Is this legal? Parking lot question

[Zekewolf]

Red: You're missing the issue being discussed.

 

[Redworm]

well I went off topic in that bit and I apologize

But I believe my point on the thread topic still stands. I understand if it bothers people that a business owner doesn't respect your right to defend yourself...but that should in no way give anyone the right to disrespect that business owner's property.

My land is my land, my property, my rules (though technically it isn't...damn lack of allodial title and all). If I demand that anyone on my property be disarmed or they have to leave, it's my right because it's my property. I feel the same should apply to any and all business owners. If a business owner feels that no guns and no blue sweaters be allowed on his property then he should have the right to request that law enforcement remove anyone carrying a weapon or wearing a blue sweater and if that doesn't work then he should have the right to forcibly remove the "offenders" from his property.

A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, in my opinion. People have choices in where to shop, owners should have choices in who to sell their products or services to. I know that's not how it works in real life but I think that's the way it should be. Otherwise it's hypocritical to think that someone should respect your rights when you automatically intend on disrespecting theirs.

 

[tyme]

But I believe my point on the thread topic still stands. I understand if it bothers people that a business owner doesn't respect your right to defend yourself...but that should in no way give anyone the right to disrespect that business owner's property.

My land is my land, my property, my rules (though technically it isn't...damn lack of allodial title and all). If I demand that anyone on my property be disarmed or they have to leave, it's my right because it's my property.

tsavo - The Strip is not far from my house. The parking area is privately owned and the owners of the property have the right to set rules for the guests they allow on their property. In this case, property law overrides the concealed carry law - as it should.

I don't understand this argument.

If it's your private property where visitors are not expected; if it's your home; if it's your private office... do whatever you'd like. Require visitors to wear Munch Scream masks and perform ritual goat sacrifices. Require them to drink spiked cool-aid before entering -- as long as you disclose the contents. I don't care.

If it's open to the public, you as a business owner really don't have a leg to stand on. If you expect random people to walk in off the street to buy something, or to browse because they're bored or they're killing time, you really have no right to demand that they leave their guns at the door (as if you could enforce that anyway). You may have a qualified right to refuse service to people you don't like, but they have no duty to disclose whether they have a gun, and they certainly have no duty to leave their gun in their car where it can be more easily stolen, and where it does them no good if they're mugged in the parking lot.

You have about as much right to ban people with guns from entering your store or parking lot as you have the right to ban people with pocketknives, people who carry pepper spray, people who carry flashlights, and people who wear white socks.

That some beady-eyed bloodsuckers got elected and decided guns are eeevil and must get special recognition under the law doesn't make it make sense or make it right.

 

[Redworm]

You have about as much right to ban people with guns from entering your store or parking lot as you have the right to ban people with pocketknives, people who carry pepper spray, people who carry flashlights, and people who wear white socks.

Exactly. While I certainly wouldn't agree with any of those stipulations I feel that a business owner has the right to ask anyone violating those stipulations to vacate the premesis. I agree that a business owner is expecting random people to come in and thus I'm not saying that one should simply have his security take down anyone found carrying...just that a business owner should have the right to say "I don't want a gun in my store, please leave or I will call the police." At that point the person has a choice to leave.

To be honest, the issue is not about the guns for me. It's the fact that I feel a business owner should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Even if those reason are for race, age, religion, or whatever. I may not agree with them but I feel a business owner has the right to do business with the people of his or her choice.

 

[Pointer]

The signs may be there for lawsuit protection in case a 'banger or a robber kills someone and the victim wants to sue the property owner's. :barf:


The sign's may be there only for the criminals...


I will carry where I will carry...
"They" won't know unless I pull it...
and that will be for good reason.
At that point I won't give a...
care.

 

[Hal]

How is this legal? In ohio you can carry a gun in your car even in city owned parking lots(court houses etc...), even without a permit as long as it's in your trunk and unloaded.

Operative there being City owned parking lot.

Try finding out who owns the property and who that owner has ties to.

In Ohio, the ties usually lead back to Forest City Enterprises (the Ratner's) or Howard Metzenbaum.
Those two own most of Ohio. Literally. If they don't own it outright, they have major funds invested in it.

Neither have a great deal of respect for "legal".


Meek -
"Lemme see Brady A rated states:

Kansas, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin."

Ohio has a D minus rating now, not an A.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Why do I, as a property owner, lose my right to decide who can and can't come onto my property just because I run a business?

If it's your private property where visitors are not expected; if it's your home; if it's your private office... do whatever you'd like. Require visitors to wear Munch Scream masks and perform ritual goat sacrifices. Require them to drink spiked cool-aid before entering -- as long as you disclose the contents. I don't care.

If it's open to the public, you as a business owner really don't have a leg to stand on. If you expect random people to walk in off the street to buy something, or to browse because they're bored or they're killing time, you really have no right to demand that they leave their guns at the door (as if you could enforce that anyway).

So I have the right to do whatever I'd like on my own property -- as long as I disclose what is expected of my guests in advance and as long as it is legal. Okay. I've decided that I won't allow people who are wearing socks with sandals onto my property and I've posted it as such.

Q1: If I have some friends over to visit, do I have the right to ask them to leave if they wear socks with sandals?
Q2: If I have a yard sale, do I still have that right?
Q3: If I sell bird houses out of my garage (and I get a vendor's license from the county to keep it legal), do I still have that right?
Q4: If I get a zoning variance, incorporate and sell birdhouses out of my garage as a part-time business, do I still have that right?

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. At what point do I lose my property rights?

 

[MissFlippedPrimer]

My theory

I have a theory about proprietors and store managers that post “no guns allowed” or similar signs.

It is the owner’s right to prohibit firearms – I don’t question that. However, if anyone prohibits me from using deadly force to protect myself on his/her property, then isn’t that property owner assuming ALL responsibility for my health and welfare? Think about it. If you take away my ability to protect myself, then YOU are responsible for my protection. And especially if you do nothing to ENFORCE your own “no firearms” rule, such as metal detectors, etc.

I have even considered carrying a few copies of a “Notice” stating exactly what I just posted above so I could hand it out to any store managers who had “no firearms” signs up.

Well, that’s my theory. I would love to run this by a lawyer.

 

[wayneinFL]

A property owner can and should have rights to allow whoever he wants in and out of his property. That's the way it should be. Stupid rule, but with no shirt you can't get into most businesses, even though you have a right to walk the street without a shirt. Why not disallow guns? It's just a stupid rule by an ignorant businessman. He has every right to do what he wants whether it's stupid or not.

That said, as long as there's no teeth in it, I still carry concealed. Who's going to know? If they find out and ask me to leave, then I leave. Another paying customer leaves the store never to buy anything there again.

 

[Redworm]

Think about it. If you take away my ability to protect myself, then YOU are responsible for my protection.

I would disagree because it's still your choice whether or not to walk onto that property.

The "notice" sign is a great idea. I wonder if that would ever work...

 

[Low Key]

What about my employer?

I started to post another thread about this, but my question is so close to this topic I'll ask here. I live and work in Tennnessee and my employer has a "no Firearms" policy, no weapons on company property or you will be fired-no questions asked. They also say that they have the right to search my vehicle at any time for any reason and if I refuse-I'm fired on the spot.
Is this legal? Isn't this illegal search and seizure? I understand what has been said in this discussion about property owners being able to declare "no firearms", but for a private company to be able to search my vehicle at will with no probable cause kinda rubs me the wrong way. Granted there have been no vehicle searches at work...yet, but management has made the statement in the past that they might just search someones vehicle at random as an example to other employees. Could I legally tell them to stick it and have legs to stand on in court, or do I actually have to allow them to invade my privacy whenever they take a notion to do so?

I'm not trying to steal your thread, but this is so close to your subject I just had to ask...

 

[tyme]

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. At what point do I lose my property rights?

You should lose some property rights when you open your private property to the public. Some of those losses are in current law. Others (e.g. loss of the right to ban firearms) are not in the law but should be.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Lemme see Brady A rated states:

Kansas, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin.

This was a classic gun double standard comment that says a lot about what is going on in this thread. Just because the property owners in Ohio have the right preclude guns on their property, the state gets listed in bold face as a Brady state.

This really isn't a gun issue. Those who control (own or lease) private property have rights about what goes on on their property, not just with guns. The rights of a visitor to the property do not supercede the rights of the property owner/lessor.

However, if anyone prohibits me from using deadly force to protect myself on his/her property, then isn’t that property owner assuming ALL responsibility for my health and welfare? Think about it. If you take away my ability to protect myself, then YOU are responsible for my protection. And especially if you do nothing to ENFORCE your own “no firearms” rule, such as metal detectors, etc.

I just love this one. This is the cry of the poor, pitiful, defeatest gun owners who apparently are so poorly prepared that without a gun, they lose all other ability to protect themselves. They apparently have never considered any other option to protecting themselves and so become complete victims, unable to do anything. I poke fun at these people because they claim they are unable to protect themselves without a gun, but whether they are precluded from having a gun by law (not allowed on somebody else's property), their gun ceases to function, or they forget their gun, the result would be the same, being reduced to nothing more than an unprepared victim. It is readily apparently that gun owners like these are just sheeple with guns. Take away the gun and then you just have sheeple.

FYI, if a property owner precludes you from bringing a gun onto his/her property, the property owner is NOT assuming all responsibility for your safety and the property owner has NOT precluded you from using lethal force or defending yourself. Basically, the property owner is no more or less liable for your safety versus the unarmed public versus whether or not the owner allows you to carry on his property. The property owner has not stopped you from using lethal force, only one type of lethal force, guns.

 

[Zekewolf]

DoubleNaught: I agree with most of your sentiments; however, I'd have to say that a guy who brings his fists or a knife to a gunfight just because somebody posted a sign is a "sheeple"...and a stupid sheeple at that. There is no preparation that'll gird you against a flying bullet.

 

[MissFlippedPrimer]

Double Naught Spy,

Forgive me, but I still think that I might be right from a “legal” standpoint, which was all I was trying to discuss.

Now, whether or not I am one of those “poor, pitiful, defeatest gun owners who apparently are so poorly prepared that without a gun, they lose all other ability to protect themselves”, is another discussion altogether.

 

[tyme]

I just love this one. This is the cry of the poor, pitiful, defeatest gun owners who apparently are so poorly prepared that without a gun, they lose all other ability to protect themselves.

Or perhaps they realize that some people are incapable of effectively defending themselves without a handgun, at least against certain violent crimes. Perhaps they also realize that the risk of defending oneself generally increases without a handgun... and in certain situations, the risk of getting hurt defending yourself without a handgun is greater than the risk of getting hurt if you do nothing. That is the point.

If a property owner changes the dynamics such that the risk of doing nothing is less than or about the same as the risk of trying to defend yourself, and you do nothing and still get hurt, why should the property owner be immune from liability?

 

[mvpel]

Sounds like Ohio needs to enact Alan Korwin's "Gun Free Zone Liability Act" law - it makes anyone who posts a "no guns" sign or otherwise communicates a "no guns" message liable for a certain list of criminal attacks that a reasonable person would conclude could have been prevented or defended against if the individual had had a firearm.

Check out the details on gunlaws.com.

 

[k_dawg]

in florida, the signs would have no legal merit. Sure, they can post them. But, if you are caught with a firearm, there is nothing legal they can do, other than to ask you to leave.

If you then refuse to leave, you are guilty of tresspassing.

 

[MissFlippedPrimer]

Thanks, mvpel, for the information (and link) regarding Alan Korwin's "Gun Free Zone Liability Act" law. I had no idea this type of legislation had been proposed anywhere……..

 

[mvpel]

I think one of my friends may be proposing it here in New Hampshire this session, though I'm not sure.