The Current CCW Environment
- Thread starter glenncal1
- Start date
StatesRightist
Member
Private property residential rights are not the same as a business. That is legal fact, not personal opinion. If your business is in your home, then you might have an argument. Otherwise, the correct term is business property, there is a reason the law makes distinction between the two, your "rights" are different on each of those types of property.
I love the private property argument some make, feel free to let the guy shooting you he's violating not only your rights, but the business owners as well. So if that stops him.
Business rights do not include your ability to make others a target. If you provide armed security and walk outs to the parking lot, then you have a legitimate moral argument. It has nothing to do with being above the law, it has to with moral imperatives. A person's right to life supersedes your personal preferences. That has been a philosophical given for centuries now.
Don't get me wrong if the sign discourages your from carrying, follow your conscience. It is not a black and white issue, at least for a thinking person it's not. There are valid arguments both ways. I see both points, it falls on you to make the decsion and then live with the choice.
I love the private property argument some make, feel free to let the guy shooting you he's violating not only your rights, but the business owners as well. So if that stops him.
Business rights do not include your ability to make others a target. If you provide armed security and walk outs to the parking lot, then you have a legitimate moral argument. It has nothing to do with being above the law, it has to with moral imperatives. A person's right to life supersedes your personal preferences. That has been a philosophical given for centuries now.
Don't get me wrong if the sign discourages your from carrying, follow your conscience. It is not a black and white issue, at least for a thinking person it's not. There are valid arguments both ways. I see both points, it falls on you to make the decsion and then live with the choice.
Last edited:
No shirt, no shoes, no service!!
You show me a legal opinion issued by case law or legislation that says that if I own a restaurant and have a no guns policy, then I am responsible for your defense against armed violence.
Private property rights are the most important thing protected by the Constitution. In fact, that is the reason we have a Constitution.
The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property. ~John Locke
Last edited:
StatesRightist
Member
How many suits do you think have been filed in Aurora, VA Tech etc? The basis of all of them is failure to provide a safe environment. How you get to that conclusion is based on a set of events/arguments, not a single argument, not allowing guns was mentioned in the VA Tech arguments, but certainly was not a singular factor in the suits, nor even a primary one. However,the concept of suing someone after a shooting because of CCW denial is a case the NRA freely admits to looking for the right test case to bring suit on.
You missed my point on property rights, what I said was 1. There is a legally recognized difference between your home and business and the rights you have in each. 2. I said I saw both sides of the argument. You also skipped right over the moral imperative vs legality decision each person has to make. No one is debating your ability to stick a sign in the window, but what that sign truly means.
Nice Locke quote, It shows you truly care about the basis of our Government and are a fellow Patriot!
Last edited:
luangtom
US Veteran
Yup, it is. It is equally sad that around here they wand you now to make sure you are not carrying, even with a GWCL in yer wallet. It sucks.
bp231986
Member
andrewb70
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 211
You Sir make a convincing argument, but you are missing one critical point that renders it null and void; your presence inside any private business establishment is strictly VOLUNTARY! Let me elaborate.
We (thankfully) live in a society that offers us many choices when it comes to where we procure food, drink, entertainment, clothing, etc...Individuals enter a place of business on a voluntary basis for the purpose of mutually beneficial exchange. When I visit a grocer it is because I prefer to have food instead of the money in my pocket. The grocer prefers to have the money in my pocket instead of the food on his shelves. By definition, exchange can only take place when both parties have the desire, ability, and the means to facilitate said exchange, otherwise the exchange cannot take place. Exchange, also by definition, is voluntary. Every individual chooses numerous exchanges throughout the day.
Let's get back on point. When a business places a "no guns sign" on its door it sends a certain signal. Some perceive (incorrectly) that the business is looking out for my best interest. We all know better, because we know that "gun free" zones are more dangerous. However, what we think and what we know is irrelevant because doing business with any establishment is voluntary. So if a business chooses to not allow gun (or swords, or knives, or people wearing purple for that matter) is their prerogative. I in turn have a choice to make. I either respect their wishes and enter the establishment without my gun (or not wear purple) or I choose another establishment that does not have said rules. It is that simple...
I will even go one step further and state that it is immoral for anyone to NOT respect the wishes of the business establishment because not doing so is an act of aggression. Exerting aggression when none was exerted towards me is immoral.
Andrew
Armed Babysitter
Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 31
As long as it isn't State or Federally prohibited, gun buster signs aren't worth the paper they're printed on here, legally speaking.
When we are talking whether or not to ignore no gun signs, just ask yourself, Where is my gun the most secure, in the glove box where it could be stolen, or concealed in a holster on my hip?
When we are talking whether or not to ignore no gun signs, just ask yourself, Where is my gun the most secure, in the glove box where it could be stolen, or concealed in a holster on my hip?
jaykellogg
Absent Comrade
I was licensed to carry in PA, but when I was transferred to North Carolina I discovered all kinds of places you are not allowed to carry. There are no gun signs on the door going into the Asheville Mall. Also NC is an open carry state. So I really do not need a license to carry in the car as long as the gun is visible. In PA, you needed a license to carry, even when hunting. Their license (at the time) said Hunting, fishing, target, protection. Where I lived the Sheriff would cross off either Hunting, Fishing, Target or Protection. Protection allowed you to carry concealed. I was advised I could carry anywhere except at night with a strong light in the car. Having a light and a firearm was prima facie evidence of jack lighting. I am confident that now in PA you are not allowed to carry in Govt buildings or on school property.
In NC the Carry license didn't make much sense until the Government said if you are legally allowed to carry in the state you live in you can carry in federal parks. I then got the license. It still galls me that I had to pay a lot of money for the license and wait while they investigated me, yet some businesses do not allow me to carry on the premises. Also, according to state law, If I eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol I cannot carry there. I call these "feel good" laws. it feels good to pass them. Everybody knows if you allow people to carry in bars there will be gunfights all over, right? No, these laws weren't passed because of a problem, they were passed to make certain people feel good. If you go to a mall, theater, any business where carrying is prohibited do you think there are not people carrying weapons? LEOs are allowed to carry there. There have been several high profile mass shootings in gun free zones. I am not aware of any evidence that gun free zones reduce violence. Conversely, I am not aware of any mass shootings involving gun free zones that the shooter specifically selected because he thought he was less likely to encounter armed resistance. In the Gifford's AZ shooting there were folks carrying there that were unable to use their arms to stop the shooter. In Columbine, VA Tech and Aurora, CO. I know of no reasons why the shooter selected these targets that involve there not being guns.
IMO, the gun free zones provide no safety and are a pita to lawfully licensed folks. Everyone knows (everyone here anyway) that do not carry only applies to honest folks. It is a little like me parking my car with the top down and an expensive camera on the seat and leaving a sign "Do not take this camera."
In NC the Carry license didn't make much sense until the Government said if you are legally allowed to carry in the state you live in you can carry in federal parks. I then got the license. It still galls me that I had to pay a lot of money for the license and wait while they investigated me, yet some businesses do not allow me to carry on the premises. Also, according to state law, If I eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol I cannot carry there. I call these "feel good" laws. it feels good to pass them. Everybody knows if you allow people to carry in bars there will be gunfights all over, right? No, these laws weren't passed because of a problem, they were passed to make certain people feel good. If you go to a mall, theater, any business where carrying is prohibited do you think there are not people carrying weapons? LEOs are allowed to carry there. There have been several high profile mass shootings in gun free zones. I am not aware of any evidence that gun free zones reduce violence. Conversely, I am not aware of any mass shootings involving gun free zones that the shooter specifically selected because he thought he was less likely to encounter armed resistance. In the Gifford's AZ shooting there were folks carrying there that were unable to use their arms to stop the shooter. In Columbine, VA Tech and Aurora, CO. I know of no reasons why the shooter selected these targets that involve there not being guns.
IMO, the gun free zones provide no safety and are a pita to lawfully licensed folks. Everyone knows (everyone here anyway) that do not carry only applies to honest folks. It is a little like me parking my car with the top down and an expensive camera on the seat and leaving a sign "Do not take this camera."
Last edited:
TexasArmed
Member
That sign unless it is 30.06 sign is not enforceable in my state so I would and do ignore it in restaurants unless it is a 30.06 enforceable sign in Texas. If it is a legally enforceable sign I won't eat there, and I will not allow anyone visiting me from another state, to go there, and just explain to them that the food isn't that good there, and that area is quite dangerous for patrons. I have also posted negative reviews for other reasons for restaurants that I do not like.
They have a right to run their business as they want to, but do not have a right to search me, without probable cause, nor to enforce a non enforceable sign. I have an obligation to leave if they ask me, and can take my business and encourage others to avoid the restaurant.
It was a mass shooting in a Luby's Cafeteria in Texas that started concealed carry in Texas. If property rights of business were equal with that of private property, then any sign could be posted to prohibit anyone of a different race from coming there. Try that with a business now, and the business might get shut down.
Last edited:
Arik
Member
Pa is an open carry state, they just dont adverse it. However if you have a permit it is ILLEGAL to OC. Without a permit it ILLEGAL to CC. Philly doesnt like OC so they made a law making it illegal but the state law trumps it. So basically what happens is you get hassled and detained but eventually let go. Lately more and more people in Philly are OC'ing and cops are becoming more accustomed to it. Also Pa is a shall issue state. No classes are required. Only requirements are to pass the background check and pay the fee
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
jaykellogg
Absent Comrade
Arik, thanks for clearing that up for me. As my NC CCW permit is honored in PA I haven't much fear carrying there. I have heard of Philly hasseling legal folks carrying. Last time I was there I read an editorial written by (as I recall) the Philadelphia Chief of Police arguing that PA shouldn't have to honor other states' CCW licenses. I recall from years ago that when you asked for a protection license the Sheriff would sometimes ask you why and if he didn't think you gave a good enough reason your permit would only say Hunting, fishing, target. This would not allow carrying concealed. My brother lives in PA and keeps a gun in his truck, but doesn't usually carry concealed.
That just isn't the case. Businesses (and the law) can and do discriminate against customers based on many factors. Age, dress codes, height and weight (ever see the signs at rides in amusement parks?), etc.
Discrimination based on race is deemed to be a "suspect classification" and is subject to a higher level of attention ("strict scrutiny") by the courts.
Suspect classification | LII / Legal Information Institute
I realize that signs carry different legal status in different states. In Georgia, the only thing a sign means is that you have to leave the business if they ask you to. Of course, they have to somehow discover that you are armed. I guess that is where "wanding" and checking purses, bags, etc. comes in. If you refuse to leave, you can be charged with misdemeanor trespass. I imagine this might affect the status of your permit. I am not sure about that.
It really concerns me that so many people seem to be willing to deny basic Constitutional rights to one group when they insist on their own rights. There is more to the US Constitution than the 2nd Amendment. Those who have read my posts over in the 2nd Amendment Forum when discussing with certain individuals know what a strong supporter of the 2nd I am. I am equally as passionate about property rights.
StatesRightist
Member
This as been a good discussion. I appreciate a thoughtful and not a knee jerk response/post. Your post is well presented, as was Redlevel's and some others.
The counter of course would be some services/goods fall into the necessity category and that in small rural areas there may only be one alternative for goods/services. In that situation, the argument could be made it's immoral to force people to choose between being unprotected/exposed to danger and having needed goods by denying their 2nd Amendment rights.
As I said I see both sides of the argument, being of the Strict Constitutionalist bent, I am torn by the validity of both sides of the argument. If pushed, I guess I would have to say the right to life and to protect you and your families lives supersedes others "rights" due to the fact any other right is moot without the primary and foremost right, the right to life and protection of that life.
I do realize, as several have said, it is possible to construct excellent arguments on the other side of equation. I've enjoyed all of the thought provoking responses.
Last edited:
Arik
Member
Google "Gerald Ung" its a SD case involving a young college guy from VA, who's ccw Pa honors, who was a Temple student in Philly. If it wasnt for street cameras he'd be in prison for attempted murder
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
andrewb70
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 211
It is indeed a good discussion. Again, I see your point. In fact, one does not have to live in a rural area to experience what you have described (almost). I will give you a personal experience I am having currently, living in Memphis; hardly a rural setting.
The local movie theater chain (Malco) just decided to post "no guns allowed" signs at all of their theaters. I am not aware of any other theaters in the area, so I have a choice to make. I have chosen to not give my business to the movie theater chain. I also wrote them several emails explaining my position. Of course going to see a movie is hardly a necessity.
So while it may be possible to theoretically have a situation like you describe, I bet it would be hard to find an actual example. There are always alternatives, even in small communities, for just about every necessary, although some may be less convenient, etc...
Also, let's keep in mind that the Constitution enumerates the powers given tothe Federal government has, and the Bill of Rights PROHIBITS the federal government from making laws against certain rights. It is actually rather unfortunate that the Bill of Rights is called what it is, because it causes much confusion. It should have been more accurately called the Bill of Government Power Restriction, but that doesn't roll off the tongue.
Andrew
In one of the most affluent areas of town in Louisville, there is a gang of very well to do kids, they are hard core, with automatic weapons, deal drugs and who knows what. I'd rather be in the west end, where i'm the only white, than be in the nice part of my town.
jaykellogg
Absent Comrade
You are allowed to drink and carry a gun in PA? In NC you are not allowed to have any alcohol in your system if you carry. Also carrying where alcohol is served is forbidden by law in NC. I cannot carry my gun into the Olive Garden.
Arik
Member
Honestly i dont remember if he drank or not. This case is about 5 years old. I can tell you that i have NEVER seen a sign for no guns allowed. The most i have ever seen was "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Regardless, the only place i dont carry is one where its a fedral offence...post office, court house, police station, school ...... I have not seen any sign at any restaurant that says no firearms. I carry EVERYWHERE except where its fedrally prohibited
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
