When you see the sign "no firearms" on businesses....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stanislaskasava

It all depends on which state you are in. In some states, property owners do not have the right to ban firearms on their property and CHL holders do have the right to carry on private property.

.

---

?? There are also Constitutional rights to preserve and protect private property.....they are not just state-based.

And privately-owned businesses already can choose other restrictions on the right to refuse service.

It is indeed about respecting other peoples' rights. Just because you can get away with something doesnt mean you are right. I agree that safety is more than just an expediency for me...but I would still recognize the hypocrisy if I did decide to walk past such a sign....which I avoid whenever possible.

And yes, such businesses will lose my business.

I do pretty much the same as everybody else, but......

If you decide to take your business elsewhere because of a posting or no-guns policy then take the time to write a letter or send an email to the company and tell them why. It does no good to just tell us here at DC, tell the management or the home office or something. And do the same for the company that you do give your business to. Tell them why their policy earned your business over their competitior. Even here in FL, where any posting has no legal backing, I still send a letter or something.

A warning to Virginians:

Don't lock up your gun and try to carry ammo into a courthouse. Don't take your gun apart and carry part of it in either. The relevant Code prohibits both although the title of the Code only mentions guns.

LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-283.1

§ 18.2-283.1. Carrying weapon into courthouse.

It shall be unlawful for any person to possess in or transport into any courthouse in this Commonwealth any (i) gun or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile or projectile of any kind, (ii) frame, receiver, muffler, silencer, missile, projectile or ammunition designed for use with a dangerous weapon and (iii) any other dangerous weapon, including explosives, stun weapons as defined in § 18.2-308.1, and those weapons specified in subsection A of § 18.2-308. Any such weapon shall be subject to seizure by a law-enforcement officer. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to any police officer, sheriff, law-enforcement agent or official, conservation police officer, conservator of the peace, magistrate, court officer, or judge while in the conduct of such person's official duties.

(1988, c. 615; 2004, c. 995; 2007, cc. 87, 519.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

While I am in agreement with many in this thread and try to take my business elsewhere when I have choices.....the signs do not mean nothing.

There is a property owner (or perhaps company) that also has rights. That should be respected...dont you want your rights respected?

So I'm not objecting to your choices....If you choose to enter and remain concealed, that's your decision. Your priority is your safety, etc. I'm just stating that it's hypocritical to just dismiss others' rights when you value your own so much.

---

The property owner has decided, by operating a business open to the public, to admit the public "as is" onto their property. As a business invitee, I am there to engage in whatever business transaction the establishment offers.

My right to privacy trumps any interest the business has in knowing what is under my clothing. Be it a lawfully concealed firearm, a medical device, or a really awesome set of underoos.

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phantoms

I don't see it that way. Any business owner that would post such a sign is trying to trample on my 2A rights. A business is a public place. It's no different than if they put up a sign that said no blacks, no women or no elderly.

---

You don't have any 2A rights when dealing with a private party. The 2A restricts the government, not private parties.

Matt

In Texas, they have to have 1 of 2 official signs....30.06 sign or 51% sign...if they do not, I am legal. I do not haave to pay attention to any other signs. If they have a sign that is not legal, and ask me to leave, I leave.

Sign? What sign? I didn't see no sign. It's clearly stated on the back of my GFL where I cant carry and until that's changed through legislation, I'm blind as a bat to the NO WEAPONS signage.

Depending on your state YMMV.

GBK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Again, you do not see the hypocrisy. He tramples on your rights, but it's ok for you to trample on his.

---

A business has no "right" by the constitution to discriminate against someone, so no business owner's rights are being trampled on. This is an argument people against guns have always tried to use, that business do not want people carrying inside. Most businesses are fine with it as long as it's legal. The majority of businesses are public places and have no guaranteed "right" to discriminate against patrons. The only place where businesses have this "ability", is in the few states that allow them to posts signs and have laws (not "rights") against entering when the appropriate signs are indeed posted. In fact, they are limited by law on what signs they can posted discriminating against patrons anywhere whether it's for concealed carry, no bare-feet, no shirt, etc.

I'm sorry if you do no agree with this, but when someone chooses to operate a public business they give up a lot of their "rights" to control many things, not just who may enter.

Quote:

---

It may be a public place, but he already has the right to refuse service based on other criteria. Those are his choices and he knows his business may or may not suffer because of them.

---

By law he is very limited on why he can refuse to serve someone. He can ask anyone to leave for any reason and in most states if you refuse, you will be considered trespassing. However, in doing so he may open himself and business up to a lawsuit.


BTW 9MMare, if you would have said "trample on the owners wishes", then I would of had to agree with you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

While I am in agreement with many in this thread and try to take my business elsewhere when I have choices.....the signs do not mean nothing.

There is a property owner (or perhaps company) that also has rights. That should be respected...dont you want your rights respected?

So I'm not objecting to your choices....If you choose to enter and remain concealed, that's your decision. Your priority is your safety, etc. I'm just stating that it's hypocritical to just dismiss others' rights when you value your own so much.

---

If a public establishment is willing to provide security to its patrons then fine, I'll disarm and allow their security to defend and protect me for my patronage while in their establishment. If no security other than the loss prevention guy i.e. :blink: is ready to defend the business and it's patrons, then how dare they tell me to roll the dice and take my chances while in there store. IMO, it's none of their damn business what's in my pocket, or on my person when I came in the place.

For those that have a problem with some cat being legally armed in a business that's sporting a "KILL AT WILL" sign, make no mistake, they'd just as soon have you leave your pocket knife at home too, or is someone gonna tell me that a pocket knife isn't a weapon?

GBK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

?? There are also Constitutional rights to preserve and protect private property.....they are not just state-based.

And privately-owned businesses already can choose other restrictions on the right to refuse service.

It is indeed about respecting other peoples' rights. Just because you can get away with something doesnt mean you are right. I agree that safety is more than just an expediency for me...but I would still recognize the hypocrisy if I did decide to walk past such a sign....which I avoid whenever possible.

And yes, such businesses will lose my business.

---

It is plain to see that you have missed my point. I'll run it by you a little differently this time.

I was trying to explain that in my state, the People have decided that the best way to handle things is to let people legally carry their firearms onto private property until they are asked to leave. In other words, a property owner does not have the legal right to ban firearms with a sign. This is not merely my opinion, it is fact.

CHL holders, on the other hand, do have a legal right to carry their pistol onto private property. Big difference. One party has a legal right; the other does not. So there is no hypocrisy. There is only your misunderstanding of the facts of the issue, which you are attempting to use to stand taller than everyone else.

When you say that "It is indeed about respecting other peoples' rights", you are once again missing the mark -- in the majority of states, the right you refer to (to ban firearms with a sign) simply does not exist. Not in the State constitution, or the U.S. constitution. It's just your personal fantasy. For better or worse, that is not the way our societies are structured.

Exercising your rights against another's wishes is not "getting away with something", as you put it. It is simply living as the People have intended. What would life be if we kowtowed to every whim of our neighbors and valued wishes more than rights?

Property owners are not completely without their rights. They do have the right to ask people to leave and certainly may use a metal detector at the entrance to stop people from entering with firearms on their person. This is the compromise that the People have decided on. If property owners fail to exercise the rights that actually are given to them by the People, from sheer laziness, whose fault is that?

Not mine, and I am neither hypocrite nor sinner for seeing the truth of the situation.

I stop, look, chuckle, and proceed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stanislaskasava

It all depends on which state you are in. In some states, property owners do not have the right to ban firearms on their property and CHL holders do have the right to carry on private property.

It is in error to make a blanket assertion that "property owners have rights..." with the implication being that carrying a firearm somehow violates a landowners rights. This would only be true, to my knowledge, in a small minority of states (those in which signs have legal effect).

It is critical to the issue to note that landowners only have the rights that are given to them by the people of their particular state. On the other hand, the right of the People to keep and bear arms is a bit more inalienable.

The concept that you brought up might be better stated as 'respecting the wishes of property owners'. For instance, a local store has a sign at the register forbidding me the use of my cell phone while in line, or interacting with the cashier. If I find it convenient to use my phone at the register, I am no more violating the property owners rights than if I carry a pistol into a store that has posted an unenforceable gunbuster sign.

The property owner (or a representative) does, however, have the legal right to ask me to leave -- i.e. to 'trespass' me. Using the cell phone does not violate his rights. Staying, after he has asked me to leave, does.

FWIW, I think that property rights have become so diluted that they are basically worthless. But things are what they are, and it's not fair to try to shame CHL holders into relinquishing the rights that they have, by implying that they are violating someone elses rights, and calling them hypocrites. If you want more property rights, change the state laws.

---

To say property owners or anyone else gets their rights from the citizens of a state or the government is scary. These were rights they were born with but later stripped away by the government while we stood by and just watched or in some cases cheered. If their rights can be taken from them are yours safe?

Michael

Gentlemen, as I have said. I have seen this discussion many times. I am not even in complete disagreement with you.

However, when you trample the rights of others to carry out your own.....it is hypocritical. No one says you cant, or even should hold that above your 'safety.' But for all the bluster and rhetoric about our gun rights, there are people that consider their property and businesses with just as much importance...and their own survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stanislaskasava

CHL holders, on the other hand, do have a legal right to carry their pistol onto private property. Big difference. One party has a legal right; the other does not. So there is no hypocrisy. There is only your misunderstanding of the facts of the issue, which you are attempting to use to stand taller than everyone else.
.

---

Goodness, do you hear yourself? It is indeed trespassing....a law completely enforceable if you are caught & dont leave. The fact that you conceal the weapon only means that you are able to hide the fact you are doing so.

Please....do what you want but dont deny it and place your choices above the property owners'. It's disrespectful.

I make no attempt to stand taller...I'm not the one snickering and pretending I dont see signs...or declaring my rights more important than someone elses...as many here in this thread do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bps3040

In Texas, they have to have 1 of 2 official signs....30.06 sign or 51% sign...if they do not, I am legal. I do not haave to pay attention to any other signs. If they have a sign that is not legal, and ask me to leave, I leave.

---

Yep bps3040, if they don't have 1 of the 2 "official" signs I ignore it and walk-in.