A counterproposal to Jemsaal's propsed CC law

This is a discussion on A counterproposal to Jemsaal's propsed CC law within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; See the discussion here: http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...-kind-law.html about a proposal for a CC+ law. (as opposed to C++, the programming language) Here's my proposal, good for any ...

Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree11Likes
  • 4 Post By sdprof
  • 5 Post By Harryball
  • 1 Post By KimBobTex
  • 1 Post By ccw9mm

Thread: A counterproposal to Jemsaal's propsed CC law

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    983

    A counterproposal to Jemsaal's propsed CC law

    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.
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Ex Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,960
    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....
    msgt/ret, Ogre, gregnsc and 2 others like this.

  4. #3
    Member Array KimBobTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    432
    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.
    WHEC724 likes this.
    Asked by a CNN reporter "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist"?, the Marine sniper simply shrugged & replied "recoil".

    Now more than ever, we are at war on our home soil ... WAKE UP & arm our troops when they are on home soil!

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,020
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by KimBobTex View Post
    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.
    Ransom likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #5
    Member Array KimBobTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    432
    #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.
    Asked by a CNN reporter "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist"?, the Marine sniper simply shrugged & replied "recoil".

    Now more than ever, we are at war on our home soil ... WAKE UP & arm our troops when they are on home soil!

  7. #6
    Ex Member Array MJB_17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    1,419
    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.

  8. #7
    Ex Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,960
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    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?

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    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.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,960
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    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.

  11. #10
    New Member Array Specops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Right in the middle of God's Country
    Posts
    2
    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.

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
  •