rogerjames
member
My right to life invalidates your false pretense to protect it by posting a sign
Your gun rights vs the right of business owners...
- Thread starter rellascout
- Start date
- Status
rellascout
member
Right but with that mentality why follow any law which prevents you from carrying where ever you please?
If you fear for your life to such an extent why would you shop at these businesses?
This mentality harms CHP/CCW more than you can ever imagine. People who are on the fence about concealed carry are often pushed to the antis side by such blatant disregard for others rights.
rellascout
member
So Roger anyone who chooses can carry a gun in your home & on your property & around your family without your permission because their need to feel safe trumps your ability to control what happens on your property?
mljdeckard
Member
When a person owns property, they have the right to allow access to whomever they want to. But if they are public business, with public access, and in fact advertise and encourage all types of business, then there must be a degree of understanding that whatever is in the general public will come into their store. They don't do background checks to make sure that no child molesters are coming in. Why should we assume that they want gun owners to stay away? If they want to make sure that bad people stay off of their property, they certainly have the right to not let anyone in at all.
The perspective changes quickly when you live in a state that doesn't let store owners blanket forbid carry on their property. In Utah, there was a flap when a few places (mostly out of national policies) like Blockbuster video banned carry on premises. Since they capitulated, there has been a whole lot of.....nothing heard over the issue. No one now here thinks that the effect signs would have on their safety is worth the business loss and bad publicity they would get. The last place I saw with the sign was the theater at Newgate Mall in Ogden. I actually talked to a manager about it, and he said it was a national public policy he had never actively enforced in any way. As long as people were following the law he didn't care what they did. (They recently remodeled and the sign is gone.) Other than that, I can't remember the last time I saw one.
The perspective changes quickly when you live in a state that doesn't let store owners blanket forbid carry on their property. In Utah, there was a flap when a few places (mostly out of national policies) like Blockbuster video banned carry on premises. Since they capitulated, there has been a whole lot of.....nothing heard over the issue. No one now here thinks that the effect signs would have on their safety is worth the business loss and bad publicity they would get. The last place I saw with the sign was the theater at Newgate Mall in Ogden. I actually talked to a manager about it, and he said it was a national public policy he had never actively enforced in any way. As long as people were following the law he didn't care what they did. (They recently remodeled and the sign is gone.) Other than that, I can't remember the last time I saw one.
rogerjames
member
I carry EVERYWHERE, except federal buildings, banks, concerts, professional sporting events etc.
I have no interest in the political minutia of every small business that I encounter on a daily business. If you don't want me to carry... then set up a metal detector and do a body search so that I am confident that no criminal is carrying on your private property.
We all know how well criminals follow signs and laws, right? And you are concerned about law abiding citizens who endured an FBI background check on your private property?
I have no interest in the political minutia of every small business that I encounter on a daily business. If you don't want me to carry... then set up a metal detector and do a body search so that I am confident that no criminal is carrying on your private property.
We all know how well criminals follow signs and laws, right? And you are concerned about law abiding citizens who endured an FBI background check on your private property?
rellascout
member
And why not there? Its not illegal to do so at sporting events, banks or concerts? At least not here in VA.
Selective adherence to the rights of property owners .
So other peoples property rights = political minutia?
rogerjames
member
I know everyone that comes into my home. If you are a store owner, do you know everyone that comes onto your property?
rogerjames
member
It is here
rellascout
member
No not at all which is why they have the right to control who gets to bring a gun onto their property. They cannot restrict access the same way you can at your home but they do have the right to restrict what someone brings onto their property.
A CHP does not ensure I am a good person. That I am a safe gun handler. Here in VA it just means a took a basic safety course which does not require any actually hands on firearms training and that they did not find anything during a very basic background check that sends up a red flag.
My ability to get a permit has nothing to do with my actual ability to properly carry and deploy a gun. Yet you seem to think it automatically gives you and people with your mindset the right to trample someone else's rights? I simply do not get it.
Again please explain why you expect people to honor your right to carry while you ignore the fundamental aspects of property ownership rights?
A mom and pop IMO should be able to post their business. A mega conglomo blah blah blah like Kroger should not.
The mom and pop would probably have much more at stake if something went South but at the same time they probably wouldn't post their store either.
I will not shop at a store that will have my family defenseless to keep their insurance costs down and the hippies happy.
The mom and pop would probably have much more at stake if something went South but at the same time they probably wouldn't post their store either.
I will not shop at a store that will have my family defenseless to keep their insurance costs down and the hippies happy.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh good grief! Of course, that is LONG established. The point IS, he can't (absent frisks and/or metal detectors for all patrons) know or restrict in any meaningful way what I carry in my pocket or otherwise concealed about my person.
(Has this gone fully circular or what?)
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
What prevents me is adherence to the law. I fear prosecution for a criminal offense which would unduly limit my ability to go on providing for my family and defending me/us. Otherwise, nothing in this world.
Total false argument. Read the accounts of self-defense in the world. Tell me where I'm "safe." Personal defense is our own responsibility everywhere and at all times. You seem to be tossing more fluff into this argument. Have you run out of substantive points of debate?
If you feel that my concealed carry of a sidearm is "blatant" in any way, you should get more familiar with concealed carry. Further, I reject out of hand that any exercise of my right to self-defense tools HARMS my right to self-defense tools. The idea that a hidden weapon carried on someone's property -- unknown and unobserved by anyone -- pushes people to the anti's is absurd.
This is why I asked WHICH thing we were defending -- your right to carry OPENLY against the wishes of the store owner or your right to simply carry a concealed weapon against their rules. You refused to recognize a difference and now you're struggling to argue both as if they were equivalent. It's a losing proposition.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Not selective adherence to the rights of property owners -- RIGID adherence to the LAW which carries penalties I'm not willing to risk. Period.
Gouranga
Member
LOL...this is definitely a contentious topic on THR. Personally, I feel property rights need to be respected. If a local grocery chain posts their store, then I don't go there. My ability to protect myself is compromised there and I won't go. I will make sure I contact the owners of the business and make sure they know how much money they have given to their competitors.
As I see it though, there are 2 areas I think cause a lot of friction on this topic. First, the LAW. In NC a business owner posting their business conspicuously carries the weight of law. As with a government building, stadium, etc I cannot legally enter such a business with a firearm. So for me, there is no debate, there is lawful and unlawful entry and I follow the law. if you are in a state which it does not carry the weight of law, I guess it falls more into courtesy and your personal respect for a property owners rights.
The second I think a lot of folks like myself miss, is this... If Food Lion were to post, I have about 10 other places to buy groceries within 15 minutes of my home. So really, it is Food Lion's loss not mine and for all I care, they can take a flying leap. For those more rural (like my mother), that Food Lion may be the only place within an hours drive to get groceries. That makes it much more difficult to just go elsewhere and much easier for the store to post as they have a captive clientele. Given those circumstances, if I lived in a place that the sign did not carry the weight of law, I would likely disregard it, even with my belief of property rights as the store has positioned itself into a non-competitive position and I have no other reasonable options.
As I see it though, there are 2 areas I think cause a lot of friction on this topic. First, the LAW. In NC a business owner posting their business conspicuously carries the weight of law. As with a government building, stadium, etc I cannot legally enter such a business with a firearm. So for me, there is no debate, there is lawful and unlawful entry and I follow the law. if you are in a state which it does not carry the weight of law, I guess it falls more into courtesy and your personal respect for a property owners rights.
The second I think a lot of folks like myself miss, is this... If Food Lion were to post, I have about 10 other places to buy groceries within 15 minutes of my home. So really, it is Food Lion's loss not mine and for all I care, they can take a flying leap. For those more rural (like my mother), that Food Lion may be the only place within an hours drive to get groceries. That makes it much more difficult to just go elsewhere and much easier for the store to post as they have a captive clientele. Given those circumstances, if I lived in a place that the sign did not carry the weight of law, I would likely disregard it, even with my belief of property rights as the store has positioned itself into a non-competitive position and I have no other reasonable options.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Again, HOW? I've yet to enter one store (that I can ever remember) that frisked or ran through a metal detector a single person entering that establishment. Therefore, they may "have a policy," may post a sign, and could hope and pray to heaven that no one carries a gun into their store, but they have ZERO actual control over the issue. So, their "right" to do so is an utterly moot point -- they AREN'T exercising that control.
As they aren't exercising that control against other patrons, I'm not going to voluntarily submit to that wish, either, as it would leave me somewhat defenseless when others (who aren't as morally rectified as myself) will not be.
What more can we ask of folks? You know I heard a rumor that there are some places in far off, probably imaginary fairy-tale lands, where no permit is required to carry any gun however one chooses. To date I'm still waiting for the fairy tale blood running in the fairy tale streets.
We have to give one another the benefit of the doubt. An extension of "innocent until proven guilty" writ larger over society as a whole -- to say that our fellow man is generally, in the vast majority of cases, capable of going about life armed safely. To restrict all because of the poor choices or sheer dumb luck of a very, very few flies in the face of our tradition of a free society.
But we are getting off-point again. What does this have to do with the RIGHTS of a property owner to see (and restrict) what's in my trousers?
You don't "get it" because you're stuck chasing your tail in a straw man argument that claims that my secreted defensive sidearm -- neither under the control of nor made known to a store owner -- somehow "tramples" his rights. It is an unsupportable, completely false premise.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I can't speak for Roger (he's doing fine on his own) but I've already answered this point.
I don't screen my visitors. No metal detectors. No hand-frisking. If they have a concealed weapon when then enter my property or home, I'm NOT likely to know about it. And that is FINE. A weapon I don't know about or come to discover is no concern of mine. It doesn't pose a threat to me. If I DO come to discover it, then we may have a discussion of the matter, depending on how and under what circumstances I see it, as their handling of it will inform my opinion of their safety and suitabilty to carry it on my grounds.
If I don't check every visitor for weapons, then DE FACTO, I have established that I am at peace with their choices to be armed or not. If I don't actually exercise some physical control over them, I have little recourse to feel abused.
Now, if they carry a gun visibly, with my knowledge, in a way that is an affront to my requests or otherwise offends me, I can always ask them to leave my property. If they refuse, THAT's where my rights come into play.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
rellascout said:
Double Naught Spy said:
You guys need to make up your minds. The business owner IS held responsible if I shoot someone, but ISN'T held responsible if someone ELSE shoots me?
"Heads, I win -- Tails, you lose!"
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Is this a chapter out of All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten? I didn't know that Massad Ayoob had written an update to that weighty tome.
I'm just funnin' you CassDad.
Do you consult your 8-year-old on tax law, insurance, and for medical advice as well? Hee hee!
(I kid, I kid!)
Last edited:
rellascout
member
Both statements are accurate.
If a CCW/CHP shoots someone on your business property you can guarantee that you will be named in a lawsuit along with the shooter.
There are no direct laws which state that the store owner increases their level of responsibility of your safety if they prevent you from carrying a gun on their property.
Business owners are required to provide a safe environment with reasonable precautions. Letting your carry a gun might be considered reasonable to some. Denying you the ability to carry a gun might be considered reasonable to others. If you are shot on a businesses' property the burden of proof would be on you to prove that they did not provide a safe environment with reasonable precautions.
rellascout
member
No yours rights come into play when you choose not to ask your guests if they are armed. You have chosen to not ask. Since it is your property you have that right. At no point have you given up your rights and control over what happens on your property which is what you are doing when you say that businesses do not have the right or the "business" posting their property.
They have every right to deny someone from entering their property armed as you have to allow it. It really is that simple.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I didn't say I'd given up my rights. I said that I am not exercising them. Just as the store who isn't screening its patrons in some way isn't exercising theirs, either.
And just as my concealed carry gun that they don't have knowledge of doesn't INFRINGE on their rights, either, to any realistic degree.
I'm more concerned about the violent criminal element who will respect neither the property owner's nebulous "right to not have other people do something they don't have knowledge of" nor my right to continued LIFE, than I am about bruising the property owner's tenuous policy.
Yes. I agree. But denying access has to be sbstantive -- has to be effectual to some degree. If I carry a concealed weapon against their wishes and without their knowledge I haven't infringed their rights -- to any degree worth considering. All I've done is to not comply with their wishes.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
If I am shot on his property there is a strong chance that I won't be around to meet that burden of proof.
This does seem to be the disconnect. The property owner has a "right" to request something of me that some feel I agree to by entering their property (not that I've signed a contract or entered into any legally recognized agreement, but let's say it's an ethics question). But his request has potentially grave repurcussions for me. However, if those repurcussions do come to fruition (i.e.: I'm shot/killed), even if I survive, I have no recourse against him for the harm his request potentially allowed to happen.
That's not an exchange that works well for both parties.
Further, it is not an exchange that the laws of my location force me to agree to. So I don't.
While I think it's a ridiculous policy, I agree with their right to enact it. Furthermore, I think business owners have a right to shoot themselves in the foot by discriminating based on something ridiculous like race or sexual orientation. The market will punish them substantially without the government interfering.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Once more, I'd like to see this split up into various sub-questions. There's a lot of muddled back-and-forth between the extremes.
Premise 1: The property owner has the right to make a policy barring open or concealed carry of ANY item or any other activity they wish.
Premise 2: Anyone openly carrying a firearm (or performing any other act) against the wishes of the property owner must leave if requested.
Premise 3: The armed citizen who carries a concealed sidearm, privately and undisclosed, has the duty (outside of the strict wording of the law) to obey a policy or statement to disarm.
I think the first two are pretty incontestable (unless some of us really ARE arguing for possessing a weapon as being equivalent to being a member of a protected class). It's the third where the disagreement lies.
Unfortunately a lot of statements here only really speaks to the first two statements -- which I don't think are at all controvercial.
rellascout
member
I agree this is the meat of the issue. I however do not see the clear distinction between premise #3 and premise #2 except disclosure.
When you enter a posted property with a concealed handgun aren't you in violation of premise #2?
What would you do if the greeter like at Costco or Walmart asked you are you carrying a concealed handgun as you entered the property?
Would you disclose that you are carrying?
- Status
