Do you carry into places where they post signs telling you not to?

[pax]

"So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?"

Because I believe in obeying the law whenever possible.

pax

 

[Seraph]

What pax said.

 

[LiquidTension]

I carry in places that have signs if the signs do not meet the legal requirements as set forth by the state legislature. That said, since the passage of a new law last year re: signs, I have yet to see a SINGLE legal sign. Sometimes it's good that people are dumb and lazy

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Quote:
"So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?"

Because it is not illegal to carry in those places. It is against the wishes of the owner to carry in those places. They have to formally charge you with trespassing, and most won't. Even if they do, it won't cost you your right to carry and land you in the slammer as getting caught carrying without a permit will.

 

[medmo]

"So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?"

Because I can. The same reason I carry when there might be a sign suggesting that I do otherwise. I don't CCW to accessorize an outfit. I am armed for a reason and that reason does not diminish because I proceeded past a sign. If anything the reason is more important because some half baked animal might think that all folks obey all signs.

I guess you never do 65mph in a posted 55pmh zone either? Guess I should turn in my drivers license in also....

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Stinkyshoe wrote:

So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?
Ss

Maybe I'm just the hypersensitive guy in this bunch, but I take a little indignation from your question. It seems to me as though you are impugning us as lawbreakers or scofflaws or something. Perhaps your question was asked innocently, but as it appears on page three of the thread, I can't imagine that there has not been adequate clarification of the position many of us have taken: that of not honoring idiotic self-disarmament signs.

I got a permit to make it legal for me to carry my firearm. The state of Florida has said that I am okay to do so. It is an insult to me for a store like The Sports Authority to bar me from entering while armed, as though that is going to save anyone from me if I were inclined to go berserk. No, such signs save no one from anything and we all know it. They're PC crapheadedness at its worst.

What is there to be confused about, Ss? If I went carrying in T.S.A. and got "made," the worst that can happen is they ask me to leave, and I do, after informing them that I will never shop there again. If I didn't have the CCW permit, I'd be looking at jail time in Florida for armed trespass and unlawful carry of a concealed weapon. Just because I don't want to be told that I'm some kind of danger if I enter a retail store with a concealed handgun doesn't mean I want to be committing a crime just by carrying the gun!

I think that your attitude (and that of some others here) indicates an unhealthy lack of indignation at the kinds of retailers who would post such policies.

They are demanding that we voluntarily disarm, all the while we and they know that criminals won't obey the signs. The doublethink involved in believing that this accomplishes any crimefighting benefit is staggering. There needs to be a word stronger than "doublethink" for this one.

Some here imply that we are being disrespectful because we are not willing to accede the the "property rights" wishes of these proprietors. I offer that they are not worthy of that respect, because their attempt to get us to disarm for the criminals puts us in danger.

To be on the side of their "rules" seems to me similar to chastising any Jew who refused to surrender guns to the Nazis when the anti-gun laws were passed in Germany. "Oooh, what's wrong with you -- why won't you comply with the law? You're such a bad person. What makes you think you're above the rules?"

Who today would blame a Jew who had chosen to disobey those laws at the time?

Would you respect a person who had left his gun in his car to go into The Sports Authority, if the place got held up and a cashier was murdered, when he might have been able to prevent the killing had he brought his gun with him?

What if the guy drew and fired on the robber, stopping the attack, because he had not obeyed the posted rule? Would you thank him for saving the life of the cashier and then chastise him for being so naughty as to disobey the rule?

That would be rather Chicagoan of you.

-Jeffrey

 

[50 Freak]

Bravo PeacefulJeffrey.

I'll say this again. If I ignore the "no guns allowed" signs two bad things can happen:

1: I get made and the store asks me to leave = No problem, I'll take my money elsewhere.

2: I leave my gun in the car and some nutjob decides to release some steam by taking out half the store = I get carried out in a bodybag and my wife is either carried out with me or made a widow.

Not a tough choice here.

 

[pax]

Just a passing thought:

Does anyone else know why it was against the law for peasants to be armed in feudal societies?

'Twas because the land itself belonged to the gentry and nobility. Peasants couldn't be armed because they were never on their own property. The land-lord had taken the responsibility of protecting them, so they had no justification to carry weaponry themselves, and he didn't want them to.

Think about that for awhile.

pax

 

[Zach S]

Establishment where Alcoholic Beverages are sold...

for consumption...

 

[tyme]

So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?

Think about when people are most likely to get stopped and searched, no matter how polite you are and no matter how well concealed your gun is: traffic stops, mainly, as well as street corner or parking lot terry stops if you're on foot.

A license provides a probabilistic reduction in the risk of going to jail overall, by reducing the risk in those common situations to zero.

Many people carried illegally before ccw, some for decades, without getting caught. That suggests that staying out of jail depends more on adequate concealment and politeness if/when confronted by LE or private citizens, rather than one's willingness to observe no-firearm signs and statutory unarmed victim zones.

Again, no matter how polite you are, there's a chance that officer unfriendly will, on a routine traffic stop or terry stop, do a cursory pat-down for weapons. Many of the people who carried for years without a license didn't have to contend with the modern-day hysteria over drugs and weapons. If weapon checks during terry stops and routine traffic stops had been as common as they are now, some of those who got away with it back in the day would undoubtedly be felons to-day.

 

[Ktulu]

However, I agree that it's the store owners right to refuse service to anyone on any grounds.

Not true. The store owner can't refuse service to someone based on the color of his skin.

You have no right to not be discriminated against by people. On the other hand, I do have the right to think of you in whatever way I wish. If I want to hate you because your skin is blue, that's fine and you have no right to protection form my ire. Short of convincing me that hating you just because you are blue is wrong, you cant do anything about it. I don't have to look at you, speak to you, listen to you, give you access to my private property, or even acknowledge your existence. I have the right to think as I wish and form my own opinions.

You do not have the right to access my personal property, but I do have the right to refuse anyone access to my personal property for any reason. This is true whether my property is hunting land, my home, or my business. The government has the power to enforce a policy of non-discrimination on itself but it has no authority to trample my rights and force its idea of morality on me. Laws that supercede one man’s rights for the greater good are not only oppressive but also inherently evil.

I do not discriminate against people because of the color of their skin but I do not force my morality on others. Just as I don't want others forcing theirs on me. If you want to have a store that sells ice hockey equipment to only black people, good luck. I disagree not only with your business model but your bigoted practices. However, I fully support your right to cater to whomever you please on your OWN PRIVATE PORPERTY. The same goes for guns.

If you wish to discriminate against me because I carry a gun, fine. I applaud the fact that you have such strong convictions, albeit misguided, that you are willing to loose some money by not allowing me into your establishment. I completely disagree with any crazy reasoning that you might come up with that justifies your policy, but as a free man, who expects the same consideration in return, I support your right to do so.

 

[Taurus 66]

I'll carry just about anywhere. Malls or stores with "No Weapons Allowed" so long as the signs are not attached to a state or federal law, just a store policy. if I defy their no weapons signs and get caught, the worst that could happen is get kicked off the property.

 

[Stinkyshoe]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses to my question/statement. My intention was to make several points, although I should have been more specific with my intent.

First off, I believe individuals have the right to protect themselves and their property whether or not the state says it's okay or not (underscoring that all situations are NOT resolved by pulling out your piece) Like a few of you eluded, the CC permit is only useful in that in the event that you get stopped and searched in our very paranoid society. In some ways the CC permit is a good thing, and in someways bad. I don't like the fact that in order to have the means to protect (i.e. carry a weapon) myself, I have to ask my gov't for permission to. Criminals carry anyway(duh). I think there are some individuals who should not carry right away(perhaps myself included...I don't have a ccp). I know guys who talk about wanting to carry, but maybe don't realize what it entails. Without a CC permit process, there might be individuals carrying who don't understand the use of just force, and the kind of responsbility involved. There may be a tendency to carry because "it's cool" (well it is cool...but) instead of realizing it's true purpose. Although I hate to assume anything, I generally consider individuals coming from the other direction on the highway incompetent, and fellow shooters at the range equally incompetent until proven otherwise. So the CC permit may be(maybe) a way to ensure those civilians carrying weapons are capable of handling the responsibility. I am confident that most CCP holders are very capable...especially all Highroaders!

My intention was to reach an understanding of the difference between a law that says "no weapons" and an ordinance that says so. If an individual was serious about protecting their family and themself, wouldn't they carry even if the law didn't allow CCP? At what level do you disregard "authority". Maybe when gov't gets so big that it decides what's good for you?

 

[Havegunjoe]

The signs are now meaningless in Minnesota.

I disreguard them. If someone were to see my gun even though concealed and asked me to leave I would and take my money elswhere.

 

[Mad Man]

So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?
Ss

Maybe I'm just the hypersensitive guy in this bunch, but I take a little indignation from your question.

Yeah!!! How dare anyone disturb the echo chamber by asking a question that makes us think, instead of groupthink. Get with the program!

I now return you to the usual "We're better than them," "Gun controllers = Hitler," ".45 vs 9mm," and "SHTFantasy" threads.

PS - Self-righteous indignation may be fun, but it's not going to win any converts.

 

[Tom Servo]

So those of you who carry with a permit in restricted areas inspite of signs saying not to...why did you bother getting a permit to carry?

So as not to get in trouble the other 99.998% of the time I carry. If I can avoid a place, I will. But sometimes I can't. In that case, I'm just very discreet.

Simple fact is, that "No Guns" sign is an invitation to violence. Such a place is much more likely to be targeted for violent crime. If I have to be there, I at least want the option of getting out alive under my own speed. I find it ironic that none of the places with those signs provide any sort of security on their own.

I'm not doing it to make a point, as I feel that that's the worst possible way to do it, and the last thing I want is the management going into hysterics and calling the police on "the guy with the gun." They'll either learn or not. Still, I'm not going unprotected.

Now, if I'm in my bank, for example, and someone "makes" me, okay, the worst I get is a lecture (and not a very sincere one) from the local police. If I didn't have a CCW, it'd be a trip to jail for me.

What they don't know won't hurt them, and it might just save me.

 

[GRB]

Perhaps your question was asked innocently, but as it appears on page three of the thread, I can't imagine that there has not been adequate clarification of the position many of us have taken: that of not honoring idiotic self-disarmament signs.

You and others have some nerve (niot necessarily a bad thing, but not necessarily a good one either) to classify yourself as feeling indignant at another's remarks when you also classify the wishes of a property owner on whose property you set foot as idiotic! You enter their property with a concealed firearm - in opposition to the property owners wishes - then you say disrespectful stuff like the following:

Perhaps your question was asked innocently, but as it appears on page three of the thread, I can't imagine that there has not been adequate clarification of the position many of us have taken: that of not honoring idiotic self-disarmament signs.

So I take it the property owners who legitimately choose to do as they please upon their own property, such as not allowing firearms, are idiots because as you said the signs are "idiotic"! What, in my opinion, shameless self rigtheousness you seemingly exhibit while apparently violating rights, wishes and possibly laws that another chooses to honor or uphold. It amazes me that any of you who choose to do so even bothered to get a permit in the first place. Maybe I am missing something, but if it is not your property and if state or local law does not give you authority to over ride the wishes of a property owner, then who in Hades are you walk onto someone else's property with a firearm when they prohibit it?

Hypothetically speaking: If I were so inclined so as to prohibit firearms on my property, well then here is what I might do once I discovered you therein with a firearm: I may detain you at gunpoint (my property so sure I can have a firearm and so can my security people). I would call the police if it were my property you entered while armed when I declared I prohibited such. Then I would contact whatever authority issued you carry permit with a complaint. I would also make darned sure to attempt to obtain a court order barring you from entering my property again. I would also contact the news media with your photo and a screaming lib story line about the whacko gun nut - namely whoever you are. Then I would contact my elected officials and file a formal complaint against you. Then I would contact a very expensive and very greedy lawyer and file a civil complaint against you. Why file a civil lawsuit: because of how I felt terrorized by your armed presence when I had expressly forbidden such on my property, and because how scared to death were my wife and children and whomever else was there. Getting the point, if someone who really was an antigun nut found out you were armed on their property they could make things very miserable for you.

Of course me in a more real yet hypothetical life, if I were inclined to prohibit firearms on my property, would probably draw down on you from behind cover, demand that you do not move, have you assume a position of compliance, handcuff you, disarm you, and wait for the police to lock you up. You were a threat by trespassing on my property while armed.

Then again, I probably would not, in real life, prohibit you from entering my property with a firerarm in the first place, unless you were going to be boozing it up. Still, you guys had ought to be real careful of whomever it is you decide to tee off by entering their property with a gun when they say you are not welcome with one. Some folks might just shoot you, no questions asked.

 

[Taurus 66]

So I take it the property owners who legitimately choose to do as they please upon their own property, such as not allowing firearms, are idiots because as you said the signs are "idiotic"! What, in my opinion, shameless self rigtheousness you seemingly exhibit while apparently violating rights, wishes and possibly laws that another chooses to honor or uphold.

I don't know exactly what brought about this response (and I'm not about to go back through 4 pages). The signs are idiotic ... the person who placed it there is most likely not an idiot. We all can make stupid decisions from time to time, but this does necessarily give us a permanent label of "Stupid".

The sign on my property would read as such:

"RED X ZONE.

Make certain your weapon is loaded, at the ready, and with safety off.

Remain alert and be prepared at all times."

Just like the old west, only, you'd be surprised how extremely rare the number of incidents with a stunning sign like this. Putting a "No Weapons Allowed" sign is inviting trouble because the majority of good hearted, law abiding citizens will be the only actors under compliance. They could end up victims because of their obedience.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My intention was to reach an understanding of the difference between a law that says "no weapons" and an ordinance that says so.

You failed.

An ordinance is a law. A sign posted by a business owner on the front door to the shop is not an ordinance -- it's a sign.

 

[longtooth]

Signs

If it is a legal 30.06 sign I decide whether I "Have to have or do what I went there for" If not they don't get my money. If it is a generic sign & not worth the paper it is on I go do what I need to & don't let anyone know.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

So I take it the property owners who legitimately choose to do as they please upon their own property, such as not allowing firearms, are idiots because as you said the signs are "idiotic"! What, in my opinion, shameless self rigtheousness you seemingly exhibit while apparently violating rights, wishes and possibly laws that another chooses to honor or uphold. It amazes me that any of you who choose to do so even bothered to get a permit in the first place. Maybe I am missing something, but if it is not your property and if state or local law does not give you authority to over ride the wishes of a property owner, then who in Hades are you walk onto someone else's property with a firearm when they prohibit it?

Anyone who posts such a sign and then attempts to argue that it can in any way serve the purpose of hindering the commission of violent crime is -- absolutely -- either an IDIOT who believes it or a LIAR who claims he does when he does not.

We are not talking about what a person does when he enters the private residence of another. We are talking about businesses. Stores and whatnot. I draw a significant distinction between them, as I am confident many posters here do as well. I would not show the disrespect to a personal friend that I would show to an idiot shopowner who posts a no-firearms sign as though he thinks it will protect him, his employees or his patrons from miscreants who bring in a gun with the intent to use it in criminal violence. If I had a friend who knew I carry a gun who asked me to not bring it into his house, I would simply stop visiting. If the person never voiced opposition to that practice of mine, I would simply engage in it but never mention it. No harm no foul. But a shopowner is, in my opinion, beyond his rights when he seeks to dictate to me that in order to shop in his store, I must let down my guard and render myself vulnerable in a way that I prefer never to be. HE is not offering to protect me! His SIGN does not in any way protect me, should I obey it. CRIMINALS STILL will come in to rob the place if they so desire, and if I am in compliance with the sign, I am helpless.

I understand your claim that as a property owner he has a right to make the rules. I just don't understand why you are not able to separate his right to make the rules from the idea that his rule is misguided and idiotic given that it can't possibly work.

You say that I am "violating rights." The ONLY right of his that I am violating is his right to usurp MY rights. This becomes a childish game of "he did it first"; but in this case, playing that game is entirely justified. Before I violated his right to bar me from having a gun on the premises, he violated my right to have a gun on the premises. And he can offer no sound, logical reason for doing so. Nothing about obtaining my voluntary individual disarmament prevents violence from befalling anyone in his store. If I were inclined to violence, I'd simply come in and do it, wouldn't I? So if I do comply with his rule, that just proves that I never was one of the ones he had to worry about. The ones he does have to worry about, well, they'll make themselves known when the time comes. They'll be the ones who not only disobey the sign, but also disobey the laws against robbery and murder.

Hypothetically speaking: If I were so inclined so as to prohibit firearms on my property, well then here is what I might do once I discovered you therein with a firearm: I may detain you at gunpoint (my property so sure I can have a firearm and so can my security people). I would call the police if it were my property you entered while armed when I declared I prohibited such. Then I would contact whatever authority issued you carry permit with a complaint.

I believe that even if I were on your property, if I were legally carrying that firearm, if you drew on me because of my simply carrying it (not using it, holding it, brandishing it...) it is YOU who would be breaking the law.

Someone back me up on this, please, if you know the law.

I come into Glenn's store (I assume we are not talking about me coming into your house, yes?). I am carrying a gun and I have a CCW license. He detects that I have the gun (maybe it's just a hunch, or maybe it prints: in my hypothetical scenario I have not, say, dropped the gun, or exposed the butt or something). He DRAWS A GUN ON ME THOUGH I HAVE COMMITTED NO OVERT ACT OF VIOLENCE OR OTHER CRIME. He claims that he is holding me for the police because I have broken his rule (NOT the LAW) by carrying a gun on his property.

This is justified? Could I not have him arrested for assault with a firearm?

I would also make darned sure to attempt to obtain a court order barring you from entering my property again. I would also contact the news media with your photo and a screaming lib story line about the whacko gun nut - namely whoever you are.

LOL! Like I would be itching to go back to your store!

Then I would contact my elected officials and file a formal complaint against you. Then I would contact a very expensive and very greedy lawyer and file a civil complaint against you. Why file a civil lawsuit: because of how I felt terrorized by your armed presence when I had expressly forbidden such on my property, and because how scared to death were my wife and children and whomever else was there. Getting the point, if someone who really was an antigun nut found out you were armed on their property they could make things very miserable for you.

Your elected officials wouldn't give two poops. They'd probably already have been informed that I had not broken any laws. You are postulating all of this as though I refused to leave your premises once I was told to. That would not have transpired. If I knew that you had rightly detected my armedness, and ordered me to leave, I would probably spit on your floor, call you a moron, and promise to NEVER give you my money again.

As far as filing a baseless, frivolous lawsuit is concerned... Glenn, why is it that you seem to find it so easy to think like a libsheep? How far do you think a claim that I had "terrorized" you by having a gun in a fanny pack holstered and untouched would go, given that YOU DREW A GUN AND POINTED IT AT ME? That would kinda take the wind out of your sales, donchathink? Who would believe that a guy who draws a gun on another fellow carrying a gun is the kind who is terrorized by a run-of-the-mill shopper who has a non-deployed gun in a holster in a bag? (or inside the waistband or whatever)

Of course me in a more real yet hypothetical life, if I were inclined to prohibit firearms on my property, would probably draw down on you from behind cover, demand that you do not move, have you assume a position of compliance, handcuff you, disarm you, and wait for the police to lock you up. You were a threat by trespassing on my property while armed.

This gets funnier the further you take it.

I was not trespassing if you had not informed me that I was. For that to be so, you would have had to have informed me that I was no longer welcome (having a store that is open to the public counts as welcome until it is revoked explicitly). Then for it to be trespassing, I'd have had to be ordered to leave. And chances are, for a charge to stick, I'd have had to have refused in the presence of a police officer.

Then again, I probably would not, in real life, prohibit you from entering my property with a firerarm in the first place, unless you were going to be boozing it up. Still, you guys had ought to be real careful of whomever it is you decide to tee off by entering their property with a gun when they say you are not welcome with one. Some folks might just shoot you, no questions asked.

The manager of a Sports Authority might shoot me even though I committed no aggressive act, just on the basis that I was carrying a firearm I am licensed to carry and flouting their rule prohibiting such??!

Come on, Glenn.

-Jeffrey

 

[Old Fuff]

I can only speak for Arizona, where I am licensed:

The state of Arizona issues a Concealed Weapons License to those that meet its qualifications and conditions. However the permit is conditional, in that it specifies where the holder can or cannot carry a concealed weapon. One exception of several provides that a property owner can post they're private property (not necessarily a residence) against someone bringing weapons onto that property. This prohibition may be a blanket one, or it may specify who may or may not have a weapon. One obvious exception is that they can’t prohibit a sworn law enforcement officer from carrying any service-related weapons.

If a license-holder intentionally carries a concealed weapon on to posted property they’re license no longer protects them from any consequences because he or she is no longer operating under provisions of the law and they may be arrested and prosecuted. Usually their license will be confiscated and revoked as well.

We had a long, difficult time getting a “shall issue†concealed weapons licensing statute into place. Those licensees who violate its restrictions are not only placing themselves at risk, they are giving the “anti’s†ammunition in they’re fight to make the statute more restrictive and/or to revoke it altogether.

 

[Mad Man]

[BLOCKQUOTE]
I would also make darned sure to attempt to obtain a court order barring you from entering my property again. I would also contact the news media with your photo and a screaming lib story line about the whacko gun nut - namely whoever you are.
[/BLOCKQUOTE]

LOL! Like I would be itching to go back to your store!

You may be cavalier about whether or not you can enter the store again. But do I really need to explain what happens to you, as a gun owner, if you have a restraining order against you?

As far as filing a baseless, frivolous lawsuit is concerned... Glenn, why is it that you seem to find it so easy to think like a libsheep?

Yes, how dare somebody here be able to think like anything other than a good self-righteous gun owner!!!

Does the phrase "know thy enemy" come to mind?

Do you consider the tacti-cool situtations where you may be called upon to use your gun? If so, why are you able to think like the criminal scumbag you may have to shoot?

I was not trespassing if you had not informed me that I was.

I am not a lawyer, but this might vary from state to state.

 

[Mad Man]

deleted

 

[Mad Man]

We had a long, difficult time getting a “shall issue†concealed weapons licensing statute into place. Those licensees who violate its restrictions are not only placing themselves at risk, they are giving the “anti’s†ammunition in they’re fight to make the statute more restrictive and/or to revoke it altogether.

Just like the civil rights activists who set back the movement when they entered an establishment that had a "No Negroes Allowed" sign posted.