Originally Posted by wjh2657

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.

Originally Posted by pic

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CMaki

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!

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.

Originally Posted by berettabone

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.

Originally Posted by pic

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.

It's not the "law" persay, but it's what will happen when attorneys get involved

Originally Posted by sleepy

Depends on the state you are in.

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.

Originally Posted by Benny1636

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SouthernBoy

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?

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.

Originally Posted by CMaki

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.

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!

Originally Posted by Benny1636

And its my right not to patronize your private property and to warn others on handgun forums that your a nazi who tries to infringe and my rights. The above post that your so butthurt over (businesses that dont want us) soes not make an arguement that we should be able to do whatever we want on private property. It simply points out what properties law abiding upstanding citizens are not allowed to protect themselves on.

I'll go back to one of my earlier statements a while back...

HYPOTHETICAL scenario:

I own 80 acres and my neighbor owns 80 acres. I have to apply for a land use permit to build and use my private airstrip. When I apply, a letter gets sent to all adjacent landowners for comment. If someone objects, my permit may be denied. My neighbor rides 4 wheelers and snowmobiles freely on his land whenever he wants, no land use permit required.

To me, airplanes are recreational vehicles, the same as 4 wheelers and snowmobiles. Why are my rights to use MY land ANY different than his rights to use HIS land?

Because your recreational use may affect his land. He's not going to fly his toys over your land or house.

I see your point though. My neighbor rides his crappy, un-muffled 4 wheelers on his land. The noise is enough that a box of roofing nails has cone to mind a time or two.

My default position is about getting along with others.

Face it, right or wrong, open carry makes some people nervous. We all know them, deal with them every day, and many times are related to them.

Sometimes those people are customers of businesses, and will have an unpleasant association with that business because something made them uncomfortable.

Living in the South I was always raised to be considerate of others, just as I now go outside for a cigarette rather than ask a new acquaintance if I can smoke in their home, I choose to carry concealed, even when outdoors. I see no need to advertise and carry in a fanny pack, the epitome of wimpdom. I want to be dismissed as a potential threat to anyone because I am carrying and wish to avoid any possibility of confrontation.

What I do instead is practice and try to be the best marksman I can, so if a situation arises I am prepared to be an asset, not an antagonist.

Right to carry a concealed firearm: Many years ago when I got my carry permit there were no restrictions .Now however, if you are caught in Ct. with a hand gug showing you will be arressted for breech of peace, your permit will be revolked , your gun confiscated and yoy will be jerked around for a couple months and then your property is returned because you did not violate any laws. Open carry is legal in Ct. Concealed carry is a beaurocratic mandate. So much for the rights of the people