Well said......and totally correct as well....
- On my property I can deny you the right to bear arms if I so wish. Doesn't matter if the property I own is my personal home or my mega big box Wal Mart store... I own it and I make the rules.
On my property I can deny you the right to free speech if I so wish. I can make a rule that you will NOT be allowed to preach a sermon (I can deny the right to freedom of religion too) nor will you be allowed to pester people by trying to convince them your right to bear arms trumps my right to throw you out.
On my property I can deny you the right to be secure in your person and possessions by posting a sign stating I reserve the right to look in the bags you bring in. Sound familiar? Many stadiums do this.. even Hobby Lobby does this! And it is their right!
And on my property I can deny you.......... entry if I so wish. And if I do and you don't like it you can take yourself, and your rights, on down the road. If you don't want to go I will ask the police to escort you off the property perhaps even arrest you for trespass. You do know that trespass means your person, YOU, as an individual person.. YOU specifically!, are not welcome and no longer allowed to be on the property.... right? The reason would not be gun control.. the reason would be control of YOU because YOU disobeyed the rule about guns.
I have the private property right to do all those things. You have the right to stay the hell off my property if you don't like my rules.
The funny thing is... on YOUR property you have the exact same property rights.....
Gander Mountain has the rule that anyone bringing a gun into the store must check them at the check out desk.. but guns carried under a lawful concealed carry permit are not subject to that demand. (Gander Mountain has a gunsmith on duty and folks bring in guns other than carry guns to be worked on or traded). Plus.... a particular Gander Mountain (according to my understanding) also has a rule that any guns carried under a lawful concealed carry permit MUST remain holstered while in the store. In other words... checking to see if a holster fits your loaded carry gun is not allowed in the store.
So there you have a store (private property) that made rules that respect the right to bear arms... but still put restrictions upon that right while on the private property!
"Shall not be infringed" is directed at the government.... only the government!.. so gun control is when the government passes laws that restrict the right to bear arms. Only the government can institute gun control through laws that restrict the right to bear arms.
"Shall not be infringed" is not directed at the individual so private property rights is when the property owner presents people with an agreement, spoken or otherwise, that if folks want to use the property they agree to abide by the rules concerning being allowed to use said property. Break the rules and you will no longer be allowed to use the property. Private property owners do not institute gun control.. they have the right to control who has access to their property... for almost any reason. Including carrying guns. A property with a "no guns" rule denies access to those who carry guns. They are not denying access to guns.. Dude.. they are denying access to PEOPLE! who carry guns.
A general comment directed at no one in particular...
Sometimes I wonder if the contention about property rights isn't about the right to bear arms but is really about being offended by the idea that people do not have a right to shop but are only being "allowed" to go into a store. As if the customers of a business have some kind of right to be there and the store owner has no rights at all. Some ego strokers, just won't believe, or cannot comprehend that a license to carry does NOT trump private property rights.
Well said......and totally correct as well....
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.
By enforcing their rights, they are NOT infringing on yours, just feel free to go elsewhere.....
My opinion, Benny... is that attitudes like yours are by and large, the reason behind some of the "no guns" signs in the first place.
- A License to Carry a Handgun is NOT the right to bear arms. It is an infringement on the right to bear arms because it is the government requiring folks to ask for permission to bear an arm in a concealed manner.
Says the guy that starts bashing on people hes.never met because they dont carry the same way he carries. Also i didnt see any name calling in my post. For a guy who talks so much about his abnormally high level of common sense and everyone elses lack thereof, you seldom display intllegence in your posts. You oftem make arguements againsts points that were not even made, and point out things that were never even said.
Although I like Gander Mountain, I usually make my purchases elsewhere......not because of their rules, but because of their prices...........as a business, they can do what they like....doesn't mean I have to give them my business.....
Gander mountain does support legal carry. The one around here has great prices. The best i can fimd without going online. That being said we do not have a cabelas or bass pro anywhere close. So they easily beat the local shops inflated prices.
Thank god for rights....
Well, folks, lets try this..... the other thread was to list, and boycott businesses that "don't want us", ... "us" being folks who carry guns. We (yes, I carry concealed, and open, depending on the situation) don't like to be singled out, just because we choose to "keep and bear arms".
Many here want their "rights" to be recognized and accepted, as evidenced by the indignant reaction to my assessment of some folks who were so wrapped up in their rights, they were willing to run roughshod over the rights of other folks.
I have to wonder how outraged some of you would be if you should discover that business owners may access CCW information, and publish a list of gun owners who my not be welcome in some establishments?
This thread I started to point out that business owners also have rights. I find it more than a little hypocritical for some folks to howl about the infringement of their perceived rights, but in the next breath, seek to infringe upon the rights of others.
y'all have a Merry Christmas if it applies, or if it doesn't, a peaceful celebration of whatever faith you choose to observe.
oh... Benny... "name calling".... ? See "nazi"... post number three... this thread. And you should really work on your spelling. This forum does have a spell-check system.
Good day, sir.
As the silly ignorant tagline of my generation says
I'ma do me, you do you...
I think its worth mentioning that criminals don't care if they have the right to carry on your properties tho so property owners who don't allow carry are extremely foolish
I appreciate your clear and simple definition of rights. I agree with you. As a staunch conservative by nature I like to discuss (not debate) the application of just about any issue relating to the constitution. I am always amazed at how people who do not agree with me, when faced with facts that do not support their position, always want to imply that I am not "open" to modern interpetation. Facts be dammed I guess. Likewise, the issue of peoples rights, when discussed such as in this thread, always seems to illustrate very graphically how little most people know or understand the constitution. We have even made healthcare a so called right! Thanks again for the great thread starter.
http://www.handgunforum.net/ccw/1796...want-us-4.html...... because I open carried and then I proceeded to make him look stupid.
This is a visceral argument on a number of gun websites with some claiming that a business opens its doors to the invitation of the public while other claiming as usmcj has in his post that a business is still a privately owned property and no different than someone's home when it comes to property rights. Regardless of how one may feel about this issue, it ultimately comes down to what the law in a given state says and it is prudent to know these laws if you are of a mind to carry a firearm. However, there is one fly in the ointment in this.
Businesses can refuse service to most anyone for most any reason... unless you are a member of a "protected class", which is the ultimate governmental discrimination. It would be very interesting if a business attempted to have a person removed from their premises if he was carrying and happened to be black, or handicapped, or some other "protected class". I wonder how that would iron out.
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. This concept is straight from Jefferson and very eloquently elaborated upon by Michael Badnarik in his seven part class on the Constitution... seven hours which I highly recommend you folks take the time and watch (link provided below).
You have two options when entering a business which is not friendly to the carrying of arms. Keep you mouth shut, your firearm concealed and go about your business. Or take your business elsewhere where it is appreciated. I am NOT advocating the first option, merely mentioning it. I make every effort to avoid businesses that post gun buster signs. Fortunately there are almost none in my area.
While some may believe that their right to defend themselves trumps property rights, think about this for a moment. Do you have a right to march around in a store with protest signs, screaming your dissatisfaction with the store's policies in vulger and vile language? Of course not. So why would you think you have a right to carry a firearm onto someone's property against their wishes? Would you do this on a neighbor's lawn or in his home?
The one thing that is cast is stone is rights come with responsibility. Exercise both without infringing upon others to do the same.
Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik : Michael Badnarik : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
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:
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... 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.
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.
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.
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.