Gun Show hypocrisy?

Yes, but some of the signs have the force of law. So advocating ignoring them is probably not a good idea.

Sigh - are we going anywhere with this?

1. It is too bad that liability issues caused such signs to be posted.
2. It is too bad that idiots have reinforced the liability concerns.
3. Is it a bad statement about trusting us?
4. Should the owner go out of business for the righteous to bless him or her?
5. If you think he or she should stay in business, worry about risk, think it is private property and his or her business, worry about risk yourself - are you a big, evil tool of Sarah Brady and the dark forces of evil, a coward, a secret agent of the UN, etc.?

Anything else?
 
Recently, at the small local gunshow held at the local fairgrounds multipurpose building, a well-trained Deputy with the local Department accidentally shot himself in the toe with a .22 mag rifle that had been purchased for his kid (who had been carrying it around the show for a half hour or more). Apparently neither the seller nor the well-trained LEO checked the chamber to see if the rifle was loaded. I can't believe they didn't even check the rifling and barrel condition. This Deputy was no rookie and had supposedly taught some firearms safety classes at some point; now he is probably called "MR. NO TOE". If it can happen to a trained LEO, much less with a rifle purchased for his child, then who else could make such an error? I always find the shows exciting & very interesting; maybe these factors just distract some people too much.

I am OK with everything being unloaded inside the building & for the duration of the show. IIRC, there are a couple of armed deputies right handy at the door for any emergencies requiring an armed response. Other places outside the gunshow don't usually have a couple of armed LEO's quite so nearby/handy & individuals may find more need of their properly permitted concealed firearms.

I did notice one of the dealers with an open carry, cowboy style revolver at a nearby show, last year. It was a really nice-looking revolver, and honestly, i wondered if the dealer's open carrying might have been more for advertising his wares than for his defense/comfort. This show also had deputies at the door, but i am not 100% on that show's concealed carry rules.
 
CONCEALED MEANS CONCEALED
Click to expand...
In this case, that tautology also means violating the wishes of the person owning or renting the property. It can be (and has been) argued that liberty is based on the right to control one's property.

There might be cases in which I must be in a certain place, and that my safety is definitely compromised, where I would see violating the rights of a property holder. But that would have to be a very specific and grave situation, and a gun show doesn't meet that definition.

Whether or not the signs have weight, carrying somewhere against the wishes of the property owner is something of a moral compromise.
 
In this case, that tautology also means violating the wishes of the person owning or renting the property. It can be (and has been) argued that liberty is based on the right to control one's property.

There might be cases in which I must be in a certain place, and that my safety is definitely compromised, where I would see violating the rights of a property holder. But that would have to be a very specific and grave situation, and a gun show doesn't meet that definition.

Whether or not the signs have weight, carrying somewhere against the wishes of the property owner is something of a moral compromise.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Not only does it violate the rights of the property owner but too many gun owners forget that their carry piece should stay in it's holster when in public.

I sometimes find it troubling that many gun owners preach about their rights and yet they advocate violating the rights of others.

If you don't agree with the policy don't patronize those establishments as is your right. They have no right to your business but they have the right to control their property and what happens on it.
 
I apologize if I've offended anyone. My only intention was to point out that being scared of the other guy having a gun is similar to what some people in the anti-gun crowd think, and that restrictions that everyone agrees on will be almost impossible to come up with. Both sides of the issue don't want certain people to have guns, and both sides want some kind of restrictions; the line between pro and anti-gun can become blurred.

I said in my first post that I agree the owner of the private property should be able to set the rules. So if we all agree that owners of private property should be able to set the rules, then:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Should 5 year olds be able to open carry full auto guns in Kindergarten?
Click to expand...
The answer would be yes, if the owner of the school decides to allow it. The Second Amendment doesn't mention age. :p
Just playing devil's advocate here guys, I apologize again if my previous posts made it sound like I was accusing anyone of being a bad person.

Edit: I think the real issue here is whether or not the Second Amendment trumps private property.
 
Last edited:
I don't really want to go to a gun show where I have to be concerned about people in such tight quarters who might be armed. I don't have a problem with it.
 
I'll throw my $.02 in. I've seen that same sign (although in a different city). It does not meet the legal definition set forth in SC law. So for legal purposes you can ignore it. However, concealed means concealed as someone else pointed out. If you pull your concealed gun out to check it in a cool holster you see at the show, you probably will get yourself charged with brandishing. So if you decide to take it in concealed, it better stay concealed - no matter what. I'm fine with folks carrying at a gun show as long as their guns stay concealed. If you want to check out holsters, bring your carry piece in a plastic box, already unloaded, and get it zip-tied at the door. One way or the other but no attempts at switching mid-stream. That's where the potential trouble starts.
 
Personally, when it comes to the work place - I believe that the right of self-defense trumps private property if you are open as a business to the public. This is a debate we have had before. However, the 2nd Amend. vs. private property owners is an interesting one and then interacts with all kinds of rights vs. your property. Leads to the protected class arguments.

I only believe in the right of a private property owner or employer to limit the right of reasonable self-defense equipment (no grenades for you), if there is a clear technical danger from the firearm. My test example is not to carry the sidearm by the MRI which can grab them and make them go off! :eek:

Now the conflict of property rights, defining gun carriers are protected and the 2nd Amend. is a fun debate - which we've done before.
 
Glenn,

How can your right to self defense trump someones property rights when you are not required to go onto said property?

If you don't like the owners policies don't patronize their business.
 
Well I am glad we are all in agreement...lol

I guess we can beat a dead horse all day long, but what I have learned from this thread is that there is not much difference in the way pro gunners think and the way anti gunners think....:eek:
 
I'm not required to go to stores to buy food or clothing? I could live in the woods. We long ago decided that businesses did not have the absolute right to refuse patronage based on what was called protected classes.

The store owner benefits from the protections that all taxpayers provide. Fire, police, etc. Thus, he or she has no right to deny patronage unless he or she gives up the services provided by the state.

I regard the right of self-defense as another instance of a right that makes one protected against the vagaries of a business that is open to the public and expects tax payer based services.

Once you decide you are open to the public, you give up rights. The mall owner must provide toilets. Isn't it the right of the store owner not to have a toilet?

Private property is not inviolate, you cannpt poop on your lawn as it is detrimental to society. Not allowing people to defend themselves and taking services from the tax payers voids that belief that a business is an inviolate castle.
 
Do all stores deny you these rights?

Many store owners don't allow the public use of their restrooms. If I didn't like it I would shop somewhere that I could use the facilities. Malls and toilets is a horrible example anyway. I think a mall should be free to have no toilets, if the developer was that dumb. They would go out of business rather quickly as customers found the shopping experience unpleasant.

The store is not denying you patronage. They have requested that you not bring a certain implement into their establishment. Saying guns aren't welcome is different than saying gun owners aren't welcome.

Are you telling me that you can only get the things you need at stores that don't allow you to carry? I have yet to see a Walmart with a no carry sign and you can get just about everything you need there.

I don't shop at stores that have policies or service that I don't like. If you feel a policy against guns in a business is the wrong answer then take your business elsewhere.
 
And I don't see gun owners or more specifically gun owners that carry as a protected class.

A business can't discriminate against pro life christians but they can ask that they not bring their 3'x3' picture of an aborted fetus and parade it around the business.

Asking that you not bring certain items into a business and out right denying someone patronage are completely different things.
 
We will just disagree. I view the right of self-defense has one that should be as protected as race, etc. Carry does not disrupt the store operations as nuts preaching any politics in the store, so that is a false comparison.

As far as stores not having basic health standards to meet, that is property rights gone beserk.

The argument that there are other stores is specious. Denial of patronage has a long history of controlling where folks could live and was an instrument of discrimination. Antigunners specifically argued for this privliege in the gun case in order to make carry so difficult as to be useless.

Thus, the little property rights king in his castle is not appealing to me. For such absolutism, buy an island and don't ask tax payers to provide services.
 
I am not saying that my bloviation is legal I just am saying that my safety is more important than some silly sign. If I have to use my sidearm I will take the weight. Otherwise, it will be a unobtrusive weight on my hip. Perhaps I am prejudiced by my job but the only places I am not armed are federal buildings and Airports. YMMV
 
You could argue that the right of self defense is so important that it trumps property rights. I disagree unless there is no choice but to go onto said property. If there are other places reasonably available to you that provide the same products and services then go to those places.

Using the protected class argument just doesn't make any sense. A protected class is a group of people protected against discirmination or harrasment.

Race, gender, ethnicity, veterans status, and disabilities are all examples of protected classes. Where exactly do guns fit into that?

A no guns sign is completely different than a whites only sign. One seeks to exclude a tool and the other seeks to exclude a whole race of people.

An argument touting the importance of the right of self defense over property rights is logical but the protected class argument just doesn't make any sense.
 
The protected class argument has two points:

1. A characteristic of a citizen was used to trump those who claimed their property rights were sufficient to support their racism. Thus property rights are not supreme when society views an absolutist position as detrimental to society and fundamentally evil

2. Exercising the right of self-defense is inherent property of being a human being. Being of a protected class is also inherent in you. Your rights to function in society were not open to property owners (who opened for business and expect tax payer paid for services) to use as discriminatory decision points. Thus, this inherent property of self-defense (like your race, etc.) should not be open to discrimination. I see no reason to allow discrimination based on race and allow it because you are a human being with the right of self-defense (except in the techy case, I mentioned earlier).

Protected classes are a social construct - we still argue as to what that protection encompasses. Clearly some societies deny those rights still. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive. Is not freedom of travel something to be granted to all? I regard self-defense as inherent and not a grounds for discrimination when you open yourself to the public for business.

You don't have to have a business. You can be a wage-slave or a hunter-gatherer.

Who says you have right to a business, expect tax payer supplies services and then want to deny rights to people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top