[velo99]

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

 

[suntzu]

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

They are not suspending anyones rights. It is really simple. Do not set your foot in the door. I know we have heard these analogies before but...you can watch porn in your own house or in private, but you can't walk into my store without my say so if you have a pornogrpahic pic on your shirt. You can't cuss in business, you can't do a host of things.

 

[MJK]

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.

 

[9MMare]

To be fair ...

Newly carrying, a person needs to go through all the questions before answers are understood. Takes time, and exchange with experienced others.

In response to you and Scott M above you, I really am not trying to disparage him. I dont understand his mindset with regards to this issue and just ask that he try to verbalize further.

I agree that someone needs to examine the issues in depth before choosing the right stance for themselves. For me, some of his views are different than any others I've read, period. The significance of carry a firearm (to him) seems very different from what I've seen discussed before.

 

[Harryball]

They are not suspending anyones rights. It is really simple. Do not set your foot in the door. I know we have heard these analogies before but...you can watch porn in your own house or in private, but you can't walk into my store without my say so if you have a pornogrpahic pic on your shirt. You can't cuss in business, you can't do a host of things.

This right here. Our 2A rights do not trump property rights. Period.

 

[HotGuns]

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.

 

[mg27]

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.

I agree, and I think the people are so off track today due to media lies and misinformation. We have a right to be armed and to protect ourselves and our families. We have a duty to be responsible on our own without government telling us to train. We train on our own and become self reliant. Im pretty tired of Government intrusion and nanny state. No one should have the right to force someone to be in a position that they have to cowar to a violent criminal.

 

[Snub44]

...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...

 

[velo99]

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

 

[1MoreGoodGuy]

I've been getting more and more frustrated the last few days with "gunbuster" signs in the stupidest places. I mean, McDonald's? Really people?

So I was thinking about the law here (in Arizona, it has the force of law) and wondered how this type of thing would work:

Keep Constitutional carry and normal CCL as it is.

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.

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. Since the government has been involved in private but public space already (restaurants, etc), there's no expanding of government authority or reach.

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.

 

[ccw9mm]

I agree, and I think the people are so off track today due to media lies and misinformation. We have a right to be armed and to protect ourselves and our families. We have a duty to be responsible on our own without government telling us to train.

^ And that's pretty much it. k:

The responsibility to remain upstanding and vigilant to legitimate threats to our families (including screwing up due to lack of knowledge of legitimate law of appropriate behaviors) is what qualifies a person to be (and to remain) non-criminal. It's a fairly stiff incentive, that, one most folks listen very closely to (or should), as it directly impacts our ability to remain free.

 

[sixgun]

You lost me at mandatory.

Yup me to.

 

[Snub44]

...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...

 

[farronwolf]

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.

 

[PhilG]

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.

 

[ccw9mm]

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)?

 

[NONAME762]

You lost me at mandatory.

Ditto.

 

[asldkjfqwoifqwo]

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.

 

[MJK]

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.

 

[OldMick]

Second, either you didn't read my post, or your ignoring it, since 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.

Well, there's another reason I wouldn't support the idea. I believe the OWNER has rights too. If he doesn't want me to patronize his business, then I certainly don't want to provide him with any additional revenue. In fact, I get a certain amount of satisfaction over spending my money at his competitors. I even know some people who have written the offending business and attached copies of receipts from high dollar purchases made at their competitors, because they didn't restrict the rights of those with a license/permit to carry.

It's not only about what we, as legally armed citizens, want. It's about rights. Ours AND theirs.

Just the way I see things, of course.