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

[rellascout]

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.

99% of the time the parking lot is private property maintained by the business not the state. For example you cannot be issued a ticket for not obeying a stop sign in a parking lot.

Here in VA the police will not issue a ticket when there is an accident in a mall parking lot. They do not have jurisdiction.

 

[tkopp]

I fired yesterday for carrying a firearm into work.

I was a supervisor with keys to the shop I work at. Locked up, walked around to the back door with my Asst Manager, opened by car door ...

The safe alarm starts ringing. It's different from the store alarm, and signals movement within ten feet of the safe. We button up pretty tight at night, and one of the few ways someone could steal from us would be to get into the back, hide until people left, then use the fire exit to abscond with stolen goods.

As I left my vehicle, I grabbed a pistol which is kept in the car due to the 'no weapons at work' policy. The Asst Manager and I walked around the premesis, deemed it a false alarm, reset, and left. Several days later I was called in for a conference with management and was fired for bringing a firearm onto the premesis. No customers were inside, CCW is allowed inside, I have a permit, I was off the clock, store had been closed for an hour.

So, if anyone knows of a place hiring in the Seattle area that could use someone with seven years' experience as a pawn broker, a BA in Sociology from UW, and four years' experience as a key holder, let me know.

 

[Sam1911]

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.

They will be held legally responsible if I shoot? That's refreshing to know. Takes a lot of the responsibility off me, then doesn't it?

If I shoot, it will be because I NEED to shoot. If I NEED to shoot, no amount of the store owner's insurance will help me. (Heck, it won't even pay my widow or my kids.) If I NEED to shoot, the store owner's preference that I go unarmed in their store will be COLD comfort. I'll be dead, but at least the store owner's rights won't have been violated by my attempt at continued life.

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..."

I do not run my visitors through a metal detector. (Do you?) I don't ask them if they are armed. I don't require them to prove that they are. Anyone I choose to invite into my home is as trusted as anyone on the street would be ... and in 95% of cases quite a bit more. If they carry a concealed weapon, I'm not going to know. But I assume that any person I meet has some means to hurt or kill someone. The fact that I can't SEE their gun doesn't change that.

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.

My statements are perfectly self-centered. I and mine are all I've got. I/we are and will be my center.

However, my views are not myopic, in the least. The decisions I make are arrived at considering as many angles and as wide a range of possible outcomes as I can imagine. I do not fail to understand the relationship -- such as it is -- that I enter into by entering someone elses place of business. I simply don't view that relationship in the same terms you do.

 

[Sam1911]

for me to go somewhere that had "signed me out" by hiding would require me to be dishonest.

What an interesting perspective! I don't share it, but I commend you for having such broadly cast beliefs and trying to apply them to as many aspects of your life as you can.

 

[rellascout]

They will be held legally responsible if I shoot? That's refreshing to know. Takes a lot of the responsibility off me, then doesn't it?

If I shoot, it will be because I NEED to shoot. If I NEED to shoot, no amount of the store owner's insurance will help me. (Heck, it won't even pay my widow or my kids.) If I NEED to shoot, the store owner's preference that I go unarmed in their store will be COLD comfort. I'll be dead, but at least the store owner's rights won't have been violated by my attempt at continued life.

Perfect example of your myopic mindset. You can only imagine a situation where you have acted with 100% precision and need. When in reality almost no self defense shooting is so clear.

IMHO you completely fail to understand your interaction with your environment beyond your needs and your mindset.

 

[JoeSlomo]

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. Do you agree?

I do no business with stores that discriminate in this manner.

 

[Sam1911]

You don't know me well enough to cast these aspersions rellascout.

I understand very well the practicalities of self-defense shooting in a dynamic and public environment. As I said before, I make the decisions that I do based on the widest view of possible outcomes and repercussions as I can conceive of.

If a property owner cannot ensure my safety while on his premises (or on the way to and from them as the case often is) then how can I choose to surrender the responsibility for my safety and that of my loved ones to the property owner who has made no offer of accepting that responsibility?

To be alive, and to seek to remain so, requires that we make certain choices which place our needs above what we see as other, lesser needs. In this case, acquiescence to the desires of a property owner is a favorable pleasantry, but cannot compare to my higher responsibilities.

 

[rellascout]

I do no business with stores that discriminate in this manner.

I respect that choice. For the most part either do I. However I would never state that they do not have any business controlling what happens on their private property as HSO and others have done.

Nor do I willingly violate the wishes of other property owners.

 

[Sam1911]

Further, you said nothing to this:

If I shoot, it will be because I NEED to shoot. If I NEED to shoot, no amount of the store owner's insurance will help me. (Heck, it won't even pay my widow or my kids.) If I NEED to shoot, the store owner's preference that I go unarmed in their store will be COLD comfort. I'll be dead, but at least the store owner's rights won't have been violated by my attempt at continued life.

You seem to fail to understand the basic NEED, favoring instead a heightened desire to respect the "relationship" you personally believe you've entered into.

 

[rellascout]

You seem to fail to understand the basic NEED, favoring instead a heightened desire to respect the "relationship" you personally believe you've entered into.

No I understand that you will fire when you feel it is "NEEDED" but my statement is an attempt to illustrate that when you think it is needed may or may not be the reality. The threat you perceive may or may not result in your death. You cannot say with such certainty. Yet you always seem to speak in absolutes.

Also the results of your actions may or may not be exactly as you intended. You are not perfect are you.

My point is that you expect people to respect your rights while at the same time you trample theirs.

 

[MisterMike]

I know, from the many times that this has been discussed, that most here come to their views from deeper philosophical viewpoint . . . landowners' rights versus one's right to self-defense. I believe that one's right to defend one's life trumps, but my reason for coming down on the side of one's right to carry without these restrictions comes from a perspective that (I think) is a bit more pragmatic:

We see, on a daily basis, the relentless efforts of the anti-rights crowd to chip away at the RKBA in an attempt to make it meaningless. They scream about the "gun show loophole." They decry the ready availability of "assault weapons" and . . . gasp! . . . semi-automatic handguns. And they work ceaselessly to foster exceptions to carry rights by enacting "common sense gun laws," such as those prohibiting self-defense weapons in parks, with 1,000 feet of schools, and in other places deemed in need of protection from the hordes of legally armed citizens. Not surprisingly, they work very hard--as we've seen in the case of Starbucks--to get non-government entities to prohibit the carrying of weapons on their premises. Given the fact that they can't seem to achieve their goal of overarching gun prohibitions, they endeavor to achieve a de facto prohibition by making it impossible to comply with all the proscriptions they urge.

As a practical matter, yielding this aspect of the RKBA gives the antis a huge win in their ceaseless fight to make it impossible for a person to go about his or her life legally armed.

 

[Sam1911]

No I understand that you will fire when you feel it is "NEEDED" but my statement is an attempt to illustrate that when you think it is needed may or may not be the reality.

You didn't offer any examples of that attempt. This seems to be a new tack to take. Are we changing the direction of the debate?

If so, the point is irrelevant. No one can make for me the decision of when the moment of need has arrived -- but me. I couldn't, and I WOULDN'T try to make it for you. I choose to have my sidearm whenever legal because otherwise I've asked another to make the decision for me. How could I responsibly do that?

Also the results of your actions may or may not be exactly as you intended. You are not perfect are you.

No. Certainly not, and never claimed to me. The results of any self defense shooting may be horrific -- both physically and legally. Even a "good" shoot will likely have huge negative impacts on the shooter. But if perfection was required before we could make a choice to defend our lives, we would be forced to simply lay down our arms. So this point is again irrelevant. Whether I'm in my home or in someone's store, I have to make the best decision that I can. To give up the ability to make that decision is irresponsible.

My point is that you expect people to respect your rights while at the same time you trample theirs.

I'm sorry for you that you see this as trampling someone elses rights. I do not believe that my possession of a concealed defensive sidearm among my personal effects infringes on the rights of the property owner. Apparently you do. I suppose that's one of those "agree to disagree" moments.

 

[BlkHawk73]

A business owner has every right to allow or dis-allow whatever they desire in their place of business/on their property. No different than a homeowner allowing or dis-allowing the same on their property.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

A business owner has every right to allow or dis-allow whatever they desire in their place of business/on their property. No different than a homeowner allowing or dis-allowing the same on their property.

Some people want to believe that if you are conducting a business that allows the public onto your property that you have lost salient legal positions such as stipulating whether or not they may carry firearms. In some cases, there is definitely a difference between the home and a business and the difference is stipulated explicitly through various laws. Some of those laws pertain to employment issues and pertain to employees. Some pertain public safety such as have handicap accessible restrooms, safety rails, etc. None that I know of stipulate that you are responsible for the lives of anyone who walks through the door because you have disallowed the carrying of a gun.

 

[Sam1911]

None that I know of stipulate that you are responsible for the lives of anyone who walks through the door because you have disallowed the carrying of a gun.

So if the law doesn't direct the owner to take charge of my safety, who DOES take charge of it then? SOMEONE still carries the responsibility for my life and that of my loved ones. I do not maintain that the law requires the business owner to defend me. I simply say that if he wants me to give up my most effective means of defense, then I will require that of him.

Now, I CAN'T require that of him. And, in my state, he CAN'T require I disarm*. As I said before, the status quo seems to work out pretty agreeably for all.


* If a property owner set up metal detectors and frisked everyone entering the premises, he legally COULD deny entrance to any carrying weapons. But (if I chose to submit to that search) that would be fine as his actions would also serve to disarm my potential assailants.

 

[Robert]

Uggghhhhh this again. Let me find my dead horse beating stick....

A PRIVATE, non governmental business owner may do with his or her property as they see fit. If I do not agree with it I will go somewhere else if at all possible. I do not shop at some places because I do not agree with their stance on certain issues, beyond the 2nd. If I ask you not to do x, y or z on my private property and you continue to do so I will ask you to leave and not return until you are able to respect my wishes. I am not the government and I have no obligation to adhere to rules set out for the gov't.

 

[gearhead]

A business is not a purely private entity, however. A CLUB can have some characteristics of a "private business" but not one that is open to the public. It is required to make accommodations for the rights of others, be they handicapped or an ethnic minority or even non-English speaking in many cases.

 

[Robert]

A business is not a purely private entity

Oh I know, and maybe I was being too overly simple in my opinion.

 

[cwl1862]

If my firearm isn't welcome then neither is my cash. & I'll gladly take my business elsewhere.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So if the law doesn't direct the owner to take charge of my safety, who DOES take charge of it then? SOMEONE still carries the responsibility for my life and that of my loved ones.

You still get to be responsible for yourself.

I do not maintain that the law requires the business owner to defend me.

Others certainly have.

I simply say that if he wants me to give up my most effective means of defense, then I will require that of him.

You can require that he wears red shorts as well, but that requirement is meaningless.

And, in my state, he CAN'T require I disarm*.

But he can require than you leave the business if you are armed and your refusal then becomes an issue of trespass.

 

[cchris]

It is up to the business owner, IMHO. EXCEPT, for the one area where SC legislators are pushing to prevent laws being made prohibiting firearms - in the parking lot.

Say I keep a gun in my car and I have to stop by the store. Technically, I can't have a gun in my car at all. This is a little debatable, as you can choose to go elsewhere, but consider another issue.

A student in Clemson was stopped last year and had a firearm in his car. It was legally his, but he was driving through the campus (which gives students the right to be raped and murdered by gun-toting criminals, i.e. "no guns allowed"), and was arrested for it.

This type of legislation is more pertinent to the issue, if you are on a public highway and "passing through" a campus, you shouldn't be stopped for this. They made an exception (finally) for CWP holders, but why do I have to drive 20 miles out of the way on my way back from a hunting trip to get to my house?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i asked the eight year old tonite. the store has a sign that says no guns i have my gun in my pocket what can/should i do? she told me hide it in the car or go somewhere else.

 

[rogerjames]

I have read all the threads in this post, and with a Master's Degree myself... they became a little too ridiculous for me.

IMO, if my state allows to me to carry concealed, then no business that is licensed by that state has any right to take away that right.

@Rellascout, I carry for self-preservation, and I am licensed to do so. I carry CONCEALED so I could care less what private entity tries to restrict that right cause they will never know..., unless that unfortunate event occurs on their property... and at that moment, I will know that I am the only one able to defend myself, because everyone else is prohibited to carry on their private property.

In that event, I would have no problem going to court with my life, my CCW, my training, and my state law. And I would ask how you allowed an armed robber on your private property, despite all your signs. Then I would sue you for not enforcing your own private property laws that put my life at risk.

 

[rellascout]

IMO, if my state allows to me to carry concealed, then no business that is licensed by that state has any right to take away that right

You are free to feel that way but the law will not be on your side. The rights of the private property owner trumps your right to carry.

A private business is not required by law to allow you to carry a gun in their store. If they catch you and ask you to remove yourself and the gun from the store if you refuse you will be guilty of trespassing and will be subject to arrest.

Feel free to test it out tomorrow... LOL

Why are you so arrogant to believe that your rights invalidate the rights of property owners?

 

[rogerjames]

I know the law. I carry in those places every day. Never been trespassing cause they never know. I will risk a trespassing charge every day, over the fantasy that a private property owner with a sign will protect my life.