Your gun rights vs the right of business owners...

[mcdonl]

My opinion... not that it matters is respect, vs law. If the owner of a business owner does not respect my right to CCW, I will not respect their right to tell me I cannot and I will do it anyway.

*IF* they catch me (how would that happen?) and ask me to leave I will do so otherwise I would be trespassing. BUT, I cannot be arrested for violating their rules. Just like if I walk in barefoot... it is legal to be barefoot, but the store may not allow it. If I break that RULE... not LAW I will be asked to leave, and I will be obliged to leave.

 

[BCCL]

We all have to respect each others rights.

I have a right to carry a gun.
Private property owners have a right to say I can't on their private property.
I have a right to ask them to reconsider and if they don't, take my private commerce to another private business that allows me to and encourage as many as I can to do like wise.

 

[Cosmoline]

There's a legal distinction between someone's house that you're walking into and a grocery store. If a commercial establishment opens its doors for business, they have no right to exclude Swedes, Chinese, or Mormons. Likewise they should have no right to exclude people for exercising a right to bear arms--assuming their conduct is legal in that state. It's not Safeway's "house" you're walking into. It's just a store. If the owner of the property (which oftentimes isn't even the retail establishment sitting on the property) really hates gun owners, or whoever, they can end the lease and shut down the whole property. Then they can post "KEEP OUT" signs and raise razorwire all around.

Unfortunately, we're in the early days of recognition of the RKBA, so lots of people still do not view it on par with other fundamental rights.

 

[Sam1911]

Change The Question

This discussion could possibly go a step further than the many others toucing on this subject have done, if we can agree on a slight clarification of the question:

Are we arguing about whether a buisiness owner should have the right to deny access to any person OPENLY/VISIBLY carrying a weapon? I.e.: carrying a gun is equivalent to being a racial minority and you should have a legal case against a buisness owner who refuses you service due to this one factor.

Or are we arguing about whether a business should have the right to demand concealed carriers as well as open carriers to disarm? I.e.: your concealed weapon hidden on your person violates his rights if his store policy forbids the carrying of arms.

 

[NMGonzo]

Go to some other store.

Like walmart ... chairman Mao does not really care.

 

[mcdonl]

Or are we arguing about whether a business should have the right to demand concealed carriers as well as open carriers to disarm? I.e.: your concealed weapon hidden on your person violates his rights if his store policy forbids the carrying of arms.

Sam, I think we can violate his store policy but not his rights. And, if we violate his policy he has the right to ask us to leave. But, I do not think he could have us arrested. On what grounds? No law was violated, just a store policy. Once he asks us to leave we must leave or we are trespassing but I do not think a sign alone is enough to being trespassing charges.

I guess this also is one of those "Look up your state laws...." I think I will go do that now

 

[searcher451]

It seems as though we have been down this path many times, with no clear resolution -- not that we should expect one.

 

[mcdonl]

It seems as though we have been down this path many times, with no clear resolution -- not that we should expect one.

Well, just look away...

So, what I have found so far is that in Maine, any owner of a lodge, campground, inn, etc... may turn away any patron who the owner reasonably believes is bringing in property that may be dangerous to other persons, such as firearms or explosives;

So, I would say that this applies to a business... but it in way indicates that there has been a crime committed unless you refuse to leave, or disarm.

Therefor, I will stick with my original plan of ignoring the signs unless there is a law behind it.... (School, Post Office, etc....)

 

[hso]

Moderator HSO is putting forth an opinion that the right to carry trumps a business owners rights and that no business has the right to "post" their property and prohibit carry.

Let's clear up an apparent misunderstanding.

I said that Kroger has no business posting against lawful carry. Not that that government should deny them control of their property, but that they had no business banning people legally carrying. Ironically my position is the same as yours, that a business that decides to be more restrictive than required by state or local law and discriminates against citizens exercising their lawful right to carry should suffer the economic consequences of making such a decision. Not quite the same as restricting their right to control what goes on on their property.

 

[Gungnir]

Unfortunately, we're in the early days of recognition of the RKBA, so lots of people still do not view it on par with other fundamental rights.

Of course the irony is that the RKBA has been a part of the US as long as there has been a United States, way before a woman's right to vote, or the emancipation proclamation.

I actually think this is a simple problem.

I have a right to self defense, (a gun in just one method of providing a degree of self defense)

A property owner has a right to decide what happens on his property.

If a property owners execution of their rights come into conflict with my own, then it is the property owners responsibility to ensure that the conflict only effects me while I am on their property.

So in this instance, the business owner should take full legal responsibility to ensure my safety for the time that I am on their property. Since if I'm killed, or injured while on their property it has affected my rights (and those of my family) both on and off their property.

Now please note I said SHOULD, now we know that these businesses want it both ways, they want to limit your right to self defense, but not shoulder the responsibility to ensure your safety.

Perhaps it might be interesting for people who live in areas served by Kroger, to request to see the manager and agree that you'll disarm if they can provide a personal armed security guard to shadow them while they shop which will help to ensure their safety.

 

[rellascout]

Let's clear up an apparent misunderstanding.

I said that Kroger has no business posting against lawful carry. Not that that government should deny them control of their property, but that they had no business banning people legally carrying. Ironically my position is the same as yours, that a business that decides to be more restrictive than required by state or local law and discriminates against citizens exercising their lawful right to carry should suffer the economic consequences of making such a decision. Not quite the same as restricting their right to control what goes on on their property.

I take exception to your verbiage. "Kroger has no business posting..." This statement directly contradictions the rest of your statement. They have the right to conduct business as they feel is best for their business. WE have the right to shop somewhere else.

By you stating that they do not have any "business" posting you are basically saying that they do not have any "business" to exercise their rights. Is that not what you are saying?

 

[rellascout]

Are we arguing about whether a buisiness owner should have the right to deny access to any person OPENLY/VISIBLY carrying a weapon? I.e.: carrying a gun is equivalent to being a racial minority and you should have a legal case against a buisness owner who refuses you service due to this one factor.

Carrying a gun is a choice. What race you are is not. They are two completely different ball games IMHO. Exclusion on the basis of race clearly puts you into a protected class, Race being a protected class which is well established law is the foundation for discrimination suits IMHO. The same applies to the handicapped.

Carrying a gun openly is not and never will be a protected class because it is a choice which like it or not comes with an increased amount of danger and liability.

Ones race does not have an inherent danger or potential to harm that a gun has. Again like it or not carrying a gun does. When a business allows you to carry a gun onto their property they are taking on a huge risk that you know what you are doing. Not all CHP/CCW carriers carry with the same level of care, proper equipment and safety. Not all CHP/CCW holders can even shoot the gun they are carrying. Even the best of us have made mistakes and hopefully none of them have resulted in harm or death of another person but you cannot ignore the fact that it does happen.

You can guarantee that if there is an accidental discharge and someone is harmed or killed you and the store which allowed you to carry on their property will both be named in a suit. If the business is is allowing carry they are now party to your actions which they have no control over. Simply because the state gave you a piece of paper that says you can carry does not mean you do it properly.

Your race carries no such liabilities or dangers for a business which IMHO creates a clear distinction between the exclusion based on these two criteria.

Again I support business that allow one to carry concealed. I do not shop at places which openly post and prohibit carry. They do not support me so I do not support them but as a business owner I understand the need and the desire to control my liability and exercise my property and business rights.

 

[oneounceload]

I think every state should be like Florida. When, where and how you can carry your concealed weapon is regulated by state law. No owner of private property that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC can prohibit you from carrying your concealed weapon on premises. Private property that is NOT open to the public is an entirely different matter.

Funny - there is a sporting clay course and mfg. facility that explicitly prohibits the carrying of a loaded weapon into their showroom/office area.

There ARE locations,open to the public where carrying will get you jail time - bars are the first example that come to mind.

IMO, it is very simple - if a business does not want to carry, and you feel very strongly against that, DON'T GO THERE and TELL THEM WHY, or open a competitive business and allow it.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

they do respect different in some places it appears.
'

i remember my old man saying my house my rules and being a snot nosed punk i resnted it and lied and cheated and demeaned my own code of morals disobeying. then talked a bunch of nonsense to rationalize it. i grew up and moved out learned a bit outgrew that resentment. not everyone does that though the rationalizations i used at 13 would be pretty lame as a man

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Are we arguing about whether a buisiness owner should have the right to deny access to any person OPENLY/VISIBLY carrying a weapon? I.e.: carrying a gun is equivalent to being a racial minority and you should have a legal case against a buisness owner who refuses you service due to this one factor.

People would like to argue that barring carry of guns is equivalent to being a racial minority, but that simply is not the case. It is a behavior. Unless there is a specific law to the contrary, the business owner does not have to allow you to carry out that behavior.

Speech is also a right under the Constitution, but talking on your cell phone at a movie theatre is a behavior that can be regulated and/or curtailed by the theatre.

I have a right to self defense, (a gun in just one method of providing a degree of self defense)

You do have a right to self defense. Banning guns does not negate that right. It negates a particular tool only. Do not confuse gun possession as being the same thing as a right to self defense. These are NOT equivalent things.

A property owner has a right to decide what happens on his property.

If a property owners execution of their rights come into conflict with my own, then it is the property owners responsibility to ensure that the conflict only effects me while I am on their property.

That is a very self centered perspective. Just how was it that you determined that if the property owner's rights are in conflict with yours that the property owner has to take care of you? Has the property owner in some way forced you into his/her business against your will?

From the property owner's perspective, since you are on his/her property, if there is a conflict of rights, then it is YOU who must give up the conflicting right.

So in this instance, the business owner should take full legal responsibility to ensure my safety for the time that I am on their property. Since if I'm killed, or injured while on their property it has affected my rights (and those of my family) both on and off their property.

Business owners have to take reasonable precautions for the safety of employees and patrons. That is by law, actually by a whole lot of laws and court cases. However, "reasonable precautions" are extremely limited.

Now please note I said SHOULD, now we know that these businesses want it both ways, they want to limit your right to self defense, but not shoulder the responsibility to ensure your safety.

The business owner's restriction isn't limiting your right to self defense, just your possession of a given tool. Your right to self defense is still there.

 

[CoRoMo]

Colorado

Reading through Colorado's revised statute 18-12-214, it doesn't appear that carrying onto business properties that prohibit weapons, is a violation of the law. The obvious exceptions are public schools, federal facilities, and public buildings that have a security screening checkpoint with detection devices, etc. We can carry in bars, liquor stores, college campuses, and most places that other states forbid.

So, it appears that businesses, with signage prohibiting weapons, can only ask you to leave if they find that you are armed. Their signage has no legal foundation and is irrelevant. They, like all private property custodians, can make you leave at the threat of trespassing charges, but carrying on their property is no crime.

 

[CraigC]

There ARE locations,open to the public where carrying will get you jail time - bars are the first example that come to mind.

Which is regulated by state law, explicitly.

There's a legal distinction between someone's house that you're walking into and a grocery store. If a commercial establishment opens its doors for business, they have no right to exclude Swedes, Chinese, or Mormons. Likewise they should have no right to exclude people for exercising a right to bear arms--assuming their conduct is legal in that state. It's not Safeway's "house" you're walking into. It's just a store. If the owner of the property (which oftentimes isn't even the retail establishment sitting on the property) really hates gun owners, or whoever, they can end the lease and shut down the whole property. Then they can post "KEEP OUT" signs and raise razorwire all around.

Exactly!!!

 

[Sam1911]

So the answer to my question is that we are discussing the second theorum:

I.e.: your concealed weapon hidden on your person violates his rights if his store policy forbids the carrying of arms.

In which case, nope. What I carry is of no concern of the property owner. They have no influence over my decision to carry or not -- on their premesis or otherwise, to the extent the law allows -- and have no standing with me to expect me to do or not do any particular thing over which they have neither knowledge nor control.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I agree 100% with Sam1911's eloquent summation:

If you just want to go about your day without flustering their staff or their insurance carrier, carry concealed -- nothing in your pants is their concern.

 

[WoofersInc]

Guys,
Starbucks has come up with the best solution in this matter. They have said we will follow what the state laws are, where the store is located. If carry is legal, we will allow it. If carry is not legal, we will not allow it. They made it very simple for us a gunowners.

What we now need to do is get other companies to follow this approach.

In my state (commonwealth) a store policy has no legal weight. They can ask you to leave for whatever reason -- including because they see that you have a gun -- and you would have to do so or face tresspassing charges, but there is no criminal charge for simply carrying a gun on their property against their wishes.

If you want to make a statement or find out where they stand, carry openly and let them respond -- you make it their "business" by making it visible.

If you just want to go about your day without flustering their staff or their insurance carrier, carry concealed -- nothing in your pants is their concern.

This is the same situation in Nevada. Stores can put up signs all they want, but the state has said that they have no legal weight. All the store can do is ask me to leave. But they can do that at anytime, for any number of other reasons anyway.


I am in the camp that says if you open a buisness that is based on customers walking through the doors you are basically open to the public and should not have the signage.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i like willie nelsons lil speech to james cann about the truth and lying
"do you love the woman? then don't lie the lie will kill the love either she'll sense it and pull away or you'll feel guilty and pull away. if they are someone you don't love f em who are they to make you lie."

by the time i turned 20 i learned that honesty was like virginity or pregnancy. you are or you're not. no middle ground. for me to go somewhere that had "signed me out" by hiding would require me to be dishonest. i won't do that ymmv

i can use my kids for a litmus test would i want my daughter to know what i'm doing has kept me outa trouble a couple times. and if i asked an 8 year old to solve this apparently deep moral quandary i know what she'd say.
shes already heard my house my rules. and i think she understands it. sometimes but shes 8 so it being a bit hazy is ok

 

[owsi26]

I totally agree with you. Every privately owned business has the right to decide for him or herself if they want guns in their store.
I will respect their decision. However, I have the right to never enter their business again; Which is exactly what I have done and will continue to do.

 

[rellascout]

Double Naught Spy Well stated!

 

[rellascout]

In which case, nope. What I carry is of no concern of the property owner. They have no influence over my decision to carry or not -- on their premesis or otherwise, to the extent the law allows -- and have no standing with me to expect me to do or not do any particular thing over which they have neither knowledge nor control.

Right but they are still going to be legally responsible if you shoot someone. That is the reality. The bubble you are working in does not exist.

So anyone can enter your home armed? No need to inform you because their decisions are of "no concern of the property owner.... You have no influence over their decision to carry or not -- on yourpremises or otherwise..."

IMHO your statements are myopic and self centered. You fail to understand the relationship and responsibility you have when entering someone else's property. This applies to ones home or business.

 

[jeepguy]

i live in ohio if a business doesn't want you to carry in their store they just put up a sign. it is their right. it is my right to spend my money somewhere else. my problem with krogers is they did not put the sign up. why, if they dont like people carring just put the sign up. what i do have a problem with is a company not lettting you have a firearm on company properity specifically not even in the parking lot. i dont see how they can take away my right to defend myself on the roads & hiways that we all need to commute to work. i belive their are some state bills out that address this.