Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Right to Carry.... really?

  1. #21
    kg333's Avatar
    kg333 is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    717
    usmcj, although I criticized your post in the other thread, I have a similar understanding of private property rights. Private property owners have the right to control firearms on their property, including businesses. Although not legally barred from doing so, I consider it disrespectful of others to attempt to regulate certain rights...continuing off your example, it may be legal for you to ban Jews from your home, as freedom of religion does not apply to your property, but I will avoid dealing with you in any way as a result.

    Following from that, the other thread was for informing others whether a business has stated anti-gun polices, or has asked those carrying to leave, in case we wish to avoid dealing with such businesses. However, your post in the other thread was offtopic, and highly critical of Benny's method of carry. You clearly feel strongly against open carry, which is fine; there are reasonable arguments that it's counterproductive. But Benny's post, as I said in that thread, was informational, and many of us here do not wish to patronize businesses that oppose open carry, as well as those opposing CCW.

    You asked over there:

    Quote Originally Posted by usmcj View Post
    By the way, I have frequented the 7-11 at 22nd, and Post Road in Indy on many occasions. I have always carried concealed, and never had an issue there. KG, since you've inserted yourself into my questions for Benny, do you think the business owner at the 7-11 was truly anti gun, or could he have been anti open-carry? ..... how would you know?
    Considering the owner was not aware you were carrying, the answer is probably "anti-gun". Of business owners who choose not to post signs, most probably didn't even think to do so...the idea that a business owner would have the conscious thought "I'm not going to post, since concealed is ok, but I don't want anyone openly carrying a gun" is a stretch in most cases other than a gun store. Occam's Razor applies.


    Quote Originally Posted by usmcj View Post
    Another thought for you sir. I don't know how familiar you might be thei the area of 22nd and Post Road in Indianapolis, bult it's not an area that you see mothers walking their children. The business owner may well have sought to avoid any gang-related confrontation due to any obvious presence of a firearm.
    I am not, but someone who sees a properly holstered, openly carried firearm and thinks "gangbanger" is likely anti-gun in the first place.


    In short, your post in that thread didn't contribute, and was looking to pick a fight against open-carry as detrimental to gun rights. In my opinion, you're kicking up unnecessary fuss. Very few people here actually want to ride roughshod over others' rights, but there are a fair number who would like businesses to respect their decision to carry, whether it's open or concealed.

    KG

  2. #22
    usmcj's Avatar
    usmcj is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    403
    KG... point taken. That being said, I know several business owners who have no objection to guns, or carrying guns, but have seen other patrons leave when openly carried guns have appeared in their establishments, resulting in anti open carry, which has evolved into anti gun signs.

    I don't care who open carries, or for what reason. What seems wrong to me is to vehemently promote one's own rights, and then cry foul when someone else's rights come into play. I've carried a handgun for over 40 years, without being asked to leave any establishment. Most of the time I carry concealed.

    Should I decide one day to carry openly and get asked to leave private property, I don't see as I'd have a complaint coming. Accountability, and taking responsibility for one's actions plays in sooner or later. I didn't and still don't see any of either in this instance.

    Regards.

  3. #23
    wjh2657's Avatar
    wjh2657 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, TN
    Posts
    304
    We get so tied up in the Bill of Rights that we forget that these 10 amendments were just that, amendments. They were additions after the Constitution was written. The Constitution of the U.S. was written primarily about property rights, not individual rights. The Revolutionary War was over property rights not individual rights. Delve into the writings of the founding fathers and you will see that their primary concern was in being able to conduct business without interference from the Crown. Thomas Jefferson was the only true "enlightened" member of this elite group. If he had not really pushed the point, there wouldn't even be a Bill of Rights. (The BofR was not popular with the majority of the founding fathers,)

    As our laws were written in the beginning to protect property rights, so will they continue in that vein. As much as it hurts, a reality check will show that this country was not formed by a "peoples' revolution over individual rights violations but by was instigated by a group of wealthy businessmen in response to an overbearing and meddling Central Government. I don't agree with everything the Tea Party says, but this part they have right. Before we start with the "Liberty" calls, reflect on history. Liberty and freedom of individuals has only occurred in those nations that have enforced strong property rights. This is one of the biggest reasons that socialism fails.

  4. #24
    Skarrde is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    17
    While I agree somewhat with what has been said by the OP there is the option to us to sway the business owner. I have seen businesses change their practices because their customers have "boycotted" them to show their protest. While it is the business's choice to do business the way they want it is also our choice on if we want to give them our business. So there is no reason to put someone down for their choice to put a thread up showing their dissatisfaction over the fact of being kicked out of a business because of our choice of wearing a gun or not. And while there may seem to not be a lot of us who will boycott an establishment you might be surprised at how many there actually are. Just ask Amazon about the boycott over the pedaphile book that they tried to sell.

  5. #25
    pic
    pic is online now Senior Member HGF Gold Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,802
    I apologize if this was said already i did not read all the posts.
    There is an issue of the property owner being liable of an accident involving that open carry handgun. Store owner knowingly allowing that person or persons to carry on their property may have significant liability issues.

  6. #26
    CMaki is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    8
    Pic:
    I could be wrong elsewhere, but I do know in WI, that you are not liable for someone's gun because you allow it in your property. However, that may apply to just private land, not businesses. As I don't own a business, I haven't looked into it. Original Poster; I'm going to agree with your nemesis on here. He is free to post this thread, just as you are to complain about it. However, using terms like "butthurt" instead of frustrated is going to NEVER get you anywhere in an argument, especially if you are speaking to a non-gunner about gun rights. Also: the term Nazi is used to describe someone who is part of the National Socialist Party, not someone who disagrees with your views, because generally as a rule, someone disagreeing would mean that they believe in free speech, not something granted by your German Socialist pals.

    Cheers!

  7. #27
    SouthernBoy's Avatar
    SouthernBoy is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Va
    Posts
    2,645
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    We get so tied up in the Bill of Rights that we forget that these 10 amendments were just that, amendments. They were additions after the Constitution was written. The Constitution of the U.S. was written primarily about property rights, not individual rights. The Revolutionary War was over property rights not individual rights. Delve into the writings of the founding fathers and you will see that their primary concern was in being able to conduct business without interference from the Crown. Thomas Jefferson was the only true "enlightened" member of this elite group. If he had not really pushed the point, there wouldn't even be a Bill of Rights. (The BofR was not popular with the majority of the founding fathers,)

    As our laws were written in the beginning to protect property rights, so will they continue in that vein. As much as it hurts, a reality check will show that this country was not formed by a "peoples' revolution over individual rights violations but by was instigated by a group of wealthy businessmen in response to an overbearing and meddling Central Government. I don't agree with everything the Tea Party says, but this part they have right. Before we start with the "Liberty" calls, reflect on history. Liberty and freedom of individuals has only occurred in those nations that have enforced strong property rights. This is one of the biggest reasons that socialism fails.
    It wasn't Thomas Jefferson who pushed for a Bill of Rights. It was George Mason and Patrick Henry. They badgered James Madison who initially saw no need for one, until they convinced him of a real need.

    And the Bill of Rights does not grant or issue rights to the individual. It recognizes rights which exist by virtue of an individual's birth.

    As for property, keep in mind that everyone's original property is their own self.

  8. #28
    SouthernBoy's Avatar
    SouthernBoy is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Va
    Posts
    2,645
    Quote Originally Posted by pic View Post
    I apologize if this was said already i did not read all the posts.
    There is an issue of the property owner being liable of an accident involving that open carry handgun. Store owner knowingly allowing that person or persons to carry on their property may have significant liability issues.
    They also have liability issues when someone is injured or killed by a BG in their place of business.

  9. #29
    berettabone is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,366
    If said business does NOT have a sign posted, they are not liable.........if said business DOES have a sign posted, then they are in effect guaranteeing it's customers, that it is a gun free zone....then if a shooting occurs, they are liable.
    Quote Originally Posted by CMaki View Post
    Pic:
    I could be wrong elsewhere, but I do know in WI, that you are not liable for someone's gun because you allow it in your property. However, that may apply to just private land, not businesses. As I don't own a business, I haven't looked into it. Original Poster; I'm going to agree with your nemesis on here. He is free to post this thread, just as you are to complain about it. However, using terms like "butthurt" instead of frustrated is going to NEVER get you anywhere in an argument, especially if you are speaking to a non-gunner about gun rights. Also: the term Nazi is used to describe someone who is part of the National Socialist Party, not someone who disagrees with your views, because generally as a rule, someone disagreeing would mean that they believe in free speech, not something granted by your German Socialist pals.

    Cheers!

  10. #30
    sleepy's Avatar
    sleepy is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Work in Southern In. but live in coastal Tx.
    Posts
    31
    Two words----INSURANCE COMPANIES. Think of the liability and money involved if someone is accidently shot in a business. Insurance companies set the rules in many aspects of our lives these days. The company I work for (apt. owner/ management company) allows pets in one of the apt. complexes I manage but not the other. In the one that does allow it, an additional non-refundable deposit is required and the size limit is set at 17 lbs. Why at 17 lbs? The insurance companies charge an abhorrent more money on our liability coverage for anything over the 17 lb. weight limit. The rates they set and charge, controls many aspects in our daily lives.

  11. #31
    sleepy's Avatar
    sleepy is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Work in Southern In. but live in coastal Tx.
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by berettabone View Post
    If said business does NOT have a sign posted, they are not liable.........if said business DOES have a sign posted, then they are in effect guaranteeing it's customers, that it is a gun free zone....then if a shooting occurs, they are liable.
    Depends on the state you are in.

  12. #32
    TurboHonda's Avatar
    TurboHonda is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by pic View Post
    I apologize if this was said already i did not read all the posts.
    There is an issue of the property owner being liable of an accident involving that open carry handgun. Store owner knowingly allowing that person or persons to carry on their property may have significant liability issues.
    That works both ways. Many states provide immunity to the business owner when he allows a properly authorized person to carry his gun in the place of business. Disallowing the person to have protection could create a liability situation in itself.

  13. #33
    berettabone is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,366
    It's not the "law" persay, but it's what will happen when attorneys get involved
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepy View Post
    Depends on the state you are in.

  14. #34
    pic
    pic is online now Senior Member HGF Gold Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,802
    Some of the open carry laws do allow the police to check your credentials if they choose to , depending on the state or town you are in.
    I think Wisconsin might be one of the states, not exactly sure on that.
    If I were a business owner I might have to do the same, maybe give a breathalyzer,lol .Drinking and driving is against the law, so would drinking and walking into my place of business with a firearm not be allowed.
    I think a person who open carries would be more closely watched,lol.
    I'll have another beer bartender,and give me a shot of that crowne royal whiskey , it helps the arthritis in my shooting hand,lol.
    I like to feel loose before I go shopping with the wife. She drives me crazy, she has to touch and look at everything walking down the aisle,lol.
    I personally choose to conceal carry in public to avoid anyone knowing I am in posession of a handgun, I feel more comfortable.
    If the store or Bank I am in gets robbed I am running the other way,lol.
    If your open carrying, you might just have become part of the bad guys plans ,robbers, their possible awareness that you are present and holding a firearm.
    I choose to open carry if I am out hunting or walking my own property maybe plinking, target shooting.
    There are times to conceal carry, and there are times to open carry ,just in my personal opinion.

  15. #35
    SMann is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny1636 View Post
    I went to purchase gas from a 7/11 (with no sign posted about firearms) I was open carrying and I offered the teller a 20$ bill and asked for 20$ in gas which I was denied. The teller told me I had a gun and I could be a robber so I had to leave and I couldnt have my gas. I then left and never returned.
    It sounds less like a situation where an employee is enforcing company policy and more like the 7/11 just had an idiot employee making up their own rules. Did you ever contact the store manager or even better the owner? Maybe the clerk just needed their boss to straighten them out. Or maybe the company really deserved to lose your business. I don't know, but it sounds like neither do you.

  16. #36
    tacman605's Avatar
    tacman605 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Arkansas/Afghanistan
    Posts
    90
    The issue of property rights trumping 2A rights and vis versa is a complicated matter.

    A business open to the public is still private property. The legal definition states "Public property is that which is owned by the Government or the community as a whole, everything else is private" so basically their house their rules. Even though the doors are open to the public you are what is known as an "Invitee" and as such you must abide by their rules while on their property.

    As far as the business assuming liability by posting no guns a "Duty to Care" must be shown. There are some different standards to measure this but one of the main one's is "Was the incident forseeable?" Obviously a random act of violence be it robbery or an active shooter is not so whether the business is posted or not it would not make any difference. A business is charged in regards to your safety as far as warnings about a wet floor, the coffee is served hot and so on but as long as they meet the general guidelines then they are not liable. As an example a store located in tornado alley has no obligation to provide a shelter in case it happens anymore than they are required to provide you with a free flashlight in case the power goes out.

    It is a bit different in regards to employers and employee's. You have something called the "Law of Vicarious Liability". They are responsible for what there employee does while they are on the clock just as you are responsible for what your children do or what the person does who borrowed your car to run to the store. If that person slams into a car full of people that law would treat it just as if you were driving the car.

    In regards to not supporting businesses that are anti gun we do it everyday whether we realize it or not. In the other topic I posted a link to anti gun businesses and organizations including hospitals, physician and nurses organizations, administrator and teacher organizations, groups that support retired persons, unions, religious leaders and religions, actors, musicians and so on. If we boycotted all the things that were anti gun we would be sitting in our homes eating peanut butter and crackers reading a 40 year old book. You would be home schooling your children, not be employed if you worked for a union and would be giving home medical care to your family.

    Most people will support something up until it makes them go out of their way. If WalMart banned carry in their stores today yes their would be an uproar initially and I assure you that within a week many of the same people who were the loudest would be right back in the store for the sale on toilet paper.

    In regards to the OC/CC thing either or whatever is legal and your choice. The only difference being if you OC there is a good chance you will be noticed and will have to deal with whatever comes up.

    It is a slippery slope simply due to the fact that property rights that allow a business owner say what comes onto his property are the same ones that protect your property rights in your own home so we kind of have to be careful what we wish for.

  17. #37
    acepilot's Avatar
    acepilot is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    From my perspective, I am fully in support of private property rights for one simple reason. You cannot be free if you don't own property. So if you cannot exercise your chosen control over your property, you have lost a measure of freedom.
    Playing devil's advocate here, I own land. I fly airplanes. Why must I apply for a "land use permit" to build a runway on MY property if I indeed have freedom by owning land?

  18. #38
    CMaki is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    8
    A very good point. ND toyed with the idea of eliminating property taxes, for a similar view. How can you truly "own" something if you are required to pay an annual fee to the government for it? If you don't pay, they can seize. Income is often viewed the same way, it is an extenson of yourself, and thus, yours. But you must pay taxes on it or face penalites. But alas, how could our wonderful and all-knowing government function without collecting some change from you? I'm all for a property owner being able to tell youo their wishes. The freedom that allows them to do so, is the same freedom that allows me to do as I wish on my property.

  19. #39
    SouthernBoy's Avatar
    SouthernBoy is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Va
    Posts
    2,645
    Quote Originally Posted by CMaki View Post
    A very good point. ND toyed with the idea of eliminating property taxes, for a similar view. How can you truly "own" something if you are required to pay an annual fee to the government for it? If you don't pay, they can seize. Income is often viewed the same way, it is an extenson of yourself, and thus, yours. But you must pay taxes on it or face penalites. But alas, how could our wonderful and all-knowing government function without collecting some change from you? I'm all for a property owner being able to tell youo their wishes. The freedom that allows them to do so, is the same freedom that allows me to do as I wish on my property.
    You can really own your property and pay no taxes on it. All you need to do is get allodial title on it. Same with your car. Get the statement of origin and you don't have to have it registered or pay taxes.

    If I am wrong on this, please correct me, but I got if from a class on the Constitution.

  20. #40
    rolandrock is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    NE Florida
    Posts
    25
    I applaud GM's policy of allowing CCW in their store.

    I also applaud their policy of not allowing people to handle loaded weapons inside their store for any reason what-so-ever.

    Some people, even with CCW's are flipping IDIOTS!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can any business deny my right to carry

,

can business owners in va deny people with weapon permit right to carry firearm

,

concealed weapons at walmart platteville wi

,

content

,

german liberty 22

,

platteville, wi ccw do not patronize list

,

reasons for ccw in ny

,

right to carry vs property rights

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Springfield Armory

» HGF Sponsors

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1