If the property is NOT posted against concealed carry and the owner /manager of said property has not indicated to me it is not authorized or requested that I leave the property
You bet I DO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An Open Letter To The CEO of Levi Strauss & Co.
- Thread starter IDT
- Start date
If the property is NOT posted against concealed carry and the owner /manager of said property has not indicated to me it is not authorized or requested that I leave the property
You bet I DO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ATN082268 said:
Double Naught Spy said:
If you're saying that shootings can and do occur in areas other than gun free zones, then I agree. In general though, I do think gun free zones make it easier for people to go on shooting sprees and inflict more damage than they would have in non-gun free zones. Why? Because someone who is armed can potentially use their gun to eliminate or minimize the damage of people who like to go around shooting people.
What is private property?
A privately owned country club?
A retail store open to the public?
A gas station?
A mall?
A mall parking lot?
A semi-private golf course?
A privately operated tennis complex on city owned property
A parking lot owned by a publicly traded company?
Wetlands in a mitigation bank?
Charter School?
A conservation easement?
$3,000,000 house on Lake Burton on land owned by Georgia Power?
ATN082268 said:
tipoc said:
Sometimes asking questions is a better way to clarify an issue. In this case it is a matter of whether a business prohibits weapons on their property or not. If a company asks you not to bring weapons to their store, does it prohibit or allow weapons on their property? I'd say the former but you're welcome to argue the latter
ATN082268 said:
koda94 said:
The point was and is that safety is not just a gun issue and irresponsible behavior is hardly confined to the use of guns. I don't think companies should necessarily adopt a policy to ban guns from stores because of irresponsible behavior of a person with a gun. If a person was run over in the parking lot of a store, do you think a store should (or would) ban cars from their property?
Double Naught Spy
New member
Legally, private property is property not owned by a government entity. Unless otherwise stated by law (and there are numerous states that state otherwise for specific examples), private property is under the control of the landowner and/or tenant (as designated by lease agreement) or their agents. They can tell you that you cannot carry a gun on their property if they so desire, run a newspaper, or hold religious services. These may all be your rights, but you do not have the right to exercise them on their private property if they disallow it. Some states stipulate that concealed carry cannot be restricted in parking lots, for example.
Depends on what you mean by "support gun rights." They may not be posted against guns in the few stores that they have, but chances are they do not allow their employees to have guns, just as most corporations do not allow employees to have guns. In this sense, most corporations are anti-gun. I do not know of a single major corporation that doesn't have a policy against guns in the workplace unless you are part of security as your job.
Not really. It has always been this way in the US. People tend to think their rights are more than they really are and that their rights supercede the rights of others via some form of rationalization, but except where noted in law, this just isn't the case.
This is what you can't do under Co gun laws
May Not Carry:
On any real property or improvements of any public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school (though firearms may be kept in a locked motor vehicle, loaded if you have a CHP, or unloaded if you do not).
In any public building in which security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently installed.
Any private property where not allowed by owner, tenant, employer, or business entity.
If you are under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance.
Any building owned or leased by a federal government authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public.
On your snowmobile, unless unloaded and in a carrying case.
A prison or any other detention facility.
Inside the secured area of any airport, however a person may carry any legal firearm into the terminal that is encased for shipment purposes and checked as baggage to be lawfully transported on an aircraft pursuant to airline and TSA regulations.
May Not Carry:
On any real property or improvements of any public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school (though firearms may be kept in a locked motor vehicle, loaded if you have a CHP, or unloaded if you do not).
In any public building in which security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently installed.
Any private property where not allowed by owner, tenant, employer, or business entity.
If you are under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance.
Any building owned or leased by a federal government authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public.
On your snowmobile, unless unloaded and in a carrying case.
A prison or any other detention facility.
Inside the secured area of any airport, however a person may carry any legal firearm into the terminal that is encased for shipment purposes and checked as baggage to be lawfully transported on an aircraft pursuant to airline and TSA regulations.
Point of view matters a lot. We see ourselves as responsible and safe, and feel insulted (at the least) when someone implies (through prohibiting carry) that we are not.
However, the store owners don't SEE us as responsible, (because responsible CCW means nobody sees it, among other things..) what they SEE is the moron who Mexican carries (no holster) a GLock in the waistband of his sweatpantseek, grabs it when is slips and fires a round, endangering himself and others.
(and yes, this HAS actually happened)
I have a good deal of sympathy for the business owner in this matter, because they are, literally trapped. If they prohibit, or even discourage carry, a rather vocal segment of the carry community rails about them denying "our rights".
If they DON'T, their safety people and their lawyers tell them they are putting the public (their customers) at increased risk, and their insurance costs can reflect this. Consider (numbers for example only) what a business owner has to consider, if his accident insurance is $10K but if he puts up a no guns sign, his insurance is $2k. Even if the store owner has a personal opinion on gun rights, bottom line costs may override it.
However, the store owners don't SEE us as responsible, (because responsible CCW means nobody sees it, among other things..) what they SEE is the moron who Mexican carries (no holster) a GLock in the waistband of his sweatpants
eek, grabs it when is slips and fires a round, endangering himself and others.(and yes, this HAS actually happened)
I have a good deal of sympathy for the business owner in this matter, because they are, literally trapped. If they prohibit, or even discourage carry, a rather vocal segment of the carry community rails about them denying "our rights".
If they DON'T, their safety people and their lawyers tell them they are putting the public (their customers) at increased risk, and their insurance costs can reflect this. Consider (numbers for example only) what a business owner has to consider, if his accident insurance is $10K but if he puts up a no guns sign, his insurance is $2k. Even if the store owner has a personal opinion on gun rights, bottom line costs may override it.
If someone doesn't comply to my wishes on my property, they are gonna leave or get arrested at a minimum.
There's a few places that will allow a person to force their individual rights on a property owner, most of a particular political leaning.
You can't hold a church service in Walmart
You can't hold a seminar in Walmart without permission.
You can't give permission for troops to stay at Target.
No indictments, hearings or bail.
So if they want no guns, it's within their rights, I believe that and will stand by and support their decision. But I can choose how to spend my money.
There's a few places that will allow a person to force their individual rights on a property owner, most of a particular political leaning.
You can't hold a church service in Walmart
You can't hold a seminar in Walmart without permission.
You can't give permission for troops to stay at Target.
No indictments, hearings or bail.
So if they want no guns, it's within their rights, I believe that and will stand by and support their decision. But I can choose how to spend my money.
motorhead0922
New member
IDT, go ahead and post your open letter on LinkedIn. Just hit the Write An Article button, and paste it in.
Post a link here, and I'll go over and "Like" it, as I did with several of the pro-gun replies to Mr. Bergh's article.
Post a link here, and I'll go over and "Like" it, as I did with several of the pro-gun replies to Mr. Bergh's article.
Colorado Redneck
New member
The sidewalk in front of my house is on my property. So if we post a sign on each side of the lot that prohibits guns, that is defensible? And if some person walks their dog on our walk and has a gun then they are liable for exactly what?
Except you dont own the sidewalk.
In town here 15ft from the center of the residential street in either direction falls under the cities ROW.
You as PO cant remove or alter said sidewalk w/o getting cities ok or them doing the repairs etc.
So no yelling "get off of my lawn" unless they cross the entire sidewalk and step on MY side.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hunter Customs
New member
I'm an old guy, bought my first pair of Levi 501 jeans when I was 13 years old.
I was doing some cowboying, farm hand work, later in life factory labor, the jeans were tough and lasted, they also were very close in price to other jeans.
I still have some 501's in my jean drawer I don't wear them all the time as I've found other jeans that's just as good if not better at about a third of the cost of Levis.
In my opinion Levi forgot who put them where they are.
I'll wear out the Levi jeans I have, do not plan on buying anymore, not because of the request from Levi's CEO as I could care less what he thinks, it's because they are way overpriced for the quality of jeans they produce.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
I was doing some cowboying, farm hand work, later in life factory labor, the jeans were tough and lasted, they also were very close in price to other jeans.
I still have some 501's in my jean drawer I don't wear them all the time as I've found other jeans that's just as good if not better at about a third of the cost of Levis.
In my opinion Levi forgot who put them where they are.
I'll wear out the Levi jeans I have, do not plan on buying anymore, not because of the request from Levi's CEO as I could care less what he thinks, it's because they are way overpriced for the quality of jeans they produce.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
What Bob said. I don't ordinarily decline to shop chain stores or merchandise just because of the CEO's/owner's ignorance: There are often plenty of local people making a living working for the company who don't share their bosses' dumb ideas.
It's difficult for me to figure out how to make a pro-gun statement in my decisions to clothe myself (yes, I failed the gun-related test once again) particularly considering that the original input from the CEO appears to have been in the form of a request.
But, Levis' quality has taken a definite and sharp dive in the past few years and I would love to take my business elsewhere.
Bob, (and others): What brands of jeans have you found an acceptable replacement?
I'm shopping and having a hard time (especially with the sexy and young part
).I did a search for gun-related denims and came up empty. Looks like 5.11 doesn't sell them anymore.
Best,
Will
Last edited:
