I'll bet that every state that issues a concealed carry license can take it away at their whim.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Wow, Chill, even the cops???
Other than the Federal and certain county courthouses that are outside my city, I don't know of anywhere in CO that I can't have my gun, on or off duty.

Man, Washington is doggone strict! Compare that to the law here in Missouri: "Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location [where no guns are allowed/posted] by any individual who holds a [CCW permit] shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed $100 for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed $200 and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed $500 and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years."

I think you can see how some folks might have a bit of a don't-care attitude about carrying in posted businesses here. I hardly ever see a no-guns sign, but I don't look very closely either. All you'd have to do is leave if asked.

You would be incorrect in that belief.

Yes, even the cops. Apparently the law does not have an exception for off duty or on own time.

That's what I was told by the Deputy.

__________________
Conceal/Open Carry. Be Legal.

Not in the state of Washington. In some ways the state is strict, but... Washington is a "Shall issue" state. So long as you are not restricted because of listed convictions or restraining orders or have been involuntarily committed to a hospital for mental issues, you have to be given the permit.

Strict? As in the example, you have a CPL, go into a "no weapons allowed" area (government or private) you are charged with a misdemeanor. Plus, conditions to get and maintain a CPL is that you have NO weapons related convictions (misdemeanor or felony); federal or local, state, etc. And you not be allowed to get the CPL back, ever.

__________________
Conceal/Open Carry. Be Legal.

Well, that answers it right there. Get the $200 fine, mentioned earlier, and your license will automatically be pulled because it's a weapons related misdemeanor.

Just another reason to simply not go in the establishment rather than try to assert your "constitutional" rights.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

OR...perhaps...keep the firearm concealed, and mouth shut?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

You missed the comments that led up to my last post. I'll sum up for you:

The comment was, "It's a $200 fine if I get caught with a firearm inside a place where it's posted not allowed. I can afford $200." (I paraphrased)
I commented that the additional cost could be the loss of your carry license.
Then it was posted that any firearms related conviction, even a misdemeanor, is grounds to deny/remove your license in WA.

So, you may do what you want, but accidents happen and concealed guns are inadvertently revealed from time to time. Roll your eyes all you want, just be knowledgeable of the consequences of the choices you make.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

[QUOTE=Rastoff;137651394]I commented that the additional cost could be the loss of your carry license.
Then it was posted that any firearms related conviction, even a misdemeanor, is grounds to deny/remove your license in WA./QUOTE]

I live in Michigan, where those sign carry no force of law, and, in the event that my concealed carry was exposed I might be asked to leave...which I would certainly do. It is NOT a misdemeanor here, nor grounds for revoking a license. Those rules only apply to the 9 "no carry" locations listed on the back of the license, not places with those ridiculous signs.

I think you may have misinterpreted Chillock message. Those "No weapons areas" are NOT determined by a "sign" being posted. They are specificied locations that each state determines such as casinos, hospitals, post offices, child care facilities, sports arenas, etc...

Very interesting discussion.

As a died in the wool Libertarian I'm a huge believer in property rights, but all rights have to find a balance with each other as well.

I've seen references to the "no guns" sign as a "simple" request. IMO it's not so simple. Likewise so is the "take my business elsewhere" part. In cities maybe there are lots of options and alternatives, but it's not always easy.

My property rights as a commercial property owner or business operator are quite different from my private rights as a homeowner. I am constrained by all kinds of laws on discrimination, handicapped access, employee and labor laws. It's well established there are myriad things I cannot require of my patrons or employees. Not just race or "Protected groups" either. I can refuse anyone come in my home unless they have a warrant. I cannot refuse a patron b/c I just don't like how he/she looks.

I'll offer a good example in Ky that is gun specific. The Ky Supreme Ct has ruled that businesses can limit if employees can carry in the workplace, but found that businesses cannot keep them from having a firearm in their vehicle even if on business property. Why? B/c if they banned guns in the cars it would effectively extend their right and control that person's decisions off that property, making them unable to carry on their way to and from work b/c they have no place to put the firearm.

So the private property right of the business owner has to be infringed slightly to balance it with the other rights of those who work there. Notice that the answer wasn't "well then just dont' work there if you don't like their rules on their property". Why? B/c it's now long established that the "private property" rights of public businesses are far from absolute, they cannot deny employees or patrons on the basis of their sheer whim b/c they want a certain policy. they must justify it in some way. The Court held that guns in cars were not enough of a risk compared to the breach of the 2nd Amendment rights of the employees when away from work that they could have that restriction. Their property right was in conflict with the 2nd Amendment rights of the employees, they lost at least as far as the parking lot is concerned.

That's why gun laws and the gun signs are a tougher nut to crack. B/c by having them the business isn't just controlling their business, they are a) determining the safety level of customers and employees to threats beyond their control, and b) potentially impacting their rights and safety beyond the doors of the business.

If I park on the street to go in and they have a sign I'm to put my gun in the car somewhere and go in, and hope it isn't stolen. But I'm not 100% on their property for that whole trip. When I step off that curb I'm now in a public place unable to carry b/c of their private rights, it has created an externality by having their right be absolute my right when totally away from them has been impaired. That externality created by those signs is the key here IMO, what behavior it would force on a customer or employee beyond their doors.

The answer then comes to "go elsewhere", but we have established in property rights of businesses that this is not necessarily the answer. It wasn't the answer when a business refused to hire minorities or women, it wasn't the answer in Ky when employees wanted to carry a firearm in their vehicle, and I dont' think it's the answer if I park on the street. We have basically established that within a set of constraints that patrons have a "right" to patronize a public business. They can require I have a shirt or shoes on, but they can't refuse service b/c I didn't shave that day. All of those constraints have been decided in the courts based on the fact that a public business is far different from a home or farm.

the legal distinction between a public business and truly private property is quite clear and is repeated in literally thousands of laws and regulations. A farmer can refuse to let me on my property b/c I'm a minority or he just doesn't like me or any other reason. A business owner can't, nor can he put restrictions on patronage that would become externalities that impact me beyond the scope of their store, esp. if those reasons are not a justified business purpose.

So we can debate whether the gun restriction is reasonable or justified within the framework of all the other restrictions on a business's behavior, but IMO comparing it to a farm or house is not useful. They are held to totally different standards legally and have been for a very long time. We can debate if that's right or not, but even as a big libertarian I will say with confidence that clock isn't getting turned back and if it's not turned back for the 100s of other things I see no reason to single out 2nd Amendment protections as an exception.

Personally I avoid any place with a "no guns" sign whenever possible on simple principle, but it's not always avoidable. If it's the only grocery store within a given distance or the only car dealer that will service your car, etc. It's easy to say "go elsewhere" and that's great, but I've run into cases where that is tough. You call in an order to a place and have no idea they have that sign on their door. You go to pick it up and now you're faced with leaving your gun in your car and hoping it's not seen or ignoring the sign or making a huge row and refusing the order (that you may have already paid for) and fighting to get your money back. Maybe nice in principle, but there are only so many hours in the day to engage in those things when you can just walk in while carrying, no one will know, and you're gone in 2 minutes with no fuss and can make alternate plans later if possible.

Fortunately In Ky there is no legal violation for ignoring the signs. It's trespass if you're asked to leave and you don't, but you just leave. But let me be clear - it's NOT Trespass to ignore the sign. You aren't trespassing in Ky and not getting caught. You're only trespassing when you're asked to leave and you refuse. So you are not breaking any laws or violating any established property right in Ky. You may be ignoring their wishes, but like I said in rare cases it's better than the alternatives.

I will dispute that any business in any state is really "private property" in the old school sense. There are 100s of encroachments on that for far less important reasons than making sure someone can defend themselves. A state may recognize that right re guns or not, but there are 100s of restrictions on a business owner/employer that a private homeowner wouldn't have. Those days are long gone, now we're just down to picking and choosing what we let them do, but presumption is sure not with the business owner any longer. I wish it weren't true, but it is.

__________________
Chuck M

Chuck,

Thank you for taking the time to put together that thoughtful and helpful post.

Andy

This private property and business rules thing cracks me, up especially when someone says its their business and they can decide about rights.

Ok, it's your property and your business. I am not saying I support any of these actions but, tell a black man he can't come in, tell a woman she can't come in your all male store, post a sign that says no turbans allowed and see what happens. Recently a baker said he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Guess what the law said and who got the cake. HA HA.

Why should anybody think that its OK to deny the second amendment rights and yet force businesses to allow all these other rights?

I'd like to see citations of court cases that support your arguments above.

Clearly, a business DOES NOT have the right to deny service to protected classes (blacks, women, religious groups).

But I'm not familiar with cases where a business DOES NOT have the right to deny service to someone in a non-protected class (didn't shave that day).


Sgt Lumpy

This is what really gets me about this whole conversation. I mean, why do people feel it's necessary to force this issue? This "gay" couple for example. Is that the only bakery? I'm sure they could have gotten a cake any number of other places, but instead they chose to make a big stink about it. What's the point other than making a stink?

It's the same with no guns signs. Why is it such a big deal to just go elsewhere? Do you guys ignore the Postal Service policy and take your gun in the post office? Or do you just leave it in the car for that trip?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I think it's become popular in our culture be a drama queen.Our fathers and grandfathers would be embarrassed.

I'd like to see a cite for this example. I don't believe that gay is a protected class anywhere and I don't believe that a baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Where and when did this allegedly happen?


Sgt Lumpy

In Denver,the ruling was a couple of weeks ago.

Try Google.

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

And if you don't believe that gay is a protected class anywhere, then your head must be in the sand.

What ever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Here are just two instances...there are MANY!

Bakery Closes after Refusing to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple | National Review Online

Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple - Washington Times

How sad for Colorado. I'm sure the ruling would have gone the same in CA.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I thought the right to bear arms was protected by the Bill of Rights, like the right to be black, female, gay, etc etc. What number were all those again????

I got it and I avoid anti gun businesses, states and people. No problem here. But, I did want to point out the fallacy that a business is private property and owner has the "right" to set policies on that property. That gentlemen is a JOKE in this country. Truth is you can refuse a right, as long as you are politically correct. Is that it????

I personally believe you should be able to serve and exclude whoever you want. You may well be an idiot to do so, but, if you own the business you should have the right to be an idiot at least till it goes broke.

But wait!
The infinite power has just communicated to me that he wants me to go armed everywhere. That I should built a church in his honor (complete with moving targets). I call upon you of the faith to contribute so this miracle can happen. Am I protected now???

OK. Thanks for the links. That's what I asked for.

The Colorado Case -
"The judge ruled that the bakery had violated the state’s public-accommodations statute, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation."

The report is a little weak on details, but it appears the judge at least is interpreting "sexual orientation" to include "gay". I'm not sure if the CO statutes include gay as a statuatory component of sexual orientation.



The Gresham Oregon case -
"...The lesbian couple that originally asked for the cake also filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. Last month, the bureau announced it would investigate the complaint.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” the commissioner said. “The goal is to rehabilitate..."

This one is pretty strange, to me. Apparently a branch of the state government feels that the baker's religious beliefs (his Xtian belief doesn't support the idea of gay marriage) needs "rehabilitation". That's a pretty bold statement by a state government agency commissioner. "Your religious beliefs need rehabilitating".

The death threats in retaliation are an interesting side show. I wonder if those people need "rehabilitation".

I hope this one goes to appeal in an actual court.


Sgt Lumpy

Preface -- sorry for the length, I hope it isn't seen as being obnoxious in any way. I think your point is a very good one and I want to try to answer it as thoroughly as I can and try to explain where I see this balance falling and why.

I agree on a federal level the law as written would only cover protected groups, but in the day to day enforcement of the laws I'd argue it goes far past that.

First, women are a protected group, roughly 50% of people who would potentially come in the doors. All protected minority groups combined is about the same. So in reality if you tell the protected minority they can't come in b/c they didn't shave or whatever they're going to claim it's on the basis of race or gender or a protected class, and you've already lost the case in the real world. Your real world lawyer fees and grief will be so high there is no way a sane owner would have a "no facial hair" rule b/c it's just a matter of time before it blows up.

so just like my externality point above on carry, in this case the protected class law clearly creates a de facto situation that limits business action far beyond the letter of the law.

Second, some religious groups require facial hair. If I had a "no facial hair" rule and an Amish man walked in I'm clearly in trouble to refuse him service on that basis.

The courts would hold, probably correctly in this case, that my rule was specious and had no weight versus the potential discrimination. In fact IMO you could probably have the ACLU come after you even if no one walked in and had an issue b/c the rule on its face is discriminatory to certain faiths.

So even just sticking to "protected groups" the reality is that ANYTHING that could conceivably touch on a protected group is also in play. The ACLU has filed against many a business for rules they think could touch on such a group in some way, which means that in reality there are LOTS of limits.

Second, the definition of protected groups has been expanded by many states and localities, so it's not just federal groups but any in your area, and then you had better keep up with that stuff if you plan on having any wacky "no facial hair" rules.

For example California specifically says you can't discriminate based on "unconventional dress". That's about the most extreme one I have heard, but it's the law there. It's the "Unruh Civil Rights Act" and basically bans "discrimination" for about any reason deemed arbitrary.

So in Cali they can't in fact refuse you, at law, for looking funny.

I admit Cali is the most extreme example, I'm not claiming that would hold in any state court, but I do think it has a broad chilling impact on any business owner anywhere as it's most definitely the wave of the future. What owner wants to be the case law on that?

The point of all that being, as I said, that in reality those laws prevent you from just arbitrarily refusing service to almost anyone. You will have a potential hailstorm of legal problems even if for some reason you wanted to drive off perfectly good customers, so you don't really have that "right" any more. Even the parts that technically are still under your control are so high potential risk at law you don't do it.


However, there are cases, like the gay marriage cake thing, that highlight the situation. In fact I'll take it one further, to the photographer forced to do pictures at a gay wedding when he disapproves of gay marriage.

Personally as a libertarian type I am not particularly pro or con on that issue, but I am very concerned a business owner can be forced to perform personal services as an individual on that basis. This went beyond him not having property rights, he had no PERSONAL rights either.

If We Don?t Have The Right To Refuse Service, Aren?t We All Slaves? | Say Anything

That link references the actual case, there are no doubt better discussions of the case out there, but the idea is clear - not even personal choice is protected for a business, much less property.

There are others of that ilk. Here's one with a florist and same sex wedding. Clearly a hot area:

State Sues Florist Who Refused Service to a Gay Wedding | Slog

What's interesting in that case is that the state itself initiated the suit, having to bring it as a "consumer protection" case technically b/c the private parties nor the HRC had brought the case.



However, even after all that, courts have in fact held that specious reasons to refuse service won't hold up. Here's a legal site that uses the example of a "lazy eye".

Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service | LegalMatch Law Library

here's another legal site that references some odd cases but again points out that courts will look at the rule and determine if it is arbitrary, and IMO be pretty broad about what constitutes "discrimination" or not:

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom


Here's the last one:

Have You Reserved Your Right to Refuse Service? - Free Enterprise

Courts also tend not to favor arbitrary discrimination. In the past, judges have used consumer protection, unfair business practice, and tort laws to punish such practices.

None of this means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.


I think they sum it up far better than I do. You won't find any lawyer telling you the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign has any real meaning. You can refuse service for good business cause, like being disruptive or drunk or threatening, etc., but you'd better have a good and legit reason, not an arbitrary one, even outside California.

Again, I'm not necessarily agreeing with that position. I believe strongly in private property rights. My point is that in a world where business property/ownership rights are already constrained beyond any semblance of them really having any left, we are to let it stand that a business can determine rules that through externality impact my safety and 2nd Amendment rights but we wont' let them set rules on something as innocuous as dress and deportment?

IMO the question of whether a business can have a "no guns" policy should be held to the same standard as any other rule, which means whether that rule is arbitrary and capricious or has some basis and justification. If the courts rule it does then fine, but if in some states the courts hold that those signs do NOTHING to improve public safety (and they don't) and in fact may impede it as well as impede the 2nd Amendment rights of customers outside their store, then those signs should come down just like any other sign enforcing some other rule that isn't justified as needed business practice.

Just hold the 2nd Amendment to the same standard as everything else is all I ask. I see no reason to push it on a business owner, but I see no reason it should be a 2nd class citizen next to all the other things required of them.

__________________
Chuck M

Rastoff, the Post Office is a poor example. Taking a firearm there is a FEDERAL OFFENSE; not just a sign!!

Going elsewhere is NOT always an option. If you live in a small town the there is only one bank, one hardware store, one drug store; get it?? The signs in those places are placed there by the company lawyers to cover their butts - just in case! They can always have the robber charged with trespass!

If I choose to obey all of the lawyer signs I can spend all day taking off my firearm and locking it in my car (Not a safe policy). Or, I can just give in to the anti's and leave my firearm at home.............ain't going to happen.

The reference of comparing a business sign to a land owners posted sign is apples and oranges: The land owner is posting his PRIVATE PROPERTY against anyone entering. The business is a PUBLIC BUILDING and the legal folks are attempting to dictate who can and cannot enter and under what conditions the public may do so.

CONCEALED means don't let anyone know.........and I don't

Nevermind.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

There is a young man, Colin Goddard, that works for the Brady Foundation. He was a victim of the shooter at Virginia Tech. He travels around spouting that gun control is the answer to end school shootings. He laid on the floor of a classroom and let Seung-Hui Cho shoot him. He says that God was with him and that is why he didn't die. The only reason he didn't die was that Seung-Hui Cho didn't shoot him again. I will not lay down, my gun goes every where I go.

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners has the right idea, they publish a list of places folks with CCW's are not welcome, so they can spend their money elsewhere.

MCRGO - Do Not Patronize while Armed

__________________
always trust your cape...

Thanks for the info.!

I pay my bills online so I don't have to go to the post office, maybe when they go out of business they will get my message. Unfortunately, when I need a 2 x 4, I need it now and can't wait to order it online.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

I agree, about going into an establishment OC or CC when it is clearly posted "no weapons". I have never intentionally gone into nor believe someone should go into an establishment that posts no weapons when they are OC or CC.

As I posted in the original post, we did not see the sign and left when we were informed of the rule.

__________________
Conceal/Open Carry. Be Legal.

In the state of Washington, unless the building or property is publicly owned, it is considered private property and does not discern what the property is used for. Specifically mentioned a business owner is considered "owner" of property whether he is leasing or buying the property.

The "no weapons" signs are allowed in part because it is posted by the owner or representative of the owner (employee etc.) and the sign does not say "will not sell to those that carry guns". It only states that a person may not bring any weapon into or on the property depending upon where the sign is posted. IE: a sign posted on the door or inside is understood as mean no weapons inside the building. A sign posted at the entrance to the property is understood as meaning no weapons any where on the property.

I understand what everyone is saying; it may be different from state to state. Washington is trying to protect peoples rights (in this situation) the best possible. If someone does not want weapons on their property, it's not allowed. If someone wants to carry a weapon, WA is a CC and OC state so they are allowed to do so with very few restrictions compared to a lot of other states.

My point of the original post was: 1. we went into a business, didn't see the small sign at the register that was to the left of the entrance and we left when told of the sign. 2. The law does not allow LE to enter with weapons unless they are called to the business in an emergency or requested by the owner or a representative of the owner (employee).

__________________
Conceal/Open Carry. Be Legal.

Luckily where I live the only signs I know of is on a couple of government buildings. They must issue me a permit and the only legitimate reason I can think of to carry a concealed weapon around here is so I have an excuse to have a bigger bulge in my pants.

Actually it is so I can buy any gun I want in any store I want and walk out the door with it after making the check marks and signing my name.

after reading many good posts here ive decided if i do see that sign i will just spend hundreds of dollars someplace else , because they probaly charge to much money anyways and dont need my bizz i will tell every one i know not to go there, and that goes for the other store owners that support this that dont have a sign. and the word on the street travels fast.

Some of the comments here remind me of discussions about using a helmet while riding a motorcycle. I wear a helmet ALMOST all of the time; I understand the risks of not wearing one and decide for myself when I want to assume that risk. When I was a motorcycle instructor I used to tell students that I wasn't as clever as those riders who felt they "knew" when a helmet would be needed, and only wore one on those occasions. I admitted that I had no idea when a helmet might save my life, so I chose to wear one most of the time while riding (I actually lied a bit and told students I always wore a helmet).

Carrying a gun is a similar situation. As most of us have discovered, the overwhelming likelihood is that we will not a gun on any given day. Many will carry their entire adult lives and never once need it. But someone else might need it the very first time they think about carrying. None of us know, and each of us has to make the personal decision as to how much risk we are willing to take in return for the inconvenience/discomfort/etc. of carrying a firearm.

This is the key that I think may people miss. Do what you want, but understand the consequences of what you do.

People speed and think, "Oh, they won't bother me for 5 over" or "I can afford the ticket." What they fail to include in that thought process is the consequences of not being able to control the vehicle and hurting someone else.

The same is true with a gun. One guy said, "I can afford the $200 fine", but didn't think of the fact that he could lose his license to carry. Another said that carrying in a Post Office was a federal offense. Clearly he had thought about the consequences of carrying there and wasn't willing to take that risk.

Many in this thread have said, "I'll carry where I want regardless of the sign because it doesn't carry the weight of law" that's fine, but do they realize that there are other consequences?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Reminds me I read where JC Penney was laying off workers. JC Penny and Sears both have legal signs where I live. I observe the signs by purchasing over the internet from foreign vendors. American retail business have no divine right to my business, and I have no concern whether they have to fold up their tents today or tomorrow. There are no chains on my feet forcing me to buy from them. No amount of advertising will sway me when I see that legal no gun sign in Texas. I consider their parking lots unsafe, and I am liberal with my advice to other people not to shop or support such businesses. If I can persuade one person not to spend money there to make it cost them I will do so.

Really? "Good Lord, man! They have hatchets and axes in that place! All it takes is for ONE CUSTOMER TO SNAP, and you'll have a MASS AXING!"

Should he have asked for the manager?

I don't spend my money places that have "no guns" signs. I was on my way to buy my wife a piece of jewelry one day when I saw the dreaded "no guns" sign on the door. I stood in front of the store for a few minutes with my gun on my hip (open carry), and the manager opened the door to ask if he could help me. I told him that I was interested in a "Journey" necklace around 2 karats total weight, but, since his company had put the sign on the door, I was going to buy it somewhere else. I told him to have a nice day and took my two grand sale elsewhere. "He went to Jared, but he bought the jewelry somewhere else!"

ECS

__________________
CPT, Armor (Ret)
Luke 22:36

Store owner probably migrated North from Massachusetts!!!

Well done Sir!

__________________
Semper-Fi

I do not understand the logic of getting a CCW Permit and then breaking the law by carrying it onto posted private property because they won't know you are carrying anyway. Using that logic, why would you even brother to be partially legal by getting a CCW?

We get enough bad press when we are 100% legal, why give them more ammunition to use against us.

I think it is easy to understand why a CCW license holder might carry even when a GFZ sign is posted: the entire purpose of carrying a firearm is to provide for self defense and defense of one's family. The need for a gun does not end merely because some anti-gun property owner decided to post a sign. I think that most gun owners want to obey the law, except when that law puts them into excessive danger.

Just as some good citizens knowingly broke the law by carrying even before concealed carry became legal, some will carry where it is technically prohibited. Leaving a firearm in an easy-to-break-into vehicle is not a great solution. Leaving a firearm at home because for one small part of a day you will not be able to avoid entering a business that is posted is not an acceptable compromise.

I would guess that most legal gun concealed carriers honor the property owner's decision where possible by not patronizing that business. But where it creates a dangerous or overly inconvenient situation you can just make sure that concealed means really concealed. I'll bet that if a GFZ business owner is being threatened with death by a criminal, and if a licensed gun carrier intervenes successfully, the business owner is not going to get too upset that his GFZ sign was ignored.

I agree that leaving your gun in a vehicle is not a good solution. I too avoid the post office, but if I do go there, I will not carry my revolver inside with me. On the occasions I do go into the post office, I never go in armed. All federal property is off limits. I can however carry into a hospital or a bank in Texas, and I do, but not if there is a 30.06 sign and not if it is federal property.

As for someone breaking into a vehicle at a post office, I figure that is the government's negligence in making it a gun free zone, as long as I lock my vehicle and the government leaves me no option.

Now if they made all handguns somehow illegal then I would decide maybe to ignore the law, since I consider such a law to be unconstitutional, certainly not enforceable by any executive order, regardless of who issues it.

I figure that business owners are not stupid in Texas. If they put up a gun buster sign they know the sign is not enforceable and if they wanted to keep out a concealed license holder they would put up the legally required signs. Those have to be in English and Spanish on every entrance. I see pawn and gun shops that have signs that your firearm must be unloaded before entering. When I told the owner of one of them that I never had bought anything there because of his sign, he said that it did not apply to permit holders. I even saw a sign once that said "pursuant to 30.06" and so on. But the letters were not 1 and 1/2 inches high and it was not in both English and Spanish, so if I had needed to go inside and pay for gas I would not have disarmed. But I also would not have stopped for gas there in the future.

You seem to miss the fact that in many states, just posting a sign does NOT make it illegal to carry in that establishment!

To some extent, those of us who choose to carry make things more difficult by trying to persuade those businesses to embrace our thinking - they won't.
Allow them their illusion of safety, and carry concealed (where legal), without any "objections to mg't". Or, if you choose...don't patronize those establishments that post such signs...again, without "objections to mg't".
After all, we carry to protect ourselves - not to try and pursuade others to do the same. At least...that's why I carry.

He did not laugh....but seemed baffled.

The young people today have no sence of humor, one time several years back my youngest son wanted a pair of sun glasses, they were called frog skins, we went into a store that has all kinds of sun glasses, I went to the counter and was looking around and a young guy asked if I needed any help, I said yes, I'm looking for some sun glasses for my son, I think they are call Fore Skins, my wife kicked me in the shins, he said he had never heard of them, but we do have some frog skins, I said OK I will take a pair of them, the dumb kid didn't even smile.

__________________
Don

Some seem to delight in chastising states or other governments who do not "do the right thing" by passing lenient CCW laws - Then delight in pubicly proclaiming how they'll violate the law anyway.

Some (most here?) are adamant about how governments or other individuals "Don't dare infringe upon my rights". Yet, again, are adamant about how they'll disregard the rights of those (business owners) who disagree with our point of view.

Stop public posturing. Carry where you need to - discreetly. If you plan on violating a law or someone else's rights, don't brag about it. It doesn't help your cause. If you don't want people to control you or your guns, don't brag about how you'll just go ahead and do it anyway.


Sgt Lumpy

The theater my girlfriend and I visit every once in a while has a no firearms sign so before we went to see a movie one day we called and asked if my girlfriend could have her weapon in the theater( she is a police officer). Guess what they said? They said no! Are you freaking kidding me?! We still went and my furious self proceeded to explain to the manager how stupid those signs are and his response was " well didn't you see the theater shootings on tv? I then told him that guy would not have listened to your stupid sign even if it was ten feet tall. I said you won't even let an Leo in your theater and you have lost my business permanently. They wouldn't let a police officer into the theater with a pistol. Some of these people need to be high fived in the face with a chair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

__________________
Using Tapatalk