Heh, heh, heh.,,

[wgaynor]

Once again people. Re read the post. There are no mentions of signs banning firearms on premises. AND the law SUPPORTS what he did.

 

[animator]

Well, if you came onto my property with that attitude....you'd immediately be looking at the business end of my firearm as I call the sheriff.

Having a store on my property that you want to shop at, or a theater that you want to come see a show in, or an ampitheater you want to attend a show at...doesn't make a lick of difference. You are still violating someones property rights, and property rights are just as important as gun rights.

If every property owner had that mentality, there would be no concealed-carry allowed anywhere. Not the grocery store, nor the shopping mall, nor the movie theater.


I am happy that there are fewer property owners who share your ideals on concealed carry than there are those who don't.

 

[animator]

On a related story, I recently went to the Tx state fair. As I got to the entrance gate, I noticed uniformed police officers. They were running the want over everyone going into the park, as well as peeking into any bags/purses. I pulled out my CHL and held it up to the officer before they began to wand me. They put the want down, and verified my CHL was valid, and then passed me on through without running the wand on me. The police told me two places on the property I couldn't go, and that was it.


The GF was with me. She's not quite up to speed on the whole CHL thing, so she was a bit confused as to why I was passed through without a search, when she had to open her purse and get wanded.

 

[hardheart]

"If" they are a threat? I'm not quite sure where the if comess from.

 

[wgaynor]

The statement was anybody with a gun is a threat. That's not true. Most of us carry guns. Know the situation and know the target or the consequences can ruin your life.

It happened in the news a while ago where a man came upon what he assumed was a rape in progress. Suspected rapist was killed, only to find they were "having their form of fun".

Always be aware. Perception is a tricky thing.

 

[PVT Pyle]

I read recently where noted specialist Travis Haley said the following about carrying guns (this is a cut from his facebook page).
"The majority of concealed carry and open carry armed citizens are a liability. Just because you go through a 1 day course doesn’t not mean that you can problem solve an armored active shooter in a never expected, dark, tear gassed disruptive environment with screaming people while stepping over dead bodies. You must understand advanced applications under stress. Just like a pilot graduating flight school doesn’t mean he’s ready to jump into air to air combat."
I feel this type of attitude needs addressed.... While I respect Travis Haley a great deal, I disagree with this comment. In the wake of the tragic Colorado theater shootings whree the assailant lacked training and was denied access to a range....(IMO) one with a gun WOULD have made a difference..

 

[hardheart]

Which is why the property owner might not want ccw on their property. I was addressing that statement by yoda. It might not be property vs rkba, it might be rkba vs rkba, where one person is defending person and property at a place they are supposed to be and has less incentive to retreat.

 

[mnrivrat]

Is this really a place where we think our right to carry in places where the property owner asks us not to carry is perfectly acceptable as long as we don't get caught?

It is a place that respects the laws regarding carry. If a property owner is open to the public and the public is legaly armed then what right do they have to keep the person from entering ? Maybe go back to putting up signs that colored folks are not welcome and defend that under property rights .

 

[Certaindeaf]

I read recently where noted specialist Travis Haley said the following about carrying guns (this is a cut from his facebook page).
"The majority of concealed carry and open carry armed citizens are a liability. Just because you go through a 1 day course doesn’t not mean that you can problem solve an armored active shooter in a never expected, dark, tear gassed disruptive environment with screaming people while stepping over dead bodies. You must understand advanced applications under stress. Just like a pilot graduating flight school doesn’t mean he’s ready to jump into air to air combat."
I feel this type of attitude needs addressed.... While I respect Travis Haley a great deal, I disagree with this comment. In the wake of the tragic Colorado theater shootings whree the assailant lacked training and was denied access to a range....(IMO) one with a gun WOULD have made a difference..

Is this Travis a salesman/selling/pimping his services? Sure sounds like it.
Yea, I'm gonna send my Grandma through a six week crash course complete with tear gas and flashbangs. not

 

[JSmith]

As things stand today, I am pretty sure that no one is responsible for my personal safety but me. Not the police, not venue owner/operators, not store owners... just me.

That being the case, I'll take whatever steps I deem necessary to ensure my safety without advertising that in any way. Sometime I carry, most times I don't, and I look the exactly the same in either case.

 

[buck460XVR]

I read recently where noted specialist Travis Haley said the following about carrying guns (this is a cut from his facebook page).
"The majority of concealed carry and open carry armed citizens are a liability. Just because you go through a 1 day course doesn’t not mean that you can problem solve an armored active shooter in a never expected, dark, tear gassed disruptive environment with screaming people while stepping over dead bodies.

Unfortunately in many cases this is true. Hang around gun enthusiasts long enough and you realize that there are many out there than never owned/shot a firearm before taking a one day/4 hour class, and maybe have shot it once at the range since. These are the same folks that are standing in the line behind us in the supermarket with a loaded weapon. No different than the deer hunter who buys his first gun and license the day before season. Sorry, but I don't feel safe and secure around either and certainly don't want to be anywhere near when they open fire. While I understand they have every right to carry or hunt, I know in many cases, unfortunately, they are a accident waiting to happen. One must also be aware and ready to protect themselves from these folks as well as the BGs.

In the wake of the tragic Colorado theater shootings whree the assailant lacked training and was denied access to a range....(IMO) one with a gun WOULD have made a difference..

yes, but the question is, would it have been a positive difference if the "one with a gun" had the same skill level as the assailant? One inexperienced unskilled shooter shooting wildly in a crowded theater as opposed to two? No doubt someone with experience and enough skill coulda made a big difference, but how about the one day/4 hour class graduate? Just because someone has a CWC permit, don't make them Dirty Harry. Anyone with any handgun experience at all knows it takes many hours of practice to become proficient with a handgun under the best of scenarios. One is not really prepared just because they have a gun in their pocket. Without the skill and the mindset to use it properly, they honestly are more of a hazard than protection.

 

[PVT Pyle]

Quote from buck460xvr

"...yes, but the question is, would it have been a positive difference if the "one with a gun" had the same skill level as the assailant? One inexperienced unskilled shooter shooting wildly in a crowded theater as opposed to two? No doubt someone with experience and enough skill coulda made a big difference, but how about the one day/4 hour class graduate? Just because someone has a CWC permit, don't make them Dirty Harry. Anyone with any handgun experience at all knows it takes many hours of practice to become proficient with a handgun under the best of scenarios. One is not really prepared just because they have a gun in their pocket. Without the skill and the mindset to use it properly, they honestly are more of a hazard than protection...."



...could NOT agree more!

 

[PVT Pyle]

Quote from Certaindeaf.. "Is this Travis a salesman/selling/pimping his services? Sure sounds like it. Yea, I'm gonna send my Grandma through a six week crash course complete with tear gas and flashbangs. not "


uhhhh ok, I think I am seeing the light...yes, he is a tactical weapons course instructor.

 

[PRM]

Originally Posted by silicosys4 View Post
Well, if you came onto my property with that attitude....you'd immediately be looking at the business end of my firearm as I call the sheriff.

Having a store on my property that you want to shop at, or a theater that you want to come see a show in, or an ampitheater you want to attend a show at...doesn't make a lick of difference. You are still violating someones property rights, and property rights are just as important as gun rights.

No need to worry about me - I don't shop, patronize places, or individuals who are anti 2nd Amendment.

That business end statement works two ways. Pulling a gun on someone just because you don't like their attitude is just plain dumb and over the top. You would be better served asking someone to leave or waiting for law enforcement to arrive if the attitude is that bad, rather than escalating the situation by pulling a gun.

 

[Sam1911]

While I understand they have every right to carry or hunt, I know in many cases, unfortunately, they are a accident waiting to happen. One must also be aware and ready to protect themselves from these folks as well as the BGs.

That's one of the big conundrums that rears its head in every one of these "Who should carry?"/"Should training be required?"/"Is CCW/OC safe?" type threads. We all know that the untrained, inexperienced, non tactically astute, newbie, soccer-mom type gun owners are accidents waiting to happen when they "open fire."

And yet...it doesn't happen. Despite all the claims of the antis, and of many "pro-gun" types as well, gun carriers still manage to cause no discernible increase in crime or accident while toting their guns in public. It just doesn't happen, even though we're all so convinced that it will. Against (apparently) all the odds, folks manage to keep it in the holster, not to brandish when they shouldn't, and not to shoot innocent people -- with so few exceptions as to be statistically insignificant.

Bizarre as it seems, the average Joe/Jane Q. Public numbskull seems to be worthy of the trust we place in him when we allow him/her to carry a lethal weapon.

 

[Apachedriver]

I don't know how we morphed into this discussion but...

Anyone who carries or owns a firearm for defense purposes has a responsibility as an adult to be as well-trained as possible. 'As possible' means if Grandma can't handle or afford, or chooses not to attend "a six week crash course complete with tear gas and flashbangs", then she needs to recognize her limits and respond only to situations that are within her capabilities.

A long time ago there was a post on here that I'll modify for this topic:

A Responsible Gun Owner doesn't train until he/she has it perfect, he/she trains because they will never be perfect enough for the myriad of situations that may encounter.

There isn't a single person here that can say they are trained enough, myself included. Should that be a discriminator for whether their Right to own or carry a firearm should be curtailed? Emphatically no. But you have to recognize and accept the personal responsibilities that come along with exercising that Right.

As to the OP, the "Heh heh heh" did give it a flavor of chest thumping, but I'm in TX and my responsibility is to follow the law and not what a property owner might vaguely sort of possibly mean. If he doesn't have the properly posted signs, then I'm good to carry until he directly tells me otherwise. Then I either comply or leave, or get charges brought against me. No doubts, translations, assumptions or otherwise for either of us.

 

[Sam1911]

...then she needs to recognize her limits and respond only to situations that are within her capabilities.

We tend to make it even simpler 'round here.

If the answer to the question, "Do I HAVE to draw this gun right now to avoid death or death of a loved one?" is NO, then the gun stays in the holster. A carry permit isn't a badge, and it isn't a bulletproof vest, and it isn't a superhero's cape. How much training you have -- decades worth, or minutes worth -- doesn't change the question, nor how you answer it.

 

[we are not amused]

Once again people. Re read the post. There are no mentions of signs banning firearms on premises. AND the law SUPPORTS what he did.

You are trying to argue facts and the law with people who are emotionally driven. You might as well yell at a wall.:banghead:

I have had the same experience with other posters on this site. Some people are unwilling to change their opinions no matter what the facts are.

Personally, while I generally respect other people's property rights, if they don't know I am carrying, then no harm. For example, I generally refuse to shop at a store which displays a no gun sign, but no rule is iron clad, I have gone in to pay for fuel at a convenience store displaying said sign, because I didn't want to pull my gun and leave it on the motorcycle, at the pumps. I have also pulled through the parking lot of a Federal Post Office, to drop off mail in the outside mail box, despite being armed. I also often have a gun in my car or on my person when I drive within a 1,000 yards of a school. My! I am such a bad boy!

I very sincerely doubt that the pious souls who are condemning the actions of the OP haven't also occasionally done the same. At least not if they carry on a regular basis.

My Kudos's to the OP!

 

[Al Thompson]

Some years back (10ish) me and several members of a gun rights group here spent a lot of time and energy looking into differences between states that have no training or testing for CWP and those that do.

No valid difference in shootings, good or bad, NDs/ADs, nothing.

While the staff heartily advocates training for all concerned, Joe and Jane Sixpack seem to do OK.

 

[gearhead]

The same people who proclaim the immorality of legally carrying a weapon into a location where it might not be appreciated if it were known are typically the same people who become aghast at the concept of leaving a gun locked in a vehicle when the owner leaves the vehicle. The only way to accommodate both ways of thinking is to willingly go unprotected for several hours and perhaps even a couple of hundred miles of travel on dark highways to and from the event where legal carry is NOT prohibited.

Personally, I choose to remain legal and make reasonable choices.

 

[Yoda]

Do we really have a duty to constantly train? I certainly agree that we should train as much as possible, and we do have a duty to maintain a certain level of competence.

But how much is enough? If I don't take a defensive driving course, and I unqualified to drive on the public roads? If I don't take some pre-med courses, am I unqualified to determine whether my kid needs to go to the emergency room?

We all have many things to balance in our lives. Concealed carry and the training it entails are just two if the many demands on our time, and in the course of a day, they are seldom the highest priorities for our time and money.

Given this, I think most of us do pretty good. Why beat up on each other?

- - - Yoda

 

[Yoda]

One more note... Right now, my wife and I are at a Romney-Ryan rally in Land o' Lakes, Florida. For those who are curious, we left the hardware in the car.

- - - Yoda

 

[beatledog7]

Lest we all forget, this is not a carry or don't carry dichotomy. There is a third option--you can choose to avoid entering private property where you know guns are unwelcome. Nobody makes you go there, and you have no inherent right to go there.

For the umpteenth time: you enter private property at the pleasure of the owner; it is a privilege that carries conditions. If that set of conditions includes that you disarm, but you elect to remain armed, you are clearly violating the conditions under which you were granted the privilege of entry. No matter what is technically legal, that practice is disrespectful and wrong.

If you just can't go in without your gun, exercise your right--your right to go somewhere else.

 

[Sam1911]

No matter what is technically legal, that practice is disrespectful and wrong.

In your philosophy and opinion. That is not universal. Not all people of good intent and clear conscience share that belief. And that's ok.

 

[beatledog7]

Not all people of good intent and clear conscience share that belief. And that's ok.

Yes, Sam. It is ok that we don't all agree. Disagreement is good. I just wish those who choose not to respect property rights could at least express some respect for those of us who do (yourself thankfully excluded).