You know..after reading rogunners comments, i have kinda rethought my osition. What should be done is everyone who is allowed to oen carry should...then someday everyone will get used to it. If their is one thing true about this country we give in too easily, everyone sees it enough i mean ALOT! They will just get used to it. Maybe....could be wrong.
am i an idiot? experts say 'Yes!', what do YOU think?
- Thread starter spacemanspiff
- Start date
…Because all persons, institutions, companies, employers, schools, churches and businesses can do what they wish on THEIR property.progunner1957 said:
Same as your living room, if you didn't allow people to smoke in your living room... it’s a rule you choose to enforce. If I were a smoker, would it be that you were violating my right to smoke if I choose to do so? No.
Same as here on TFL - there's no right to free speech here. Your speech is limited to what the facilitators of this forum allow.
Jonathan, you should be aware that under Washington state law, there is no statutory right for open carry. Feel free to carefully search under RCW 9.41, the title/chapter of our firearms laws. You will find nothing there permitting open carry, except 9.41.060 (8), showing an exception for outdoor recreational purposes. Note very carefully, however, RCW 9.41.270, which has been used in some areas of the state to prosecute for open carry. If you are convicted under this statute, you will also lose your concealed pistol license.
I myself, being a life-long resident of Washington, and having had my CPL for 24 years now, do not open carry at all. When carrying, it is always concealed.
I urge you to not run the risk of prosecution by open carrying in town. Although you may be able to get away with that in Washougal or other more rural areas of the state, you won't like what will happen if you open carry in downtown Vancouver, Tacoma, Seattle, Yakima or Spokane.
I myself, being a life-long resident of Washington, and having had my CPL for 24 years now, do not open carry at all. When carrying, it is always concealed.
I urge you to not run the risk of prosecution by open carrying in town. Although you may be able to get away with that in Washougal or other more rural areas of the state, you won't like what will happen if you open carry in downtown Vancouver, Tacoma, Seattle, Yakima or Spokane.
IZHUMINTER
New member
I think some folks here don't know what a Right is
BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT:
Peaceably open carrying in a state where open carry is legal, and being asked to leave an establishment for that reason alone, is the same as being asked to leave McDonalds because you carried in a Koran and set it on the table. It is wrong, and should not be tolerated.
1st:
2nd:
Conduct at an institution, company, school, church or business which is "open to the public" is not the same as conduct in your living room.
If you are at a residence, or on privately owned land that is not a business, then your rights can be limited by the owner of that land or residence. This is not the case in areas which "open to the public." That's why every church, private school and business in the land (which are technically "private property") have to follow non-discrimination and handicapped accessability laws. Places that serve the public can ask you to leave for any reason that suits their fancy, (and if you don't you'll be trespassing) but you can file civil suit if you feel that they have violated your "rights."
In Alaska, open carry is legal and protected. The RKBA is enshrined in the state Constitution. The Legistlature has recently enacted laws banning local preemption on the grounds that such laws are a violation of citizen's rights.
BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT:
Peaceably open carrying in a state where open carry is legal, and being asked to leave an establishment for that reason alone, is the same as being asked to leave McDonalds because you carried in a Koran and set it on the table. It is wrong, and should not be tolerated.
1st:
2nd:
Conduct at an institution, company, school, church or business which is "open to the public" is not the same as conduct in your living room.
If you are at a residence, or on privately owned land that is not a business, then your rights can be limited by the owner of that land or residence. This is not the case in areas which "open to the public." That's why every church, private school and business in the land (which are technically "private property") have to follow non-discrimination and handicapped accessability laws. Places that serve the public can ask you to leave for any reason that suits their fancy, (and if you don't you'll be trespassing) but you can file civil suit if you feel that they have violated your "rights."
In Alaska, open carry is legal and protected. The RKBA is enshrined in the state Constitution. The Legistlature has recently enacted laws banning local preemption on the grounds that such laws are a violation of citizen's rights.
Last edited:
Some of you are confused.
A bank is a business, with the right to defend that business against damaging actions by individuals (whether you or I feel they would be damaging or not).
"Discrimination" is a legal term used to describe withholding services from an individual based on some factor they have no control over; like race, sex, beauty, etc. But denying service or access for behavior is entirely within their rights, because a business must be able to regulate what goes on in the place of business.
We get hot and bothered about these things because they are guns, and we are all defensive about guns. But the bank's point of view is really no different than that of a restaurant with a coat and tie rule. Your individual rights do not extend to inflicting them on others. Freedom of Speech does not imply that anyone has to listen, just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't imply that everyone has to tolerate your gun on their property.
BEWARE! Constitutional rights cut both ways. You're never going to make a good case for perserving the 2nd Amendment if you trample other's rights in the process.
The bank can make any rule it wants, including one they make up on the spot. Could be about guns, or parking RVs in their lot, or not wearing shoes. If you don't like it, tell them (I like the first half of the letter) or just stop going there. Any action beyond that is inappropriate and a greater affront to the rights of others.
A bank is a business, with the right to defend that business against damaging actions by individuals (whether you or I feel they would be damaging or not).
"Discrimination" is a legal term used to describe withholding services from an individual based on some factor they have no control over; like race, sex, beauty, etc. But denying service or access for behavior is entirely within their rights, because a business must be able to regulate what goes on in the place of business.
We get hot and bothered about these things because they are guns, and we are all defensive about guns. But the bank's point of view is really no different than that of a restaurant with a coat and tie rule. Your individual rights do not extend to inflicting them on others. Freedom of Speech does not imply that anyone has to listen, just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't imply that everyone has to tolerate your gun on their property.
BEWARE! Constitutional rights cut both ways. You're never going to make a good case for perserving the 2nd Amendment if you trample other's rights in the process.
The bank can make any rule it wants, including one they make up on the spot. Could be about guns, or parking RVs in their lot, or not wearing shoes. If you don't like it, tell them (I like the first half of the letter) or just stop going there. Any action beyond that is inappropriate and a greater affront to the rights of others.
IZHUMINTER
New member
Handy
Discrimination does not only apply to genetic traits (race, ethnic origin, gender) but can also apply to acquired or behavioral ones (religion, sexual preference, disability, marital status).
The parallel with a restaraunt doesn't fit. Establishments with dress codes generally post their requirements and bar you from entering if you do not meet them. They don't let you come in, sit down, and then ask you to leave because "you don't meet x stipulation."
It is true that a business has the right to regulate what conduct occurs at its location, and that they can deny service to people for whatever right they choose save those enumerated in law. It is also true that such actions, while legal, can still be wrong.
I find it unclear how Spiff either "inflicted one's rights on others" or "trampled on other's rights." It is true that no one is forced to listen to First Ammendment protected speech...but it is also true that such speech need not be instrusive. A "Nader for President" t-shirt or campaign button is hardly instrusive, and an establishment that denied me service for wearing such an item would be wrong. Spiff did not walk in carrying a Barret...he had a holstered firearm. For the bank to turn him away simply because of that is just as wrong.
I think Spiff should send the letter, and tell others as well. Public discourse is how we bring attention to what we want, whether it is open carry, longer business hours or better parking at the mall. Spiff appears to have enough class to handle this in a manner that would not detract from his message. If there are enough like minded individuals in his area, the bank will notice and might allow open carry.
Discrimination does not only apply to genetic traits (race, ethnic origin, gender) but can also apply to acquired or behavioral ones (religion, sexual preference, disability, marital status).
The parallel with a restaraunt doesn't fit. Establishments with dress codes generally post their requirements and bar you from entering if you do not meet them. They don't let you come in, sit down, and then ask you to leave because "you don't meet x stipulation."
It is true that a business has the right to regulate what conduct occurs at its location, and that they can deny service to people for whatever right they choose save those enumerated in law. It is also true that such actions, while legal, can still be wrong.
I find it unclear how Spiff either "inflicted one's rights on others" or "trampled on other's rights." It is true that no one is forced to listen to First Ammendment protected speech...but it is also true that such speech need not be instrusive. A "Nader for President" t-shirt or campaign button is hardly instrusive, and an establishment that denied me service for wearing such an item would be wrong. Spiff did not walk in carrying a Barret...he had a holstered firearm. For the bank to turn him away simply because of that is just as wrong.
I think Spiff should send the letter, and tell others as well. Public discourse is how we bring attention to what we want, whether it is open carry, longer business hours or better parking at the mall. Spiff appears to have enough class to handle this in a manner that would not detract from his message. If there are enough like minded individuals in his area, the bank will notice and might allow open carry.
Izhuminter
"Places that serve the public" can still be private property and they can as Handy stated, make any rule they like - I would add this is of course, if it's with in reason. Obviously they cannot say "Only people with all 10 fingers can shop here"....etc.
Uhh.... you can file a civil suit for anything you like... that's a moot pointIZHUMINTER said:
"Places that serve the public" can still be private property and they can as Handy stated, make any rule they like - I would add this is of course, if it's with in reason. Obviously they cannot say "Only people with all 10 fingers can shop here"....etc.
A posted sign regarding shirt & tie, is no different than a posted sign for "No firearms allowed on premesis". Argue that RKBA is a right, and not wearing a shirt & tie is NOT a right... regardless it's their property and it's tough luck. If you enter a restaurant, and they do not have a sign, but it is their policy, I guarantee you they can ask you to leave, but usually, offer you one of their loaner sport jackets. The absense of a sign with regards to firearms probably means that they have to at least inform you before you can be arrested for trespassing, but you'll still be asked to leave and/or escorted by L.E.O.'s.IZHUMINTER said:
Here's where you start to basically say the opposite of your earlier comments. Your starting to admit that they can and do regulate anyway they feel is appropriate. So now I'm confused, but I do agree and think I understand you more now that your saying while in one's opinion it "can still be wrong"... it is also still legal.IZHUMINTER said:
IZHUMINTER
New member
Trip20
It most certainly isn't a moot point, as you yourself admit by saying establishments can only make rules they like "within reason." A civil suit based off failure to add 24-hour illumination so that flying saucers can land more easily will be laughed out of court. A discrimination suit alleging discrimination against protected speech is another story altogether. I never said Spiff should file suit in this case...simply that public establishments can't restrict your actions in the identical manner that private individuals (can and do). A church, or school, or bar is not the same as a residence.
You apparently missed Handy's original comment comparing an establishment with a "coat and tie rule" to a bank with no posted firearms policy. Here is my response to that again, since you missed it (although you quoted it): Establishments with dress codes generally post their requirements and bar you from entering if you do not meet them. They don't let you come in, sit down, and then ask you to leave because "you don't meet x stipulation."
If the bank had a legitimate no firearms policy, it should have been posted, announced to customers and/or enforced by security, much like a dress code at a restaraunt or club. It is not right for an establishment to allow entry to someone only to tell them, "we don't serve people like you here."
No, I continue to say what I've said all along...and what Handy has also said all along: a business can show you the door for any reason it chooses. That is the law, and you are trespassing if you fail to follow it. We even agree on what recourse Spiff should take (tell the establishment, perhaps stop doing business with them). I'm just pointing out that there may be additional alternatives one could take in this situation...and that I feel the bank's actions were legally permissable but morally wrong.
It most certainly isn't a moot point, as you yourself admit by saying establishments can only make rules they like "within reason." A civil suit based off failure to add 24-hour illumination so that flying saucers can land more easily will be laughed out of court. A discrimination suit alleging discrimination against protected speech is another story altogether. I never said Spiff should file suit in this case...simply that public establishments can't restrict your actions in the identical manner that private individuals (can and do). A church, or school, or bar is not the same as a residence.
You apparently missed Handy's original comment comparing an establishment with a "coat and tie rule" to a bank with no posted firearms policy. Here is my response to that again, since you missed it (although you quoted it): Establishments with dress codes generally post their requirements and bar you from entering if you do not meet them. They don't let you come in, sit down, and then ask you to leave because "you don't meet x stipulation."
If the bank had a legitimate no firearms policy, it should have been posted, announced to customers and/or enforced by security, much like a dress code at a restaraunt or club. It is not right for an establishment to allow entry to someone only to tell them, "we don't serve people like you here."
No, I continue to say what I've said all along...and what Handy has also said all along: a business can show you the door for any reason it chooses. That is the law, and you are trespassing if you fail to follow it. We even agree on what recourse Spiff should take (tell the establishment, perhaps stop doing business with them). I'm just pointing out that there may be additional alternatives one could take in this situation...and that I feel the bank's actions were legally permissable but morally wrong.
IZ,
You didn't read my post. I said I liked Spiff's letter. I was taking umbrage with Progun's post.
I must say, I don't think you've been to many nice restaurants. They aren't covered in signs. If you walk in an don't meet the dress code, the maitre'd (sp?) will politely ask you how many in your party and what size coat you require. If you refuse the coat and tie he will go on to inform you of the restaurant's dress code and how he can't (unfortunately) seat you without it. This is precisely parallel to the polite treatment Spiff received.
You also miss the point about discrimination. One's sexual orientation or religion are personal facts, not immediate behavior. Spiff was not asked to leave for being a gun owner (a life style choice), but for having a gun on him. You can't tell a customer to leave for being a Christian, but you can ask him to leave if he is talking in tongues, handling serphants and drinking strictnine in you waiting area. Get it?
One can always leave a gun or offensive T-shirt in the car. One cannot leave a divorce outside. Discrimination only occurs in the latter category because it is based on who or what you are, not what you are doing at the moment.
You didn't read my post. I said I liked Spiff's letter. I was taking umbrage with Progun's post.
I must say, I don't think you've been to many nice restaurants. They aren't covered in signs. If you walk in an don't meet the dress code, the maitre'd (sp?) will politely ask you how many in your party and what size coat you require. If you refuse the coat and tie he will go on to inform you of the restaurant's dress code and how he can't (unfortunately) seat you without it. This is precisely parallel to the polite treatment Spiff received.
You also miss the point about discrimination. One's sexual orientation or religion are personal facts, not immediate behavior. Spiff was not asked to leave for being a gun owner (a life style choice), but for having a gun on him. You can't tell a customer to leave for being a Christian, but you can ask him to leave if he is talking in tongues, handling serphants and drinking strictnine in you waiting area. Get it?
One can always leave a gun or offensive T-shirt in the car. One cannot leave a divorce outside. Discrimination only occurs in the latter category because it is based on who or what you are, not what you are doing at the moment.
Hunter Rose
New member
the thread title is a rhetorical question, right? Where's the attached poll? :evil:
Some people would prefer me to get rid of all my guns, it just draws attention to me and discomforts them.
If we get to a time here enough guns are out there in public, people are seeing them and seeing that they don't do bad things, that wearing one does not turn you into a homocidal maniac, that is a good thing.
It's not you I worry about being a homicidal maniac and it's not matter of how it looks or perception it's a tactical matter. If a homicidal maniac does come busting in he's going to pick you out first. Give yourself the benefit of surprise and a few seconds to formulate an action. Let him get distracted with someone else before you act.
regardless of my earlier stated thoughts scco is right. If i were a crook or killer and i see you armed, your going to get some early attention from my mossberg. Facts are facts.
We all believe in doing what is needed to defend ourselves and others. And doing it to the best of our ability. It realy is not a good idea to let someone know what kind of defenses you have. Because they will then try or will find a way to lessen our advantage over them by being armed. As they too are armed and are intent on doing something bad. We have to find a balance between defending our rights and the needs of reality. And that sad reality is there are folks out there who don't give a care about themselves much less others. Its us who are obligated to look out for others when engaged in defending ourselves or others with a firearm. And i am sure we all will agree we do not want to be on the wrong side when the DA comes knocking.
Sometimes we need to not bristle when the suggestion of being discreet about our decision to carry. It realy isn't much different from sex and sexuality in a way. Where i am from dislays of affection and sexual acts are our rights,but there are times and laces for them. We don't get all excited when someone seems annoyed because we are hugging or kissing in sight of others. And i see alot of annoyed individuals when i see my wife at the air terminal after a long absence. i just shrug it off. but when i see someone has an issue with my firearm, I get all offended. Something i need to work on. I have enough other stress in my life to add more.
We all believe in doing what is needed to defend ourselves and others. And doing it to the best of our ability. It realy is not a good idea to let someone know what kind of defenses you have. Because they will then try or will find a way to lessen our advantage over them by being armed. As they too are armed and are intent on doing something bad. We have to find a balance between defending our rights and the needs of reality. And that sad reality is there are folks out there who don't give a care about themselves much less others. Its us who are obligated to look out for others when engaged in defending ourselves or others with a firearm. And i am sure we all will agree we do not want to be on the wrong side when the DA comes knocking.
Sometimes we need to not bristle when the suggestion of being discreet about our decision to carry. It realy isn't much different from sex and sexuality in a way. Where i am from dislays of affection and sexual acts are our rights,but there are times and laces for them. We don't get all excited when someone seems annoyed because we are hugging or kissing in sight of others. And i see alot of annoyed individuals when i see my wife at the air terminal after a long absence. i just shrug it off. but when i see someone has an issue with my firearm, I get all offended. Something i need to work on. I have enough other stress in my life to add more.
Okay, I've been reading this thread and have yet to reply, so now, I am replying.
Everyone here states that "private property rights" override the people’s rights. That they may impose any rule they wish on a person. Strangely, I agree with this.
But what about the government imposing laws on these property owners to make it illegal to smoke on their property, to carry on their property, etc..
If property owners have the right, as should be, to prohibit things on their property, why is it that the government is allowed and able to tell property owners what they can and can't do?
We've just hit the double edge sword on this one, one has the right and then one hasn't the right.
I still wonder, who is in control of this land. Us, the supposed "government" or those that we elect to be our reps.
Wayne
Everyone here states that "private property rights" override the people’s rights. That they may impose any rule they wish on a person. Strangely, I agree with this.
But what about the government imposing laws on these property owners to make it illegal to smoke on their property, to carry on their property, etc..
If property owners have the right, as should be, to prohibit things on their property, why is it that the government is allowed and able to tell property owners what they can and can't do?
We've just hit the double edge sword on this one, one has the right and then one hasn't the right.
I still wonder, who is in control of this land. Us, the supposed "government" or those that we elect to be our reps.
Wayne
Wow.
I think that this will become one of those threads that goes on for pages with no resolution. Each of us has an opinion that the others will not change.
Spiff,
You and your pal WildiputthingsinmynamereallyclosetogethersononecanreadthemAlaska
usually have some good points and common sense, and I really doubt that i am more qualified to give advice than either of you. But I will say this. Your letter tells them how to legally stop you from wearing any gun into their bank. You suddenly go from being able to carry concealed to not carrying at all. Consider that before you send.
If you handle large deposits, i.e. $1000 plus, you may consider keeping quiet to keep your means of defense. Someone will eventually pick up on your recurring presence there, with lots of cash. I would rather have a pistol under my shirt than have to rely on .....
I think that this will become one of those threads that goes on for pages with no resolution. Each of us has an opinion that the others will not change.
Spiff,
You and your pal WildiputthingsinmynamereallyclosetogethersononecanreadthemAlaska
usually have some good points and common sense, and I really doubt that i am more qualified to give advice than either of you. But I will say this. Your letter tells them how to legally stop you from wearing any gun into their bank. You suddenly go from being able to carry concealed to not carrying at all. Consider that before you send.
If you handle large deposits, i.e. $1000 plus, you may consider keeping quiet to keep your means of defense. Someone will eventually pick up on your recurring presence there, with lots of cash. I would rather have a pistol under my shirt than have to rely on .....
....to protect you and your bossman's cash.