firearms.

People CAN say whatever they want in a place of business. And the business owner can ask them to leave if he objects. however he has no control over your thoughts and cannot stop you from thinking them. Holding your tongue doesnt really mean much if you still think in a manner that the business owner would find objectionable...however **he doesnt know**.

Again, 'concealed means concealed.'

You are making this about US, the carriers, and our 'ethics.' It's also about the business owners. Their choice to post signs. And also the fact that they have no idea what we are 'thinking' nor what we are carrying.


(btw, I also know that they dont always have a choice about the signs, due to insurance or franchising or whatever. So you dont really know if they object or not).
 
Some of you seem to be under the impression that your right to protect yourself overrides a business owner’s right to control what goes on on his property. I suggest you take a quick look at this article by economist Walter Williams about how a civilized society settles conflicting harms through property rights.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/WhoMayHarmWhom.htm

Oh, I thought we were talking about 'ethics'. Unfortunately, that is often completely different from the law. Many unethical things are legal, and many laws support unethical behavior. (And business laws especially come to mind).

However, the LAW in my state about posted stores says that I'm not breaking the law unless I am asked to leave and dont. And it's not about guns, it's about trespassing which means it could be for a variety of offenses, like no shirt or no shoes or profanity......

The business owner is free to ask you to leave if he has reason. "Conceals means concealed' is about not giving him a reason.
 
And in most states the law backs NO GUNS signs on private property.

That's incorrect. In many states, including WA, you are not violating ANY state or other law by carrying in a posted business. The signs carry no weight of the law. They are a business owner's preference or requirement.

However if you are asked to leave that business and do not, THEN you are in violation of trespassing laws.

btw, I originally felt almost the opposite of my current position on this issue. Many discussions here and elsewhere offered more information and I changed my stance.
 
That how it is in Missouri also. You have to be asked to leave, and if you don't and they call the police, you can get a $100 fine. I don't know whether you could consider these signs to have the force of law or not. Seems like a store can ask you to leave whenever they want, for any reason, and you're in roughly the same boat, sign or not.

Interestingly the same deal applies for any place that prohibits carrying, even courts and airports and such, unless I'm reading it wrong. I always assumed if you got caught carrying in an airport or government building they would do more than just ask you to leave.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM
 
That how it is in Missouri also. You have to be asked to leave, and if you don't and they call the police, you can get a $100 fine. I don't know whether you could consider these signs to have the force of law or not. Seems like a store can ask you to leave whenever they want, for any reason, and you're in roughly the same boat, sign or not.

Interestingly the same deal applies for any place that prohibits carrying, even courts and airports and such, unless I'm reading it wrong. I always assumed if you got caught carrying in an airport or government building they would do more than just ask you to leave.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM

No, there are some states that issue official signs and if you ignore those, you are in violation of the law and can be arrested. And some states have both...official state signs and then owners also post signs that are not specifically under that/those statutes and are do not carry the wt of the law.

And yes, certain areas, like federal property....you will get more than asked to leave.
 
SAS,
To be considerred willfully encouraging an action the owner would - pretty much - have to say "hey perform said action against this person." A sign is not seen as facilitating because you can judge the risk and not enter the store. By entering the store you acknowledge that you are accepting that risk.

You might have a suit against the owner's insurance company, but it would be tough to near impossible.

My friend isn't worried about the loss of sales because he serves a specific niche. There are other stores, but none in direct competition.

There would be no case and most likely it would be dismissed before any trial. The loss of time would be negligble as would the lawyers fees. It would probably cost about $750 total. A lot for average people but not devestating.

Just for the record the gentleman in question is not anti-gun. He does own guns and even competes from time to time. He made a decision based on economics for his family.

I am far from anti-gun. However, I ask some people not to carry in my car or on my property. I know they are sloppy when handling guns. They have had multiple negligent discharges. I'm not anti-gun, but I am pro family safety. Not every denial of the ability to carry is based on some hatred of guns.
 
Last edited:
I also carry OC spray and a knife, I agree that a gun isnt and shouldnt be our only tool for self-defense.

And I do not criticize your personal ethics at all. You feel strongly and follow up on your beliefs.

I hope I haven't come across as overly judgemental. It might be a little late with my choice of wording in the initial response. I just get tired of people saying, "I don't care what you want, this is what I want."

As a whole I think we have become to self centered as a society. Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching socialism. I just think a little more respect of others would get us a lot farther.

I wouldn't let a choice like this one change my opinion of some one though. I understand the feeling of working late and having to run in to a store at 03:30 to get milk for the kid. It can be creepy and scary.

What I don't understand is people saying something like, I was out for a walk and saw this used book store that looked cool so... To me that is just disrespectful and rude. That isn't a matter of importance. That is a matter of convenience.

We can all be rude and disrespectful sometimes though.
 
Just as additional perspective on my position Mike Nice, I am also a landlord, with 1 rental unit on my property. I have indeed had to confront and consider my position on this issue. I had to look at it from both sides...landlord and tenant.

And while I see risks and possible problems, I try to make my decisions based on my signature: "Freedom doesnt mean safe, it means free."

WHich to me means, we all need to take as much responsibility as we can for our own safety and opportunities, and not look to the govt or other people for those things.

For me, the decision is made before I ever approach the store. It's not about convenience. It's about my position on the issue, carefully considered...and yes, possibly controversial. And obviously, not the same as that of those particular business owners.:uhoh:
 
It's up to each of us to try to guess what the sign really means, it might not mean what it says.

No, it is not a game of guess and see. You know one particular person who has done that. In that case you know the person's wishes. You know you aren't violating what they truly want. In other cases you do not know the owner, so you are supposed to take them at their word.

It isn't a matter of one guy did it so that must be what another guy is doing. That is faulty logic when applied on a case by case basis. It is simply trying to justify your actions in your mind.

Just be honest. Say "this is what I want to do, and I'm going to think this way because it allows the actions I want to take."

You can not justify it. If somebody asks you to not do something on their property, you don't. A cop can't carry on your property if you tell him not to. The exception is if he is excetuting his duty. Even then there are exceptions. A cop can be told to leave his gun outside at a mental ward. Even though there is elevated danger the danger is multiplied if he has a loaded weapon. So, he must empty his gun and lock it.

If a cop comes on my property without a warant I can tell him to disarm or leave. If he has a warant he can be armed because he is placing himself in situation that may endanger his life. He can not reasonably assume the person he is serving has no gun. So, he must be able to meet that threat.

You might think that isn't fair, but it is the way things work. Cops have special powers and responsibilities bestowed upon them by the state. They are tasked with dealing with the dregs of society so that guys like us don't have to rely on our guns often or ever.
 
Just be honest. Say "this is what I want to do, and I'm going to think this way because it allows the actions I want to take."

You can not justify it. If somebody asks you to not do something on their property, you don't. .

But Mike, and I dont mean to attack you here, that is an oversimplification and even if true for some, is not for others. Others of us do this according to our beliefs. As I said above, I dont make this decision based on a store by store basis, I've considered my position and it's the same no matter how convenient or inconvenient.

And re: the 2nd sentence I quoted....that is just not reality. For sooooo many reasons and situations. Perspective as both a property owner and as a visitor/customer. Most times it's not done in a property owner's presence, but it's done all the same. Take smoking as an example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top