am i an idiot? experts say 'Yes!', what do YOU think?

As to the Gubmint telling you what to do and not do on private property . I don't believe they can do that . They can only dictate to you if you are considered "Public" . So if you have a bar and serve the public you must abide . If you are the type of club that has members and never admit outsiders I think that you can do as you please .
 
^

What I was going to say- Don't tell them to post a sign, and install metal detectors. Then you can't carry at all.

I went to a local credit union with cash to open an account and they had a "no weapons" sign and metal detector. I walked back to the car put my concealed sidearm away, then walked back in and asked the manager why the sign was there. He told me it's there "for your safety". I asked, "How does disarming me make me safe?" He had no answer. I decided my old bank wasn't that bad after all.

I agree with the logic that after seeing many people openly carrying, they would become desensitized to it, and would realize guns are no more evil than any other instrument. But I also agree it's a lot easier (and safer) to carry concealed.
 
Handy

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: I still agree that the bank had every legal right to ask Spiff to leave, and that he would be best served by voting with his feet.

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.
Click to expand...

I most certainly did read your post. I've read all of them on this thread, in fact. Please show me where I've misquoted you, and I'll apologize.

There is really no need to give me a lecture on how nice restaurants operate, and your "saying you don't think" I have been to many is actually quite insulting. I have never had a maitre'd offer me, or any of my party, suitable attire so that I might be served. It's interesting to see that you have had to get that offer. Besides, the parallel here is not of Spiff being underdressed (like at a fancy restaurant) but somehow "offensively" dressed (like wearing a shirt with profanity on it).

You are absolutely right that Charlie Trotter's or the Four Seasons don't post a dress code...but fancy restaurants are perhaps the least visited of establishments with them. I have been to any number of family restaraunts, night clubs and gentleman's clubs which have posted dress codes and deny you entry unless you meet them. Heck, every major sporting event or amusement park I've been to in the last five years had posted rules at the box office that included dress code provisions. That's why I made a point of saying "restaurants and clubs" and "establishments with a dress code."

Another reason why the "fancy restaurant" parallel doesn't work is that Spiff's bank is more like a night club. Spiff entered through a lobby, passing security guards and then proceeded to wait in line (just like I might pass a bouncer or an ID checker before saddling up to the bar). No one bothered to inform him of any bank policy regarding firearms. When he was finally approached by someone from the bank, they informed him of the "policy" and then told him to leave (kine of like bartender telling me I wouldn't be served). They didn't offfer to store his weapon while he was there (like malls are required to do by law in Arizona, for example). They couldn't even articulate whether or not there was an actual policy on the matter...just that he needed to leave because of his weapon. He was singled out and barely even told why, and I think that was wrong.

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?
Click to expand...

One's marital status, sexual orientation and religion can also be reflected in dress and manner of speech, and for an establishment to deny a patron access solely on those grounds is wrong. Sure, an Orthodox Jew could take off his yarmulke every time he went out in public...but why should he? He is practicing a non-intrusive manner of expressing his faith. Should an establishment refuse to serve a drag queen in street clothes, simply because he is a man and not a woman? How about if I get asked to leave because I'm wearing a "Concealed Carry Saves Lives" hat? Discrimination against minorities and people of other than mainstream beliefs happens all the time. We do not live in Sixteenth Century Spain...why should people have to camouflage their ideals in order to interact equally with society?

Talking in tongues and handling serpents are intrusive behaviors which cannot be easily overlooked. Drinking strychnine is illegal as far as I know (violation of consumer product safety laws is a misdemeanor in Texas), so any establishment would be well served to discourage the practice. Carrying a holstered firearm is akin to carrying a Bible or Koran, and being asked to leave because of it is an entirely different matter. Spiff was not waving the firearm around...wasn't shooting it into the air Yosemite Sam style...he was simply standing in line. His behavior was passive and non-intrusive, and protected in public places under state law. I believe the bank was wrong in turning him away.

One can always leave a gun or offensive T-shirt in the car.
Click to expand...
Sure, and one could also walk around completely unarmed. That's not a choice I make, and not one I want forced upon me. Spiff can't vote with his feet on this matter, as it is his employer's bank and not his. Why should he have to potentially disarm himself in order to do his job, a job that makes him more of a target than Joe on the street? If the bank really does have a "policy," it would be best to articulate it so that the consumer would be better informed, and could vote with their pocketbooks. If it has no such policy, and it was just the management on duty, then Spiff has every right to an apology. Either way I think he should draw the matter to the bank's attention with the first half of his letter.
 
Last edited:
IZ,

I said you didn't read, because you said "I find it unclear how Spiff either "inflicted one's rights on others" or "trampled on other's rights." " when I was not saying Spiff did either.


I don't know why you can't see the difference between behavior and vital statistics. No one considers a yarmulke itself "offensive clothing", and that suggestion is about as silly as the idea that an exposed firearm in a bank is as unobtrusive as a prayer book.

The fact of the matter is that, in 2005, we don't live in the wild west and a roscoe in a bank IS disquieting. It doesn't matter if it should be that way or not - it is just as potentially damaging to the bank's reputation as a safe and stable institution as barbed wire around a neighborhood is. Maybe in some locals it is not a big deal, but that's up to the bank to decide, since it is their business on the line.

Businesses, being public entities, must avoid discriminating against people, but are just as free to use their discretion to stop anything they don't like from coming into their domain as a homeowner is. And like the nice restaurant that you did, in fact, know about, they don't have to post every potential situation on the wall.


What always gets me is that everyone here is supposedly against governmental intrusion, yet expects private businesses to act like governmental entities whenever they are inconvenienced.


If you want to hold someone accountable for the position Spiff is put in, consider his employer, who chose the bank and makes Spiff go to it.
 
Lets not start holding anyone accountable but Spiff. Not the bank, not the employer, not the bank employee. Not the law, not the Constitution, and not that 3 egg omelette I had this morning (stomach gurgle).

That's like blaming the fact that "daddy wasn't around when I was a kid" to the fact that your a criminal.

He chose to draw attention to himself. Then didn't like the attention he received. He could have just as easily walked in there concealed. He was asking for it.

You have to pick your battles wisely. Keep the battle going and the bank will be pumping money into the Brady campaign before you know it - and slapping up "no firearms" signs. We don't need to drive people to "the otherside"....they have enough help over there as it is.
 
Trip,
You said it before I could. This is a matter of CYB, or choose your battles. Arguing this case with a bank does not help our cause. I have yet to enter a bank that forbids concealed carry in my state, although there are banks that no doubt do elsewhere. It is easy enough to carry concealed, and if you have a CCW permit, there is no reason not to.

While open carry may be a legal right, vehement defense of that right to the offense of those in disagreement only lends support to those who seek to abolish that right. It does not help gun owners, nor does it help those who wish to carry a gun.

FWIW, I do not think taking a Koran into a McDonalds is the same thing. It will not elicit the same gut response. Try yelling bomb on an airplane. Yell fire in a crowded theater. After all, there is the 1st ammendment protecting you. Or is there?
 
The very polite woman should have introduced herself and identified her authority to ask you to leave... the bank manager deserves to hear of this.

The very polite woman was probably more concerned about your open carry being upsetting to their other clients...

Had an armed robber entered, or already been in, the bank while you were "open", the danger to everyone in the bank would have increased considerably! :o

Your letter should be very short and concise and should be re-written in a very toned-down manner and selling the idea that you and other carriers are a comfort rather than a threat.

I agree, your just for funzies attitude is immature and concealed carry would always be better than offending anyone, especially the "sheep" who will follow anywhere the ass in front of them will lead. :o

If, in fact, they are "sheep", they need your concern and leadership... not your derisive judgement. :(

I agree that you should carry concealed for all the reasons stated on this "thread" and for the additional purpose of presenting a good image for those of us who carry. :)

Thank you for asking...
And thank you for asking first. ;)
 
Handy

"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."

"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."
Click to expand...
I apologize for assuming you wrote this in response to Spiff's actions at the bank. Apparently you just meant it as a general warning to all of us. Still, I do not believe that the simple carriage of a holstered firearm falls into either category. This appears to be where we must agree to disagree.

No one considers a yarmulke itself "offensive clothing", and that suggestion is about as silly as the idea that an exposed firearm in a bank is as unobtrusive as a prayer book.
Click to expand...
Tell that to any number of Arab shopkeepers I deal with in Houston, or to members of the Nation of Islam, or any number of "Christians" in the South or Midwest. If they could, they would gladly turn away someone dressed like an Orthodox Jew. They have every right to deny service, of course...but it would be wrong of them to do so. I grew up with guns in the house, and have lived or worked in five states that have open carry. I have never seen anyone freak out or become visibly uncomfortable in their presence. I am not saying that such people do not exist, but that in my experience in settings from rural to mid-sized urban (1,000,000 or less) a holstered firearm is not seen as intrusive. In most larger areas, both the culture and the law are against open carry (or even firearms possesion), but I'm not buying that in this case.

The fact of the matter is that, in 2005, we don't live in the wild west and a roscoe in a bank IS disquieting. It doesn't matter if it should be that way or not - it is just as potentially damaging to the bank's reputation as a safe and stable institution as barbed wire around a neighborhood is. Maybe in some locals it is not a big deal, but that's up to the bank to decide, since it is their business on the line.
Click to expand...

Do you live in an area with open carry? I would hardly characterize Virginia or Pennsylvania as the Wild West, but I have seen legal open carry in both. Living in Arizona and Missouri, I never observed behavior such as the Spiff's bank whether it be Wal-Mart, Burger King or the mall. People paid firearms less obvious attention than than facial piercings or large amounts of tattoos. Perhaps you are right and the locals simply accepted it as a way of life, but I've seen such behavior in too many areas for it to be merely an anamoly.

I don't agree that the appearance of a weapon on someone's hip or the presence of barbed wire makes an area appear unsafe. I grew up around both, (and have seen barbed wire even in the nice parts of every city I've every lived in from Saint Paul to Seoul and parts in between) and they don't look out of place to me at all. It is my contention (although I may be wrong, please correct me Alaskans) that this is also the case for Spiff. Perhaps the bank manager on duty was ill-informed and believed weapons possesion in a bank to still be illegal, or maybe they agree with you in thinking that it makes the bank "look bad." In either case, I think the bank was wrong. I also think that Spiff should articulate his concern over his treatment to the bank (and as you suggested, to his boss).

It appears that while we agree on the legal right of establishments to regulate conduct, we share a fundamental difference on whether or not those actions are necessarily moral. I do not agree that the actions someone carries out on their property are automatically just merely because they are not in public. We do not live in a state of nature, but in a society predicated on majority rule with minority rights. I am encouraging civil discourse...and pointing out that firearms owners (and bearers) are similar to many groups who were formerly marginalized, but now able to interact freely in society without unduly altering their behavior.
 
IZ,

You still seem to be trapped into thinking that the symbols of something (a yarmulke) is the same as the people it represents.

Those people who would turn away a man dressed as a Jew are not turning away a hat - they want to be rid of the Jew under it. Putting the bearer of a firearm in the same category is absurd. Especially in this case where Spiff dropped the gun off and returned to the bank without issue.


I think you do a disservice to us all making it sound like there is such a thing as a "gun person". We are not a minority group, or a mindset or even a social club. We are simply people that own a particular tool and may or may not use it for a wide variety of things, including carry. To set us up any other way draws a foolish line in the sand between the haves and have nots, when the reality is that there is absolutely no way to determine who will choose to own one and who will not.

The bank's policy was against a machine, that's all. It could have been against RVs in the parking lot, but this time it was exposed guns in the lobby. Making more out of it than that is a bad idea, because it just makes this tool (the gun) into a target bigger than life.
 
What about the bigoted types that hate... :barf:

Jews under hats...

Krauts under helmets...

People who own, carry and shoot the gawd-awful handguns that are manufactured for no ther purpose than killing????? :confused:

There are places in the liberal world where they will "spit" at, or on you, just for taking the side of the 2nd amendment in an otherwise civilized discussion... :mad:

We are definitely descriminated against... better to keep a lower profile than open carry and a higher profile in more organized efforts like the NRA. :)

That put's you "under" the gun. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top