While I assume you could try and make this a “test case” I respectfully ask why you would want to. At the end of the day doesn’t this come down to private property rights which to me are just as important as firearm rights. If I own a business it should be my decision on whether firearms are allowed and the Government should not be involved in that decision. A lot of what we discuss on this forum is associated with personal freedom and attempting to force a private property owner to change their policy seems to go against that.
Jared's Jewelry Store
- Thread starter stargazer65
- Start date
- Status
While I assume you could try and make this a “test case” I respectfully ask why you would want to. At the end of the day doesn’t this come down to private property rights which to me are just as important as firearm rights. If I own a business it should be my decision on whether firearms are allowed and the Government should not be involved in that decision. A lot of what we discuss on this forum is associated with personal freedom and attempting to force a private property owner to change their policy seems to go against that.
BarryLee, the point is not to force a store owner to allow firearms, but to force the creators of "gun free zones" to have full accountability for all the people who obey their rules.
If you want me to change my routine on your property, great, but actions and choices have consequences. If you wish to take away my ability to defend myself, you should assume responsibility for my defense.
If you want me to change my routine on your property, great, but actions and choices have consequences. If you wish to take away my ability to defend myself, you should assume responsibility for my defense.
oneounceload
Moderator
Wrong.
First the odds of anything happening are less than you getting hit by lightning.
Secondly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, NO ONE is forcing you go do business with them - either in their store or any where else.
You are FREE to go someplace else, and according to their customer studies, as mentioned above, would rather see you do exactly that
Again, as already mentioned you do not have to go into that business and are free to buy similar products from other establishment. Look I am not defending these policies, but it is their decision and I will take my business elsewhere. At the end of the day we may have a difference of opinion on what constitutes personal freedom and I respect your right to disagree with me.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
We have done this before - many times.
Let me summarize:
1. We have the battle of two rights.
2. The right to protect yourself
3. The rights of a property owner.
4. The latter are not inviolate. Health rules and civil rights protection show that in our society, what is seen as the great good overtakes the property owner of a business open to the public to be king or queen of the castle.
5. You may disagree with that.
6. Some folks argue that civil rights protection is based on a protected class. Some argue that carrying a gun for self-protection should have the same status for class protection as race, religion, gender, etc. You may disagree.
7. The argument that you can go elsewhere is not always practical, depending on locale.
8. The use of store bans is promoted by the Brady folks as a method to make carry impractical and discourage it.
That's it folks. I'm on the side of gun rights trumping property rights if you open for business to the general public. My call on the battle of rights. Life trumps your property. You don't have to have a business open to the public, just as folks say you don't have to go there.
Let me summarize:
1. We have the battle of two rights.
2. The right to protect yourself
3. The rights of a property owner.
4. The latter are not inviolate. Health rules and civil rights protection show that in our society, what is seen as the great good overtakes the property owner of a business open to the public to be king or queen of the castle.
5. You may disagree with that.
6. Some folks argue that civil rights protection is based on a protected class. Some argue that carrying a gun for self-protection should have the same status for class protection as race, religion, gender, etc. You may disagree.
7. The argument that you can go elsewhere is not always practical, depending on locale.
8. The use of store bans is promoted by the Brady folks as a method to make carry impractical and discourage it.
That's it folks. I'm on the side of gun rights trumping property rights if you open for business to the general public. My call on the battle of rights. Life trumps your property. You don't have to have a business open to the public, just as folks say you don't have to go there.
Law and Civil Rights
What might happen if you go into a store or onto private property with a concealed pistol that has posted a sign saying its a "gun free zone" or "no guns allowed"? Maybe somehow someone notices your carrying or suspects it. Other than asking you to leave, what can they do? Have you committed a crime?
What might happen if you go into a store or onto private property with a concealed pistol that has posted a sign saying its a "gun free zone" or "no guns allowed"? Maybe somehow someone notices your carrying or suspects it. Other than asking you to leave, what can they do? Have you committed a crime?
Carry_24/7
New member
While I was not vocal about it, in Texas, I avoided private businesses as much as possible that posted the legal "no gun" sign (in Dallas, theres a load of them). Now, here in Florida, I don't have to worry about it as much because the "no carry" list is extremely short.
I park across the street to pick my kids up from school, and I go to my local UPS store to mail items instead of the USPS. I believe we're such a minority that a boycott by us CCers wouldn't even be noticed....so it's a personal, quiet action of my own, for my own convenience.
I park across the street to pick my kids up from school, and I go to my local UPS store to mail items instead of the USPS. I believe we're such a minority that a boycott by us CCers wouldn't even be noticed....so it's a personal, quiet action of my own, for my own convenience.
Just because it would not be noticed, does not mean it should not be done..... patronize businesses that respect you, it's the right thing to do. If they think they have any business with anything under my clothing, then they are disrespecting my rights of privacy.
I like the copies of recipts spent elsewhere idea ..... that would get more notice.
zincwarrior
New member
In Texas there are requirements to be legally valid: specific statutory language; specific minimum size; and in both ENlgish and Spanish (IIRC on the last one). Some CHL'ers will ignore an invalid sign, others will not patronize such.
I can understand a jewelry store and a bank due to exigent circumstances. I also don't frequent the insides of those locations often. Frankly if you're gong into a jewelry store your wallet is already about to die...
Micropterus
New member
I think it's a little humorous in that you have to be on the land or in the parking lot to even see the sign. By then, you are in violation. Maybe they ought to put it in a sign near the street so people can see it before they even turn into their parking lot.
Carry_24/7
New member
Jim; I agree, it should be done, but who will start\lead it? It's way easy to talk about such things...action is another. I Live in Florida now, where private businesses by law can't post no carry....
Carry 24/7 - were those places in texas legitimate 30.06 postings or just some kinkos printed sign? lived in texas and florida, i pay no mind to illegitimate postings. Figure if im somewhere and am forced to use a gun id be happy to face any issues arriving afterwards as to why i ignored a kinkos cardboard sign vs ending up dead.
zincwarrior
New member
Nope, its no good. Here's a better example
http://www.practicaltacticaltraining.com/texas-sign-guide/
http://www.practicaltacticaltraining.com/texas-sign-guide/
Herr Walther
New member
If it's really concealed, how will they know it's there?
Or, as has been said, shop somewhere else.
Only one state has no problems with signs yet...with the exception of Jared's. Apparently.
Or, as has been said, shop somewhere else.
Only one state has no problems with signs yet...with the exception of Jared's. Apparently.
Carry_24/7
New member
Ramit; legit signs....
I (still) respectfully disagree. My property, my rules. You don't have a right to enter my business simply because it's open to the public. "No Shirt, No Shoes: No Service" is pretty universally understood, how is "No Shirt, No Shoes, a Gun: No Service" that different? Simply because I'm open to the public doesn't mean I have to accept anything and everything that comes along.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is valid, as long as it's not based on race, color, religion, or natural origin. Self protection is not at this time considered a protected class. Maybe someday, but not today.
Suppose that Jared's arms and trains all of it's employees, and that while you're browsing for a Valentine's gift for the Mrs someone comes in waving a gun. You pull your ccw to protect yourself, but now you've become another potential bad guy. Could you fault the sales clerk for putting you down as well?
Prof Young
New member
A little lost here . . .
So, when a store posts a sign like this one, does it have the effect of law? If a person does "carry" into a Jared's are they breaking the law? Can a business legally enforce a gun restriction? This seems like a form of discrimination not much different than saying left-handed people aren't allowed in the store either.
So, when a store posts a sign like this one, does it have the effect of law? If a person does "carry" into a Jared's are they breaking the law? Can a business legally enforce a gun restriction? This seems like a form of discrimination not much different than saying left-handed people aren't allowed in the store either.
carguychris
New member
Let me give some more specific information on what various posters have said regarding "No Gun" signs in TX.
A business that doesn't sell liquor for on-premise consumption (more on this in a minute..) is required to post a sign meeting the requirements of TX Penal Code Sec. 30.06 in order to prohibit a CHL holder from entering the premises with a concealed handgun.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/signposting.htm
Other signage, including the generic "Gunbuster" sticker, does not carry the force of law to a legal CHL holder in TX.
Once inside the premises, a CHL holder is required to leave or disarm upon receiving verbal or written communication that guns are prohibited. However, in practice, this is a de facto "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. How often have you walked into a store and immediately had a clerk ask you "Excuse me, sir (or ma'am), are you carrying a concealed handgun?"
As I wrote in another recent thread (that I can't seem to find right now... hmmph), I have never seen a legal Sec. 30.06 sign posted at any DFW-area business; the only places I've ever seen them have been major hospitals and a couple of municipal buildings.
If the business serves alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption and derives more than 51% of its revenue from such sales, CHL holders are not supposed to enter the business with a concealed handgun; no 30.06 sign is required. Such businesses are supposed to post a prominent "51%" sign near the entrance to comply with the TX Alcoholic Beverage Code (ABC). Fortunately, 51% businesses are uncommon due to all the other regulatory hurdles required to comply with the TX ABC; business owners will go to great lengths to avoid this classification. Very, very few sit-down restaurants qualify, and many dance halls and live music venues skirt the regulations by charging high cover fees and selling cheap drinks.
oneounceload
Moderator
It is not legal discrimination because it is not one of the "protected" classes as are race, gender, etc.
I agree with WyMark - property rights trump here, and have since this country's founding - one of the major reasons.
I agree with WyMark - property rights trump here, and have since this country's founding - one of the major reasons.
- Status