Concealed means concealed

[TexasRifleman]

No, because his belief that people can stop being gay is incorrect and contrary to the medical and psychological profession.

And his belief that my carrying a gun is dangerous is incorrect and contrary to professional self defense experts opinions. Now what?

You're saying that if I agree with experts and believe his ignorance and prejudices are wrong that I am morally OK with ignoring his wishes. And that's what I am saying as well.

 

[Neverwinter]

And his belief that my carrying a gun is dangerous is incorrect and contrary to professional self defense experts opinions. Now what?

You're saying that if I agree with experts and believe his ignorance and prejudices are wrong that I am morally OK with ignoring his wishes. And that's what I am saying as well.

His belief that you can stop carrying a gun is still based in fact unless you are physically incapable from not being in possession of your gun.

 

[TexasRifleman]

His belief that you can stop carrying a gun is still based in fact unless you are physically incapable from not being in possession of your gun.

I might be. If I am walking and I absolutely must enter his place of business there would be no way for me to legally disarm, where would I put the gun? My requirement to follow the law would outweigh his desire that I not be armed.

Point is that it's simply not possible to say that it's always morally wrong to ignore property owners wishes. 99% of the time I'm more than happy to spend my money elsewhere, but if something did come up where I had to enter a business with a sign I wouldn't have the slightest moral hesitation to do so.

Don't get me wrong, for the most part I'm just playing Devi's Advocate here.

 

[bigfatdave]

my right to protect myself and my family in a public place supersedes his/her right to dictate my behavior and items I possess.

I like that turn of phrase ... nicley put.

His belief that you can stop carrying a gun is still based in fact unless you are physically incapable from not being in possession of your gun.

You're imagining that someone will always have a spot to leave a weapon when they go in. If the owner is providing that place and armed security, and a means of disarming everyone (not just the do-gooders who abide by his silly little sign) then you're going somewhere.

But I don't have a place to place my pistol if some store manager decides to put up a sign on Tuesday, and if it carries no force of law or has no means of enforcement/detection ... ... I just don't care.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I don't have an ethical problem carrying into any place open to the public where it is legal.

_________________________________________________________________

In most places a NO GUNS sign posted by the proprieter carrys the weight of law.

I used to work in a bar and we had a dress code, no sleeveless shirts or tank tops for men. I never will forget this one sleeveless rube who declared that he had a right to wear anything that he wanted and that I could not stop him from coming in because this was America. I told this individual that he could indeed wear anything he wanted but NOT HERE. I told him that his rights ended at the door I and if he came in dressed like that now that he had been warned, that it would constitute trespass and that I would have him arrested (and I could in my state). This is no different in principle than someone being warned not to bring a gun onto private property.

 

[Neverwinter]

You're imagining that someone will always have a spot to leave a weapon when they go in. If the owner is providing that place and armed security, and a means of disarming everyone (not just the do-gooders who abide by his silly little sign) then you're going somewhere.

But I don't have a place to place my pistol if some store manager decides to put up a sign on Tuesday, and if it carries no force of law or has no means of enforcement/detection ... ... I just don't care.

As a car owner, I have a readily available place to store it when I travel.

However, it is still legal for them to post the sign and in many cases legal to carry inside. Is it ethical to do so? That depends on the priorities on your personal set of ethics. If you value the ability to defend yourself over the rights of a property owner to dictate the behavior that occurs on the premises, then it would be ethical.

 

[mljdeckard]

I think you did the right thing in ceasing patronage of the store. If they don't trust us to be armed, they don't need our business.

It depends on whether or not you believe that being armed is a right. Property owners have a right to decide who they will and won't let on their property. Business owners can refuse service to anyone. The question is whether or not it is reasonable to tell a segment of the population; "I don't want you to exercise your rights on my property", when it is obvious that criminals are going to do what they want anyway. This is why pre-emption makes sense. In a state without pre-emption, every person and entity can impose whatever restrictions on your rights that they want to. If the state has pre-emption, THE STATE says where you can and can't carry. Property owners have to follow the law. If they choose to not want people carrying, they are free to not have a business open to the general public.

 

[bigfatdave]

As a car owner, I have a readily available place to store it when I travel.

What, so being a car owner is a prerequisite for being a customer or visiting a hospitalized relative?

Sorry, but sometimes I walk places, and sometimes I arrive on a motorcycle with little in the way of locking storage ... and even when I take the cage I don't feel like being spotted stashing a >$500 piece of portable and fenceable wealth, then walking away from it.

Here's a thought ... if you wanted to steal guns, would you ... oh, I don't know ...maybe go watch the lot somewhere posted as a victim disarmament zone and see who lingers putting crap in the trunk/glove-box for no apparent reason? Keep in mind that a vehicle in a lot is pretty much an open box for someone not worried about making a bit of noise.

As I said, until the location desiring unarmed customers:
1- provides safe storage
2- provides security
3- takes on liability for victims of crime in their little unarmed victim zone
4- effectively sets up a gun exclusion zone with something a bit more effective than a silly little sign
... I will either ignore the sign or avoid the business.

If a business owner/manager is so scared of firearms they can:
a- quit
b- work from behind a bulletproof enclosure
c- spend their time in a bulletproof hamster ball
... I am not the people they want disarmed, and the people they DO want disarmed care even less than I do about their stupid sign

===

Look at the numbers for muggings, rapes, and other opportunistic predator type crimes inside the unarmed victim zones ... I'm not going to be a compliant victim because of some idiot's phobias.

 

[M-Cameron]

you see.....the one good thing about living in MA is you will never see a "no guns" sign......anywhere(or more correctly, i have yet to see one).

this is because guns are so far out of peoples minds that they simply do not think to put them up.......win for me

 

[Owen Sparks]

we all have a right to free speech, right?

But not on this or practically any other gun forums.

This forum is private property and we are all guests here. Even though we all have a right to free speech, there are plenty of things that you can't talk about. Not just rude, vulgar or insulting speech but also things that the owners feel are inappropriate or just off topic. I suppose if enough people got together and lobbied Congress they might get anti-discrimination legislation passed to force the owners to allow you to talk about your gay love life or whatever but legal or not, it would still be a violation of the owner’s property rights.

So would any law forcing a property owner to allow you to bring something onto his property against his wishes be it controversial like pornography or alcohol, or something that the owner thinks might be a potential problem like little children or firearms.

You do not HAVE to go onto private property.

 

[FNMatt]

Barring that, my right to protect myself and my family in a public place supersedes his/her right to dictate my behavior and items I possess.



Carrying concealed is most certainly not the same as smoking in a non smoking section or being loud in a place that quiet is expected, because my carrying of that weapon will not adversely affect anyone who does not attempt to hurt me or my family.

I'm not too sure that i agree that a store open to the public is the same as a public place, such as the sidewalk or a park. The store owner's rights and your right to protect yourself never truly come into conflict, because the alternative of not visiting that store usually exists (barring certain practical problems, such as all hospitals ban guns, etc.). Really, you have no right to visit the store, if the store asks you to sacrifice your right to protection or not come in, I don't think its not very kosher to ignore that. Stores have policies all that time that would not fly in public places, and stores can pretty much discriminate any way they want, barring that its not based on a protected class. Ultimately, this weapon discrimination seems to be so prevalent because its not affecting a lot of people. Only some folks carry concealed weapons, and some of those that do ignore these policies anyway.

 

[TexasRifleman]

But Owen, that whole argument falls apart in the face of ADA and the Civil Rights Act.

Government forces business to install ramps on their property. Try to open a retail business without ADA compliant access and see what you get.

The idea that "You don't have to go on private property" doesn't work. Pretty much all of the necessities of life require you to go onto private property to purchase them; groceries, gasoline, medicine, etc.

Private property owners have already lost full control over their property, that happened decades ago.

What we are talking about here is what degree of control do private property owners have left, and when does that begin to interfere with others' rights.

The courts have already ruled that property owners rights take a back seat in many cases. Guns aren't there yet but many of the same arguments still apply.

Tell a customer they can't bring their wheelchair into your business because they might run over a child. Keep the checkbook close by, the settlement will be large. Total property rights are a figment of the imagination today.

 

[Owen Sparks]

But Owen, that whole argument falls apart in the face of ADA and the Civil Rights Act.

And that is EXACTLY why libertarians such as myself oppose that aspect of the law, because it resulted in private property owners loosing control over their property and is a big step toward socialism.

Not to get off topic here, but if any group such as gun owners can use the power of government to FORCE business owners to accommodate them, then any other group can theoretically do the same. You would not some law forcing you to allow pornography, gay sex or Satan worship in YOUR business would you? Then don’t support the government forcing loaded guns on the property of people who don’t want them there either.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

The store owner has the right to express their wishes, I can chose to honor them or not or even take my trade elsewhere.

On the other hand if I have waltzed my way across town or even across the street without creating a ruckus by carrying concealed why would I expect the sky to fall because I crossed a particular threshold?

 

[Mr White]

I don't make it a habit to frequent places that don't allow firearms, but if I have a need to patronize such a business, my personal safety trumps the business owner's illogical fears. I'll carry wherever it's legal. On the chance that I get outed and they ask me to leave, I'll leave.

 

[ny32182]

In SC the sign has to be very specific to carry the weight of law. I don't immediately recall ever seeing one.

To get in trouble, you would have to:

-Carry to a correctly posted business
-Be discovered
-Be asked to leave
-Refuse to leave

You could then be charged with trespassing.

Business are under all kinds of requirements to not discriminate once they open their doors to the public. Businesses have rights, and so do customers. It depends on the state law.

 

[writerinmo]

It's very similar here in Missouri. If you have a CC permit and for some reason are 'discovered' to be carrying concealed in a posted premises, all they can do is ask you to leave. Obviously, if you are truly carrying concealed, they wouldn't know you were carrying, and secondly, if you are stupid enough to not take the option and leave then you pretty much deserve the trespassing complaint that will be filed against you.

Missouricarry.com keeps a constantly updated boycott list of businesses that are posted as off limits. I added our local Buchheits farm and home store, then called the store and talked to the manager and asked if he was aware that their store was on the list. He was unpleasantly surprised to find out that it was. I talked to him a bit regarding the actual facts regarding posting such a sign, about the training and certification that permit holders go through, and had a generally pleasant 6 or 7 minute conversation, then thanked him for listening. I stopped in there to pick up some ammunition that they had on sale a few weeks later, and was pleasantly surprised to note that the "No Firearms" sign was gone from the front door.

Personally, I don't go places where I can't carry. If the sign says "No Firearms", I take that to mean no open carry, since my town is an open carry one. There really isn't a lot of places that I need to go that are posted... Post Office is about it, and I just park on the street and toss it under my seat while inside. My bank is posted, but the branch I use is inside Walmart, and I can use the teller while still standing outside the front of the actual bank, so my firearm is technically still in Walmart, lol...

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm not too sure that i agree that a store open to the public is the same as a public place, such as the sidewalk or a park.

It's not, but it's also not the same as private property.

A homeowner can say they don't want any people of (insert race/reigion/sexual orientation) on their property, and no one can do anything about it. A business that is open to the public cannot. In this respect, it is public property

But a business that is open to the public can dictate that a group of protestors may not assemble on his property. For these purposes, it is private property.

Businesses are required by law to accomodate certain things. By being open to the public, they give up the right to refuse service to anyone (despite those silly signs, which won't hold up in court if the person they try to deny entry to is of a "protected class", for lack of a better term).

No homeowner has to have wheelchair access to their home with steps, but a business, even on private property, must be able to accomodate a handicapped person. If accomodating them means they need to enter the building, the business MUST install a wheelchair ramp or lift.

It gets a little trickier with a home based business, like mine that is on my own personal property. In my case, it's really about business hours. During business hours, I have to treat my property (not my home, but the shop and drive) as an open to the public business. That means people may park their car, no matter what an ugly peice of ghetto crap it is, in my drive, and I have to tolerate it. They can hang out on the property and peacefully go about their business, and I'm required to let them as long as their is no disruptive behavior. Basically, as long as what they are doing or possessing is legal and not bothersome to my other customers, it is their right. A muslim can roll out his little mat and pray in my drive, and I just have to suck it up, because even though I disapprove of the religion, I do not have the right to tell him he can't or that he must leave, so long as it's during business hours and on a part of the property that is dedicated to the business.

 

[MikeNice]

There is a lot of arguing back and forth about this subject. There is even a lot of high brow sounding debate. It all boils down to something simple.

If I asked a person to not perform a certain action on my property I would expect them to stop or leave. It is just basic common courtesy to return that respect to other property owners.

To me this whole "concealed means concealed" matter is further evidence of the degredation of mutual respect in this country. It has become more about the narcasisstic needs of the self.

There is nothing unjust about the owner's request. Thoreau once said that the only law that should be willfully broken is an unjust one. That breaking a law of convenience is an unjust act in it self. I tend to apply that to the requests of property owners. As long as their request is not unjust I comply.

If you are afraid of somebody seeing you stash your sidearm in the glove box you need to brush up on your tactical awareness and discretion.

If you walk every where and feel that some how makes you special, it doesn't. You can purchase a bike, purchase a scooter, take a taxi, or ride a bus to extend your range of options. If you're out for a sunday stroll and the shop is posted, come back next week.

 

[9MMare]

Texas Rifleman (post 10) said it well.

If the signs arent 'legal' then I will carry out my 2nd Amendment rights. I will also carry out my 1st Amendment rights. If the business owner doesnt like either, he can ask me to leave. If he does, and I do not leave, then (in my state) I'd be guilty of trespass and could be charged. So I would leave if asked.

However, I tend to keep my opinions AND firearm to myself and the business owner is none the wiser. Hence: "Concealed means concealed."

That business owner makes no committment to protect me, but he arbitrarily chooses to deny me entry with my choice of protection. Hm, with this in mind, I dont feel that I am compromising my ethics at all.

I also feel the signs are useless... they only affect the law-abiding (apparently from many posts here). Criminals break thru windows, doors, security systems.....a sign isnt going to stop them.

 

[9MMare]

There is nothing unjust about the owner's request.

If you are afraid of somebody seeing you stash your sidearm in the glove box you need to brush up on your tactical awareness and discretion.


.

I dont think it's unjust, I think it's wrong and may put me at unnecessary risk. To me, that is pretty offensive, at the least inconsiderate.

I will avoid places with the signs if I can. If not, again, I feel no ethical dilemma since they are not concerned about my safety...and they do not know that I am armed...so they are not harmed.

And as an ex-park ranger (in Manhattan's Central Park and out in other states/parks as well)....you are incorrect about the ease of stashing things without being noticed in your car. There are people that watch for this specifically and can then be in and out of your vehicle in minutes. Matter of fact, they wouldnt even bother breaking in unless they observed you 'stashing something in your glove compartment, under the seat, etc.' If you have to do this, do it before you reach your destination, not when you get there.

I try never to leave my gun locked in my car...where it is vulnerable to being stolen and used by criminals. I consider it a primary responsibility to keep my firearms out of the hands of criminals...to me the ethics of this also outweigh the ethics of the business owner.

 

[Demarko]

I might be. If I am walking and I absolutely must enter his place of business there would be no way for me to legally disarm, where would I put the gun? My requirement to follow the law would outweigh his desire that I not be armed.

You, sir, must REALLY like books!

 

[Neverwinter]

To me this whole "concealed means concealed" matter is further evidence of the degredation of mutual respect in this country. It has become more about the narcasisstic needs of the self.

It is more narcissistic that the individual considers their needs above the many when posting the sign.
"The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."

Oh crap, that's "socialism". Like requiring handicap access and acceptance of service animals.

 

[MikeNice]

If you have to do this, do it before you reach your destination, not when you get there.

This is usually what I do, after I pass the last major choke point. After the last major intersection, or while entering the lot, I reach over and put the gun away. Whether I'm putting it in the center console, glove box, or under the seat I do it before parking. That way I'm not taking longer to get out of the car.

That is part of what I meant by discretion.

I try never to leave my gun locked in my car...where it is vulnerable to being stolen and used by criminals. I consider it a primary responsibility to keep my firearms out of the hands of criminals...to me the ethics of this also outweigh the ethics of the business owner.

From what I've seen over the years criminals tend not to break in to a second locked area after entering the car. Rarely have I seen or heard of a criminal ripping open the glove box or center console. That usually means that it was somebody that knew you and/or where you put the thing they want. Most car B&Es are smash and grab jobs. They are going for things that are easily visible and easy to liquidate.

It might be different when someone leaves their car at a park. Most of my experience is with urban high traffic areas. So, others may have different experiences.

I usually just take the time to avoid places that don't allow carry. I started shopping at a different grocery store. I swithced gas stations. I started buying music and books online, and started using the ATM nearly exclusively. (NC law prohibits carrying in a bank.) At work I even park further away so that I can have my cc with me before and after work. (It is against NC law for me to have my cc on the property of my employer.)

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.

 

[Demarko]

It is more narcissistic that the individual considers their needs above the many when posting the sign.
"The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."

Oh crap, that's "socialism". Like requiring handicap access and acceptance of service animals.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a buffet-style political party? "Oh, I like this stance on gun control. This one on taxes and abortion. This stance on gay marriage. Oh! This is a good stance on military spending. Ohhh! Look at this stance on indoor smoking!" Select your ideals, and then: "You have selected candidate: Jon Doe of Party X!"