Concealed means concealed

[gym]

Let me just add one thing that someone brought to my attention in the last group of posts. In NYC, it's illegal to leave a handgun in your car unattended. It also used to be illegal to enter a bank with one. Opposite of FL law. "things may have changed since I left in early 90's" But my point is that you couldn't leave your gun in the car even if you chose to follow that store owners policy, Your car had a life expectancy of an hour in some areas, "nice cars",, of being broken into, or stolen. I will say I never saw such a sign in any store in NYC, mainly because permits to carry are so hard to get that it really isn't a problem there.
But as the gentleman and I and many of you mentioned, no one is intentionally going out to break laws or piss off the store owner. But if it's 100 degrees outside and I am with a group of people who decide, lets stop here for lunch or a beer, or to browse some womans stuff at a store by the beach. I will explain that I need to sit at a table, because of my back, "that always works" if they want to stand at the bar and wait, I will wait outside, but there are times when it's inconvienient and you are with others "who may not even know you carry" and why the need to expose that situation in a public place. Do you want to have that conversation in the street someware, or just go in with the rest of your friends to a shop, and browse at "whatever" and leave.
There are situational incidents that make it very sticky to adhere to the wishes of another and out youself in the process. Especially if you didn't come with your car. You will look pretty weird standing in 100 plus temperatures in FL while everyone else is is a store buying tee shirts or whatever they sellAnd I reiterate, when you least expect something bad to happen, that's when it does, so the aw shucks nothings going to happen mentality, dosen't work ever. No one who got shot or killed in a 7-11, or anyware else, thought they were in danger, when they went in to get a bag of chips.

 

[rellascout]

But you certainly own the moral high ground, don't you? Maybe that should read, "I could care less about what you think is morally correct." All this emotionally weighted talk of "sneaky, dishonest, secretive" actions robs this debate of any grounding whatsoever. Insert the words "legal," "discreet," "law-abiding," or "responsible" for each of your "sneakys," "dishonests," and "secretives" and we could have a rational discussion. Otherwise it might as well be a religious debate -- without both parties believing the same basic tenets, it's pointless.

Sorry Sam1911 but the same issue that your bring up about "sneaky, dishonest, secretive" can be brought up against "legal," "discreet," "law-abiding," or "responsible".

All of these are moving targets. The law is arbitary. Discreet is arbitary. Law abiding is arbitary and responsible is arbitary.

If I and others accept your premise than the entire discussion which you have been a central figure in continuing is POINTLESS.

 

[Sam1911]

All of these are moving targets. The law is arbitrary. Discreet is arbitrary. Law abiding is arbitrary and responsible is arbitrary.

You're sidestepping my point with that paragraph. I was illustrating that you can insert several equally valid adjectives there to support a very positive view of the action or a very negative one.

But to your point, "responsible" certainly could be considered a moving target. Certainly nearly as arbitrary as "dishonest" when used in this instance. "Discreet" is a lot easier to pin down. Did you make a show of your weapon, or allow it to be seen? If not, that would be hard to deny as being discreet.

"Law abiding" is, fortunately, not hard to pin down at all. What does the law say? Did I break it or not? In this case, almost every state has some statute or statutes which decide that point clearly. So no, that one is not a moving target.

If I and others except your premise than the entire discussion which you have been a central figure in continuing is POINTLESS.

I can't picture what you meant by "except your premise." I think "accept" is the word you are reaching for. In that case, again, no. The discussion is hardly pointless. If there are different ways of looking at things, and as I've several times noted, different fundamental beliefs about your own social contracts and unstated agreements, then bringing those into the light and dispelling or refuting a lot of judgmental talk about dishonesty and sneaking can help many readers (and even participants) of such a thread develop a deeper understanding of their own options and beliefs, and those of their fellow citizens.

Hardly a pointless exercise.

 

[rellascout]

"Discreet" is a lot easier to pin down. Did you make a show of your weapon, or allow it to be seen? If not, that would be hard to deny as being discreet.

Moving target. Seems clear to you based on your arbitary criteria. If I do not agree with your "basic tenets" then I can draw a different conclusion.

"Law abiding" is, fortunately, not hard to pin down at all. What does the law say? Did I break it or not? In this case, almost every state has some statute or statutes which decide that point clearly. So no, that one is not a moving target.

Wrong walk into any courtroom in the US and you will find people who disagree on what the law states. Therefore they disagree on if a person broke it or not. It is not cut and dry. I would argue that our legal system is riddled with ambiguity and therefore subject to interpertation which reaffirms my statement. What is legal or law abiding is a moving target.

I can't picture what you meant by "except your premise." I think "accept" is the word you are reaching for. In that case, again, no. The discussion is hardly pointless. If there are different ways of looking at things, and as I've several times noted, different fundamental beliefs about your own social contracts and unstated agreements, then bringing those into the light and dispelling or refuting a lot of judgmental talk about dishonesty and sneaking can help many readers (and even participants) of such a thread develop a deeper understanding of their own options and beliefs, and those of their fellow citizens.

Hardly a pointless exercise.

I meant "accept" typing on a smartphone does not always work so well... LOL My point is that this dicussion is pointless because of the manner in which you are approaching it. You are using "subjective" criteria to establish your personal feelings of correctness. You are fine with your actions. You have done the mental gymnastics to justify them for you and you only. They do not translate in the least to me. You seem very hung up on what is "legal" and dissmiss what is moral because it is too subjective. In the end its all subjective.

It reminds me of Quine's web of belief concept. Your way of thinking is consistent with the "web of belief" you have created. The subjective arbitary considerations and foundations you have placed at the center of that web are axiomatic to the system. They help you establish relative "truth" values but they do not yield any truth with the big "T". There is no objective truth in your statements or mine for that matter. They are all realitive to our subjective aciomatic principles. They are 100% subjective and pointless unless both parties believe in the same basic tenets. Which clearly we do not. Yes we can go round and round about the subject but unless we are willing to be moved at the center of that web nothing will change.

 

[ET]

I carry into places like that, but only to tell manager I will not be shopping there and tedlling everyoner I know to not shop there, becuase of thier policey.

This...only I would have spelled tedlling, everyoner, thier, becuase & policey differently, but that's just me!


...Yes I can be a complete ass at times, thus the nick name asswhole in school. At least that's what I think they meant with that...

 

[Loosedhorse]

To be dishonest both parties would have to have agreed

Entering can be considered tacit agreement to that condition.

The way it is said implies that it is the correlation you intended to bring to light.

No, I didn't imply a correlation--but now let me state it: I think there is quite likely a correlation between murder rate and gun regulations, and that it may be a causative one. Here's how it would work:

Murder rate is high; voters complain; pols decide they have to "do something," so they pass laws...and get re-elected. Wait that doesn't explain how a gun-control-state has a lower murder rate? Well, perhaps we should look at its murder rate at the time the bulk of those laws were passed; or it may have to do with a "perceived" rather than real murder rate; or...

But no, the causative relationship that you are inferring, I did not imply.

Depends on how you conduct yourself.

Is this where I say "I'll watch my step...sheriff?" Where'd you get that star, anyway?

There are so many parts of my position that can be attacked here, I'm not sure why you feel you need to spend time instead challenging my pro-gun credentials--as if it matters. Anti-gunners have no monopoly on being unreasonable.

I will explain that I need to sit at a table, because of my back, "that always works" if they want to stand at the bar and wait, I will wait outside

Fair point: a different type of dishonesty--toward your friends--can arise if you choose to obey the sign.

Wrong walk into any courtroom in the US and you will find people who disagree on what the law states.

When we got our latest set of new gun laws here a while back, I asked an attorney/friend what they meant; he smiled: "Some day some guy is going to get convicted for violating the new law, and then he'll appeal it--and the the appelate court will tell us what the law means. Until then, no one knows."

Still we all make our best effort to know and obey the law.

Quine's web of belief concept.

For me, more like Euclidian geometry. Start with agreeing on definitions; then tackle a few axioms. It's amazing how much you can agree on.

My comments have been in part trying to get at some definitions--and I thank everyone for their help.

 

[DAP90]

Entering can be considered tacit agreement to that condition.

It could, yes. That is a valid argument to make.

I could also argue that what both parties have agreed to is to follow the law. That given our cultural diversity no other ethical consensus or agreement can be implied.

I would argue that in states where signs have no force of law society has determined it is OK (ethical?) to ignore such signs up until you are asked to leave; and that by opening a shop in such a state the owner has agreed to those conditions.

 

[Sam1911]

Moving target. Seems clear to you based on your arbitrary criteria. If I do not agree with your "basic tenets" then I can draw a different conclusion.

Which sounds a lot like my entire point from previous posts. Of course, there are dictionary definitions for discreet which may assist in reducing just how far that target moves, but maybe you don't personally agree with the dictionary definitions. C'est la vie.

Wrong walk into any courtroom in the US and you will find people who disagree on what the law states. Therefore they disagree on if a person broke it or not. It is not cut and dry. I would argue that our legal system is riddled with ambiguity and therefore subject to interpertation which reaffirms my statement. What is legal or law abiding is a moving target.

This is reaching quite far to make a point, but if it makes you happy... Not prosecutable? No text in statute speaking to the illegality of the act? No case law supporting a criminal conviction for this act? You seem to be exerting a lot of effort to ignore common, fairly non-subjective definitions. A president, caught in his moment of disgrace, once quibbled over what the definition of "is" should be. We don't have to go so far as to emulate those kinds of contortions. Most people seem to agree that there are concepts that are more or less subjective (like ethics and morality) and some that are less so (like law).

More to the point, the actual definition of "law abiding" is less a conjectural, ephemeral concept in this case, and entirely a practical matter: Could I be arrested for this action? Could I be convicted of breaking the law for this? And, absent those two things actually happening, or direct knowledge of legal text clearly making that action illegal, it de facto IS legal.

My point is that this dicussion is pointless because of the manner in which you are approaching it. You are using "subjective" criteria to establish your personal feelings of correctness. You are fine with your actions.

Ironically, I only entered the discussion to confront someone doing that exact thing: using their subjective criteria to establish their personal feelings -- but then projecting those feelings as condemnations of the actions and morality of others.

You seem very hung up on what is "legal" and dissmiss what is moral because it is too subjective. In the end its all subjective.

I dissmiss what is moral (or ethical) only to the extent that I can't condemn someone else for not drawing the same ethical conclusions I have.

They are 100% subjective and pointless unless both parties believe in the same basic tenets. Which clearly we do not. Yes we can go round and round about the subject but unless we are willing to be moved at the center of that web nothing will change.

You probably should take some time to read through a thread like this carefully so you don't end up looking silly for arguing with someone who has made precisely the same point you are now introducing as new. Post 152 contains this concept, but it would probably be best to start at the beginning.

 

[rellascout]

I dissmiss what is moral (or ethical) only to the extent that I can't condemn someone else for not drawing the same ethical conclusions I have.

Yet you will make the same judgement on what is legal.... simply because your subjective reasoning leads you to believe you are in the right.

I have read the whole thread. I am not making the same point you are. I extend the subjective and arbitary to the laws which you believe to be objective. The laws on this country are not objective. The entire legal system is based on subjective judgements. You and I simply disagree.

I have read your thoughts on this subject before. As ususally you feel the need to make backhanded insults, post in a condescending manner to those who do not see it your way. This seems to be your MO. I find it ironic that you are allowed to hold a mod title considering your tone and content. I am not the first person who you have done this to in this thread. Maybe you should consider that you might be the one who looks silly. LOL

 

[MachIVshooter]

but now let me state it: I think there is quite likely a correlation between murder rate and gun regulations, and that it may be a causative one. Here's how it would work:

Murder rate is high; voters complain; pols decide they have to "do something," so they pass laws...and get re-elected. Wait that doesn't explain how a gun-control-state has a lower murder rate? Well, perhaps we should look at its murder rate at the time the bulk of those laws were passed; or it may have to do with a "perceived" rather than real murder rate; or...

Though this is not the appropriate thread for it, I would love to hear how you "pro gun but gun control works" mentality is rationalized.

I personally don't believe there's much correlation at all, as one can easily find convincing statistics to support either conclusion. For example, how my CO county could have gun ownership in roughly 84% of the homes, yet until last year, there'd not been a homicide since 1868. Incidentally, it was not a firearm homicide. The man was bound and strangled, then dumped at the county line; He had been traveling from Montana and had picked up hitchhikers.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I personally don't believe there's much correlation at all

Well, you could be right--I did say "may be."

how you[r] "pro gun but gun control works" mentality is rationalized.

I do not have that mentality*, but it is no longer surprising that you persist in assuming I do. In any case, as we've both said, that's neither here nor there for this topic.

*At least I don't think I do; of course, I don't know your definition of what a "pro gun but gun control works" mentality would be!

 

[Sam1911]

Yet you will make the same judgement on what is legal.... simply because your subjective reasoning leads you to believe you are in the right.

Look, let me make this clear: I can look at a the statues of a jurisdiction and decide if a specific action follows those statutes or violates them -- with a very high degree of certainty. If looking at the laws of my state, finding nothing in them anywhere that says that I may not carry a gun in "X" location, and deciding therefore that it must be legal is "subjective," then I can't imagine what your definition of "objective" could possibly be.

There are some grey areas in law, of course. But this is pretty far from being one of them. What is the point of arguing this? If you decide that you can't trust that 1+2 always equals 3 (because under some systems it isn't), that's fine. But you have to admit that an objective view would indicate that it is.

I have read the whole thread. I am not making the same point you are. I extend the subjective and arbitary to the laws which you believe to be objective. The laws on this country are not objective. The entire legal system is based on subjective judgements. You and I simply disagree.

O.k. Then my apologies for assuming you hadn't. I didn't comprehend your meaning. But I have to ask why it matters that you extend the subjective and arbitrary to the law? Who does that help? As a practical matter the black letter of law -- specifically in instances like we're discussing here -- is a very good guide to whether or not you'll be jailed for an action. That gives us a working, practical objective answer.

As ususally you feel the need to make backhanded insults, post in a condescending manner to those who do not see it your way. This seems to be your MO. I find it ironic that you are allowed to hold a mod title considering your tone and content. I am not the first person who have done this to in this thread. Maybe you should consider that you might be the one who looks silly. LOL

I can live with looking silly. But if I've insulted anyone I -- again -- apologize profusely. That doesn't help further our goals here. There is a mighty fine line between arguing stridently using direct examples and analogies and insulting someone. And the exact location of that line is ... surprise surprise ... quite subjective!

If I've strayed over it, each person I've offended please send me a PM and I will make personal apologies to each.

 

[rellascout]

O.k. Then my apologies for assuming you hadn't. I didn't comprehend your meaning. But I have to ask why it matters that you extend the subjective and arbitrary to the law? Who does that help? As a practical matter the black letter of law -- specifically in instances like we're discussing here -- is a very good guide to whether or not you'll be jailed for an action. That gives us a working, practical objective answer.

The law is arbitary IMHO. Anyone who has ever gone to traffic court can tell you that. I once saw a judge dissmiss all the cases, pending completion of traffic school, for all military personnel, students & teachers. Those of us who committed the same offense but did not fall into the same protected classes where judged and most convicted. I have seen another Judge convict a hispanic male of the exact same offense tha the let a white middle aged female off on. Both had clear driving records both were charged with speed/reckless driving. Black letter law as you present it would have produced equal outcomes for equal infractions. We all know that does not happen. The law is subjective and arbitary.

To answer your question why I am focusing on this obtuse point is that it matters because you have placed what is legal on a pedstal of objectivity. You state that since it is not illegal to dissobey the sign you see no issue. When others pointed out that there is a moral issue at play you dissmissed the moral issues because they are subjective and that truth determination cannot be made.

You say you follow the law and that is the only valid consideration because it is objective. You seem to acknowledge there maybe moral issues but there is no need to discuss them because they are subjective. Have I understood your position accurately? If not please correct me. As a result I have a question for you. If you were in a state where the sign had force of law would you follow it? If you were in say NC where IIRC you must disclose, would you comply because there it has the force of law? PS The idea that NC has this law and most other states do not also illustrates that the law is subjective and arbitary.

What I am attempting to illustrate to you is that the law is also subjective and arbitary in the same way morality is. If one can establish that you either need to give up the laws objetive pedstal or you need to allow morality on the same footing. IMHO both need to be treated as subjective because they are relative. If they are both relative then both might or might not be considerations depending on the individual. Are you tracking me?

 

[Sam1911]

Black letter law as you present it would have produced equal outcomes for equal infractions. We all know that does not happen. The law is subjective and arbitary.

But now you seem to be mixing the concepts of law and justice. Both parties in each of your instances appeared to have broken a law -- or at least were accused of doing so. E.g.: "The speed limit was 55, I clocked this man at 70." But the sentences meeted out were inconsistent.

What we're discussing here generally involves no law that COULD be broken -- or that someone could be accused of breaking. Again, how is that subjective?

You say you follow the law and that is your only consideration on this matter. If you were in a state when the sign had force of law would you follow it?

I honestly have every time I've been faced with that decision in the past. In fact, you could say that I do so every working day of my life.

You say you follow the law and that is the only valid consideration because it is objective.

I have not stated that morality and ethics do not exist, or are not important. (In fact, multiple times I have listed them as considerations someone will probably have to contend with when making a decision.) I only said that projecting ethics and morality onto other is invalid, or at least, rude.

You seem to acknowledge there maybe moral issues but there is no need to discuss them because they are subjective. Have I understood your position accurately? If not please correct me.

Actually, I said arguing that someone else should make the same choices as you (or rather, insulting them if they don't) because of a purely internal/subjective belief doesn't make much sense.

As a result I have a question for you. If you were in a state where the sign had force of law would you follow it? If you were in say NC where IIRC you must disclose, would you comply because there it has the force of law? PS The idea that NC has this law and most other states do not also illustrates that the law is subjective and arbitary.

As I said, I do, I have, I probably will again. I disagree on your definition of arbitrary, here though. The law in these cases is not universal in all jurisdictions. But it isn't based on random chance or personal opinion. It is written fairly clearly (in most places) and is universal to all citizens of the affected class in that area. (Meaning, not LEOs, active military or what have you.)

What I am attempting to illustrate to you is that the law is also subjective and arbitary in the same way morality is. If one can establish that you either need to give up the laws objetive pedstal or you need to allow morality on the same footing. IMHO both need to be treated as subjective because they are relative. If they are both relative then both might or might not be considerations depending on the individual. Are you tracking me?

Both relative? Relative to what?

 

[rellascout]

I honestly have every time I've been faced with that decision in the past. In fact, you could say that I do so every working day of my life.

So for you the legality is the only consideration?

Would you brake and unjust law?

 

[rellascout]

But now you seem to be mixing the concepts of law and justice. Both parties in each of your instances appeared to have broken a law -- or at least were accused of doing so. E.g.: "The speed limit was 55, I clocked this man at 70." But the sentences meeted out were inconsistent.

What we're discussing here generally involves no law that COULD be broken -- or that someone could be accused of breaking. Again, how is that subjective?

I disagree in the examples I am gave the law was considered broken by some and not by others. Those who got off completely, esp the middle aged women, was judged to not have broken the law even though the evidence proved she did. Judge declared no crime had been commited even though clearly it had.

There are states where carrying on posted property is illegal right?

 

[mljdeckard]

*Drat. Out of popcorn.*

 

[rellascout]

Both relative? Relative to what?

Morals are relative to whatever ethical system you have adopted . One can also have no morals. There are no universals.

Laws are relative to the locality, state, Country and within each of these you have different protected classes which may or may not have special privileges. Those who write and enforce the law do so in an arbitrary manner.

IMHO all things are relative to an individual's system of belief, I referred to it as "web of belief", but you then accused me of an appeal to authority and being obtuse.

 

[Loosedhorse]

rellascout--

Please help: I am not sure where you are leading us with this "legal nihilism"--this concept that law is so inconsistently applied that it becomes "subjective" as opposed to just inconsistent. No human system will be perfectly consistent.

How does this help me as I'm staring at the "no guns" sign, deciding whether to enter?

 

[rellascout]

Please help: I am not sure where you are leading us with this "legal nihilism"--this concept that law is so inconsistently applied that it becomes "subjective" as opposed to just inconsistent. No human system will be perfectly consistent.

How does this help me as I'm staring at the "no guns" sign, deciding whether to enter?

Do you follow the letter of the law like Sam1911 or do you follow the spirit?

 

[gym]

The law is based on the principal of being equal to all. That is a premiss that does not always apply. If someone has a propensity for violence and has commited a horrible act as in murder, rape, arson, they are not going to be treated the same way as someone who was an honor student, good father and husband, and Deacon in the church, it's just not going to happen. Should they commit the same crime, let's say they both shot their wives, who will be looked upon with disdain, and who with pity.
Morality can not be dictated by others. I don't believe that people change after they hit maturaty. say 21. They may become more educated but not more moral. There are many good oradors and debators here, but in the end a man is going to lean back on that mans basic nature. A cheat will always cheat, as an alcoholic knows that they are an alcoholic for life, once they think they are no longer an alcoholic, they end up back in the same situation as before. As the Bible says , "and I am not a religious man", Know thyself.
It's one of the hardest things that one can do. We are not all hero's or leaders. We all get confused at times, and we all make mistakes. Knowing all of these things allows us to at least try to exercize logic and good judgement at critical times. I hope everyone "does the right thing" for their own sake as well as for the sake of others, but I cannot impose my will upon others who like myself have strong convictions from years of life experiences. Nor would I really want the responsibility for a poor outcome because anyone followed what I told them to do without really believing that it was right for them.
In the end we will all be judged by a higher power, I just hope there isn't a sign outside their office.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The problem with using pistols for self defense in crowded places is that stray bullets put everyone in the area at risk, and don't say that you are not going to miss. The best miss when the target is shooting back and according to the news, this includes the Navy Seal who fired the first shot at Bin Laden who was unarmed. Look at the statistics for police gun fights and you will find a really lousy hit to miss ratio. Also, bullets often pass through people and glance off hard cover. Some property owners are aware of this and don't want this potential problem. You may have a natural right to defend yourself but you do not have a right to put others in harms way while doing so. There is just no way to have a safe gun fight in a crowd and that is usually the reason for the sign.

 

[DAP90]

Do you follow the letter of the law like Sam1911 or do you follow the spirit?

If the law says that "no guns" signs have no force of law than both the letter and the spirit of the law say that such signs can be ignored providing it is not illegal to enter for other reasons.

Maybe you could explain how legally ignoring such signs is unethical. Why does the simple posting of a sign that is not backed up by law override all other considerations? How does exercising your rights rise to the level of unethical instead of just inconsiderate?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Do you follow the letter of the law like Sam1911 or do you follow the spirit?

How does one follow the "spirit" of, say, a drunk-driving law? "Yeah, I was probably 0.09--but that's not so bad, and I was fine!" What is the "spirit" of a school zone speed limit; as long as I look really carefully, I can speed? Or the spirit of a tax law?

I think that, with the exception of good-weather, low-traffic speed limits, I tend to obey the letter of the law. Is "following the spirit of the law" code-speak for breaking the law when the chances of getting caught (or other perceived consequences) are low?

As to entering a no-guns establishment, it's more like: "Hey, it's his place," and "Fine--don't want me, I'm gone." But there are situations when (if legal) I'd enter in a pinch; I wouldn't make it a habit, if I had any choice at all--and it's hard to imagine a long-term, no-choice situation.

 

[rellascout]

If the law says that "no guns" signs have no force of law than both the letter and the spirit of the law say that such signs can be ignored providing it is not illegal to enter for other reasons.

Maybe you could explain how legally ignoring such signs is unethical. Why does the simple posting of a sign that is not backed up by law override all other considerations? How does exercising your rights rise to the level of unethical instead of just inconsiderate?

IMHO the spirit of the law is that the property owner has rights. When you willingly enter their property you should respect those rights.

IMHO Exercising your rights should not come at the trampling of someone elses. The property owner has the right to determine who is and is not armed on their property. Those who object think that their right to self defense overrides the property rights of the owner. They then also justify this trampling by saying its not illegal. Which IMHO is a red herring leading to a strawman.