You lost me at mandatory.

 

Yup me to.

 

You mean, How much infringement and intrusiveness would I accept to qualify my right to be armed?

You mean, How would continued and expanded distrust of citizens and failure to strictly hold criminals liable for criminal misuse/abuse of the tool work? Badly, I'd say.

In other words, those who prove that they are willing to go the extra mile to handle their weapon appropriately at all times, are rewarded with a greater amount of trust to do so

... whereas those who are not, still keep their constitutional right to bear arms.

Extreme disconnect, right there. Rewarding constitutional rights only if??


Q: How would I react to such an unjust, unconstitutional law?
A: I could tell you how I really felt, but then I'd have to "keeeeel" you. (Said in your best Peter Lorre voice.)

 

Why should more training allow you more rights?

Everyone in the US is allowed the same First Amendment right and they dont even have to graduate school.

Some of you seem to think that carrying a gun makes you special or something. Separates you from the herd, makes you the sheepdog and not the sheep.

Which IMO is why some of you feel that you have to inform people when you enter their homes that you are legally carrying a gun...just out of the blue, whether they want to know or care or not.

The 2nd Amendment is a right that ALL Americans share. The fact that some people are restricted, like felons, or that the govt has indeed made some restrictions, doesnt mean that's right.

I'd resent having to prove that I can be 'trusted' just like I resent people implying I'm wrong or disrespectful to carry a gun and not tell every property owner.

 

The 2nd Amendment is a right that ALL Americans share. The fact that some people are restricted, like felons, or that the govt has indeed made some restrictions, doesnt mean that's right.

I'd resent having to prove that I can be 'trusted' just like I resent people implying I'm wrong or disrespectful to carry a gun and not tell every property owner.

Exactly so.

Keep your infringements and wad 'em up into a tight ball. Got a match, here, if you need one.

 

If a company has a no gun sign up I just go elsewhere to do my business. I respect owners property wishes. Makes like easier in the long run.

 

Wow.

Alright. Primer for those of you NOT in Arizona. Currently, all signs have the force of law. Thus, there is NO right to carry in any restaurant that has a gun buster sign. So, you're all telling me, you'd rather stick to NO rights to carry on business private property? Because in essence, THAT is what I'm asking:

would you be for a law that negates private business's ability to determine whether you can carry on their property, with the caveat that you must first take extra training and have a CCL for a year.

 

Wow.

Alright. Primer for those of you NOT in Arizona. Currently, all signs have the force of law. Thus, there is NO right to carry in any restaurant that has a gun buster sign. So, you're all telling me, you'd rather stick to NO rights to carry on business private property? Because in essence, THAT is what I'm asking:

would you be for a law that negates private business's ability to determine whether you can carry on their property, with the caveat that you must first take extra training and have a CCL for a year.

To me, must = mandatory, so once again you lost me.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the gist of your post is that people who undergo additional/advanced training would therefore be allowed to carry in previously restricted areas?

 

Yeah seems like it.

I see zero point in it. We recently had a couple of threads on the fact that there is NO data that shows mandatory training has any affect at all on gun-related accidents or incidents (not crime).

Actually there is one study comparing OR and WA states where OR requires training and WA does not and WA has a larger population and less gun-related incidents.

I think it's even more irrelevant when you consider how rarely cc'ers end up drawing and using their weapons. Now narrow that down to specific 'special' places and specific 'special' training and see how worthwhile it is?

There is no doubt more training has value...but for the purpose the OP describes??? I wish he could articulate better his unusual views on firearms.They do not seem based on actual need. (And I can articulate that specifically but dont want to pull the thread off topic)

 

So how does this work? You show your advanced license to the McDonald's clerk when you order your Big Mac?

 

How about no and no........and no. Besides the fact it is adding more government involvement in what suppose to be a right it is IMO a way for anti's to justify more gun buster signs.

Your premise is (whether you know it or not) is that to walk in public and go past gunbuster signs you need to be highly trained..moreso than other gun owners who can legaly carry out in public. Now follow that logic. If one needs more training to walk into a McD's which is public, should not all CC'ers meet the same qualifications? What is the difference? See how this would turn into a disaster real quick. And no, this is not the same analogy as a CDL and regular DL. I have heard that argument before. They are for liscening on different classes of vehicles or required for employment, not to share the smae right as everyone.

Anyhoo, who will make up tis so called statndard? The government? Please. Sorry dude, respectfully the idea has been brought up a zillion times and it is just as wrong now as it was the other tiimes.

 

I'm torn between having a mandate that gun buster signs have no force of law & private owner's rights to select the clientele they want to serve. At this time I have the right to select who I patronize.

 

Is the exercise of the right of self-defense a civil right?

On balance, I don't like the rule.
Nevertheless, I support the OP's asking the question. We advance our cause by thinking about new possibilities and discussing them.
I respectfully discourage others from berating the poster; simply disagreeing and explaining why you disagree (if possible) is constructive.

My fundamental principle is that asking the government to get involved is more likely to cause a problem vs. make things better. The proposal asks government to get involved more than it is at this point; so, the idea is starting out behind on this score.

I favor the idea that a property owner has a right to dictate "the rules of this tavern". So, what could be done within this principle?

First, if the no-gun rule is fair then it should apply to everyone; including law enforcement. Why can a cop have lunch at McD's but I can't? If the proprietor is a hoplophobe then his phobia should be universal. If the proprietor himself is not a hoplophobe but he thinks his customers might be, well, then, those customers should also be afraid of policemen's guns. Maybe you have to allow the cop to carry on the premises if his presence is in-the-line-of-duty: serving a warrant; or, arresting someone. But, if s/he is on the premises merely to have lunch, why is he exempt? If you have a no-hunting sign then you can't hunt yourself on your own property.

If a law exists that authorizes a no-gun sign, should it not also say proprietor must have a gun-check service at the door? (If there is no such law explicitly speaking to no-gun signs then I don't favor a law requiring a gun-check service. However, if a law authorizes a sign then the can of worms is already open.) If that is too intrusive, then how about a requirement that the proprietor maintain a means (e.g., a suggestion box) for people to express their opinions on the policy? A potential patron who is carrying can't enter the premises and express his opinion to the proprietor (or employees) without violating the sign; so, the means must be accessible to him. Perhaps such proprietors should be obliged to acknowledge how much business they are losing from people who leave a note (e.g., pre-printed calling card).

The intriguing question that comes up for me is the civil right of self-defense. If I can't be discriminated against in a public accommodation due to my race or religion, can I be discriminated against because I believe in exercising my civil right to defend myself? What if I'm a registered Republican? A registered Libertarian? Can the proprietor exclude me merely because I have been licensed to carry - notwithstanding that I might not be carrying at the moment? Perhaps my belief deserves the same respect as my race or religious affiliation.

So, carry it one step farther; what if I carry a weapon in the exercise of my belief? Is it that I can't be discriminated against for merely believing in the 2'nd Amendment; but I can be discriminated against for actually exercising that right?

OK, then, suppose I can be discriminated against for actually exercising that right. Well, then, where does that lead us? Consider a native American who believes in his ancestral religion that calls for smoking peyote. (A little odd from my viewpoint; but more on this later). Does the first amendment prohibit discrimination against the Indian for believing in smoking peyote; but, allows him to be jailed for practicing this religious ritual? Well, then, I should feel free to believe that my religion mandates that I regularly eat the body and drink the blood of my Lord and Savior. (My supposed native American might regard my belief to be a little odd.) However, I must submit if the law regulates the actual practice of that mandate. E.g., it is not far-fetched to imagine a law prohibiting confirmed Christians under the age of 21 from drinking wine in communion. I would be guilty of child neglect if I allowed my children (when under age) to participate in a mandatory tenant of my religion. Moreover, they are actually consuming alcohol in so participating. (Observe that the CCP-practitioner is not ordinarily shooting anyone in McD's).

I find myself in conflict. I believe a property owner has a right to set the "rules of this tavern". Does he have a right to discriminate against prospective patrons who are of a particular race or religion? If he has no such right, then, does he have the right to discriminate against civilians who carry arms? If he does have that right, can he make exceptions for government employees (police, National Guardsmen, soldiers)?

I don't have an answer for my questions yet; however, I hope you can see where this line of reasoning is going. Perhaps this is where we ought to take this discussion in the public square.

Mark

 

On balance, I don't like the rule.
Nevertheless, I support the OP's asking the question. We advance our cause by thinking about new possibilities and discussing them.
I respectfully discourage others from berating the poster; simply disagreeing and explaining why you disagree (if possible) is constructive.

My fundamental principle is that asking the government to get involved is more likely to cause a problem vs. make things better. The proposal asks government to get involved more than it is at this point; so, the idea is starting out behind on this score.

I favor the idea that a property owner has a right to dictate "the rules of this tavern". So, what could be done within this principle?

First, if the no-gun rule is fair then it should apply to everyone; including law enforcement. Why can a cop have lunch at McD's but I can't? If the proprietor is a hoplophobe then his phobia should be universal. If the proprietor himself is not a hoplophobe but he thinks his customers might be, well, then, those customers should also be afraid of policemen's guns. Maybe you have to allow the cop to carry on the premises if his presence is in-the-line-of-duty: serving a warrant; or, arresting someone. But, if s/he is on the premises merely to have lunch, why is he exempt? If you have a no-hunting sign then you can't hunt yourself on your own property.

If a law exists that authorizes a no-gun sign, should it not also say proprietor must have a gun-check service at the door? (If there is no such law explicitly speaking to no-gun signs then I don't favor a law requiring a gun-check service. However, if a law authorizes a sign then the can of worms is already open.) If that is too intrusive, then how about a requirement that the proprietor maintain a means (e.g., a suggestion box) for people to express their opinions on the policy? A potential patron who is carrying can't enter the premises and express his opinion to the proprietor (or employees) without violating the sign; so, the means must be accessible to him. Perhaps such proprietors should be obliged to acknowledge how much business they are losing from people who leave a note (e.g., pre-printed calling card).

The intriguing question that comes up for me is the civil right of self-defense. If I can't be discriminated against in a public accommodation due to my race or religion, can I be discriminated against because I believe in exercising my civil right to defend myself? What if I'm a registered Republican? A registered Libertarian? Can the proprietor exclude me merely because I have been licensed to carry - notwithstanding that I might not be carrying at the moment? Perhaps my belief deserves the same respect as my race or religious affiliation.

So, carry it one step farther; what if I carry a weapon in the exercise of my belief? Is it that I can't be discriminated against for merely believing in the 2'nd Amendment; but I can be discriminated against for actually exercising that right?

OK, then, suppose I can be discriminated against for actually exercising that right. Well, then, where does that lead us? Consider a native American who believes in his ancestral religion that calls for smoking peyote. (A little odd from my viewpoint; but more on this later). Does the first amendment prohibit discrimination against the Indian for believing in smoking peyote; but, allows him to be jailed for practicing this religious ritual? Well, then, I should feel free to believe that my religion mandates that I regularly eat the body and drink the blood of my Lord and Savior. (My supposed native American might regard my belief to be a little odd.) However, I must submit if the law regulates the actual practice of that mandate. E.g., it is not far-fetched to imagine a law prohibiting confirmed Christians under the age of 21 from drinking wine in communion. I would be guilty of child neglect if I allowed my children (when under age) to participate in a mandatory tenant of my religion. Moreover, they are actually consuming alcohol in so participating. (Observe that the CCP-practitioner is not ordinarily shooting anyone in McD's).

I find myself in conflict. I believe a property owner has a right to set the "rules of this tavern". Does he have a right to discriminate against prospective patrons who are of a particular race or religion? If he has no such right, then, does he have the right to discriminate against civilians who carry arms? If he does have that right, can he make exceptions for government employees (police, National Guardsmen, soldiers)?

I don't have an answer for my questions yet; however, I hope you can see where this line of reasoning is going. Perhaps this is where we ought to take this discussion in the public square.

Mark

Let me sum this up for you.
1. A CC'er is not a protected class. Period. You have no special protection for choosing to carry a firearm.
2. SCOTUS has ruled many times on whether carrying a weapon as part of a religion is Okee Dokee and where. Making up a religion and saying that carrying a gun is part of it is not what I have understood SCOTUS as saying. And as far as I know there is no established religion requiring you to carry a gun in a McD's
3. You overlook the fact that business's are for the most part a choice of you going to. You can choose to go or not.
4. McD's or anyone should not be required to have a gun check service. Again, see #3. It is your choice to carry, and it is your choice to go to McD's
5. No one is taking away a right. The government is the only one that can do that. Your choice to carry a gun for self defense ends when you decide to enter a place that openly states that your gun is not welcome.
6. As far as letting patrons know if they like the policy? You don't need a suggestion box. You can tell the manager, email the corporation, choose to spend your money elsewhere.

BTW: Your "let's carry this further" analogies start to turn into Argumentum ad infinitum arguments and Reductio ad absurdum arguments. Just like saying where does the right to carry end? With nukes?

welcome to the forum

 

I'd go as far as telling em to keep their Big Mac and shove their Fries,I can cook a better burger at home

 

Hey Jemsaal: Have you really read your thread and understand what you sound like? Bottom line--can't go to McDonalds go elsewhere and stop being "frustrated"---you begin to scare me.

 

I'm not sure but I think it comes down to him feeling uncomfortable about ccing and not feeling perfectly *correct* about it. Jem feels he must inform a home owner that he is carrying when he visits...whether or not he knows the home owner's position on guns/cc. To me, that shows discomfort and worrying about being discovered or being (?).

If he was able to get some waiver that he was 'highly trained' from the govt, then no buisness owner could question his presence with his gun. He is solidly and unquestionably in the right.

Why he feels he needs this level of comfort or acceptance in the world is beyond me. It would be nice, but it's not real.

I am not attacking Jem, this is how I am interpreting the culmination of his posts on the forum.

 

I would rather choose to not do business with anyone posting such a sign. Also dropping a card stating why might open their eyes to how much business they could be missing. No need for more rules, laws , regulations. The Gov already takes enough money for permits to do everything in our lives as it is.

 

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign...

 

My take on this is perhaps less profound than some. However, while I respect the right of the citizen to carry, I also respect the right of the property owner to say "not in my business" or for that matter not in my home. You may have the right of freedom of speech. That does not mean that a business cannot ask you to leave, or a homeowner may not ask you to leave if your speech becomes foul or obnoxious. Maybe the government must allow for this in the public forums, but this is not true in the private sphere, and nor should it be. If a business does not want me in its place because I am CC ing, that is their right and I can go elsewhere. If my neighbor does not want me in his house if I am carrying, that is his right. As has been noted, my right to make a fist ends when it begins to come in contact with your jaw. One individual's exercise of a right must oftentimes be balanced against someone else's exercise of their rights.

 

Thank you Gaius

 

I have already spent the money, done the training and gotten the certifications. I have spent thousands more on gear. Thousands more on staying current and enhancing my skills on my own. That said, I am no more or no less entitled to carry than the newb with his laser-equipped LCP jutting like a tumor in his Passport holster. Where, when and how I carry is on me, same thing with you and everybody else. I do not need permission to obey or ignore anything.
I am curious, tho. Why does your special permission give a pass to the state and feds?

 

Have you ever had your child come home from school and tell you that there is a birthday party for one of his/her classmates and your child wasn't invited? I guess the only answer you can give is, Well, if you are not wanted there then you probably would not want to be there anyway.

Someone puts up a sign, whether it be personal or corporate or insurance related, that says I am not welcome at their party, I will take my business elsewhere. It doesn't hurt my feelings and I don't get upset because I really don't care what they do. They are either stupid, liberal or uninformed. Either way, you can't fix stupid, I just don't deal with liberals when I can help it and it's not my job to educate them. I will gladly educate them as to 2A if they were to ask, but I don't wish to waste my time on people who are not willing to listen.

When I got my first handgun, my mother had a fit. "Why in the world would you ever need a gun?" I tried to explain it to her, but she just wasn't willing to listen. OK, move on. I have two sisters. One is just like my mother, liberal as the day is long and would not know which end of a gun to hold. The other has a Taurus Judge. Not so sure the Taurus Judge is a good choice, but at least she has something.

 

Getting a bit away from the OP, but I am curious. How do you take your business elsewhere when it involves drivers license renewal, the emergency room, paying property taxes at the courthouse, or your social security administration?

 

How would I respond?
I would comply with the law.
This is a public forum.
To reply otherwise is foolish.
As far as the gun buster signs, I cannot speak to your native Arizona, only to my native Ohio.
Such a sign here carries the weight of law.
Those locations that display such a sign are correctly referred to as "designated victim zones" wherein all have been legally disarmed for the convenience of the criminal.
I avoid such places whenever possible.

 

OP, the issues I have with your proposal are 1) the premise that it is appropriate that you should be allowed to ignore the rights of others so that you may exercise a right you hold dear; and 2) Government sanctioning (and controlling) which private citizen may exercise their rights in that manner.

If you feel that strongly about a gunbuster sign, don't frequent the store. That seems like a much easier, less expensive, and potentially more effective solution.

 

OP, at what point does your right to carry, negate the property owners right to post?

 

As a business owner it's my business, property, and decision. Your choice is to come in or not. As for additional training trumping dumb signs, I would object to my rights as a property owner being superseded by someone I don't know simply based on some highly subjective "qualifications".

Luckily for me I don't eat McD... BK and Wendy's taste better IMO.

 

The op's proposal is similar to MS IIRC. Although in their case the advance lic allows carry in public buildings such as courthouses, libraries etc.
I hesitate to agree with such a law as I believe in the rights of the property owner to set the rules for his property. I do see the advantage in public areas like I mentioned.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.

 

Why not go back the the AZ state gov and force them to change the rules on the gun buster signs to not have the weight of law, like other states have.

 

A lot of good arguments all the way around, but I see a simpler solution. Why doesn't the OP just work toward legislation whereby "No Gun" signs DO NOT carry the weight of law.

In addition, perhaps the OP should utilize one of the many "No Guns = No Money" cards that are readily available. As far as McDonalds, they are almost all franchise operations and privately owned. Just contact the owner and see if you can convince him of the inappropriateness of his actions?

 

A lot of good arguments all the way around, but I see a simpler solution. Why doesn't the OP just work toward legislation whereby "No Gun" signs DO NOT carry the weight of law.

?

I dont think that would fix it for Jem. I think he'd still feel like he was doing something wrong...which depending on your perspective on private businesses could be true.

I think he wants an E ticket so he can be given carte blanche and have a clear conscience. He seems very conflicted about this.

 

Bruscke. You get my King For The Day award for your opening statement. :yup:

:king:

Is the exercise of the right of self-defense a civil right?

On balance, I don't like the rule.
Nevertheless, I support the OP's asking the question. We advance our cause by thinking about new possibilities and discussing them.
I respectfully discourage others from berating the poster; simply disagreeing and explaining why you disagree (if possible) is constructive.

 

That is just because it opposite of miine LOL!