Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added)

[suntzu]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All of the above

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ArmyMan]

You ignore the written notice of rules as posted by the owner of the business. How is that not disrespectful?

In my experience most signs are just token gestures the owner offers to their insurance. It isn't a rule per-se the owner wants to enforce, they just don't want to get hammered on liability coverage.

Calling back to my cellphone analogy, most owners probably couldn't give a crap if you carry or not, they just don't want to get caught up in a liability suit, and so since the law doesn't exempt them, they post the sign.

It has less to do with an opinion on guns or property rights, and more to do with liability. Almost everything in business boils down to liability.

The act of walking past a sign is the act of accepting liability for your actions, not an act of disrespect to the owner. If 'made', the owner has to ask me to leave, ot because I'm some disrespectful jerk, but because now that he knows, he is liable if he allows it. If he doesn't know, then he's not liable.

[suntzu]

In my experience most signs are just token gestures the owner offers to their insurance. It isn't a rule per-se the owner wants to enforce, they just don't want to get hammered on liability coverage.

Calling back to my cellphone analogy, most owners probably couldn't give a crap if you carry or not, they just don't want to get caught up in a liability suit, and so since the law doesn't exempt them, they post the sign.

It has less to do with an opinion on guns or property rights, and more to do with liability. Almost everything in business boils down to liability.

The act of walking past a sign is the act of accepting liability for your actions, not an act of disrespect to the owner. If 'made', the owner has to ask me to leave, ot because I'm some disrespectful jerk, but because now that he knows, he is liable if he allows it. If he doesn't know, then he's not liable.

You are kidding right? Several people on this forum are or have been business owners and gun owners and staunch 2A advoates (yes we are) and we think gun buster signs should be allowed because we know from experience and learning that not everyone is responsible with a weapon and we want to be able to have some control of what can be a dangerous device in the hands of an incompetent fool that is allowed on our property.

I can not beleive you actually posted this. So what is your arguement now for no gun signs. "Golly gee mr Supreme COurt Justice, the owner don't really give a hoot".

[mcp1810]

In my experience most signs are just token gestures the owner offers to their insurance. It isn't a rule per-se the owner wants to enforce, they just don't want to get hammered on liability coverage.

Calling back to my cellphone analogy, most owners probably couldn't give a crap if you carry or not, they just don't want to get caught up in a liability suit, and so since the law doesn't exempt them, they post the sign.

It has less to do with an opinion on guns or property rights, and more to do with liability. Almost everything in business boils down to liability.

The act of walking past a sign is the act of accepting liability for your actions, not an act of disrespect to the owner. If 'made', the owner has to ask me to leave, ot because I'm some disrespectful jerk, but because now that he knows, he is liable if he allows it. If he doesn't know, then he's not liable.

You are only assuming that the signs are token gestures. That is demonstrably false in Texas. My wife ordered legally enforceable gun banning signs for her business. She ordered them from a custom sign shop and paid five hundred dollars each for them. They ordered them because they do not want firearms in their building.

Walking past the posted wishes of the owner is most definitely an act of disrespect to the owner. It says that you believe their wishes, opinions and rights mean nothing when compared to yours.

[eipo]

You wanted to know why I keep referring back to concealed carry. I refer to concealed carry because the business owner has every right to require a dress-code/uniform. Historically whenever an employer has to give ground so as to accommodate an individual's right, that right can only exist within certain limits. A Muslim, for example, can demand time to pray at a certain time, but the employer is not required to give that Muslim any additional brakes to do so. The prayer time is simply counted as that employee's brake. Another Muslim example is the Hajib; when KFC was told they had to allow their female Muslim employees to wear it, KFC retained the right to enforce the uniform: to require the hajib be certain colors in line with the uniform, that it be kept clear from the face, and be tucked into the collar. Just because someone has a right to do something in your business against your personal religious/political opinion does not mean they can just trample all over your business with it.

In my opinion you are reaching trying to connect open carry to a dress code. Then further it by suggesting that conceal carry circumvents any dress code by the nature of concealment.

This forum only asks that I keep my opinions concealed, not that I give them up. My personal opinion on same-sex marriage is as concealed on this forum as my gun is at the gas station. I still have both, though, and neither have caused a disturbance at their respective locations.

Correct. And no business in this country is requiring you to disarm.

However, even though you have no issue keeping your opinions concealed, you still have waived your 1A right. You simply do not have issue with it because you have no intention of violating the owners wishes. The TOU you agreed to are exactly the same as a no gun sign on a business.

Just as a law abiding citizen not carrying a weapon waives their 2A right when they pass a no gun sign to enter a business. You do not need to be exercising a right to waive it. Our rights are inherent, present all the time. Not just when we choose to exercise them.

Business owners have the right to require a dress-code/uniform. States which restrict concealed carry are violating the rights of these business owners.

Yes.

I think you are grasping. States which restrict concealed carry are violating our 2A rights. Violating the rights of business owners... I'm not connecting those dots. I see where you are coming up with that, I just don't agree.

When asked, I leave without a fuss. That's compliance.

Compliance would not be walking past the sign. The sign itself is reasonable conveyance to you of the property owners wishes. Why does it take a sign, AND someone telling you your weapon is not welcome, to be in compliance.

com·pli·ance
noun \kəm-ˈplī-ən(t)s\
Definition of COMPLIANCE
1
a : the act or process of complying to a desire, demand, proposal, or regimen or to coercion
b : conformity in fulfilling official requirements
2
: a disposition to yield to others
3
: the ability of an object to yield elastically when a force is applied : flexibility

When you speed on the highway, you are in non compliance. You have ignored the speed limit sign. Slowing down after you are stopped does not then equal compliance.

With regard to a forum, one isn't asked so much as banned. There are many ways around thread/forum banns, but choosing to simply move on is the equivalent of leaving a business when asked.

If you get to the point of being asked, you have stepped over the line. In the case of a forum, you know the rules prior to the offense. Walking past a no gun sign is no different. The owners wishes have been reasonably conveyed to you.

Just as someone is committing trespassing when refusing to leave, so can one be committing harassment when using an exploit to bypass a ban.

Tresspass does not start at the point of being asked to leave. It starts at the point you disregard a notice or wish of the property owner. The sign is the reasonable conveyance of that wish.

tres·pass
noun \ˈtres-pəs, -ˌpas\
Definition of TRESPASS
1
a : a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression; especially : sin
b : an unwarranted infringement
2
a : an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a wrongful entry on real property
b : the legal action for injuries resulting from trespass

trans·gres·sion
noun \-ˈgre-shən\
Definition of TRANSGRESSION
: an act, process, or instance of transgressing: as
a : infringement or violation of a law, command, or duty
b : the spread of the sea over land areas and the consequent unconformable deposit of sediments on older rocks
See transgression defined for kids »

[ArmyMan]

ArmyMan....

If you were not able to legally carry concealed, what would you do when you approach a business that does not want your openly carried weapon on their premises?

You seem to want to push the open carriers under the bus so long as no one messes with your ability to carry concealed. I want to be wrong on that.

Depends on if signs have force of law, depends on the business, why I'm there, and yes what I'm wearing and what gun I have, because my open-carry gun might just blend in with me and no one ever notice.

I'm not going to brake any law, and will calmly leave if asked, but depending on the facts of the situation I might decide to roll the dice and enter with an open-carry gun.

I might get away with it, too, especially if I'm in a Halloween costume.

[eipo]

In my experience most signs are just token gestures the owner offers to their insurance. It isn't a rule per-se the owner wants to enforce, they just don't want to get hammered on liability coverage.

Calling back to my cellphone analogy, most owners probably couldn't give a crap if you carry or not, they just don't want to get caught up in a liability suit, and so since the law doesn't exempt them, they post the sign.

It has less to do with an opinion on guns or property rights, and more to do with liability. Almost everything in business boils down to liability.

The act of walking past a sign is the act of accepting liability for your actions, not an act of disrespect to the owner. If 'made', the owner has to ask me to leave, ot because I'm some disrespectful jerk, but because now that he knows, he is liable if he allows it. If he doesn't know, then he's not liable.

Why the sign is there is irrelevant. It could be there simply because they like the color scheme of the letters on the background.

[eipo]

Depends on if signs have force of law, depends on the business, why I'm there, and yes what I'm wearing and what gun I have, because my open-carry gun might just blend in with me and no one ever notice.

I'm not going to brake any law, and will calmly leave if asked, but depending on the facts of the situation I might decide to roll the dice and enter with an open-carry gun.

I might get away with it, too.

Have a nice day.

[suntzu]

Have a nice day.

Agreed..I am not playing anymore. Armyman can find others to play with on this issue.

[ArmyMan]

Why the sign is there is irrelevant. It could be there simply because they like the color scheme of the letters on the background.

You asked how walking past a sign might not be an act of disrespect.

Liability, that's how.

There's no disrespect, just as the owner doesn't actually want to ban guns...no-gun signs are a proverbial nod and a wink that you're liable for your self, don't pawn anything off on the business.

[ArmyMan]

You are only assuming that the signs are token gestures. That is demonstrably false in Texas. My wife ordered legally enforceable gun banning signs for her business. She ordered them from a custom sign shop and paid five hundred dollars each for them. They ordered them because they do not want firearms in their building.

Walking past the posted wishes of the owner is most definitely an act of disrespect to the owner. It says that you believe their wishes, opinions and rights mean nothing when compared to yours.

I don't see it as disrespect, I'm sorry that you do. I hope the sign shop offers you a deal on no-bat/knife/sword signs so that you can keep the other law-abiding criminals away.

[Hopyard]

You are only assuming that the signs are token gestures. That is demonstrably false in Texas. My wife ordered legally enforceable gun banning signs for her business. She ordered them from a custom sign shop and paid five hundred dollars each for them. They ordered them because they do not want firearms in their building.

Walking past the posted wishes of the owner is most definitely an act of disrespect to the owner. It says that you believe their wishes, opinions and rights mean nothing when compared to yours.

And here in TX walking past one of those 30.06 signs means you also disrespect the law; and that
means you are a criminal.

[ArmyMan]

And here in TX walking past one of those 30.06 signs means you also disrespect the law; and that
means you are a criminal.

Non of which is true in my state, SD.

[ArmyMan]

You are kidding right? Several people on this forum are or have been business owners and gun owners and staunch 2A advoates (yes we are) and we think gun buster signs should be allowed because we know from experience and learning that not everyone is responsible with a weapon and we want to be able to have some control of what can be a dangerous device in the hands of an incompetent fool that is allowed on our property.

I can not beleive you actually posted this. So what is your arguement now for no gun signs. "Golly gee mr Supreme COurt Justice, the owner don't really give a hoot".

The solution is to require range qualification for a permit, not get ban-happy.

[mcp1810]

You asked how walking past a sign might not be an act of disrespect.

Liability, that's how.

There's no disrespect, just as the owner doesn't actually want to ban guns...no-gun signs are a proverbial nod and a wink that you're liable for your self, don't pawn anything off on the business.

Amazing how you can know what it is that the owner wants even when they have posted signs clearly stating otherwise!
Do you use this amazing skill in your dating life too? I mean, when a woman says "No" you know what she really means! (nod and a wink) Right?