Accidentally carried into a NO CC building, but others' lives are threatened - Page 5

Accidentally carried into a NO CC building, but others' lives are threatened

This is a discussion on Accidentally carried into a NO CC building, but others' lives are threatened within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Sorry, I can't seem to figure out this "multi-quote" thing. In an effort to not continue pirating this post, I will create a new post ...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 106
Like Tree75Likes

Thread: Accidentally carried into a NO CC building, but others' lives are threatened

  1. #61
    Member
    Array discoboxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    333
    Sorry, I can't seem to figure out this "multi-quote" thing.

    In an effort to not continue pirating this post, I will create a new post to continue responses.
    “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
    ― Albert Einstein


  2. #62
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    Not in my opinion.
    Property is an extension of the individual, it has no rights of it's own. The individual is the foundation of all rights property enjoys. When you deny individual rights, you undermine property rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    If a business owner is clear and honest about their expectations to do business than I believe they have every right to operate how they choose. To clarify, I am talking about on their own property.
    No right is unlimited, this includes property rights. There are already many limitations on private property *open to the public* today. We simply want to include this one, and will have virtually no impact on the property owner.

    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    I am not Webster, but my definition of "Nanny-State" is the Gov overstepping "guaranteed rights" by our nation's constitution, in efforts to make someone else feel better. The Gov was not intended to lay out a road map for how each and every person is to find peace and prosperity but to guarantee their access to it, by that individuals own ambition.
    Please use the actual definition, as subjective personal definitions have no value.


    *****
    When you tell someone they cannot otherwise lawfully carry into your business, you are denying that person their right to be lawfully armed on their way to and from your business. Your policy is extending byond your property, and you have no right to do that.

    Additionally, the CCW gun is no threat or harm to the business, the property, or the owner, unless there is a special circumstance such as above-ground fuel tanks. Since there is no harm and the act is otherwise perfectly lawful, the property owner has no compelling interest in denying the right.

  3. #63
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    When you tell someone they cannot otherwise lawfully carry into your business, you are denying that person their right to be lawfully armed on their way to and from your business. Your policy is extending byond your property, and you have no right to do that.
    Oh wait let me guess. Gunlockers in front of the business so you can check your firearm right?

    A property owner is responsible only for his business. There is no case law, statute or legal opinion stating that anyone is responsible for your travels to and from outside of their business. If you have something please post it.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  4. #64
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Oh wait let me guess. Gunlockers in front of the business so you can check your firearm right?
    No, a Blackhawk holster on my belt, at my expense.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    A property owner is responsible only for his business. There is no case law, statute or legal opinion stating that anyone is responsible for your travels to and from outside of their business. If you have something please post it.
    What are you talking about?

  5. #65
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,599
    Like trying to knock sense into a mushroom. Some things aren't worth the effort.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  6. #66
    Ex Member Array pscipio03's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    406
    LEO carries a sidearm for their protection, not yours.
    Keep that in mind if ever in a situation like what was asked.
    ArmyMan and K7lvo like this.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Array Chesafreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    627
    Here in VA, the signs don't carry force of law. All that can happen regarding the signs is if I ignore them and am asked to leave (how are they going to know if its concealed, right?) and then if I don't leave I can be charged with Trespassing.

    Regardless, if I am in any business that's being robbed and I feel that I or my loved ones are in danger then I'm going to shoot. If the robber isn't threatening someone's life and the situation seems calm enough then I'll just keep my hand on the grip under my shirt and then be a good witness.

    There are so many possiblitlies of how it could go down. For example: I'm in the back of the store and a robber is holding up the cashier at the front and hasn't fired a shot then I'm going to stay put and not put myself in the action unless the action comes to me. But... if I'm standing right there by the register while some thug is waving a gun around then I would feel threatened and would open fire if I get a chance to draw.
    ArmyMan likes this.
    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

  8. #68
    Senior Member Array Chesafreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    When you tell someone they cannot otherwise lawfully carry into your business, you are denying that person their right to be lawfully armed on their way to and from your business. Your policy is extending byond your property, and you have no right to do that.
    Wrong. A business posting that sign only says that you either leave your gun in the car before you enter or take your business somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to enter thier business.
    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #69
    Distinguished Member Array lowflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    1,221

    Re: Accidentally carried into a NO CC building, but others' lives are threatened

    As far as I am concerned, my weapon is an undergarment.
    ArmyMan likes this.
    Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.

  10. #70
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesafreak View Post
    Wrong. A business posting that sign only says that you either leave your gun in the car before you enter or take your business somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to enter thier business.
    Not everyone drives a car everywhere they go. In may cities it makes more sense to ride public transit then to own a car. Many people are disabled and cannot drive. Someone confined to a wheelchair may take public transit down town and has a lawfully carried gun on their person (I would to if I were in a wheelchair...criminals look at the disabled as an easier target).

    And then there's those of us who ride a peddle bike everywhere we can as a great way to maintain Army PT standards.

  11. #71
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by lowflyer View Post
    As far as I am concerned, my weapon is an undergarment.
    I'm fairly confident that a no-underwear sign would be met with full voluntary compliance

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array Chesafreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Not everyone drives a car everywhere they go. In may cities it makes more sense to ride public transit then to own a car. Many people are disabled and cannot drive. Someone confined to a wheelchair may take public transit down town and has a lawfully carried gun on their person (I would to if I were in a wheelchair...criminals look at the disabled as an easier target).

    And then there's those of us who ride a peddle bike everywhere we can as a great way to maintain Army PT standards.
    It still doesn't matter. They aren't forcing you to enter. If the law says you have to obey the no guns sign but you don't want to, then don't enter. They didn't force you to travel there, so they aren't forcing you to disarm yourself while travelling to and from thier business. Take your business somewhere where they appreciate the 2nd amendment. I don't know what else to say. You seem to have convinced yourself that you are right despite everyone else on here telling you otherwise. Do what you want and live with your actions. I'm out.
    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #73
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesafreak View Post
    hey aren't forcing you to enter.
    That doesn't matter. At all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesafreak View Post
    They didn't force you to travel there
    That doesn't matter. Not in the least.

  14. #74
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Armyman. Once again the same rhetoric and answering a question with a question to change the topic.

    You made this statement.

    When you tell someone they cannot otherwise lawfully carry into your business, you are denying that person their right to be lawfully armed on their way to and from your business. Your policy is extending byond your property, and you have no right to do that.
    Here is my reply.

    A property owner is responsible only for his business. There is no case law, statute or legal opinion stating that anyone is responsible for your travels to and from outside of their business. If you have something please post it.
    So then you respond with a question like this.

    What are you talking about?
    I have broken this down in as simple as terms as I can for you short or writing it in crayon. A private property owner is not responsible for you traveling to and from their business, period, no responsibility, no legal requirement. Absolutely nothing supports it anywhere. As stated in other topics you have made the choice to carry a firearm and they have made their choice not to allow firearms in their store and that is their right which is supported by law.

    I have posted the definition of private property, basically any property which is not owned by the state or community as a whole is private property. I have posted the portion of the Constitution that states that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

    So the local state, county, city and the people who reside there enforce the laws, rules and regulations of their jurisdiction.

    It is your choice to take a bus, ride a bike, walk and so on the Government did not force you to it is a choice. Now if you feel that the Government needs to provide a van to come around and pick you up and drive you to work because you are carrying a gun, send your name in and I am sure they will put you on a list somewhere so when that program becomes available you will have appropriate transportation to work.

    So why do you continue to argue the point? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when FACTS and CASE LAW show that that opinion is not correct it is time to back up and regroup.

    Signs in different states mean different things in regards to trespass, being asked to leave and so on. We all realize you will walk past a sign and carry anyway if the sign does not carry the weight of law, we all realize that you consider your rights above everyone else's. You can post all day long "It doesn't matter" but the fact remains it does.

    You are an invitee to the property which I also posted the legal definition and status of such an invitee.

    An invitee is only an invitee within the scope of permission granted by the landowner.
    What is so hard to understand? You have no legal reference to your statements only an opinion that you are more important than anyone else. A private business is exactly that "PRIVATE" and they have the legal right to say what happens there and it is backed up by the law.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  15. #75
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    A private property owner is not responsible for you traveling to and from their business.
    I never said business owners were responsible for customers while in transit.

    I said business owners were denying a right to a person going to or from their business. And yes there is supporting case-law as this is how guns-in-cars laws have been passed, and held up in court.

    Customer or employee when you open your business to the public you are already bound by numerous restrictions as a condition of your voluntary business license.

    For example:
    State high court says gun in car is legal at University of Kentucky

    A University of Kentucky graduate student and employee was wrongfully fired for having a gun in his car, the Supreme Court of Kentucky has ruled.

    ~snip~

    Mitchell filed suit, saying his firing violated the state and federal right to bear arms. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of UK, and Mitchell appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

    The justices said the case presented two conflicting issues: the right to bear arms versus UK's right to prevent them on campus. In the end, a majority of justices concluded that the conflict had to be resolved in favor of the intent of the Kentucky General Assembly.

    "We base this on the General Assembly's explicit statement that the concealed-carry licensing statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the right to bear arms, as well as the legislature's clearly expressed policy of exempting a person's vehicle from firearms regulation," the decision said.

    Justice Wil Schroder, writing for the court, said the law is "clear and unambiguous."

    "It forbids a public organization, such as a university, from prohibiting the possession of a firearm in the glove compartment of a vehicle," Schroeder wrote. "There can be no other reasonable interpretation of the statutory language."
    Another state allows guns in employees’ cars at work.
    July 27, 2011 by Fred Hosier

    About a month from now, a 14th state will allow employees to store legally owned firearms in their locked, privately owned vehicles while at work.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed the bill into law. It takes effect Sept. 1, 2011.

    A worker’s individual and constitutional right to self-defense does not end when they drive onto their employer’s property,” said State Senator Glenn Hegar (R), the bill’s sponsor. Hegar calls the measure “good policy that provides workers with a means of viable self defense while commuting between their homes, their workplace and anywhere in between.”

    Hegar says he sponsored the bill in response to a number of instances in which employees had been denied the right to protect themselves while traveling to and from work because their employers adopted “overly restrictive policies.”

    When an employer bars firearms on company property … they rob their employees … of their right to safety,” Hegar said.[/COLOR]
    Maine Moves To Allow State Workers To Bring Guns To Work
    By David Schepp
    Posted Mar 14th 2012 @ 9:55AM


    Legislation passed by Maine lawmakers that permits state employees to bring concealed weapons to work has raised concern among state gun-control advocates, while backers of the bill say it merely puts the state's workers on parity with those privately employed.

    The Maine House of Representatives passed the bill handily Monday -- 84-55. It would allow a state worker to bring a gun to work, provided that the worker has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and keeps the firearm in his or her car, the Bangor Daily News reports.

    "All it does is reaffirm rights under the Second Amendment. This actually restricts it a little bit by saying you need a permit and saying you need to lock your car," Rep. David Burns, a Republican, told the newspaper. "I don't give up constitutional rights just because I become a state employee."
    NRA says FedEx opposition 'reason' to pass Tennessee gun bills
    By Richard Locker
    Posted April 17, 2012 at 10:28 a.m., updated April 17, 2012 at 11:52 p.m.


    NASHVILLE -- Two guns-in-parking-lots bills sailed out of a House committee Tuesday after a National Rifle Association lobbyist declared that FedEx's opposition is "the reason this bill needs to pass."

    One of the bills allows handgun-carry permit holders to keep guns in their locked vehicles on most parking lots in the state -- including public and private schools, colleges and universities -- and forbids most employers and business property owners from banning them.

    The second forbids employers from asking current and potential employees questions about their gun ownership, gun-carry licensure and carry habits, and gives employees and job candidates who are asked such questions a right to sue.
    ..so it doesn't matter that someone isn't being forced to work or shop at a given place. It doesn't matter at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    It is your choice to take a bus, ride a bike, walk and so on the Government did not force you to it is a choice.
    That doesn't matter.

    I'm not forced to be a certain religion but an employer still can't discriminate against me. I'm not forced to work for any given employer but my employer still can't stop me from storing a gun in my car on his property. Choice is irrelevant here.

    Again, customer or employee when you open your business to the public you are already bound by numerous restrictions as a condition of your voluntary business license, for example:

    If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
    Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

    The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

    ~snip~

    Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.
    I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.


    ******
    If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

    For example:
    South Dakota Code 20-13-23

    20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.
    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.

    I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.


    *****
    The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Sponsored 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

has anyone ever accidently carried a gun into a courthouse
,
op cc building
,
powered by mybb building permit
,
powered by mybb building permits
,
powered by mybb california building codes
,
powered by mybb california competition works
,

powered by mybb clerk of the court

,
powered by mybb general questions
,
powered by mybb legal questions to ask on a reference
,
powered by mybb questions
,
powered by mybb republican assembly members
,

what happens if i accidently take my gun into courthouse in indiana i have a permit

Click on a term to search for related topics.