A counterproposal to Jemsaal's propsed CC law

[sdprof]

See the discussion here: How would react to this kind of a law? about a proposal for a CC+ law. (as opposed to C++, the programming language)

Here's my proposal, good for any state.

1. Remove all restrictions on carrying firearms in any government facility or place. This includes schools and colleges. Possibly, maintain restrictions on the most sensitive places - courtrooms (not the whole building) and jails.

2. Prohibit any state or subordinate government agency from taking any adverse action against an employee (or student) who is lawfully carrying.

3. Remove any force of law from no-guns signs. A business may still post a sign, but it only means the business owner desires you not carry there. No criminal or civil penalty applies should one enter lawfully armed. If a business is open to the public, it is open to all the public, period.

I know this is incredibly wishful thinking. It's an ideal situation; some states come close.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Harryball]

Remove any force of law from no-guns signs. A business may still post a sign, but it only means the business owner desires you not carry there. No criminal or civil penalty applies should one enter lawfully armed. If a business is open to the public, it is open to all the public, period.

I fully understand everyone wanting business to honor our rights, however it can not work that way. We can not dictate to them what our rights our and demand that they honor them. It is there house and there rules. Just like this forum. We do not have freedom of speech here. We have to follow the rules of the house. Just because they are allowing the public in doesn't mean they cant set rules on behavior while we are here. I cant say this enough, our 2A rights do not trump anyone property rights.

As for points 1 and 2. I would like to see that....

[KimBobTex]

I'm with you on #1 & #2, but not #3. I'm big on the rights of private businesses to establish their own policies, and the consumer to accept or decline those policies with their $'s.

[ccw9mm]

sdprof: I like it. IMO, it's the way it should be. It rewards proper behavior with inability to criminalize and rationality with respect to a non-threat (merely carrying), and punishes criminal behavior via the plethora of existing statutes that already do so.

I'm with you on #1 & #2, but not #3. I'm big on the rights of private businesses to establish their own policies, and the consumer to accept or decline those policies with their $'s.

#3 doesn't infringe upon a private property owner's right to have a policy, and to eject folks it finds in conflict with that. It simply proposes not making it unlawful. Such business would still retain the right to inhibit entry and eject, and to press criminal trespass charges if the entrant refuses to then leave. No difference, other than to remove the "illegal" aspect, getting the government out of the game.

[KimBobTex]

#3 doesn't infringe upon a private property owner's right to have a policy, and to eject folks it finds in conflict with that. It simply proposes not making it unlawful. Such business would still retain the right to inhibit entry and eject, and to press criminal trespass charges if the entrant refuses to then leave. No difference, other than to remove the "illegal" aspect, getting the government out of the game.

You are absolutely correct ccw9mm. I didn't spend the necessary time reading #3 needed to let that one soak in & register properly.

[MJB_17]

I'm going to go with what others say and yes to 1 and 2 but no to 3. I already effectively have the practice within reason of not patronizing businesses that post 30.06 signs, but I respect their right do so within the law. As much as they have the choice to forbid lawful carry, I make the choice not to spend my money in their establishments.

[Harryball]

sdprof: I like it. IMO, it's the way it should be. It rewards proper behavior with inability to criminalize and rationality with respect to a non-threat (merely carrying), and punishes criminal behavior via the plethora of existing statutes that already do so.




#3 doesn't infringe upon a private property owner's right to have a policy, and to eject folks it finds in conflict with that. It simply proposes not making it unlawful. Such business would still retain the right to inhibit entry and eject, and to press criminal trespass charges if the entrant refuses to then leave. No difference, other than to remove the "illegal" aspect, getting the government out of the game.

ccw9mm, assuming we are under the laws of the OP. Would you not be in violation of your own proper behavior by carrying a weapon thru there sign? IMO law or not. I believe that as the conceal carry public we should hold ourselves above any standard that is set. Would you not agree?

[ccw9mm]

ccw9mm, assuming we are under the laws of the OP. Would you not be in violation of your own proper behavior by carrying a weapon thru there sign? IMO law or not. I believe that as the conceal carry public we should hold ourselves above any standard that is set. Would you not agree?

No, I don't agree.

If I'm asked to leave for whatever reason, I'll leave. If I happen to see such a sign beforehand or know it's a place that desires to not have our business, I'll go elsewhere.

[Harryball]

No, I don't agree.

If I'm asked to leave for whatever reason, I'll leave. If I happen to see such a sign beforehand or know it's a place that desires to not have our business, I'll go elsewhere.

I wanted clarification on your point. I agree..Thanks.

[Specops]

I would also agree with #1 and #2 but have to agree it is the choice of private business to set the rules. What you want is a law that holds the owner of the business criminally and civilly responsible for any injury inflicted to anyone within their establishment if they have a no-gun sign posted. If they make the choice to constrain my ability to defend myself then they have to assume all responsibility for my safety and that includes to and from my vehicle and surveillance cameras don't cut it.