Armed Contractor In Your Home

[handejector]

I did not imply that you are an elitist. I am implying that you view anyone who would restrict carry by others in their home to be elitist.
You don't spit the word out, but the implication is obvious-

I concede your points about private property,and I even support property rights as being most important. My point is this: now that we both agree that you have a right to decide who comes in your home, this particular situation is a great litmus test for whether your truly believe in freedom for other Americans and not just yourself. There is no difference, either conceptual or practical, between trusting an Armed American at the mall near your family or on your own property. Either the lady is trustworthy with her gun, or she isn't. Either you believe Americans should be allowed to carry or you don't. And if the answer is 'not in my home', which you have every right to say, then it reveals that you really don't want other Americans armed anywhere, it's just that the only place you have a right to enforce your beliefs is your own home. This is why it's a great litmus test for whether someone really truly values freedom and rights not just for oneself, but for all.

Whether you don't trust her because she might shoot you, or because she might have a mishap and you MIGHT be held liable, are both indicators that you just don't trust Armed Americans enough that you think they should be permitted to carry, whether on your own property or elsewhere. It's all the same when it comes to whether you truly believe others are worthy of the same freedoms that you think yourself worthy of. Either you do or you don't

////////////////////////

There's a major difference between
1) allowing the typical gun permit holding armed American in your house as a default position (what I advocate in my own posts) and


Your point here: "I have to let any non-felon carrying a gun into my home if there is a legitimate reason for them being there, like remodeling or service at a party or event, or it means I'm an elitist that doesn't truly believe in everyone's right to self defense." I'll help you out on this one: YES. As a general default position, if you really believe in true American freedom, then that entails that we ought to recognize that freedom in everyone, until they demonstrate that they are not to be trusted with certain freedoms.

and as I said before-

A rather lamely extrapolated philosophical point that one is INSISTING you fall on one side or the other of with no qualifications allowed. It simply bears no relationship to reality. We ALL know people who are legal gunowners that we never take our eyes off of when there are both guns and ammo at hand. If you haven't met one, just spend 4 hours a week at gun shops and ranges until you become enlightened. You won't get into February.

///////////////////////////////////////////

Another one of your quotes: "While I support every idiot's right to self defense, and, therefore, to own a gun, it does NOT mean I will allow said idiot to pack in my house." It's very revealing that you refer to others other than yourself as 'idiots', yet you constantly Talk about an 'elitist' position. Someone has an elitist position, and it's not me.

So, you really think I am calling anyone other than myself an idiot?
Really?
I know some idiots. I'm sorry if the word offends you. Perhaps I should say "logic and intelligence challenged individuals".
Nothing in my statement implies I view all other people as idiots. Perhaps I should have said-
"While I even support every idiot's right to self defense, and, therefore, to own a gun, it does NOT mean I will allow even said idiot to pack in my house."
Is that better?

I simply don't accept your basic premise.
I do accept being responsible for what I allow to happen, whether by intent or by accident, to anyone and everyone that is in my home.

I'm done here.

 

[Shorty 45 MK2]

All the 2A/property rights debate aside. I'm I the only one that assumes everyone is carrying?

To answer Smokes qeusrion , probably not, but I also wouldn't be looking to hire a bartender on fb.

In before the lock!

 

[American1776]

I did not imply that you are an elitist. I am implying that you view anyone who would restrict carry by others in their home to be elitist.
You don't spit the word out, but the implication is obvious-





////////////////////////



and as I said before-


///////////////////////////////////////////



So, you really think I am calling anyone other than myself an idiot?
Really?
I know some idiots. I'm sorry if the word offends you. Perhaps I should say "logic and intelligence challenged individuals".
Nothing in my statement implies I view all other people as idiots. Perhaps I should have said-
"While I even support every idiot's right to self defense, and, therefore, to own a gun, it does NOT mean I will allow even said idiot to pack in my house."
Is that better?

I simply don't accept your basic premise.
I do accept being responsible for what I allow to happen, whether by intent or by accident, to anyone and everyone that is in my home.

I'm done here.

Fair enough on the point about 'idiots'. I misinterpreted your statement.

I assume that since you didn't address my main problem with your post (that you conflate my position with a different position), the issue stands.

We will agree to disagree on these subtle points.

 

[gregintenn]

This has turned out to be a fun and lively thread.

I still say the girl with the gun doesn't bother me near as much as getting a bus load of folks liquored up and sending on their way to try and navigate home.

 

[ladder13]

........... I'm I the only one that assumes everyone is carrying?

.............

Sure you are. People wear loose cargo pants and Hawaiin shirts because they just lost a bunch of weight.

But I digress.
I'd like to check out her tattoo's....wherever they may be.

 

[Smoke]

What a waste of time even coming up with this question

And yet here you are

 

[kbm6893]

And yet here you are

It's like last looking at a car wreck. You know you shouldn't but you just can't help it.

 

[Smoke]

I have a friend that is a old school retired cop. He believes he should be able to carry. But sometimes / most the time, not sure that others should.

You just described KBM6893 to a "T"

Not even close. I encourage everyone to get a gun and carry it.

And in the same post where he tell my the above description is inaccurate

what a dumb attitude, to label somebody as an "elitist" because I don't want somebody I don't know or trust with a gun in my house. This last week alone, two stories of deaths due to some idiot screwing around with a gun, and those idiots weren't strangers. Just this week, I saw some Open Carry guy at Walmart. Looked like his family tree was a telephone pole. But sure, come on in! Don't want to be called an "elitist"

At least this time you didn't say he looked retarded

I still think the guys walking around with Rambo rigs are idiots. And the tool in the video looks like he's about 4 months pregnant.

Strap on that Iron and stroll down Main Street if you want. It's your right. Hey, it's my right to protest a military funeral and call the dead soldier a baby killer. Tell the grieving parents their son is in hell Or a police funeral. Wonder how many here would approve of that?

As I said earlier your quote above describes kbm6893 to a "T"

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Phil, yes I do. I carry on the job all day everyday.

This difference is that it's concealed. The home owner or business owner doesn't know. Therefore he doesn't assume the liability if something happens. I do.

Do I think they would be happy if they knew? Some yes, some no. Would they let me in the door while open carrying? Some yes, some no. If I were denied access to a home I would understand completely and not argue the point.

My point is and has been all along is that while the 2A puts us on common ground, it doesn't mean that were are all equal. Some of us take it more serious than the next guy. Some don't seek training or practice much if at all. I can't do much about these people on the street but I can in my home. These people are constantly in the news after they have done something stupid.

And then there's insurance. My employer has significantly increased his liability insurance because we both carry at work. Would your insurance company cover a mishap at your house if you knowing let me in your house armed? Why take the chance?

Right. You enter homes armed without the homeowners knowledge. And if they knew some might not let you in. But since they don't know.... This is why I say that the notion of keeping armed contractors out of the home is more about pretending or wishful thinking than a practical verifiable position.

Insurance- If the homeowner is genuinely concerned about the risks of "mishap" due to an armed contractor in the home that could jeopardize the safety of him, family or friends, then contractor liability insurance isn't a valid consideration for the homeowner's safety worries. I Mean... If you were genuinely concerned about the safety of your family, would liability insurance change your mind about letting an armed stranger in the home? Surely not.

I agree that it's not a 2A issue.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

How did a girl bartender and the Orkin man morph into a team of Iranian jihadists with AKs delivering a Fatwa on Lee?

 

[Smoke]

How did a girl bartender and the Orkin man morph into a team of Iranian jihadists with AKs delivering a Fatwa on Lee?

A tatoo'd girl bartender

 

[Muss Muggins]

The debate is semi interesting, but if you're a moron, you don't get in the house with or without a piistol. If I like you, you can come in, and if you're carrying a gun all the better. The assumption seems to be that you have to let any moron into your home to perform a service. Not the case . . .

 

[Muss Muggins]

A tatoo'd girl bartender

Got something against tattoos?

 

[handejector]

I lied. I'm back one more time.
I did forget to address the conflation.

I assume that since you didn't address my main problem with your post (that you conflate my position with a different position), the issue stands.

So, back to your allegation of conflation-

There's a major difference between
1) allowing the typical gun permit holding armed American in your house as a default position (what I advocate in my own posts) and
2) allowing those individuals in your home who have already demonstrated that they are squirrelly people with guns.
I never said you MUST allow everyone in with a firearm. Do not conflate these two very distinct positions, which you seem to do by lumping them all in one post in a sarcastic attempt to make a caracther of my own position.

I confess I had to look up conflate. I haven't seen that one since a vocab test in junior high.

Definition of conflate

con·flat·ed con·flat·ing

transitive verb

1. a : to bring together : fuse b : confuse
2. : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

I understand your position. You believe that I should allow anyone into my home armed with no concern as long as they are "the typical gun permit holding armed American".
No.
I'm officially conflating "typical gun permit holding Americans" unknown to me with all other classes of people (idiots included) when it comes to the security of my home and family.

I'm responsible for the security of my home, and everyone in it, right down to the dog. We have 40 friends/acquaintances drinking and swapping war stories, and some lady I met online today is willing to wade in and tend bar because she open carries. Cool. I can't wait.
No, that won't really happen.
I'm good with all 41 of them carrying anywhere else. Really. I'm not worried about what they do elsewhere. I'll gladly live with the risk of an armed society. I believe every one who will handle a gun responsibly should have one and carry it.

The problem is we are not in a perfect world. If we were, we probably wouldn't need a gun and would not be having this conversation.
So, I'm sorry, but having a permit does not automatically vet any person in my mind as being safe and secure to have around my family in my home.

Is that really all it takes for you to allow anyone into your home armed? A permit?
Do you ask to see their permit when they come to your home?

Will you be lending them your car if they have a driver's license?

I do support your right to do what you want.
I hope it works out for you.

I'll stick to controlling my home environment. If that means, in your mind, that I don't truly, completely support the ideal of the right of the individual to self defense, I won't worry about it.

It's actually funny that many people have been armed in my home. I've never asked anyone not to be, never denied entry, and never worried about it. But, I've never pulled a bartender off of FB. I guess I'll have to pat her down if I ever do.

Do not conflate these two very distinct positions, which you seem to do by lumping them all in one post in a sarcastic attempt to make a caracther of my own position.

Sorry, but your absolute, uncompromising position that ANY of "the typical gun permit holding armed American" should be allowed to pack in my home IS a caricature of support of the right to self defense.


I'm done again.
I hope that clarified my conflation.
I'm sure you'll hit the horse again, but he'll still be dead, and won't feel a thing.
Enviable horse.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

Ok- now I'll repeat the repeat-
In NM you need a permit for concealed carry.
But not for open carry!
If you are a legal gun owner, you can open carry in NM.
So don't expect the open carry folks to have a license- permit.
There ain't any!

 

[BAM-BAM]

How did a girl bartender and the Orkin man morph into a team of Iranian jihadists with AKs delivering a Fatwa on Lee?

been away for a few hours........

Have to agree with the Big G;.....American 1776...... has been saying if one restricts the right of anyone, even a stranger, for whom you may be assuming legal liability as an employee or independent contractor, to carry in your home........then you are showing "elitist tendencies" .....

I think Mao....... dealt with this kind of thinking in his 'Cultural Revolution"....in that they must be stamped out.......


In the OP the homeowner will be assuming legal liability for the actions of the bartender as it relates to the bartenders interaction with third parties.The Bartender is the homeowner's agent as she interacts with folks at the party on behalf of the homeowner.....

If the homeowner has knowledge that his "agent" is armed he is condoning it and maybe held be accountable for that armed agent's ( he's never met before tonight) actions.

Common sense...... tell me ......... no openly armed "bartender babe"....... her right maybe..... my house ...... no way!!!!!!



A general contractor/Orkin Man is offering/ providing services to the public........he will be liable for his own actions as he is not acting on behalf of the homeowner ....he is not the homeowner's agent or employee.

 

[American1776]

I lied. I'm back one more time.
I did forget to address the conflation.


So, back to your allegation of conflation-

I confess I had to look up conflate. I haven't seen that one since a vocab test in junior high.

Definition of conflate

con·flat·ed con·flat·ing

transitive verb

1. a : to bring together : fuse b : confuse
2. : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

I understand your position. You believe that I should allow anyone into my home armed with no concern as long as they are "the typical gun permit holding armed American".
No.
I'm officially conflating "typical gun permit holding Americans" unknown to me with all other classes of people (idiots included) when it comes to the security of my home and family.

I'm responsible for the security of my home, and everyone in it, right down to the dog. We have 40 friends/acquaintances drinking and swapping war stories, and some lady I met online today is willing to wade in and tend bar because she open carries. Cool. I can't wait.
No, that won't really happen.
I'm good with all 41 of them carrying anywhere else. Really. I'm not worried about what they do elsewhere. I'll gladly live with the risk of an armed society. I believe every one who will handle a gun responsibly should have one and carry it.

The problem is we are not in a perfect world. If we were, we probably wouldn't need a gun and would not be having this conversation.

I'm sorry, but having a permit does not automatically vet any person in my mind as being safe and secure to have around my family in my home.

Is that really all it takes for you to allow anyone into your home armed? A permit?
Do you ask to see their permit when they come to your home?

Will you be lending them your car if they have a driver's license?

I do support your right to do what you want.
I hope it works out for you.

I'll stick to controlling my home environment. If that means, in your mind, that I don't truly, completely support the ideal of the right of the individual to self defense, I won't worry about it.

It's actually funny that many people have been armed in my home. I've never asked anyone not to be, never denied entry, and never worried about it. But, I've never pulled a bartender off of FB. I guess I'll have to pat her down if I ever do.



Sorry, but your absolute, uncompromising position that ANY of "the typical gun permit holding armed American" should be allowed to pack in my home IS a caricature of support of the right to self defense.


I'm done again.
I hope that clarified my conflation.
I'm sure you'll hit the horse again, but he'll still be dead, and won't feel a thing.
Enviable horse.

I think our disagreement is this:

My position is that unless and until a specific individual demonstrates to me that they are untrustworthy of being armed in my presence, my default position is to allow them to be armed in my presence (home, in public, etc.). The burden of proof so to speak is for me to give a compelling and specific reason for why I don't want an individual around me armed, otherwise, carry on.

It seems that your position (and correct me if I'm wrong) is this: If I don't know who an armed stranger is, I really don't want them armed in my presence. And in my home, I do have the right and power to decide who is armed in my presence. Unless and until they can demonstrate that they are 'legit' (either vouched for by a friend, they are a friend, etc), my default position is to prefer that they not be armed. The burden of proof is on everyone else that you don't know to first prove to you that you can trust them around you (and in your home) armed.

We both are obviously on the same 'side' of gun rights in general. I suspect our differences lie in the small details of emphasis.

 

[Safestuffer]

I understand your position. You believe that I should allow anyone into my home armed with no concern as long as they are "the typical gun permit holding armed American".
No.
I'm officially conflating "typical gun permit holding Americans" unknown to me with all other classes of people (idiots included) when it comes to the security of my home and family
...
I'm sorry, but having a permit does not automatically vet any person in my mind as being safe and secure to have around my family in my home.

Is that really all it takes for you to allow anyone into your home armed? A permit?
Do you ask to see their permit when they come to your home?
...
Sorry, but your absolute, uncompromising position that ANY of "the typical gun permit holding armed American" should be allowed to pack in my home IS a caricature of support of the right to self defense.

I'll ask again, and direct this question at American1776.
What permit?
The majority of states that allow open carry allow it without any kind of permitting process.
You seem to hold the "permit" card up like its a source of reassurance to see someone "vetted" by their "permit".
But that's not the case.
I've been at enough firing ranges and known enough stupid people to know that someone's possession of a gun openly carried does not necessarily mean they are a safe person.

 

[CatboatWilly]

Before we get too far off the track, I'm wondering what the 'morning after' conversations would be among those who attended ? What will your guests really think of you after you pulling this off ? I'll bet your Facebook page would make interesting reading.
You're holding this party to make a favorable impression on your guests. You haven't said how you think it will make them feel.

 

[American1776]

I'll ask again, and direct this question at American1776.
What permit?
The majority of states that allow open carry allow it without any kind of permitting process.
You seem to hold the "permit" card up like its a source of great reassurance to see someone "vetted" by their "permit".
But that's not the case.

I will generally assume that unless a person demonstrates themselves untrustworthy of being armed around me, I will default to allowing them to be armed around me. A permit is an extra (little) piece of assurance. So in a constitutional carry state, or an OC without license state, my position is the same. Unless someone shows themselves to be dangerous (like unholstering the pistol without good reason, talking about the impending alien invasion, etc), I give them the benefit of the doubt.