We are of the same mind regarding frustration and the goal of being able to carry anywhere, but I am opposed to any compromise, and requiring anything more from a US Citizen to own and carry a weapon is not acceptable.

The only true, legal, and proper solution, is to force the government to abide by the constitution.

Regarding the right of a business owners to forbid firearms, I agree they have the right to do so; however, at that point, they have assumed responsibility for my protection from harm and serious injury by criminal activity I might would have been able to prevent had I been armed. I certainly hope I am never harmed in such a scenario, but if I am, I promise to do all I can to make the loudest, stinkiest, legal ruckus possible. (Of course, I am sure there would be an argument that I did not have to be there in the first place, but that is not always true, and even if it was, I still believe it is the rule maker who is responsible for the rule's intentional and unintentional outcomes.)

And on that same exact point, of rule makers being responsible for their rules, I intend to do the same in the event the ruler maker is the government (i.e. me not being able to protect myself in areas the government bans firearms).

If I do something, as a natural person, that harms someone intentionally or unintentionally, I am accountable. If I tell a contractor working in my home no shoes are allowed, and the contractor steps on a nail that seriously damages his foot, is it my fault? I may not have put the nail on the floor, nor directed the contractor's footsteps, but I removed his ability to protect his feet.

Do you ever wonder why something you think is common sense is not sustainable in our legal system? It boggles my mind.

 

The upside to an advanced CCL, is that it would allow you to ignore all "gunbuster" signs posted by businesses and services, except those posted by the federal government or state government.

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.

....... currently there IS NO RIGHT to carry on business private property if they have a sign, since they are the force of law. I'm really surprised that you, of all people, would want to give up the right to carry in a restaurant, or at the very least, leave it up to the owners discretion in a public place.

People seem to not be concerned about this but to me, this is the biggest point that jumps out at me. The OP's idea would consist of the government demanding that private business/service owners give up their right to choose to have guns on their property or not, in essence forcing them to comply.

If they dont want you ccing on their property to begin with, what makes you think that forcing them to allow it makes them like it any better or is any less infringement on their property rights?

(it would also be kind of hypocritical too since the govt would likely not overturn it's own laws on cc on their property)

Besides an enormous infringement on their rights, I see it as a negative PR hit for gun carriers...demanding that our rights supercede others.

 

But could we not all agree this would be reasonable? How could we not be for more training, it would not burden anyone and we would all be safer.
This is were all the junks starts. My union pays people to slip in to forums and plant Ideas like this.

 

But could we not all agree this would be reasonable?

Infringements, "fine-slicing" it, rights by edict, temporary hirelings determining where and when rights exist ...?

Nope.

 

Wow Jemsaal you sure opened a can of worms. LOL

What I am taking from the OP is basically what the State of Michigan has done or is doing with an advanced level permit that would enable the holder to carry in gun free zones. I do not believe it would allow them to trump a private property owners rights. Not sure I am sure HB or someone will know.

In regards to a couple of the comments:

Do proprietors of places of public accommodation - have a right (endowed by our creator) to circumscribe a private citizen's rights?

This falls back to the definition of public and private property. Property which is owned by the state or community as a whole is deemed public property, everything else is private. Plain and simple. There house, there rules as was stated. Even though it is a business open to the public you are legally described as an "Invitee" to the premises and are subject to abide by the business owners rules while on those premises. The government cannot and will not supercede that right.

In regards to the elected officials, well they only do what we allow them to do so to speak. The problem being they have multiple years to do it in before we can get them out of office.

Regarding the right of a business owners to forbid firearms, I agree they have the right to do so; however, at that point, they have assumed responsibility for my protection from harm and serious injury by criminal activity I might would have been able to prevent had I been armed. I certainly hope I am never harmed in such a scenario, but if I am, I promise to do all I can to make the loudest, stinkiest, legal ruckus possible. (Of course, I am sure there would be an argument that I did not have to be there in the first place, but that is not always true, and even if it was, I still believe it is the rule maker who is responsible for the rule's intentional and unintentional outcomes.)

Negative ghost rider the pattern is full. Yes a business has a responsibility for your safety in regards to electrical hazards, wet floors, food cooked to standards and so on but when it comes to your safety from a criminal attack you are pretty much stuck as far as your right to sue and so on. The business is held to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

A "Duty to Care" must be established and although there are several criteria that have to be met from state to state, since there is no federal law, the only test is whether the harm to the plaintiff from the defendant's actions was foreseeable. That's it. Obviously a business owner, school or whatever cannot predict when a violent event would or could happen unless they were robbed every Thursday at 3 p.m. exactly and they ignored that fact.

If and only if this "Duty to Care" is established, which it probably would not be then comes the second test so to speak and that comes down to the standards of a reasonable person. We now come full circle in that you would have to prove the business could foresee the future event before it took place and then and only then you would have to prove that they ignored it. You would also have to prove the individual manager, owner etc. acted in other than "good faith".

I won't even start on the mandated training, I wish everyone had to do something, but Lord knows everyone has the right to carry even if they never fired a shot from their weapon or shoot themselves in the butt eating lunch at McDonald's.

Personally I would go through an advanced class if it meant not having to obey gun free zones but that is just me. Everyone has to do what they feel they have to do. Either avoid the places that post, disarm before going in or carry anyway and risk whatever the outcome is.

 

Wow Jemsaal you sure opened a can of worms. LOL

What I am taking from the OP is basically what the State of Michigan has done or is doing with an advanced level permit that would enable the holder to carry in gun free zones. I do not believe it would allow them to trump a private property owners rights. Not sure I am sure HB or someone will know.

That is why our Governor vetoed the bill. The first bill did not allow them to opt out. The bill being considered will allow that.

 

IMO if a business conducts tranactions with the public they have no right to suspend the second amendment on their premise. Period.

 

As a former small business owner, I have to disagree with you. The owner of the business pays the rent, pays the utilities, pays insurance, pays the wages and pays the taxes, not the general public. He should have the right to decide what is allowed on his property, as long as doing so breaks no law.

 

If I read this right you want to violate the property owners rights so you can carry on his property. Just go somewhere else.

 

I do not believe a business has the right to treat me differently than somone not carrying. Do they have the right to bar customers based on race or hair color or political persuasion or ??? Not in my book, but that said I always comply with the law or take my business elsewhere.

 

Gun toters aren't a protected class, so the comparison can't be made.

Like has been posted already, owners of private property can limit your excersise of free speach or practicing religion on their property. There isn't any reason to think they can't excersise their right to limit your entrance onto their property whether or not you have a gun. It is called trespassing if you are asked to leave and don't or violate a legal sign.

Just so happens in our state if a CHL holder violates the property owners wishes, it becomes a Class A misdemeanor. Not an offense to be taken lightly.

I don't know what the offense is in the OP's state, I am sure they all vary to degrees.

 

I'm really surprised that you, of all people, would want to give up the right to carry in a restaurant, or at the very least, leave it up to the owners discretion in a public place.

You assume too much. I do not want to give up ANY right. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

If a business wants me to give up that right, then I will exercise my right not to spend my money there. Eventually the gun phobic manager might come to their senses and realize that they are losing income because of their irrational fears. Or, if they hate the thought of people being able to defend themselves, they might not care about losing money which wouldn't surprise me because some of them are hopelessly lost to the cause of common sense but thats OK because I tend to prefer the company of like minded people, not the cannon-fodder types that advocate curling up in the fetal position and pretending to be invisible in hopes that they wont be seen and just left alone when the wolf comes in to eat them.

I will simply move to a restaurant that does allow me to defend myself and spend my money there.

In this part of the country most restaurants have figured out that in todays economy, they need all the business they can get and they tend not to intentionally annoy those that help them to pay their bills. The ones that do posts signs usually don't keep them there long.

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

Bad idea. Who gets to determine if you can be trusted more than the average Joe, some Obama appointee that can barely speak English?
Negative. Go back and rethink.

 

...I don't want pink bunnies by my name, or extra stars on my CCW badge, or "advanced status"...I just want to be left alone...so I carry quietly and excercise my God-given rights everywhere that I won't be jailed for doing so...and the conversation between me and a business who's not enforceably posted doesn't happen...

 

I have another thought for the OP. Join the police or sherriff reserve force. As to Mickey D..... Use the drive thru.

 

How much "mandatory continued training" would I have to do to freely exercise my 1st amendment rights?

If the answer is "none," then I expect the same standards should apply to my 2nd amendment rights.

 

...in a state where gunbuster signs have weight of law, you're busted...if it means enough to you to trade there AND carry...the only option is to change their mindset...
...the only reason they bought the MickeyD franchise is to make money...gunbuster signs are not a part of the franchise agreement or they'd be here in Texas, too...and they haven't been...so it's a local thing(sometimes several locations are owned by the same folks)...you can write 'em, email 'em...meet 'em on the street...what's to lose??? you may just change their mind...
...personally...I'd just go somewhere else in MickeyD's case...there are other kid-oriented burger joints...

 

Do you really care if some place doesn't want your bushiness? I like to tell them they need to put up one more sign, CPZ criminal protection zone. I have had a few remove their gun buster signs.

 

jemsaal: The question is, how would any such thing reduce violent crimes by criminals (even if such infringements and unequal protection under the law were constitutional)?

 

I'm not sure how that's a question here, since the entire issue is about opening doors for CCL holders. Any and every place I'm talking about, is already a closed door to guns. I'd rather have Gunbuster signs no longer have the force of law for everyone. I don't see that happening here, though. That's why I was thinking about this idea.

 

To my knowledge, none of the states with Constitutional Carry are having problems with law abiding citizens who pack their Roscoes. We've seen over and over again that law abiding citizens are responsible with guns. It's insane that Arizona would have a law like that on their books.

 

The Law is Criminal Trespass and applies to any weapon (or any person asked not to enter,) the State simply provided a means for businesses to express their rights with a universally recognizable sign. It is not the only sign they can use and they can simply ask people to not carry in their business and the law applies. It is their right to set what they accept in their business, it does not restrict my right to bear arms in the least.

 

True, according to the law those who are licensed to carry are not a protected class. The second amendment, however, trumps the law and recognizes a protected class called "the people.". Just my personal belief.

 

Then, offer an advanced CCL license that incorporates tight shooting quals, mandatory continued training (defensive handgun, combat handgun, low-light etc.) and a declaration of range time, and last, a year with a CCL. The upside to an advanced CCL, is that it would allow you to ignore all "gunbuster" signs posted by businesses and services, except those posted by the federal government or state government.

They already have something like that in AZ.

But you have to attend the police academy first, and become a Law Enforcement Officer.

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.

Or, you could move to a state like mine where signs do not carry the weight of law.

This topic has been discussed many times here. Do buisness owners not have the right to control who enters their property? Should people just ignore signs posted restaurants which state No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service if they don't feel inclined to abide?

Some states, like mine take into account that while gun owners have rights, and certain privileges with a ccw permit, business owners also have rights. It's their property, their financial investment, and even though they may serve the general public, they still get to make the rules in their establishment.

In order to be as accomodating as possible to all parties involved, the attitude of my state is that, we won't make an issue of it, if your gun remains concealed and no one knows you brought a gun into a posted place. However, if you are asked to leave, and refuse to leave, then it becomes a tresspassing violation. And even at that, it's not a criminal act. It's merely an ordinance violation. It seems to be the most amicable way to satisfy most people without catering to one groups rights over the other.

Now for me personally, I choose not to patronize the places who do not want my money. If I see a sign posted in a business, I'm more than happy to go spend my money elsewhere. What the law does for me, is protect me from being charged with a crime if I really wasn't paying attention and missed the sign when I went in.

I can say with a fair amount of confidence that you'd be far more likely to get your state to adopt a change in law to represent those of many other states like mine (Missouri), Florida and many others than it would be having them come up with some sort of "advanced ccw permit" which allows you to go places other ccw holders can't.

Just my opinion on the matter. Nothing more than that. :smoke23:

 

^^^^^^ +1 ^^^^^^

 

MacDonalds is bad for you - go to Subway! :smile:

As an Arizona resident I think anyone should be able to carry anywhere, but our existing CC permit is sufficient for an upgrade from constitutional carry. The ONLY state that refuses reciprocity based upon training classes is the corrupt state of NV, which dropped us because their CCW training schools complained about lost revenue. It cost my SO and I close to $700 to apply for our NV permits. Other than CA, the most expensive in the country I think. Requiring an extended training program is unnecessary and conflicts with the right to carry.

That said I strongly recommend initial and refresher training. My SO and I are both ex-military, I've been to Gunsite, Frontsite and a couple of other multi-day programs, and we try to take at least a one day refresher class yearly. But I realize we are in the minority.

I think that CC permit holders should be allowed to carry anywhere a police officer can. As for private businesses restricting carrying by CC permit holders I think they need to be held financially responsible if anything happens. I know there was a court case on this but I'm not sure of the ultimate outcome. I also have the choice not to patronize their business.

I also think that utility businesses that hold monopolies on city contracts need to allow CC if you have to go to their office. You have no choice but to do business with such a firm, so they should not be able to force you to disarm. I understand they sometimes have people who are so mad they very well might pull a gun - hence the two inch thick bullet proof glass at the counter. But I seriously doubt most CC permit holders will go postal if the water bill is late.

 

Just to clarify my position a bit since in some ways I agree with the OP. If any one of my constitutional rights cannot be denyed by a business then none of the should. Anything else is a double standard. If by law my 1st A cant be denied entry until I do something to cause a problem, or any other right I have then 2A is no different. On that OP and I absolutely agree.

The reason I wont support the law he mentions is that I do not nor ever will support ANY law regulating 2A in any shape form or fashion. I have a ccw but I do not believe that I should have to have one to CC. Or a check of any kind to carry what I want where I want how I want anywhere in the nation. And own keep and bear any arms that I can afford or want.

To support ANY law or regulation infringing on 2a is to agree that any branch of local state or federal government or court has the authority granted to it by the US constitution to regulate 2a which they do not.

I know that they do. And will until forced not too when the people have had enough but that is not yet.
But I will not support any illegal regulation of 2A ever just to get something that should already be the norm.

 

Just to clarify my position a bit since in some ways I agree with the OP. If any one of my constitutional rights cannot be denyed by a business then none of the should. Anything else is a double standard. If by law my 1st A cant be denied entry until I do something to cause a problem, or any other right I have then 2A is no different. On that OP and I absolutely agree.

The reason I wont support the law he mentions is that I do not nor ever will support ANY law regulating 2A in any shape form or fashion. I have a ccw but I do not believe that I should have to have one to CC. Or a check of any kind to carry what I want where I want how I want anywhere in the nation. And own keep and bear any arms that I can afford or want.

To support ANY law or regulation infringing on 2a is to agree that any branch of local state or federal government or court has the authority granted to it by the US constitution to regulate 2a which they do not.

I know that they do. And will until forced not too when the people have had enough but that is not yet.
But I will not support any illegal regulation of 2A ever just to get something that should already be the norm.

RE the bolded portion; Actually your 1A right to free speech is limited as well. Not just you cannot say what you wish (I.E. yell fire); nor may you prostelytise (sp?) (I.E. start preaching); and nor may you wear a shirt with vulgarity, infact some non vulgar shirts may be limited. So yes other rights may be denied in various establishments. At least with guns, for the most part, a business owner is required to give notice prior to entry.

 

Here in Kentucky, you are committing no offense by carrying in private places with gunbuster signs, but you must leave if asked to do so. IMO this is a better way to handle it than to make it illegal to carry in gunbuster areas. If you're caught here carrying at Mcdonalds, for instance, you cannot be charged with a crime unless you stay after they tell you to leave, then you would be guilty of tresspassing but of no gun related crime... unless of course you were "brandishing" it.

 

Get the law changed and modeled after the Missouri law. Business can have a sign if they want, but it doesn't mean squat. The most they can do is ask you to leave, if you don't, then it's trespassing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Im showing up a little late to this one, but my take on it is this. This country has already divided us enough on the subject of can and cannot carry. We don't need to go adding to the regulations under the guise of better prepared than the average concealed carry guy or gal. It seems to me that anything short of wearing a badge or being employed by the stated and or Federal government, with a nice little flip out wallet to show everyone. You and I will always be considered paranoid and going overboard for wanting to carry a firearm. Why the misconception is beyond me. I dare say that there are equally bad shots and decision makers working in law enforcement as well as the federal government, but for some reason the general public will give um a pass on both counts. These are the true sheep that wonder and graze around us everyday.

Kinda went off on a tangent there.:blink:

anyway, my answer to the "How would I feel about that law". Not too good honestly. One can have all the training in the world and still be dumber than a bag of hammers when the chips are down. That's my take on it anyway.

 

I hate coming into these threads late...

I am blessed to be in a state where signs do no hold the force of law. I generally don't even pay attention to the signage at the doors to businesses, other than the open|closed sign. That being said, to the OP, I wouldn't push for such a law as my efforts would be better suited to getting the existing law changed so signs no longer held the force of law. But, if such a law were passed I would go take the class and get the "gold star" on my permit.

Many people here like to say that the property owner has the right to prohibit carry in their business, and analogize it to carrying in someone's home. I disagree, I believe that once you open your doors to the public the rules change. I don't want to fuel the "not a protected class" debate too much here, but I believe that what I choose to wear under my clothes isn't the business of a proprietor. In my view (coming from a 'no force of law' state), a "gunbuster" sign is simply the business management/ownership posting a sign stating their opinion. Much like political signs I disagree with, I support their right to voice their opinion and if there is a competitor that voices an opinion I agree with, I'd rather go spend money with the second guy... but it won't stop me from going in if there isn't a more viable option. I live in a very liberal city (Seattle) and most places would just as rather kick me out for being Libertarian/Conservative as carrying a firearm. So, I don't generally share either of those pieces of information with them.

I do not advocate violating the law, of course. If I travel to a place where signs do hold the force of law, I would respect them. Here in WA, that means I don't go to the Post Office (I use a third-party mailbox) and generally don't go to the bar (the only time I lock my gun in my car...).


Also, bruscke... you're a master at the tl;dr posts... if you could at least summarize what you're saying into a couple lines, maybe you'd get more response...

 

Well I was happily suprised that when I took my wife to the burn center today. {she spilled 5 gal of boiling water on her feet getting a third degree burn on one) there were no gun signs. I fully expected there would be in W VA but there were not.

I think my 1st amendment example gets misunderstood. Not just it but any right I have under the constitution in a open to the public place is what I mean. My religion, I can carry in as long as I dont push it on someone else. My speech as long as it is appropritate does not deny me entry. my 2A right should not either. IN a open to the general public place even if it is privately owned. Not a residence which needs permission to be entered. A business is open to attract the general public inside. Anyone. There are laws saying certain races etc cannot be denyed there where you could at your home.
Private business open for business to the general public and private residence is apples and oranges comparison. That is where I agree with the OP

That the government etc has any authority to reg 2a at all over is something I cannot agree too because it is expressly forbidden to do so. Therefore being in support of any reg check limit on 2A etc is agreeing someone has the right or authority to limit it when they do not which is my grounds for not supporting even laws that seem to be pro 2a.

 

Well I was happily suprised that when I took my wife to the burn center today. {she spilled 5 gal of boiling water on her feet getting a third degree burn on one

Ouch... Pass on our sympathys, that sounds really unpleasant...

I think my 1st amendment example gets misunderstood. Not just it but any right I have under the constitution in a open to the public place is what I mean. My religion, I can carry in as long as I dont push it on someone else. My speech as long as it is appropritate does not deny me entry. my 2A right should not either. IN a open to the general public place even if it is privately owned. Not a residence which needs permission to be entered. A business is open to attract the general public inside. Anyone. There are laws saying certain races etc cannot be denyed there where you could at your home.
Private business open for business to the general public and private residence is apples and oranges comparison. That is where I agree with the OP

This is the "protected class" argument that keeps coming up:

Some say that carrying a firearm does not make you a "protected class" (such as ethnic minority, expresser of religious belief such as someone wearing a religious icon, or a sexual minority) and therefore you're not protected against discrimination.

Others say that because bearing arms is mentioned in the Constitution right behind religion, then it should be afforded the same gravity. I can throw you out because you say something offensive, religious or otherwise, but not because you're a member of a religion I don't agree with. So, OC has slightly less validity there than CC because someones exposed pistol could be offensive to the shopkeeper.

Personally, I think that if the Founders could come testify in front of the Court, they would argue that you can never be denied the right to carry a firearm anywhere you're legally allowed (but not compelled; i.e. prison or testifying in court) to be. But since they're not around to ask... we continue to debate.