rellascout
member
Posting the property is exercising their rights which you have stated you ignore because you feel your right to carry and protect yourself trumps their exercising of property rights.
Your gun rights vs the right of business owners...
- Thread starter rellascout
- Start date
- Status
Posting the property is exercising their rights which you have stated you ignore because you feel your right to carry and protect yourself trumps their exercising of property rights.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The difference is the phrase, "You, sir, need to leave this store right away," as delivered by the owner. Absent that statement directed to me right then there is no conflict.
No. See phrase, "IF REQUESTED." I can carry an M1 Garand into a posted store (here in my state anyway) and until and unless the owner asks me personally to leave, I've no legal reason to have to go.
Same thing I'd say if anyone else asked. "That's personal information and none of your business." If they want to frisk me or wand me -- or simply refuse me entry becase I won't answer their question, that's fine.
(Or do what I do when entering gun shows in PA, where they DO ask: Simply smile and show my empty hands. Whatever they may conclude that means, I've never been questioned further.)
Remember, I'm under no legal obligation to answer their questions -- or to answer them truthfully, were I inclined to simply lie. And neither is the would-be robber, murderer, or deranged lunatic who might enter one person before me or three guys later.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ok. Fine. Call it what you like. Posting a sign with no legal weight is a pretty ineffective way of exercising their rights. If a violent criminal actor is utterly free to "violate" those "rights" while making me irrevocably dead then I feel free to "violate" those "rights" for less nefarious purposes -- like remaining alive.
oldbear
Member
Kroger and firearms
The above very well may be correct in Idaho; yet in the state where I spent many years in L/E this is not correct. By the nature of opening a retail business you are inviting the public at large into your establishment, yet the establishment is still private property and the owner or agent of the owner has the right to set certain conditions as to the use of and who uses the property. The owner of the property does have the right to ask someone to leave and if they refuse the party refusing to leave can be charged with trespassing. So if Kroger or any other business does not wish to allow firearms in their store Like it or not, they are well in their rights to do so.
My best advice is to vote with your wallet and to support establishments who support or at least tolerate you views.
The above very well may be correct in Idaho; yet in the state where I spent many years in L/E this is not correct. By the nature of opening a retail business you are inviting the public at large into your establishment, yet the establishment is still private property and the owner or agent of the owner has the right to set certain conditions as to the use of and who uses the property. The owner of the property does have the right to ask someone to leave and if they refuse the party refusing to leave can be charged with trespassing. So if Kroger or any other business does not wish to allow firearms in their store Like it or not, they are well in their rights to do so.
My best advice is to vote with your wallet and to support establishments who support or at least tolerate you views.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
A sign has no legal authority. Neither does a policy. A sign is merely a request for voluntary compliance.
The "right" is exercised if/when they demand you to leave.
Oregun89
Member
Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone on an individual basis, at any time, without reason. Bottom Line.
Piss and moan all you want, but those right need remain sacred.
Carry elsewhere.
Piss and moan all you want, but those right need remain sacred.
Carry elsewhere.
Cosmoline
Member
So it's A OK to exclude the Mormons?
The fact of carrying a firearm does *NOTHING*, absolutely NOTHING to interfere with anyone's peaceable use of that commercial property. Anymore than being of a particular ethnic or religious group. It's also exercising a fundamental right. So no I don't think commercial retail establishments should be able to pick and choose their customers in this fashion.
Oregun89
Member
On an individual basis, yes.
oldbear
Member
Does that mean that a Stop Sign at an intersection does not represent legal authority?
When North Carolina passed its’ concealed carry laws sometime ago, a provision of the law allowed business to post signs prohibiting firearms in the business, violation of this is a criminal offense in North Carolina.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
It is futile to claim anything but a legal right. Any other type is a wish.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I suppose we have to be UTTERLY precise in our rhetoric here. (sigh) A sign that alerts you to an edict of the LAW (be it a stop sign, or a "30.06" sign if you're in TX, or any other sign that means something in the eyes of the law) MUST be obeyed or you risk criminal proceedings against you.
A sign that carries no legal weight is merely a request for voluntary compliance.
All clear now?
That's certainly North Carolina's problem to struggle with. Well, one of them. (NC's "no carry zone" list would be shorter if they just gave you a map with like ONE little dot on it and said, "you can carry HERE."
)Most other states are not quite so burdened with such silliness.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And if they choose to act on those rights to refuse service, I'll willingly leave. Of course, first they have to discern that there is a policy violation and second they have to care enough about it to ask.
Moan and complain all you want, but those "rights" AREN'T held sacred by the laws in my location (likewise in many others) and so will not be held more sacred by me than my responsibility to be as prepared as I can be for what danger may come.
Oh, I certainly do. And if it suits me I will eschew establishments that don't "allow" concealed carry. But if it DOESN'T suit me to do my business elsewhere for whatever reason, I will not disarm simply because of a policy or a sign that carries no legal weight.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
See this is actually a more interesting question -- and less of a soundly beaten dead horse.
This goes back to what I called "Premise 2:" Should carrying a firearm, openly or concealed, with the knowledge of the property owner, be a protected right? If refused service for that specific reason should you have the same "civil rights" recourses as if you were told "leave because we don't like Left-Handed Norwegians in here."
(Are LHN's actually a protected class? No? Make it Gay Jewish Mexicans then.)
That's a question with some fun grey areas.
Oregun89
Member
EXACTLY!
I agree. This is very similar to my views as well.
And I would do the same.
I "think" you grasped my point, Sam. I also think we're on similar pages. My post was directed more for the short answered "rebels". In some cases I see that the mentality is similar to someone at a party who he is clearly not welcome, yet continues to stay. A rebellious mentality in some who feel they are simply "entitled", whom in most cases do not understand the laws, or only wish to understand laws which support their agenda.
The right to bear arms needs to be supported, just as the right for private ownership to refuse service.
I believe that concealed carry need remain concealed, as that is the purpose, and is clearly defined.
We live in the gray, there is no black and white, everything is subjective.
rellascout
member
No. Carrying a gun is not a right. It is a choice. One can argue that we have a right to self defense we choose to do it with a gun. There are other suitable choices which may or may not work as well.
Civil rights like those of the often persecuted "Left-Handed Norwegians" is based in the foundation that race is not a choice. That once you single out "Left-Handed Norwegians" for persecution you have created a class which is in need of protection because you are targeting them for a reason beyond their control and which is inherent to their person hood.
The need for protection of, "Left-Handed Norwegians", does not come from a personal choice but from something inherent. This is the reason gay rights in this country has gained traction as science has concluded that being gay is not a choice but instead is an inherent quality. As this science is accepted as fact the protection of the "gay class" becomes stronger more along the lines of race and the rights of the disabled which are well established classes.
The question is what is the argument for carrying a gun in the open = protected class. IMHO there isn't one. There is not a compelling argument that links carrying a gun to be on equal footing that has been used to establish protected classes in the past. IMHO the matter of choice is a clear divider. We are not forced to carry a gun. We were not born with a gun in our hand for protection. We choose to carry one because we understand the risk reward benefits of doing so.
People always play the race card because they think it gets them traction in these discussions. It like playing the Hilter card. A better analogy is religion not racial discrimination if you are going to attempt to argue that carrying a gun creates and constitutes a protected class. Religion is a choice. We have the choice to practice or not practice religion. We have both freedom of and freedom from religion.
Just because you have the freedom of religion in this country does not mean you get to practice that religion anywhere and everywhere you want. There are restrictions on your practice when your practice tramples or conflicts with other peoples rights. i.e. Their right to religious freedom or their property rights. For example I have every right to forbid you from praying on my property. Just like I have a right to forbid you from exercising your right to self defense with a gun on my property.
Last edited:
Oregun89
Member
I won't copy all of it, as it was long. But, very well written. I agree with every word.
oldbear
Member
Sam you are totally correct, that is the reason I never bothered to obtain my C/C in North Carolina, I simply rely on my retirement credentials for my CCW needs.
Fresh from my CCW course in NC, I don't believe this is true.
It is not a criminal offense to carry when a business posts "no guns." The business is allowed to make you leave. If you refuse, that's criminal trespassing, but just getting caught carrying in a 'no gun' business isn't a crime.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
A quick check of handgunlaw.us says:
So it looks like YES, if the business posts any easily visible sign prohibiting weapons then you are forbidden by law from carrying there.
That and parades, funerals, most restaurants, and the friggin' BANK!
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I happen to have actively denied folks their first amendment rights on my property and did so with the help of the police. I had to have a lady removed for trying to convert customers in my store to Christianity and when I asked her to cease or leave, she emphatically vocalized about her first amendment rights to speech and religion. The police removed her under trespass laws. I have removed other customer who were loud or verbally unruly, essentially mashing their first amendment rights which they didn't have on my property either.
While we could not discriminate on the basis of having a religion, we could on the basis of trying to practice said religion.
For the record, I am also against people running printing presses on my property when they are not tenants of my property. I also do not allow protest assemblies, religious services, or servicing of mechanically deficient automobiles. These are things that tend to have a negative effect on my ability to conduct business and said policies have been supported by local law enforcement.
You may have certain rights under the guise of the Constitution, but that does not mean that I have to allow you the practice of those rights on my private property.
rogerjames
member
The simplicity of the arguement boils down to this for me. Prohibiting weapons on one's private property without an active policy to enforce that law, ie: metal detector, pat down, wand, etc does NOTHING to prevent it from happening and offers absolutely NO increased level of safety for myself or any other patron of that property.
This, as we know, is the false pretense that the gun control nuts would have the naive believe. We all no that criminals don't follow signs or laws, so simply "not allowing" it on one's private property is simply "not allowing" it for those willing to obey that law or sign, thus... protecting nobody and preventing nothing. Again, the same reason that "gun laws" have been proven over, and over, and over again to have NO affect on preventing violent crime.
So I will continue to carry concealed everywhere except where the law specifically prohibits and where I could face criminal prosecution. Not all, but many of those places also have an active policy to prevent that, which gives me some level of confidence that some potential BG is also unarmed
This, as we know, is the false pretense that the gun control nuts would have the naive believe. We all no that criminals don't follow signs or laws, so simply "not allowing" it on one's private property is simply "not allowing" it for those willing to obey that law or sign, thus... protecting nobody and preventing nothing. Again, the same reason that "gun laws" have been proven over, and over, and over again to have NO affect on preventing violent crime.
So I will continue to carry concealed everywhere except where the law specifically prohibits and where I could face criminal prosecution. Not all, but many of those places also have an active policy to prevent that, which gives me some level of confidence that some potential BG is also unarmed
That is a list of place that are "off-limits" to CC.
That does not mean that concealing in those places is a crime, necessarily. A business sign does not hold the force of law.
If a cop spots you CCing in a burger joint that has 'NO GUNS' posted, there is nothing you can be charged with. Because it is not a crime to do that. He would, however, have the authority to usher you off the property, and the same goes for the property owner.
But you could only be arrested if you refused to leave. With schools/banks/bars, you can be arrested just for carrying.
Last edited:
Officers'Wife
Member
Goes back to the Founders, the Constitution tells the government what it can do, the Bill of rights tells the government what it cannot do. Nowhere in the document does it say what the citizen can or cannot do.
That said, when you enter another's property, that person accepts liability for your actions. Because of this the owner is within his rights to limit the scope of that liability. While the government cannot restrict you for what you might do, the private citizen on their own property can.
That said, when you enter another's property, that person accepts liability for your actions. Because of this the owner is within his rights to limit the scope of that liability. While the government cannot restrict you for what you might do, the private citizen on their own property can.
rellascout
member
So you lay down with the criminals in ignoring and disregarding the rights of property owners?
You argument boils down to well the criminals ignore the wishes and rights of the property owner so I am entitled to do the same.
If everyone else jumped off a bridge....
rogerjames
member
Criminals break LAWS. If I choose to carry on your private property I am not breaking any LAW. You just don't get it...
- Status
