Blomberg Group to spend $25,00,000.00 fighting Concealed Carry

While declaring concealed carriers a protected class may not be the appropriate strategy, I still feel that not allowing public businesses to ban carry is the way to go. The ability to protect yourself is more important than property rights once you decided to be a public business.

Folks may disagree as you want to have your castle but if you open to the public, you give that total control up. Also, property bans (once again) are the strategy to negate the utility of concealed carry. So pragmatically, property folks screw themselves. The unintended consequence are clear to me.
 
Nationwide reciprocity would be great, But unlike traffic laws which are about 95% uniform across the country gun and CC laws vary wildly even among neighboring states.

A lot of states would probably opposite it due to the requirements to acquire a license can vary from very easy to near impossible.

While it would be nice I think we just need to push for constitutional carry state to state, there will be some hold outs but we can probably cover a good 75% of the country this way it will just take a lot longer than passing 1 federal law.

The end result is superior than reciprocity, does anyone think states like CA or NY would stand idle for a federal law? those are lost causes anyway.
 
Evan Thomas wrote:
It doesn't work that way. No state allows bans of those who can carry a concealed weapon; the bans affect those who do carry one. Put another way, the ban is on the weapon, not the person. A person can decide at any time whether or not to carry a weapon. This isn't the case with one's race, religion, or gender ("identification" is redundant here), and that's why concealed weapons carriers will never be a protected class, nor should they be.
Click to expand...


If I have a 'fundamental right' to carry a firearm to defend myself, allowing my person, but not my weapon, to enter your store means that to shop at that place I must forfeit a 'fundamental right'; would the courts hold that it's alright to allow a black person to enter a store, so long as he wore a hat? Or to allow a Jewish person to enter so long as they did NOT wear a yarmulke?

How can you separate a physical person from the fundamental right that person carries by simple right of their existence? And does allowing the physical person to enter, but only after surrendering fundamental rights, actually constitute a 'right to enter'?


Larry
 
It looks like at least some of that money is for use in influencing state legislatures. From the Politico link:

Everytown for Gun Safety, founded and funded by the billionaire former New York City mayor, is hiring several new top staffers and turning much of its attention to state legislatures
 
I dunno, I gotta to with Evan here..

I do believe shop owners should have the right to refuse entry to anyone carrying a gun, it's their business and their property and ultimately they should have say on what comes and goes.

I would not want to take that control from them.
On the other hand I'd be open to making them liable if they ban weapons but do not have any security to enforce said ban.
 
If I have a 'fundamental right' to carry a firearm to defend myself, allowing my person, but not my weapon, to enter your store means that to shop at that place I must forfeit a 'fundamental right'; would the courts hold that it's alright to allow a black person to enter a store, so long as he wore a hat? Or to allow a Jewish person to enter so long as they did NOT wear a yarmulke?

How can you separate a physical person from the fundamental right that person carries by simple right of their existence? And does allowing the physical person to enter, but only after surrendering fundamental rights, actually constitute a 'right to enter'?
Click to expand...

Essentially, you don't have a "right to enter" their place of business. You and I are allowed to enter, its not our right. We have laws that list things the business cannot use to deny our entry because they are "open to the public", but that list is SPECIFIC, and any reason a business wants to use that fits you, or I, that is NOT on that list, is valid and legal reason to deny us entry. That's their right.

Leaving aside health law requirements for indoor eateries, take for example two snack bars on the beach, one says NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE, the other does not. Which one do you think has the better business model for their location and expected customers??

OR what about a fancy place where jacket (& tie?!) are required? Otherwise, they refuse you service. NOT something on the list of things that the law says they cannot use to refuse you, so, they can.

FIREARMS ARE NOT ON THAT GOVT LIST. And, until they are, our right to carry one on someone else's property, (open to the public or not) is dependent on the property owners permission.

We are not forced to patronize a "carry prohibited" business. As long as it is possible to do otherwise, no matter how time consuming, in convenient, or expensive the alternative is, as long as there is one, the law considers that we have a choice, and if it is a choice, you are choosing to accept whatever restriction on your rights the owner decrees, in order to go there.

Also, consider this, in many cases, business which forbid carry are not doing it out of a desire to make a political statement. They are doing it out of a desire to keep their costs down. Do you think there might be a small difference in the insurance costs between a business that has a no gun policy and one that doesn't??

I think there might very well be. And it might not be so small....

Who do we focus our righteous anger against then? The business, or the insurance company(s)?

(the correct answer is "no one". It's their right to do as they do, and we must respect those rights, in order to have a moral justification for demanding that they respect ours.)

Free Speech, freedom of belief, all part of the package.
 
My stand has nothing to do with "righteous anger" it has to do with common sense. (which is in no way common anymore)
If you post your land with "no hunting" signs then no one - not even the property owner can hunt on that land. Private property is different than public access property. Stores and businesses that are open to the public restricts what they can require of their patrons. They can ask anyone individual to leave for nearly any reason as long as it is not related to "protected classes". It is their property but it is open to the public. The law in Washington says that we can exercise our rights in any public place or any place of public access so long as it does not upset the normal business traffic. Since no one knows you are carrying a weapon you can enter with a concealed weapon. You can still be asked to leave and you must comply because to do otherwise would upset the normal flow of business. You can't restrict any right unless it disrupts the normal business flow.
In your home you can require people to be unarmed or not allow blacks, whites or Muslims because your private property is not public access. Private property is very different than public access property. If you own or ever have owned a business you understand this. My shop was open to the public - it would be very difficult to run a business like like that without public access. Professionals sometimes do business by appointment only to safeguard their privacy and rights. Most businesses operate under the public access rules. Under those rules they can't refuse services to any protected populations and they cannot restrict the individual rights of patrons unless it upsets the normal flow of business.
Some states or other municipal governments allow business owners to advertise that the business is totally unarmed. Why that would lower the insurance rates is completely beyond my level of cognition. History has shown multiple times that gun free zones attract criminal acts while other businesses are less likely targets.
 
Not sure how it works in your state but in Ohio owner can put up a no gun sign, and be carrying them selves, hell they can even authorized OTHER people to carry in their business; The sign does nothing to diminish the owners rights.

A few years back there was a segment on the local news, Cafe owner kicked out uniformed police officers.. shocking right? ya well they was within their right, Just grabbing a coffee they have no more rights than anyone else.

Although it might make you wonder why a business owner would wanna toss out the police.. hmmm.

Some states no-gun signs have no force of law, Here in Ohio they do.. Change is trespassing, not sure if that's criminal or civil.. probably civil If I had to guess, But I've never heard of anyone actually being charged, it usually just results in a GTFO situation.

Just because a business is open to the public does not mean it's public property (property owned or managed by the state or federal gov.)

Just because I don't have any no trespassing signs on my property does not mean I can't tell you to "get off my lawn" for what ever reason I see fit.
 
If you post your land with "no hunting" signs then no one - not even the property owner can hunt on that land.
Click to expand...

ShootistPRS -

Please name those states, and the laws, that prohibit a land owner from hunting on his/her own land if that land is posted with "no hunting" signs.
 
Last edited:
Why that would lower the insurance rates is completely beyond my level of cognition.
Click to expand...

While I won't pretend to understand or agree, I believe the reasoning goes something like this,

If there is not a "no gun" policy, then if something bad does happen, they business has done nothing to prevent it. (forget the absurdity of a sign actually preventing anything..)

SO, by not doing anything to prevent it, they reason that you have encouraged it, and by encouraging it, are more likely to be found liable in court, and therefore a greater risk that the insurance company will have to pay, and/or pay more.

And, since you are a greater risk, the cost to cover you is higher.

Remember that reality doesn't matter here, all that matters is the insurance company's calculation of risk. And I think its not risk to the public that determines their rates nearly as much as it is risk to the insurance company's profits.

I'm not an insurance agent, so I don't really know, but if it works drastically differently, I'll be quite surprised.
 
ShootistPRS, I MUST assume you are not an attorney. "Public property" is property owned by a government, i.e., municipal, county, state or federal. A city, county, state, and the federal government have authority over "their" "public property." Private property is owned by a person, corporation, cooperative or other private organization. If a private property owner allows one specific hunter or one hundred specific hunters to hunt on the property NO LAW requires the owner to allow anyone or everyone to hunt on the property.
 
Lefteye, I haven't mentioned "public property" once. I have continuously cited "public access" private property. When you open a business in which the public is allowed to enter the property to browse, and purchase goods and services you make a contract with the public to freely enter your property. Doing that prevents you from using it as private property during your business hours. Part of that unwritten contract is that you cannot prevent protected groups from taking advantage of your goods and services. In Washington it also allows people to carry concealed weapons to access your property. There is an understood part of that contract that forbids someone from disrupting the flow of business. A preacher can't interrupt your business by preaching the Gospel or a person can't frighten the other patrons by carrying openly unless you allow it.
If you read the link I put up it covers these unspoken contracts that play a role in allowing the general public access to your private property to buy your goods and services.
 
A lot of this was what we tried to address here in AZ with a bill that would have held businesses harmless in the case of persons injured in their place of business if harmed by a criminal during a criminal act on those premises...if they did NOT have a "no firearms allowed" sign. If Johnny Jerkface shot Grandma Moses in Stop and Rob, which didn't have a NO Guns sign up, then Grandma Moses couldn't sue Stop and Rob, is the example, if I got that right.
The reciprocal is quite obvious...and it died in committee. I think that would have been a very interesting way to attack the question, but I don't know how well it would have held up in court. I know there are several lawyers here who could probably answer that one.

Edit to add, apparently it is still in the running, but highly unlikely to get anywhere this late in the game. Quoted from AZCDL website;
AZCDL said:
Number: AZ [R] SB 1159 - Updated (Status 03/07/2017)
Sponsor: Sen. Sonny Borrelli (REP-AZ)
Title: civil liability; damages; weapons
Status: House Second Read - 03/06/2017
Position: Support

Summary: AzCDL-requested “gun free zone liability” legislation. If a property is not posted as a gun free zone, the owner of the property is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from another person using a weapon.

Comments: To phrase it another way, post your property as a “gun free zone” and you do not escape civil liability when another person uses a weapon.
Click to expand...
http://www.azcdl.org/html/bill_tracking.html
 
ShootistPRS said:
My stand has nothing to do with "righteous anger" it has to do with common sense. (which is in no way common anymore)
Click to expand...
The law is not something that you can just "noodle your way through." It is occasionally counter-intuitive and often rife with overlapping and possibly contradictory governing authorities.
ShootistPRS said:
If you post your land with "no hunting" signs then no one - not even the property owner can hunt on that land.
Click to expand...
Please provide some legal authority for this proposition. I'd be very surprised if posting a piece of property "no hunting" legally barred the owner from hunting.
 
Please provide some legal authority for this proposition. I'd be very surprised if posting a piece of property "no hunting" legally barred the owner from hunting.
Click to expand...

I can't post any such authority, but I do have a story.

Several years ago I purchased a small 40 acre chunk of land for deer hunting. It had been used by local hunters for years as the previous owner allowed it.

I posted it No-Hunting. I was meet by the Conservation Officer on Opening day of deer season, telling me that hunting was no permitted as it was posted. He told me that No-Hunting means no hunting and he is not going to waste his time investigating whether or not the orange pumpkins hunting posted land are owners or not.

Told me to post the proper No-Trespassing signs or do not hunt the land.

Was he correct? Duno, but I changed the signs.
 
steve said:
I posted it No-Hunting. I was meet by the Conservation Officer on Opening day of deer season, telling me that hunting was no permitted as it was posted. He told me that No-Hunting means no hunting and he is not going to waste his time investigating whether or not the orange pumpkins hunting posted land are owners or not.
Click to expand...

Would "No trespassing" signs keep you off the property because he wouldn't want to waste time investigating?

It is not a trivial aspect of ownership or tenancy that the owner or tenant is entitled to use of the property to the exclusion of all others.
 
I posted it No-Hunting. I was meet by the Conservation Officer on Opening day of deer season, telling me that hunting was no permitted as it was posted. He told me that No-Hunting means no hunting and he is not going to waste his time investigating whether or not the orange pumpkins hunting posted land are owners or not.

Told me to post the proper No-Trespassing signs or do not hunt the land.
Click to expand...

and you believed him....:rolleyes:

This kind of thing happens all too often. The CO was wrong, on more than one level, but his "authoritye!" gets him is way.

ANY cop. be they regular police or a "game cop" who brags he isn't going to "waste his time investigating" is a bad cop. Period.

Secondly, No Hunting and NO Trespassing are NOT the same thing. (hint, that's why they say different things), and I'm sure the CO you dealt with KNEW THAT. He just wanted to flex his legal muscle, so he wouldn't have to waste his time dealing with it.

Since I have time to waste, I would love to have a CO try to pull something like that. And I'd be happiest if he actually gave me a ticket for hunting on MY posted land. (of course, I'd make sure I was completely legal in all my gear and licenses, and following all regulations FIRST).

If I could, I'd see to it that the CO would have to appear in court and explain to the judge why he wrote me a ticket for violating a sign that I put up, on my own property, after which, the Judge would explain to him about how he's wasting the Judge's time....:D

This reminds me of a somewhat similar (though not identical) situation a friend of mine goes through from time to time. He has a registered antique motorcycle. Our state has a helmet law, but it exempts the helmet requirement if you are operating a registered antique motorcycle.

Most cops apparently don't know about the exemption, and he carries a copy of the law with him when he rides it. He gets stopped, often, and explains it, showing the actual law when needed. He says it gets him out of about HALF of the "no helmet" tickets, on the spot. The rest of the time, the cops write him a ticket, and say "IF you're right, the judge will throw it out". And, to date, they have, 100% of the time. He also tells me that he's never been stopped for no helmet by the same cop, more than once....;)

Its one thing when a cop, or any enforcement officer doesn't know all the fine the details of a law, (they aren't lawyers, after all), and acts in good faith based on what they DO know. Its another thing entirely when an officer actually says they aren't going to waste their time finding out.
 
steve4102 said:
. . . . .I posted it No-Hunting. I was meet by the Conservation Officer on Opening day of deer season, telling me that hunting was no permitted as it was posted. He told me that No-Hunting means no hunting and he is not going to waste his time investigating whether or not the orange pumpkins hunting posted land are owners or not.

Told me to post the proper No-Trespassing signs or do not hunt the land. . . .
Click to expand...
That just means that the CO isn't going to investigate ownership, not that the owner is barred from hunting. While I recognize that there might be some difficulty determining ownership of rural property right as shooting hours open, that's tough noogies for the CO. My position would be that if he doesn't have time to investigate, he'll just have to make time to testify. At some point, he would have to testify.

Zukiphile nailed it:
zukiphile said:
It is not a trivial aspect of ownership or tenancy that the owner or tenant is entitled to use of the property to the exclusion of all others.
Click to expand...
 
Outside of discrimination based on race, sex, etc. businesses can pretty much control who can enter or remain on their property. A better analogy might be the First Amendment. I searched 30 seconds and found this article from the First Amendment Center about First Amendment rights in a shopping mall --- http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/do-you-have-free-speech-in-a-shopping-mall/. Basically, there are none under the federal constitution but there are certain free speech rights under the California and New Jersey constitutions. And the feds allow this.

So, why could a state constitution or state statute not likewise provide protection for 2A rights? This need not apply to all businesses, just those who operate as the functional equivalent of the town square.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top