I think it is ludicris the way private property owners will post "no guns", I think that is just asking for trouble, for instance a "no gun" sign is not going to keep out crimanals who come to a store church gas station or wherever with the idea of shooting the place up, and it keeps out law abiding carryers from carrying there, supose or crimanal is trying to find a place to go shootup for whatever reason if I was a one I would fine one that had posted "no guns" because that would be the last place that there would be someone else with a gun, I don't know how many people heard about the shooting at New life church in Colarado springs but my opinion is that if they had not had posted "no guns" (and I don't know if they did or not for sure I'm just speculating, somebody correct me if I'm wrong) then the chances are that guy would have thought twice about going in there to shoot the place up or if not that there would maybe have been somebody besides a security guard with a gun, maybe there where and they were just not in the right place at the right time but my point still is that I think that having posted "no guns" is asking for trouble
posted "no guns"
- Thread starter mattwp
- Start date
- Status
longdayjake
Member
Private property that posts no guns means nothing to me unless it is backed up by some law. The most they could do is kick you off their property. I carry anyway. As long as it is concealed no one gets hurt.
nhlivefree
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Messages
- 33
Here is a fynny vid about gun free zones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
Worst idea ever i agree! It is the worst idea posting "no guns" might as well put "sitting duck" as a sign , The reason it's called "CONCELED WEAPONS PERMIT" is so no one knows who is carrying, so i find no need in any sign or any restrictions on carrying a firearm
kingpin008
Member
No, but it would be considered blood lust, and in bad taste, especially here on THR.
First, of course the property owner has the perfect right to bar people from bring guns onto his property.
Second, the fact that he might not want other people bringing guns on to his property doesn't mean that he's not armed himself.
Second, the fact that he might not want other people bringing guns on to his property doesn't mean that he's not armed himself.
It is asking for trouble. Schools are another place well identified as a target rich zone to psychopaths.
As a result, a new response is called for - rather than wait a half hour for SWAT to get there, first officer on the scene goes in to reduce the body count by assisting the perp to commit his planned suicide anyway.
"Gun Free" equals "victimization." Colleges and churches are all looking into the reality quite closely now.
As a result, a new response is called for - rather than wait a half hour for SWAT to get there, first officer on the scene goes in to reduce the body count by assisting the perp to commit his planned suicide anyway.
"Gun Free" equals "victimization." Colleges and churches are all looking into the reality quite closely now.
Treo
member
You are dead wrong New Life isn't posted no guns any where.
Bottom line private property such as a home you have every right to dictate that I not bring a gun into your home and I will respect that.
Privately owned public acess building? Not a chance
bmxr4life87
Member
Last edited:
I've always had some internal conflict on this issue. On one hand private property is private property. On the other hand, if it's generally open to the public (like a retail store or restaurant) I don't see how they can restrict you from entering legally armed.
federalfarmer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 312
Ok here we go. At my main job the signs are posted, at the owners requist. Everyone knows my stand on gun rights (that we have them ONLY to maintian the right to over throw an unjust government). IF I know that you are carrying in the store and I do not turn you in to the manager I WILL be fired. Other employee's who have told the manager have resulted in the police being called and a public display made with the customer.
After 12 years I make $8.75 an hour and some commission. Wanna trade jobs ??
After 12 years I make $8.75 an hour and some commission. Wanna trade jobs ??
While we are all getting bent out shape over our rights, we are forgetting the other side of the equation:
He said "Private Property." That can mean anything from a private business to your own home.
Look, I am one of the most pro-firearms people that you will meet. And I will also be the first to admit that there are people that I do NOT want carrying a firearm around me. There are some people who are too irresponsible to be counted on to breath air in a safe manner.
I know this to be true. I have more than one family member that I would not want holding a firearm in range of me.
That does not mean that I dispute thier right to have arms, but I don't particularly want them anywhere around me.
You should hear my father tell about his one and only experience with squirrel hunting with his two brothers-in-law. He said he was lucky to have made it out alive. Then consider the nice 30-06 hole that one of my neighbors has in his living room wall.
My father long ago decided that there was exactly two people that he would ever duck hunt in a boat with: The one that taught him gun safety (his father) and the one that he taught gun safety (me, his son.)
As I see it, if you don't like the decision of the owner, don't go there. Period. That is what I would do.
But we start on a slippery slope when we start believing OUR rights supercede the rights of others on their own property.
-- John
He said "Private Property." That can mean anything from a private business to your own home.
Look, I am one of the most pro-firearms people that you will meet. And I will also be the first to admit that there are people that I do NOT want carrying a firearm around me. There are some people who are too irresponsible to be counted on to breath air in a safe manner.
I know this to be true. I have more than one family member that I would not want holding a firearm in range of me.
That does not mean that I dispute thier right to have arms, but I don't particularly want them anywhere around me.
You should hear my father tell about his one and only experience with squirrel hunting with his two brothers-in-law. He said he was lucky to have made it out alive. Then consider the nice 30-06 hole that one of my neighbors has in his living room wall.
My father long ago decided that there was exactly two people that he would ever duck hunt in a boat with: The one that taught him gun safety (his father) and the one that he taught gun safety (me, his son.)
As I see it, if you don't like the decision of the owner, don't go there. Period. That is what I would do.
But we start on a slippery slope when we start believing OUR rights supercede the rights of others on their own property.
-- John
hankdatank1362
Member
Well, in SC, failure to obey a posted legal sign (meeting VERY stringent requirements) carries no legal penalty... so they often get ignored.
poor_richard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 466
Seems to me that if the place is posted as no guns, then it's better to just not go there.
I once started a thread about this. "Concealed means concealed"
I guess people don't care how it might make CC'ers look bad to totally, and blatantly ignore the signs.
If it's posted, and there is no law restricting them from prohibiting guns on the premises, then I don't take my gun in. Of course that usually means I don't go in also.
Here in Michigan with our stand your ground law, you could find yourself in hot water should you have to use it in SD. Because you ignored the sign, you no longer have the legal right to be in a posted place armed. That in turn removes any protection the self defense act of our state provides under a SD situation. It basically says that if you have a legal right to be there, then you do not have to retreat. If it's posted as "no guns", and you are there with a gun, then your "legal right to be there is weakened".
Then again, maybe it's better to garner the CC cowboy image by ignoring everyone else's rights.
I once started a thread about this. "Concealed means concealed"
I guess people don't care how it might make CC'ers look bad to totally, and blatantly ignore the signs.
If it's posted, and there is no law restricting them from prohibiting guns on the premises, then I don't take my gun in. Of course that usually means I don't go in also.
Here in Michigan with our stand your ground law, you could find yourself in hot water should you have to use it in SD. Because you ignored the sign, you no longer have the legal right to be in a posted place armed. That in turn removes any protection the self defense act of our state provides under a SD situation. It basically says that if you have a legal right to be there, then you do not have to retreat. If it's posted as "no guns", and you are there with a gun, then your "legal right to be there is weakened".
Then again, maybe it's better to garner the CC cowboy image by ignoring everyone else's rights.
Let's discuss this:
At my own house I have a policy of No Pornography, even though you may purchase it and carry it on public property under protection of the First Amendment. I'll post a sign at the gate if you wish. I expect you to enter my property with no pornography in your posession.
You see, I just married a wonderful woman who has a 2 year old and a 7 year old daughter. They are now mine to protect, so if you're carrying pornography you better stay away. This is my notion of protecting my family on my property, whether you like it or not. And the First Amendment is not going to support you on my private property.
Now....
Replace "pornography" with guns, and replace "First Amendment" with the second. And please reconcile your position that you may enter private property armed, contrary to the demand of the property owner.
Being responsible with a gun is more than simply asserting your Second Amendment right. It is not as simple as it seems, is it?
At my own house I have a policy of No Pornography, even though you may purchase it and carry it on public property under protection of the First Amendment. I'll post a sign at the gate if you wish. I expect you to enter my property with no pornography in your posession.
You see, I just married a wonderful woman who has a 2 year old and a 7 year old daughter. They are now mine to protect, so if you're carrying pornography you better stay away. This is my notion of protecting my family on my property, whether you like it or not. And the First Amendment is not going to support you on my private property.
Now....
Replace "pornography" with guns, and replace "First Amendment" with the second. And please reconcile your position that you may enter private property armed, contrary to the demand of the property owner.
Being responsible with a gun is more than simply asserting your Second Amendment right. It is not as simple as it seems, is it?
Treo
member
In the words of Suzanna Gratia Hupp ( who watched both of her parents die because she obeyed Texas' "No carry Law" )
"I am under no obligation to follow a bad law. "
I absolutly respect the right of a home owner to dictate what is and isn't acceptable on their property.
A business that is open to the public has no right to override my right to life and the defense there of.
As a responsible gun owner I conduct my business in public daily, W/ no one the wiser that I am armed.
Please tell me how the mere posession of a firearm by a responsible gun owner on the premises of say Pizza Hut violates the owner's ( Pepsico foods if I'm not mistaken) property rights?
For that matter is it Pepsico's policy or the policy of the manager?
Tamlin
Member
The general legal consequences of carrying a gun onto private property that is posted "no guns" is that the owner of that private property - whether it be your friend's house or a store such as Wal-Mart - can ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are trespassing. Only the government is restricted from infringing on your Constitutional rights. I, as a private individual (or corporation, etc) can infringe them all day long. If I own a store and someone comes in wearing a "Rush Limbaugh for President" shirt, I can ask him to leave if I want to. If he starts whining about his First Amendment rights and refused to leave, he is trespassing and now the police can arrest him. There are state statutes, however, that have extended protection from discrimination to private parties - businesses can't refuse service to people anymore based on race, etc. - but the general protections of the Bill of Rights that we have come to know and love so dearly stop at the steps of private property.
Treo
member
Gun control of any kind, be it rules, corperate policy, law or Presidential fiat, 100% of the time only disarms the law abiding. The very people least likely to abuse their rights in relation to the second amendment.
Such laws are illogical and immoral and (again) I am under no obligation ( as a matter of fact there is a moral imperative not ) to follow them.
Any crime I can commit without violating your rights ought not be a crime
Such laws are illogical and immoral and (again) I am under no obligation ( as a matter of fact there is a moral imperative not ) to follow them.
Any crime I can commit without violating your rights ought not be a crime
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
