Armed Contractor In Your Home

[Smoke]

A little background: There's a FB page in Colorado Spring for people to list goods and services for sale.

About 1030 Thursday morning a guy on the page is advertising for a bartender for a private party that night.

About 1100 a girl offers to take the job I posted that she might want to think twice before going to the home of someone she doesn't know to tend bar for 40 of his closest (drunk) friends.
The girl replies it's OK because she open carries.

First Question: Who here would let an unknown contractor into your home armed?

While generally I am an open carry supporter I have to ask if in this situation where you're in a room full of drunk people (IMO) it's only a matter of time before someone decides to get stupid over your gun.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I'm okay with open carry, especially while on the job, any job. The caveat: One should be confident of one's ability to retain the firearm and defend oneself should the need arise. I could bartend while open carrying, but I know some people who shouldn't . . .

 

[tompehret]

I'm a home inspector. I go into different homes and meet new clients daily. I do NOT carry a firearm into peoples' homes. (if the situation is that bad, I cancel, and leave). My pistol stays locked in the truck. Seems like good manners to me.
The bartender is hired to mix and serve drinks, not provide security. If she gets bad vibes she should do what I do: leave.
And when a contractor/service person or anyone else who is not a personal, invited acquaintance comes to my home they leave their guns outside. Again, good manners.
Friends are another story; bring 'em if you got 'em.

 

[RJJ 1971]

Unknown contractor/vendor in my home - nope.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I would have to say no for liability reasons. If she shoots someone regardless of the reason, you could be held liable since you hired her knowing she was armed.

I wonder what home owners insurance would say?

 

[THE PILGRIM]

A few ago I was attending a Blues Concert in an old softball stadium.
That would be at the old coal mining town of Madrid, NM.
Lots of bikes there!
One of the Biker looking guys was open carrying a Glock.
Open carry state!
Lots of folks quit watching the band and started watching him.
Then a young man wearing a Tee Shirt which said 'Security' came down and told the Glock guy that he could not open carry there.
The young guy looked familiar.
Then I remembered that I was looking at CDs on my way in.
He had been up front selling CDs.
He put on the Security shirt to go after the open carry Glock.
Multi-tasker!

 

[The Big D]

Where's my ticket...

...I foresee a train wreck? Need popcorn, too.

Be safe.

 

[GatorFarmer]

That may have just been her way of saying " mind your own business/I can take care of myself".

Beyond that I do not care to speculate about some random woman who might or might not take a gun along to do a job for some other guy I do not know.

 

[sigp220.45]

So if some drunk gets obnoxious and grabby, she'll shoot him?

 

[Watchdog]

First Question: Who here would let an unknown contractor into your home armed?

Interesting question. I'll play Devil's Advocate here and flip the question around a bit.

What business owner, like maybe a restaurant owner, would let unknown armed open carry customers into his place of business?

Where'd I put my popcorn...

 

[Protected One]

A little background: There's a FB page in Colorado Spring for people to list goods and services for sale.

About 1030 Thursday morning a guy on the page is advertising for a bartender for a private party that night.

About 1100 a girl offers to take the job I posted that she might want to think twice before going to the home of someone she doesn't know to tend bar for 40 of his closest (drunk) friends.
The girl replies it's OK because she open carries.

First Question: Who here would let an unknown contractor into your home armed?

While generally I am an open carry supporter I have to ask if in this situation where you're in a room full of drunk people (IMO) it's only a matter of time before someone decides to get stupid over your gun.

No. I would NOT let a unknown contractor come into my home armed.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Interesting question. I'll play Devil's Advocate here and flip the question around a bit.

What business owner, like maybe a restaurant owner, would let unknown armed open carry customers into his place of business?

Where'd I put my popcorn...

Because his business is open to the public. My home is not.

 

[Rpg]

A little background: There's a FB page in Colorado Spring for people to list goods and services for sale.

About 1030 Thursday morning a guy on the page is advertising for a bartender for a private party that night.

About 1100 a girl offers to take the job I posted that she might want to think twice before going to the home of someone she doesn't know to tend bar for 40 of his closest (drunk) friends.
The girl replies it's OK because she open carries.

First Question: Who here would let an unknown contractor into your home armed?

While generally I am an open carry supporter I have to ask if in this situation where you're in a room full of drunk people (IMO) it's only a matter of time before someone decides to get stupid over your gun.

I wouldn't dream of hiring her.

She may be a fine person with an underdeveloped idea of time and place.

Or , she could be looking for a confrontation.

Why risk it?

This has nothing to do with 2nd amendment stuff.

It has to do with good judgment.

 

[exdetsgt]

If she feels she needs a gun while contracting, perhaps she might consider carrying concealed (assuming she has a permit to do so) and not mention it at all.

 

[American1776]

Because his business is open to the public. My home is not.

This is a difference without significance. Also, I'm responding to everyone who disagrees with allowing armed citizen in your own home. Whether a privately owned business is open to the public, or your privately owned home is not, matters not with regard to the real issue at hand: do you trust armed Americans enough to allow them (when you are in the position to permit or deny)to exercise what would otherwise be their natural rights to self defense on your own property? If you answer 'no', then you must also think those same folks are not trustworthy of being armed outside your own home in public. After all, it's not as if the female bartender is perfectly trustworthy with her gun in public when standing in line at the ticket booth, but the moment she steps over the line of your property, she's suddenly persona non grata. This fantasy mindset is essentially the main philosophical platform of the anti-gun camp.

While property rights are essential to individual liberty, my point here speaks to what our attitudes should be if we really value everyone's Liberty.

Either you trust your fellow Americans with the same rights that you yourself like to exercise and value, or you do not trust them; there is no in between in this case. When it comes to valuing liberty, we must be ready to also accept liberty's logical implications.

I personally value my Liberty and also the Liberty of my fellow citizens. If anyone coming to my home is a lawful carry permit holder, I would certainly allow them the choice of coming armed, because that's what valuing freedom requires of me.

 

[Kanewpadle]

This is a difference without significance. Also, I'm responding to everyone who disagrees with allowing armed citizen in your own home. Whether a privately owned business is open to the public, or your privately owned home is not, matters not with regard to the real issue at hand: do you trust armed Americans enough to allow them (when you are in the position to permit or deny)to exercise what would otherwise be their natural rights to self defense on your own property? If you answer 'no', then you must also think those same folks are not trustworthy of being armed outside your own home in public. After all, it's not as if the female bartender is perfectly trustworthy with her gun in public when standing in line at the ticket booth, but the moment she steps over the line of your property, she's suddenly persona non grata. This fantasy mindset is essentially the main philosophical platform of the anti-gun camp.

While property rights are essential to individual liberty, my point here speaks to what our attitudes should be if we really value everyone's Liberty.

Either you trust your fellow Americans with the same rights that you yourself like to exercise and value, or you do not trust them; there is no in between in this case. When it comes to valuing liberty, we must be ready to also accept liberty's logical implications.

I personally value my Liberty and also the Liberty of my fellow citizens. If anyone coming to my home is a lawful carry permit holder, I would certainly allow them the choice of coming armed, because that's what valuing freedom requires of us.

Read post number 13 again. There is a BIG difference. On the street is one thing. In my home another.

I'm all for the 2A. But in my home the 2A takes a backseat if I feel it necessary to protect myself and family. To let someone I don't know I my house with a gun is foolish if not stupid. If it's concealed and I don't know about it then fine. I will reasonably assume that you are doing so legally.

As gun carriers, the 2A puts us common ground. Beyond that, I will make the determination if I can trust them.

 

[American1776]

Read post number 13 again. There is a BIG difference. On the street is one thing. In my home another.

I'm all for the 2A. But in my home the 2A takes a backseat if I feel it necessary to protect myself and family. To let someone I don't know I my house with a gun is foolish if not stupid. If it's concealed and I don't know about it then fine. I will reasonably assume that you are doing so legally.

As gun carriers, the 2A puts us common ground. Beyond that, I will make the determination if I can trust them.

I'm glad you brought up post 13. Because every reason marshalled in that post, including the hypotheticals raised, against allowing her in your home armed, are identical to the things anti-gun folks say when arguing against allowing anyone to carry at all in public. 'This is about good judgement, my safety, are people who carry guns just looking for confrontation, having a time and place to carry, etc. '

Again: either you you believe in freedom for your fellow Americans or you do not. I'm not talking about the 2nd A. Here, I'm making a point about valuing freedom and logical consistency.

Either you trust your fellow Americans with a gun (in the store standing next to you and your family, or in your home, or at the park with you and your kids), or your don't trust them at all with firearms period. If it's the latter, then it would seem that you want to be the only one armed (whether in your home or at the store or anywhere), because (as you just argued) your family's safety take precedence over anyone else's interest in being armed for their own protection.

This is what being internally consistent with ones views entails.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

A couple of weeks ago- an open carry armed citizen was observed in the Albuquerque City Hall.
He was shaking locked doors and attempting to enter areas not public accessible. It was reported that he was talking to himself and acting erratically.
He caused city workers to evacuate and the police responded.
He finally departed without actually talking to or threatening anyone.
There were no charges filed against him as it wasn't apparent that he broke any laws.
In NM open carry is legal. Acting weird is not illegal. Doing both at the same time is not illegal.
Doing both at city hall is apparently not illegal.
Ok American 1776- If this happened in your undisclosed home town, what he have gotten arrested?

Albuquerque Journal | Police: Lockdown lifted at City Hall

 

[Kanewpadle]

I'm glad you brought up post 13. Because every reason marshalled in that post, including the hypotheticals raised, against allowing her in your home armed, are identical to the things anti-gun folks say when arguing against allowing anyone to carry at all in public. 'This is about good judgement, my safety, are people who carry guns just looking for confrontation, having a time and place to carry, etc. '

Again: either you you believe in freedom for your fellow Americans or you do not. I'm not talking about the 2nd A. Here, I'm making a point about valuing freedom and logical consistency.

Either you trust your fellow Americans with a gun (in the store standing next to you and your family, or in your home, or at the park with you and your kids), or your don't trust them at all with firearms period. If it's the latter, then it would seem that you want to be the only one armed (whether in your home or at the store or anywhere), because (as you just argued) your family's safety take precedence over anyone else's interest in being armed for their own protection.

This is what being internally consistent with ones views entails.

Baloney. Preach that 2A stuff to people on the street. Who I trust in my own home trumps that. Period.

If you want to let armed people in your home because of your belief in the 2A that's up to you. To open yourself to that liability is foolish in my opinion.

You can explain to your family and your insurance company why you did so.

 

[American1776]

A couple of weeks ago- an open carry armed citizen was observed in the Albuquerque City Hall.
He was shaking locked doors and attempting to enter areas not public accessible. It was reported that he was talking to himself and acting erratically.
He caused city workers to evacuate and the police responded.
He finally departed without actually talking to or threatening anyone.
There were no charges filed against him ad it wasn't apparent that he broke any laws.
Ok American 1776? If this happened in your undisclosed home town, what he have gotten arrested?

Albuquerque Journal | Police: Lockdown lifted at City Hall

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my two posts, but I'll engage with this digression anyway.
I never said valuing freedom doesn't come without risks. Of course freedom has risks that some people may be irresponsible or misuse their freedom for evil. Anti-gun folks just love to point to individual cases where people misuse firearms so as to argue for all sorts of restrictions on everyone's freedom. And the right and proper response is to say that we acknowledge that freedom comes with costs. But those costs are trivial compared to the costs of denying everyone's freedom, and turning everyone into subjects,in the name of the so-called 'greater good'.