Gun show carry ban??? Support or not?

[maustypsu]

Ditto

I suggest this analysis: if there is no conflict in my exercise of my right (to carry) with any one else's exercise of their rights there is no acceptable infringement to be suffered.

No one has justified the banning of loaded concealed weapons here. They want to ban the action of "unconcealing" the loaded weapon.

I've been very disappointed in the number of folks on this site who sound just like any anti-gun liberal. If you don't draw the line where Mello2U draws it in his post, then where do you draw it?

If you don't assume that I have every right to do anything as long as my actions don't infringe upon the rights of others, then you are just as guilty as any liberal, pro-government, anti-gun, anti-liberty radical. You have no more right, fact, or reason for what you say than they use for what they say. You just decided to draw your arbitrary line somewhere else.

Again, I do agree that any property owner has the right to make any rule they want on their property. I'm concerned about state, local, federal government intervention and the definition of "rights" and "liberty" held by folks who are persecuted daily for their love of firearms and freedoms. I'm surprised that we can't hold a common thread as stated so well by Mello2U above.

 

[shurshot]

"Come and Take it", I disagree with your argument when you wrote; "If a person has a CCW, they have to be certified that they understand gun safety. I don't see how anyone with a CCW permit who carries in a gun show would be a liability."

My response;
Having a CC permit doen't ensure that everyone will practice and or follow safety rules. Accidents DO happen, and loaded weapons have no place at gun shows as far as I am concerned. Too many people, and too little space to chance a lethal projectile being accidently fired.

Think about this for a second; Thousands upon thousands of licensed teenage drivers kill themselves and others on US roads every year. Most of them were all "certified" in road/driver safety in order to get their permits and driver's licenses. The certification didn't stop the accidents, or the death toll. Diminish the number yes, but stop it completly? No. Watch the news, read the paper...

Being "certified", in order to obtain a driver's license (or a CC permit), doesn't ensure that the individual has common sense, or won't forget basic safety rules for a brief moment that can end in a homicide.

 

[Sport45]

I would treat a gun show as any other place I have the option of going. If I feel uneasy or threatened there I'll stay at home. Part of the training is situational awareness. I don't see the gun as something that allows me to walk into dark alleys in strange places. The same holds true for gun shows.

That said, I haven't felt threatened at a gun show and wouldn't mind being at the ones around Houston without a loaded firearm.

 

[maustypsu]

huh?

Think about this for a second; Thousands upon thousands of licensed teenage drivers kill themselves and others on US roads every year. Most of them were all "certified" in road/driver safety in order to get their permits and driver's licenses. The certification didn't stop the accidents, or the death toll. Diminish the number yes, but stop it completly? No. Watch the news, read the paper...

But yet, we let those teenagers continue to drive on those roads. When you stop that, then we can talk about taking away my right. Since I haven't ever proven myself unsafe with a gun and apparently those teenagers have, why are you allowing them their right while taking away mine???

 

[Wildalaska]

Hey, the people that go to gun shows are the ones that are the most likely to attack a BG in lieu of running away.

That scares me even more, some schnook lifts a bullet keychain and then 10 chubsters at the tables selling custom Mosins and collector grade parts Garands pull their CZ52s out from under their East German cammies and start tossing Tok rounds into the crowd

WildillpassonthegunshowsAlaska TM

 

[JohnKSa]

But yet, we let those teenagers continue to drive on those roads.

EXCELLENT analogy, but you've missed the point.

When you drive on the roads you are required to have insurance so that if there is an accident the injured parties will be able to recover any reasonable damages. If you don't have insurance you are not allowed to use the roads and are prosecuted if you skirt the law.

To make this analogy apply to gun shows, they would require EVERY person attending the gun show to have an acceptable level of personal liability insurance that would cover any reasonable consequence of the misuse of their firearms while on their premises.

The fact is that they don't require attendees to carry that type of insurance because the venue/promoter pays for that coverage. As a consequence, they must abide by the restrictions imposed by the insurer. They must carry the insurance to provide liability protection but they also must keep the coverage cost reasonable. The way they do that is to limit the number of loaded firearms on the property in accordance with the insurer's demands.

The no carry restrictions at gun shows are a fact of life brought on by a history of accidents at gun shows and by the fear of liability that forces the venue & promoter to carry insurance.

The bottom line is: Do you want gun shows or not? If you want them, you must accept that no venue or promoter will operate without insurance and no insurer is going to offer blanket coverage at reasonable cost without imposing some restrictions.

I don't LIKE the restriction but that's just the way things are.

 

[shurshot]

As the father of a teen driver (Because I'm liable if she causes an accident), I reserve the right to take that license away for whatever reason I see fit (poor driving, attitude, upset emotional state, etc.). And if I decide to drug test or to only allow day time driving, or to restrict certain passengers in order to diminish the risk of an accident, despite the tears of protest, it is "my roof, MY rules".

And if the gun show owners (who are liable if an accident happens), want to diminish the risk of a homicide by having an unloaded weapons/zip tie policy, it is "Their roof, Their rules".

It sounds like there are a few folks who should consider becoming gun show promoters, and then they can make the rules, become liable themselves and allow loaded weapons in the building.

If this happens, please advertise this "loaded weapons are OK" policy in the paper, so that I'll know to stay as far away as possible...

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Loaded guns have NEVER been allowed at gun shows, and for good reason.
You guys that have your new carry permits should understand why. Because you are "state trained" doesn't mean squat. If carrying in a show is that important to you, put your gun in your pocket, and leave it there. I think there must be some subconscious desire to show that you can carry a gun around "gun people." No one cares.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Cow Palace?

And if the gun show owners (who are liable if an accident happens), want to diminish the risk of a homicide by having an unloaded weapons/zip tie policy, it is "Their roof, Their rules".

It sounds like there are a few folks who should consider becoming gun show promoters, and then they can make the rules, become liable themselves and allow loaded weapons in the building.
(edited for brevity)

Well put, shurshot. The "Put up or shut up" argument. It does seem to me that many arguments are put forth from a position of misinformation about the very real costs of following one's conscience and exercising one's rights. It is expensive. And we don't need to make it more expensive.

Now, to the subject line of this post. Does anyone else think the issue of the Cow Palace in Daly City, CA has a bearing on this question?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/04/BA3817DSLR.DTL

An accidental discharge at a gun show would give fuel to anti-gunners like Califonia State Senator Leno more arguments to restrict us. If an insurance carrier restricts my Second Amendment right to bear arms and preserves my right to bear arms elsewhere, well that is a tradeoff I have to consider, not reject out of hand.

Moderators, if this post is too far off the subject of the thread, let me know and I will gladly edit it. (I don't exercise my First Amendment rights any more thoughtlessly than my Second.)

Lost Sheep

 

[gun44]

There are people at gun shows...........

with absolutely no experience in firearms at all. Here in Georgia, there is NO training required to get a CCW. That scares me for safety reasons, and should any right thinking person. Now I will probably get castigated about 2nd amendment rights, and all that, but I am firmly for firearms training for ALL people that want to carry a weapon. Recently we had a young boy shot and killed at a gun show in Atlanta. THAT is reason enough for me to vote yes. Also, we have a "public gathering" clause on our books about concealed carry, and a gunshow is classified as a public gathering, meaning it is illegal to carry there.

 

[maustypsu]

EXCELLENT analogy, but you've missed the point.

Sounds more like you changed the point or I missed a previous post. The one I responded to didn't mention insurance companies, it just said that a lot of things are unsafe therefore we should limit this unsafe action.

Shurshot and Lostsheep,

I'm not challenging the property owners right to make any rule they want. I'm not challening the right of the insurance company to make any rule or set any rate they want. I think this is the third time I've posted this same idea. If we are talking about "rights" then my concern is government making rules. Our right to carry does not supersede the rights of a property owner to limit our presence on their property.

 

[flattop44]

Prohibiting loaded guns in shows makes a lot of sense to me. I have set up and sold guns in shows for many years and find that there are a lot of folks there that have never handled a firearm. Many first time potential buyers have never been taught the basic rules of gun safety. I advise all of them to register for a safety class and/or have an experienced shooter instruct them in the safe handling of firearms before loading and attempting to use the gun.

I have seen several accidents and one death from loaded guns being mishandled in shows....and that one too many for me.

JMHO FT44

 

[Southern Rebel]

If I were an "Obama-Rama" gunban supporter, I would be copying some of your responses to bolster my campaign enormously! I like the idea of a ban at gunshows because of the temptation for loaded guns to be drawn for purposes of displaying to others, swapping, holster tests, etc. Normally those types of behavior are not going on in large gatherings, but a gunshow lends itself to them occurring.

However, when some of us argue that we don't want to be around a bunch of legal gun-toters because of the idiot factor, or the careless factor, or any and all of the potential failure factors of licensed-to-carry gun owners..............

You have just made the very best argument possible for Sarah Brady. "If you guys don't trust your own group with loaded guns, why in the world do you want to turn them loose in society with their dangerous loaded guns?"

(It is kinda like saying, "if you don't trust your son around his own sister, then how in the world can you ask us to trust him to date our daughters!"

 

[JohnKSa]

The one I responded to didn't mention insurance companies, it just said that a lot of things are unsafe therefore we should limit this unsafe action.

It's impossible to have a realistic discussion about gun show carry without involving insurance since that's the primary issue driving the restrictions.

 

[Mello2u]

It might be helpful to distinguish between the act of carrying a concealed weapon holstered and concealed from the act of unholstering the loaded weapon and what then might ensure.

Assuming this is occurring at a gun show: The holstered weapon is safe; but the act of unholstering the weapon without the need to defend yourself or others is unjustifiable and dangerous. I would argue that simply the act of unholstering the weapon is endangering people around the actor; as it would be almost impossible to point it in a safe direction. The floor would most likely be hard and a discharged bullet would either cause a ricochet or bullet splash which would likely cause injury. To point the muzzle at the ceiling the muzzle would have to have swept many people.

It would be nice if the courts would toss out claims by injured parties against the organizers for acts of third parties in the venue. Legislation which prevented such claims would most likely be needed to get the courts to do so. Legislation which stated that owners of property or organizers of public events would not liable for the acts of third parties on the property or at their venue. Legislation which cuts off civil actions beyond the liability of the actual actor would be a good thing in my opinion. If there was a negligent discharge then the plaintiff would have to seek damages from the actor; that seems fair to me.

I would favor a gun show rule which prohibited the unholstering, handling, pointing of a loaded firearm absent an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. I agree there should be a rule that no loaded weapons other than those which are legally conceal are allowed at the gun show. Several posted signs of at least 24" x 36" directing the attention of those who carry a concealed weapon that it is agreed that by paying for admittance and entering the premises in the event they violate that rule, they agree to submit their concealed weapons permit and driver's license to the organizers for recordation and agree to be entered into a data base to be shared with any other gun show organizer and allow the release of the information to any plaintiff who files a suit as the result of the actions which violated the rule; further they acknowledge they may be subject to being banned from future gun shows.

It must be remembered that an insurance company's interest is to make a profit. It has no interest in trying to find the least intrusive manner of restricting behavior to that end. Only the consumer of the product can bargain for a less restrictive solution absent legislation.

Legislation might ultimately be the best route to protect the 2nd amendment rights involved here from law suits which seek to reach someone who had no active role in any damages caused.

 

[trigger happy]

I was at a gunshow where some moron accidently shot a 14 year old boy in the head, killing him right then and there

 

[Mello2u]

trigger happy

I was at a gunshow where some moron accidently shot a 14 year old boy in the head, killing him right then and there

This is tragic.

It is just as tragic as when some moron homeowner discharges a gun at a birthday party at his home or while home alone and the bullet kills someone. Do we say that we should not have loaded guns in our homes?

Hold the actor liable for his actions not other people.

 

[Playboypenguin]

It is just as tragic as when some moron discharges a gun at a birthday party at his home or while home alone and the bullet kills someone. Do we say that we should not have loaded guns in our homes?

Surely you can see the difference between a private event in one's own home and a public event where attendance is open to the public.

And at that birthday party the owner of the home has every right o say "no loaded firearms in my home."

 

[Mello2u]

Playboypenguin

It is just as tragic as when some moron discharges a gun at a birthday party at his home or while home alone and the bullet kills someone. Do we say that we should not have loaded guns in our homes?

Surely you can see the difference between a private event in one's own home and a public event where attendance is open to the public.

And at that birthday party the owner of the home has every right o say "no loaded firearms in my home."

I was not clear in making my point. I am not even trying to discuss whether someone has the right on private property to prohibit firearms on their property. Clearly when two rights conflict a new analysis comes into play; as in when someone's property rights conflict with someone's right to be armed. To me, clearly the property rights win in this fact pattern.

I was trying to focus on liability.

And no, there is no legal distinction of the issue of who has liability between an event at a public event and at someone's home. You have a duty to provide a safe environment for your invitees or licensees in both places. What constitutes a safe environment is a matter of law and jurisprudence. That is why I was pointing out it would most likely take an act of the legislatures of the various states to insulate the organizers or owners of property where public events were held.

My example of similar tragic events by morons (I meant to make the facts show that the home owner at his birthday party was the moron who shot someone) was to point out that those who call for no loaded weapons at gun shows are using the same logic as those who say that there should be no loaded weapons in a person's home. That reasoning holds that it is too dangerous in either place to be tolerated.

 

[JohnKSa]

Do we say that we should not have loaded guns in our homes?...And no, there is no legal distinction of the issue of who has liability between an event at a public event and at someone's home.

You're right about the liability--there's no legal distinction. The owner of the facility (the venue in the case of a gunshow and the homeowner in the case of a house) and their insurer could theoretically be held liable if a third party is injured on the location.

So far homeowner's policies have not placed restrictions on firearms ownership or posession. My guess is that is true because a homeowner never has several thousand people in his home handling firearms in the space of a single weekend.