Concealed means concealed

[MikeNice]

It is more narcissistic that the individual considers their needs above the many when posting the sign.

In some cases yes.

However, in some cases it is a matter of liability or operating costs. In that case the owner is looking after the sustainability of his (and his employee's) income source. It isn't about the individual, it is about the ripple effect of what happens to that person and those family members and employees that rely on them.

I know a guy that runs a store that also happens to sell alcohol. His store is posted because the insurance company gave him a discount. So, he was looking at the operating cost and how lowering it would effect his family.

That isn't a narcissistic decision. He is using that money to pay a tutor to help his kid that has dyslexia learn to manage the problem and catch up in school.

 

[Demarko]

I know a guy that runs a store that also happens to sell alcohol. His store is posted because the insurance company gave him a discount. So, he was looking at the operating cost and how lowering it would effect his family.

In which case, it shouldn't be the business owner that gets the boycott, but rather, the insurance company that makes such decisions.

 

[friscolatchi]

Ethical or not, I feel that it's a personal choice given the circumstance. Do a risk analysis. Do I need to carry in the store, ie a posted supermarket or convenience store at 1 am when I need gas and milk on the way home from work? A visit to a posted Hospital in high crime area? Risk vs benefit. I'm willing to carry in a posted area when risk of carrying provides security to myself and my family. You can bring a SUB 2000 in a laptop case anywhere and not be suspect. I don't think that concealment is the issue here.

What if you're in a posted location, ie store or State Park, (for us that live in states that post their parks) and you have an injury/heart attack that requires an EMS and Police response? Possible, yes - probable, no, unless your over 50 a smoker and have high lipids, or performing a high risk activity. I have been in EMS/ER work for the past 15 years and anything is possible.

Just do the analysis. If it's safe to leave your piece in your car, then I would, considering all other circumstances.

What about carrying in restaurants, churches and bars in states that don't allow CC in these locations? Do you do so in violation of the law? I think that many do so and won't admit it, and rightfully so. As bad as NY is, there aren't many restrictions for an unrestricted permit holder aside from what is the normal restricted areas, schools, courts, etc.

BTW, nice topic.

 

[FNMatt]

I'm inclined to agree with Owen (again!). I think ADA and protected classes in businesses are unjust infringements on property owner rights. If someone wants to open KKK grocery in my town, go ahead. I won't shop there and won't associate with the owners, and if some sort of community demonstration against the store takes place, i'd probably contribute as well.

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.

I think some of you guys really throw "need" around a little carelessly. There are few cases were, with proper planning and diligence, you would "need" to carry into a store to buy milk or gas. Barring being stranded in the desert with a dry tank, you can always keep your fuel above half tank and fuel up in the morning at a gun friendly establishment. But i guess maybe thats just me...

 

[leadaddict]

I know a guy that runs a store that also happens to sell alcohol. His store is posted because the insurance company gave him a discount. So, he was looking at the operating cost and how lowering it would effect his family.

Yet another reason why I have no problem carrying in his business. He's posted this as a CYA measure, and I can't argue with his logic or blame him for it. But now that he's covered his behind, I'll keep my piece on to cover my own.

(It is legal here in Iowa. Our signs carry no weight of law.)

 

[heeler]

I only read the first page of this thread but as far as the expression concealed means concealed goes the best I can answer is Texas is not an open carry state and they flat out want your gun concealed and if you deliberately show your gun in a normal setting you will be arrested and most likely lose your right to carry for a very long time.
I have doubts this open carry thing will be approved here due to changes in the state such as demographics,politics,etc.
But the state has also made it clear that businesses that dont want concealed handguns in their establishment must put up signage known as the 30.06 sign and it must be very specific in letter size, contrast,and in English and Spanish to be binding.
I avoid those places as much as possible.
However property owners that hang those signs such as those known as gun busters which carry zero weight legally can just go pound sand as far as I am concerned.
So being concealed means concealed it's best that you keep your business of carrying to yourself and no one else should know any better.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm inclined to agree with Owen (again!). I think ADA and protected classes in businesses are unjust infringements on property owner rights. If someone wants to open KKK grocery in my town, go ahead. I won't shop there and won't associate with the owners, and if some sort of community demonstration against the store takes place, i'd probably contribute as well.

I agree too but that ship has long sailed. We DO have these laws in place and they are NOT going anywhere, they've been upheld by the courts time and time again.

So, arguing that there should be no restrictions on private property at all is a waste of time. Since there ARE some restrictions the argument then becomes, do gun owners have a case to argue they fit into one of the "special" protected classes like race, sexual preference, handicap, etc. and if gun owners DO have that argument on their side SHOULD we be fighting to have guns declared a "civil right"?

Not sure how I feel about that one.

 

[MtnSpur]

I was given a card when I took my original CHL course many years ago that had the Red Circle w/Stripe through a gun = Same Symbol through a $ sign. Underneath: "We have noticed your sign and are going to respect your wishes by shopping elsewhere". On the back of the card:
"AS A TEXAS CHL LICENSE HOLDER I:
-Have no felony convictions - Lifetime
-No class A or B Misdemeanors within the last 5 years
-Passed both state and federal fingerprint and Background checks
-No Delinquent conduct within the past 10 years
-Not delinquent in Child Support, Student Loans or State/Local taxes
-HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT YOUR OTHER CUSTOMERS?"

Our instructor said if you need more cards to please let him know and he would supply as many as we desired.

We all have choices and being Americans are free to exercise them within the law (even when some laws infringe on our right to bear arms in certain places). Change? Yes we need more change but small steps forward are better than standing still. All this IMHO.

 

[ForumSurfer]

In which case, it shouldn't be the business owner that gets the boycott, but rather, the insurance company that makes such decisions.

Yes, but we gun owners will just boycott the business because we won't know about the back-story. Instead, we'll see "No Weapons" and move on.

Myself, I will carry everywhere that I legally can. I have no "moral" feelings regarding the matter. In NC, a simple "no conceal carry" sign will suffice. I wish we were more like Texas and required proper signage. Many businesses here post signs at the door, but they are tiny and not really noticeable.

If we were like Texas, I would carry if someone posted improper signage. They have the right to exercise their right should they do it properly. If they make a halfhearted attempt and post improper signage, that is their problem.

 

[FNMatt]

I agree too but that ship has long sailed. We DO have these laws in place and they are NOT going anywhere, they've been upheld by the courts time and time again.

So, arguing that there should be no restrictions on private property at all is a waste of time. Since there ARE some restrictions the argument then becomes, do gun owners have a case to argue they fit into one of the "special" protected classes like race, sexual preference, handicap, etc. and if gun owners DO have that argument on their side SHOULD we be fighting to have guns declared a "civil right"?

Not sure how I feel about that one.

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.

 

[leadaddict]

Currently, people cannot say what they want in a store, should that be protected as well?

But people can think whatever they want because no one knows and it doesn't affect anyone else around them. Or do you curve your thoughts based on a business owners signed wishes?

You can have a sign that says "No Profanity", and it is enforcable because if someone starts spewing profanities you can point to the sign and ask them to leave. But what if they just think the profanities, or mumble them so quietly no one can hear? A sign that said "no thinking, mumbling or spewing profanity" would be unenforcable.

Along the same lines a sign (with no weight of law) that bans guns can be enforced to the fullest exent that the business owner is able to do so. He can put up metal detectors and deny entry to anyone he wants. I'm fine with that. If he wants to have a sign and only enforce if he happens to notice someone carrying, fine, ask me to leave if I'm printing. I'll go quietly. If he wants a sign to help drop his insurance rate and not enforce it, that's fine with me too. It's up to the owner to enforce any rule they make up.

I may take some risks carrying there. Like he asks me to leave and I'm publicly humiliated. Or he calls the police before asking me to leave and I have to explain to them the law or that he never asked me to leave. But those are risks I'm willing to live with.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Traditional property rights are really a “bundle of rights” which includes:

1. The right to any benefit from the property (rent, mining etc.).
2. The right to use the property.
3. A right to transfer or sell the property.
4. The right to exclude others from the property.

Evidently enough people no longer understand the concept of yours and mine that they only think in terms of "we, us and ours". This collective view of private property as “open to the public” is the tip of a huge wedge because it removes certain items from that bundle such as the right to use your property as you see fit (zoning, home owners associations etc.) or the right to exclude others as in this case, those carrying loaded guns.

Removing any one of these rights is a big step towards socialism as there are only 4.

 

[leadaddict]

So you don't think there's any responsibility for the property owner to be able or willing to enforce the rules they make?

I think most business owners consider certain areas of their property "open to the public" during their busininess hours.

 

[Sam1911]

Wow, I'm gone for 3 days and miss the latest version of this argument? Shock!

My gun, concealed on my person, is of no interest nor concern to anyone who means me no harm. In my state the law says I may go anywhere armed that I may go unarmed, with a very few more or less well-defined exceptions. Businesses or property bearing a "no guns" sign or where I have reason to believe the owner doesn't like guns or whatnot are not on that very short list.

I follow the law.

 

[MachIVshooter]

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

No one is debating private property rights. In other threads, I think we've almost unanimously agreed that if a homeowner or renter asks that no one bring weapons into the dwelling, we abide.

But as I have to keep reiterating here, private property that is open to the public is not the same as private property with respect to what you can and can't do, allow, etc.

Any part of a business that is open to the public has to reasonably accomodate that public. That means handicapped access and no discrimination, among other things. Areas that are "employees only" can be more limited, depending on the staff. They also do not have to accomodate the public outside of business hours.

Aside from that, the ethics side is that CCW does not conflict with business as usual. Open carry, different story. Openly displayed firearms may make other customers uncomfortable, and then you are interfering with the owners ability to conduct business and earn money. But concealed does not, and the only time anyone would even know about it is if another individual decides to endanger that CCW holder, in which event the armed citizen is, at the very least, not the problem. He/she could very well turn out to be the savior under those circumstances.

 

[Owen Sparks]

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

 

[MachIVshooter]

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.

What the brilliant Mr. Williams is talking about there is on the other side of the equation. But, in keeping with his theme, if that bar's music and smoke permiates the confines of that business and bothers adjacent businesses or residences, they would be exceeding their property rights.

But since we have already covered the fact that CCW against the wishes of a business owner does not harm anyone (or affect them in any other way), this article is really irrelevant anyway. The only possible effect on the business or other patrons of carrying under these circumstances is contingent on the violent acts of another person, which I already covered in my last post

 

[Owen Sparks]

Suppose you owned a bar, sports stadium or some other crowded venue and decided that someone using a firearm in self defense posed a grave threat to bystanders? After all, not every shot hits the target and those that do hit sometimes pass through.

 

[shooter429]

No sign stops my rights from existing

Just because a place is not publicly owned, does not mean it is not open to the public. If it reasonably appears to be so, I will carry there whenever I please regardless of any silly signs. Our right to life, liberty and property do not end at a store entrance. They cannot say "no blacks" or "we dont serve gays" "No service animals" or "you people cannot rent from us." My right to bear arms is as fundamental as my right to breath. They could hang a sign saying "no breathing" in the store, but contrary to their wishes, I would persist. A private residence is a different matter as I respect the owners and their wishes. I hope this helps clarify the point. That having been said, I am very careful not to flash or print for many reasons both tactical and social. If they wanna try to search me, well they won't get far.

Shooter429

 

[Owen Sparks]

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.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Suppose you owned a bar, sports stadium or some other crowded venue and decided that someone using a firearm in self defense posed a grave threat to bystanders? After all, not every shot hits the target and those that do hit sometimes pass through.

Here we arrive at the philisophical junction that the anti's love to dance around. So because there may be a risk to others, I should not be capable of defending myself? My assailant should be able to attack me carte blanch, even kill me, because defending myself might risk other's safety? Who's lives are worth more? Who decides?

On the flip side of that is any instance like the Colorado Springs church, in which an armed citizen in a crowded place saved lives. I submit that an armed citizen who has to use his or her weapon is more likely to be saving innocent people than hurting them, regardless of venue.

As far as I'm concerned, no one has the authority to limit my ability to defend myself unless they are able to provide a reasonably secure environment. For a place of public accomodation, that means effective screening (metal detectors) and armed security to deal with threats. If a store has both of those, I will disarm before entering. If not, screw them. Once again, my god given human right to defend myself supersedes their public private business property rights.

By going out in public, you accept certain risks. There is no way to avoid that, and your above mentioned reasoning that a business owner might want to prohibit firearms is quite reminiscent of the anti's screaming "the streets will turn red with blood" whenever CCW or RTC legislation is passed.

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?

That's an entirely different argument. Once again, CCW does not hurt anyone who doesn't try to hurt me first. Stealing food hurts the store economically. Arguing whether a starving man and his family have more right to live more than a store has a right to be properly compensated for their merchandise is a different argument for a different forum. It's also not a realistic scenaro in the United States. People simply don't starve to death in this country, unless they are completely unwilling to seek help from the myriad government and private organizations that exist solely for that purpose.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Suppose you owned a bar, sports stadium or some other crowded venue and decided that someone using a firearm in self defense posed a grave threat to bystanders?

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.

Actually, I hope such a bar owner does post a "No guns allowed" sign. What that most likely will accomplish is that all folks legally carrying will leave and drink elsewhere, leaving him with all those carrying illegally.

Nice bar.

The right to exclude others from the property

As I said, carrying a gun is a basic civil right. To the extent shop- or bar-owners should be able to exclude others from their property for exercising basic civil rights (being Democrat, being Episcopalian, etc.), they should also be able to exclude legal gun carriers. That doesn't prevent ethical open defiance and protest against any such policy. In some (rare, exceptional) cases, it may not prevent ethical secretive carry in violation of the owner's policy.

 

[Owen Sparks]

You do not HAVE to go into a bar or a sporting event. If you do you must respect the owners wishes and abide by the rules.

We voluntarily give up rights all the time on private property.
You might argue that everyone has a right not to be punched in the face, but under certain circumstances like choosing to participate in a boxing match, you must give up these rights. You do not HAVE to box either; you have a free choice to participate and follow the rules when you step in the ring or to take up a tamer sport like shooting if you don’t like being punched.

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.

 

[Single Action Six]

After Reading Your Above Post..

In some cases yes.

However, in some cases it is a matter of liability or operating costs. In that case the owner is looking after the sustainability of his (and his employee's) income source. It isn't about the individual, it is about the ripple effect of what happens to that person and those family members and employees that rely on them.

I know a guy that runs a store that also happens to sell alcohol. His store is posted because the insurance company gave him a discount. So, he was looking at the operating cost and how lowering it would effect his family.

That isn't a narcissistic decision. He is using that money to pay a tutor to help his kid that has dyslexia learn to manage the problem and catch up in school.

..I thought about the following.

Is that same owner thinking about the liability and operating costs occurred (via a customer lawsuit against the store owner that was perpetuated by a BG occurrence), if/when something happened to that customer because the customer wasn't able to legally defend themselves (because of having to leave their sidearm some other place).. or no store security was available to help protect the customers?

Single Action Six

 

[hermannr]

To the OP: If there was a "no concealed weapons" sign on the door, I would comply...I would just open carry if I really wanted something that store had. (I mostly open carry anyway, it is hard to conceal a 6" Colt revolver.)

If the manager complained about the open carry I would explain that it was not concealed, therefore I was complying with his/her request, however If he did not want to sell to legal gun owners/carriers, I would be happy to not shop there, I sure his competitors would appreciate my business.

BTW: we do not have that problem in Okanogan County, I don't think there is a single store that has that kind of signage here.