Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added) - Page 30

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

This is a discussion on Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added) within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; In the state I live in, you could be charged with a misdemeanor and slapped with a fine for ignoring a business that is posted ...

View Poll Results: Do you support a business's right to ban guns?

Voters
105. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    87 82.86%
  • NO

    18 17.14%
Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202627282930313233 LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 490
Like Tree293Likes

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

  1. #436
    Member Array giz5792's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Virginia,MN
    Posts
    72
    In the state I live in, you could be charged with a misdemeanor and slapped with a fine for ignoring a business that is posted for not allowing guns inside their building. Although I might not like it, out of respect to the owner, I will remove my weapon.

    Now comes the "What if" question. ArmyMan says he will carry even if it is posted, correct? "What if" you are inside a store that does not allow weapons and someone enters with the intention of robbing said business and harming anyone that gets in his/her way. You make decision to intervene and draw your gun and the bad guy runs off. Once the police arrive and are informed of what has happened, because you, let's say disobeyed the owner's sign, are you not just as guilty of a crime as the person who tried to rob him/her? I don't know how things work where you're from, but here, you could be arrested and loose your gun in the process. IMO, its like ignoring the No Trespassing someone has posted on their land, its there for a reason.

    And by saying that he will carry his gun into a place that is posted, doesn't that just help the anti-gun crowd's argument that gun owners are just out looking for a fight. Or that gun owners are vigilantes and willing to take the law into their own hands? And the fact that you say you don't see it as disrespect, really? You are going against someone else's wishes, how is that not disrespect? Think about your fellow CCW owners instead instead of fighting your own agenda. Its people like you that usually screw it up for everyone else. I will carry where allowed, and remove it where not, out of respect.


  2. #437
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    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?
    I said "might not" and earlier stipulated "it's my experience that..". Those qualifiers were inserted for a reason: I don't *know* in every instance.

    I'm a carpenter, I do some pretty nice remodeling projects from time to time, and some of these projects are for business owners. The clients can be quite friendly and comfortable, welcoming us to play, for example, any political radio talk show we like while we work. It can be acceptable to bring up politics on occasion, and naturally I bring up their allowing/banning firearms from their business.

    First thing they do is give me a second look to see if I have a gun.

    Most of the business owners I've talked to just don't want to get sued. If they allowed it, they would be liable, and so they don't allow it. When they suppose the law exempted them from liability, most would take the 'don't ask, don't tell' approach.

    If you need me to include an overabundance of qualifiers, that this was not a scientific servery, that I do not work all over the US or for every kind of business owner....if I have to go out of my to say those very obvious things.....consider them said here.

    I said "It's my experience that..." and someone says "not in TX"...well sillyhead I don't work or live in TX, so that's outside the scope of my statement.

  3. #438
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by giz5792 View Post
    In the state I live in, you could be charged with a misdemeanor and slapped with a fine for ignoring a business that is posted for not allowing guns inside their building. Although I might not like it, out of respect to the owner, I will remove my weapon.

    Now comes the "What if" question. ArmyMan says he will carry even if it is posted, correct? "What if" you are inside a store that does not allow weapons and someone enters with the intention of robbing said business and harming anyone that gets in his/her way. You make decision to intervene and draw your gun and the bad guy runs off. Once the police arrive and are informed of what has happened, because you, let's say disobeyed the owner's sign, are you not just as guilty of a crime as the person who tried to rob him/her?
    No, because those signs do not have force of law in my state. If I were in a state where those signs had force of law, I would not be in that store. Not out of respect for the owners, but because I don't want to get arrested for something stupid. There are things in this world I am willing to be arrested for, but this is not one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by giz5792 View Post
    I don't know how things work where you're from, but here, you could be arrested and loose your gun in the process. IMO, its like ignoring the No Trespassing someone has posted on their land, its there for a reason.
    That's why I wouldn't be in that store. That's just stupid law, and I avoid stupid. Chances are the store was targeted because of the sign.

    Quote Originally Posted by giz5792 View Post
    And by saying that he will carry his gun into a place that is posted, doesn't that just help the anti-gun crowd's argument that gun owners are just out looking for a fight. Or that gun owners are vigilantes and willing to take the law into their own hands?
    Anti-gun folks are easily rebuked with facts and logic, like sun light to Dracula. Don't play their games, take what they say and twist it into your own stepping off point.

    Quote Originally Posted by giz5792 View Post
    And the fact that you say you don't see it as disrespect, really?
    Really.

    Quote Originally Posted by giz5792 View Post
    You are going against someone else's wishes, how is that not disrespect?
    I *just* answered that question on this very thread not even an hour ago. Post #422.

    Quote Originally Posted by giz5792 View Post
    Think about your fellow CCW owners instead instead of fighting your own agenda. Its people like you that usually screw it up for everyone else. I will carry where allowed, and remove it where not, out of respect.
    People like me are helping to get guns-in-cars laws passed.

  4. #439
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,103
    So Armyman based on your admitted limited experience with business owners you have worked for you operate under the assumption that every owner of every business you walk into feels the same way.
    If in your past experience you chatted with some girls and they said that have said "no" to something in the past and didn't really mean it does that mean you can do what you want anytime any other girl says "no"?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #440
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So Armyman based on your admitted limited experience with business owners you have worked for you operate under the assumption that every owner of every business you walk into feels the same way.
    I did not say every business owner felt that way. I was asked a specific question and I gave a measured answer. You're now taking pieces of that answer and taking them out of the context of the question that post was answering.

    What I did make a broad statement about was my intention, because I am the world's foremost authority on my opinion, and I did say that to me the act of walking past a sign is not an act of disrespect, but of personal liability.

    The entire topic of respect has nothing to do with anything for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    If in your past experience you chatted with some girls and they said that have said "no" to something in the past and didn't really mean it does that mean you can do what you want anytime any other girl says "no"?
    Nope. I fully support a woman's right to protect herself from rape at all times, even if a business owner posts a sign saying she has to be a victim to shop there.

  6. #441
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,467
    "Anti-gun folks are easily rebuked with facts and logic, like sun light to Dracula."

    Yeah, but unlike Dracula in the story, anti-gun folks aren't deterred by facts and logic as long as they remain close-minded. Rebuking anti-gunners may be rendered pointless by their intolerance if they are not converted and persist in pursuing their unjust aims to disarm a nation.
    ArmyMan, Miamieddie and OD* like this.
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  7. #442
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    "Anti-gun folks are easily rebuked with facts and logic, like sun light to Dracula."

    Yeah, but unlike Dracula in the story, anti-gun folks aren't deterred by facts and logic as long as they remain close-minded. Rebuking anti-gunners may be rendered pointless by their intolerance if they are not converted and persist in pursuing their unjust aims to disarm a nation.
    On other forums about general politics, I've seen anti-gun folks use the existence of no-gun signs to support their arguments. Giving no-gun signs force-of-law is one of the anti-gun'ers methods of chipping away at the 2A. IMO I'd rather every state be like Florida, but at the very least we need to remove force-of-law from no-gun signs; they give private citizens defacto power to make law on the spot, as opposed to a private business policy, and making law is something only the legislature should do.
    Miamieddie likes this.

  8. #443
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    So since most business owners who post are doing so for liability reasons then in Wisconsin where there is a specific statute that as a business owner if they allow there employees to carry they are immune from liability but yet they still do not allow there employees to carry what is their reasoning?

    Could it be that they simply don't want guns in their business?

    Armyman so far in this and other topics you have championed yourself as the defender of gun rights and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously anti gun but you have stated that OC'ers do not have the same rights as CC'ers, and that you support a business that has no retail outlet (factory) to ban there employees from carrying a firearm, but on another post you hold the opinion that an employee has the right to defend themselves from workplace violence and the business owner is violating their rights if they do not allow them to carry.

    Now I believe you have chastised other people stating that "Either you support the 2A fully or not at all" or words to that effect. Now which is it? It looks like it comes down to whatever suits your need at the moment.

    In this topic it was mentioned that a business owner who posts their property is not responsible for you when you are on their property. The business owner is required to make sure the business is well maintained and free from hazards but that does not mean they are responsible if someone comes in the place and starts shooting or to rob the business. A Duty of Care must be established and in order to hold the owner responsible and as long as the owner adheres to a standard of reasonable care.

    This standard is left up to the states to decide. In some states the only test is whether the harm to the plaintiff from the defendant's actions was foreseeable. In others there are several criteria that are used to judge that.

    So I ask again which is it?
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    "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

  9. #444
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    ArmyMan likes this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  10. #445
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    So since most business owners who post are doing so for liability reasons then in Wisconsin where there is a specific statute that as a business owner if they allow there employees to carry they are immune from liability but yet they still do not allow there employees to carry what is their reasoning?
    In that situation it may be time to go to the next level and, like Florida, disallow those policies.

    I myself would carry with the understanding that it could cost me my job or being ejected, and if made I would accept the consequence and leave without a fuss.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Could it be that they simply don't want guns in their business?
    Yup. I understand that. Every post I make, I understand that.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Armyman so far in this and other topics you have championed yourself as the defender of gun rights and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously anti gun but you have stated that OC'ers do not have the same rights as CC'ers, and that you support a business that has no retail outlet (factory) to ban there employees from carrying a firearm, but on another post you hold the opinion that an employee has the right to defend themselves from workplace violence and the business owner is violating their rights if they do not allow them to carry.

    Now I believe you have chastised other people stating that "Either you support the 2A fully or not at all" or words to that effect. Now which is it? It looks like it comes down to whatever suits your need at the moment.
    Factories are not open to the public, typically have a security department or service, and factories generally have easily demonstratable needs to disallow firearms anyway, such as the presence of bulk chemical containers.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    In this topic it was mentioned that a business owner who posts their property is not responsible for you when you are on their property. The business owner is required to make sure the business is well maintained and free from hazards but that does not mean they are responsible if someone comes in the place and starts shooting or to rob the business. A Duty of Care must be established and in order to hold the owner responsible and as long as the owner adheres to a standard of reasonable care.
    Gun-free zones are public hazards, but Florida has had success with the baseless discrimination angle so that's what I'm going to roll with.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    This standard is left up to the states to decide.
    Yes, and all states need to decide to be like Florida. The compromise is to simply remove force-of-law from the signs, while still allowing business owners to eject customers or terminate employees if they carry.

  11. #446
    Member
    Array discoboxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    333
    Armyman,

    What is it about the bulk fuel or chemical containers that you bring up regularly as justifiable reason to ban guns on a property?

    Does that mean all gas stations can ban per your logic or do the storage containers have to be above ground? Is it a mass casualty risk that is only appropriate for a business to ban?

    May sound silly, but what if a CCer were to hit a fire extinguisher or a gas line in the wall? Wouldn't these be possibilities for major injury? What if a CCer misses and hits one innocent, is that still enough risk to sway a business owner (or insurance co) to not allow it?

    I'm trying to understand where you draw the line in what is acceptable for a business to ban guns and this is one area you have brought up repeatedly in this thread. What justifies your decision to support a private businesses right to post?
    suntzu and ArmyMan like this.
    “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

  12. #447
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,103
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    No, because those signs do not have force of law in my state. If I were in a state where those signs had force of law, I would not be in that store. Not out of respect for the owners, but because I don't want to get arrested for something stupid. There are things in this world I am willing to be arrested for, but this is not one of them.
    So here you state that you do not respect the rights of property owners you behave as you do only from fear of prosecution. Great value system. You are a poster child for the Brady Bunch.

    Anti-gun folks are easily rebuked with facts and logic, like sun light to Dracula. Don't play their games, take what they say and twist it into your own stepping off point.
    So when are you going to present some facts and logic?
    Fact: The right to exclude is a basic property right that is recognized by courts all over the world.
    Fact: Your presence in a place of business which is private property is a privilege, not a right.
    Fact: A right can not be based on privilege, so you do not have a right to bear arms any place where your presence is by privilege.
    Fact: You want the government to deny property owners the right to exclude which is a taking under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
    Fact: For the government to do that (here is your strict scrutiny) there must be a compelling government interest to do so which you can not show.

    People like me are helping to get guns-in-cars laws passed.
    You really believe that? People who make sound legal and logical arguments are the ones advancing our cause. What you are doing is inspiring people to get more active about defending private property rights. You are inspiring legislation to make gun buster signs have the force of law, since that is the only option you are leaving a business owner who does not want weapons in their place of business.
    Great way to promote your cause.
    suntzu, wmhawth and OD* like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #448
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,982
    You really believe that? People who make sound legal and logical arguments are the ones advancing our cause. What you are doing is inspiring people to get more active about defending private property rights. You are inspiring legislation to make gun buster signs have the force of law, since that is the only option you are leaving a business owner who does not want weapons in their place of business.
    Great way to promote your cause.
    Thatis a good point. It has riased my awareness of how a very small minority (not a protected class) wants to brow beat legislation to suit there own personel needs and wants. Just like some pro 2a organizations do (which I no longer belong) passing out fear mongering and speaking sometimes for not what it's members want. An individual who will remain nameless but very active on this issue has said that civil suits need to be done to force the business's to change becuase it will be too costly to keep defending lawsuits. (paraphrasing). That is just plain sick. That individual is willing use lawsuits to put the "squeeze" on business's if the courts keep ruling according the constitution as they see it and so far most other gun owners.

    It has defintily raised my awareness that their is danger withiin our own ranks and I will be very active with any attempts at legislation that change the ability for a business to post a no gun sign.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  14. #449
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    So with your logic of demonstrating a need due to hazards, i.e. stored chemical tanks, a gun shop can ban because they have smokeless and black powder and you could even include ammunition stocked on the shelves.
    A paint/hardware store would within your needs test because they have gallons and gallons of paint thinner, stripper and other possibly explosive/flammable chemicals stored on the shelves.
    An automotive shop could show a need because they have chemicals and probably a very large air compressor or two on the premises which if punctured would probably cause damage, injury or death to anyone near by.
    Anything to do with aviation could post as they have aircraft filled with fuel and fuel trucks running around.
    Most agricultural business's would fit as would grocery stores that have compressed dangerous chemicals and flammable liquids on the shelf.
    Anyplace that sells propane tanks is out to just like anyplace that sells gasoline even though they may have underground tanks they get their fuel from tankers that park on their lot and refuel the tanks but I guess they could post a sign stating when they get their fuel deliveries firearms are not allowed.
    Oh and since you work as a carpenter out of a retail shop they surely have chemicals stored or on the shelves for customers to buy so that means your employer has a need to not want firearms in his place of business so you, by your own standard, cannot carry there.

    The list goes on and on.

    There are no statistics that show gun free zones are targeted specifically because they are gun free that I have found. Gun shops are the victims of robberies also and lord knows they have guns on the premises. Police stations are attacked with armed cops inside, uniformed officers are shot and killed and they have a firearm with them, SWAT teams are routinely shot at and officers killed and wounded and they are carrying automatic weapons. It is not about the place it is about the individual committing the crime and his determination to carry out his mission.

    In many cases of mass shootings the shooter is somehow connected to the place he attacks. In the Colorado theater shooting unless it comes out in court we will not know why he chose that place. Was it because it was posted? Was it because the door was not alarmed? He obviously preplanned this so there is a good chance he had been there before scouting, maybe he liked the popcorn.

    So basically any business owner who shows a need under your standard would be allowed to restrict firearms from their store for "safety reasons" all they have to have is a need but person who has chosen under their god given and constitutionally protected right to choose because it is their business and livelihood cannot.

    I notice in your post that you did not mention that you have different rules for those that OC. So CC is ok because the owner may not know but it is ok to not allow someone who is openly carrying?

    You are being selective in your restrictions but yet you preach equal rights for all unless you OC, own a factory, or demonstrate a need other than simply saying I do not want guns in my store, that does not fit your agenda. So you would rather see a business owner go bankrupt defending a legal issue to allow firearms on their property than to simply shop somewhere else. You are truly a great American.
    "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. #450
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,982
    I still don't get the point he is making about above ground tanks either. So if there is an AD the tank blows up killing many people which he seems to think is a bad thing. But that same AD/ND in a grocery store can kill one person and he thinks that is OK? The odds of an AD/ND are the same no matter where the person is. So I guess he thought process is the amount of damage that can be done....that makes no sense.

    Other places that would be justified to ban under that theory: Hospitals and any medical establishments with O2 tanks, vet clinics, good grief, we could go on.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

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

buisness banning guns in michigan
,
gun control
,
powered by mybb business license in washington
,
powered by mybb consumer protection cases
,
powered by mybb internet services in my area
,

powered by mybb mail sign in

,
powered by mybb move to colorado
,
powered by mybb ownership
,
powered by mybb public opinion
,
powered by mybb taurus firearms
,

powered by mybb top employers

,
when do you have a legal right to deny service in public accomdation facility
Click on a term to search for related topics.