lets say you are CCW in a business with no carry allowed

Getting rid of the King was a novel idea at one time. The FF came up with a new idea for its time. I think in this matter there is a conflict of rights and I go for the SD rights when you invite the public to your business. I would pass appropriate laws and amend the Constitution to reflect that if need be. The Constitution had an amendment process to take care of such later good ideas - not banning alcohol though. :D
 
Glenn, one question - where in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or any other original source does it distinguish between personal and commercial property? Near as I can tell, it doesn't. That's the crux of my argument - that this distinction is a modernist invention that the Founders wouldn't recognize or acknowledge.
 
I'm sorry - as I said before, it might be a modernist invention in your terms. That is not a problem to me. Our views of rights have expanded since the FF walked the Earth.

Commercial property is not immune to changing expansion of rights. It used to be OK for a commercial enterprise to discriminate based on race and religion. It's not anymore. Fine with me.

If the argument is that a view of rights doesn't evolve, I don't agree with that. As our views of rights are part of the evolving social contract, the limits of the past made need to change.

One can disagree. I am not one for just accepting authority as giving us immutable principles. Rights can be expanded as our social conscience changes. Instantiating more SD rights is an area where I want that to happen.

But the day is over for me. Check in tomorrow for this old debate. :D
 
Personally speaking, I would not argue with the business owner, for as a practical matter, since I would not patronize such a business, the opportunity or need for "discussion" would not arise.

The proprietor can presumably post their business, that's their choice, just as I can exercise my choice concerning where I will, or won't, spend my money.
 
In the example provided, he is in a place of Business with no carry allowed. Businesses are privately owned and privately regulated. If you are caught carrying a weapon into a place that does not allow it, and you are not brandishing, or causing a criminal disturbance of the peace, the worst thing that could happen is that they ask you to leave.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you're wrong, too.

In some states, the law stipulates specific penalties for ignoring a "No guns" sign, even if you haven't been detected and asked to leave verbally. Someone already mentioned the Texas 30.06 sign. In Texas, and some other states, the sign must meet very strict criteria to have the force of law but, if it meets those criteria, no additional request to leave is required.

Other states allow posting to have the force of law but don't stipulate the language or appearance of the sign.

And still other states don't say anything on the topic.

It's never a good idea to give blanket advice based on the law in ONE state.
 
Once, you do that - my opinion is that it is an easement of your property rights. Many differ on this.
Click to expand...
The debate breaks down to this:

  • Those of us who feel that private property rights take precedence
  • those who feel that the right to protect life takes precedence, and
  • those who really haven't thought either viewpoint through and just shout "concealed means concealed!"

I'm with the first group, but Glenn's made some very convincing arguments for the second view.

There may be times when one has to carry into a business that prohibits firearms. Banks (in areas where it is not illegal) are one such case. Where do we draw the line? I'm not sure.
 
Sorry, but you're wrong, too.

In some states, the law stipulates specific penalties for ignoring a "No guns" sign, even if you haven't been detected and asked to leave verbally. Someone already mentioned the Texas 30.06 sign. In Texas, and some other states, the sign must meet very strict criteria to have the force of law but, if it meets those criteria, no additional request to leave is required.

Other states allow posting to have the force of law but don't stipulate the language or appearance of the sign.

And still other states don't say anything on the topic.

It's never a good idea to give blanket advice based on the law in ONE state.
Click to expand...

That's why this followed 2 sentences later...
(I am not a lawyer)
Click to expand...

And the bad idea wouldn't be to give blanket advice; it would be to TAKE blanket advice from someone who DOES claim to know exactly the rules and regualtions involved.

Just sayin...

~LT
 
I am one of those that tend to ignore the No Firearms signs. Unless it's a government building/school I'm carrying. I do try to avoid those places but once in a while I have to go to one.

For those that disagree with me just ask Suzanna Hupp (google it) what she thinks about "No Firearms" signs. That story is the most influential in my decision to ignore the signs when possible.
 
It's a very simple equation for me, if they don't want me carrying (their decision) then they don't want my money (my decision).
Click to expand...

Most succinctly and adequately defined.

In other words....there it is. If you don't want me to carry in your business, you don't want my business.
 
For those that disagree with me just ask Suzanna Hupp (google it) what she thinks about "No Firearms" signs. That story is the most influential in my decision to ignore the signs when possible.
Click to expand...
Actually, the analogy is disingenuous. Luby's restaurant wasn't posted. Suzanna Hupp left the gun in her car because concealed carry was illegal in Texas at the time. The ban was from the state, not the business.

Now Texas has concealed carry, and businesses may elect to ban guns if they choose. The main difference is that citizens have a choice. If a restaurant bans guns, I can simply eat somewhere else. If it's a business I care about, then I make an attempt to convince the owner to change the policy.
 
Troublesome example, BamaBowtie

1) Concealed carry was not legal, at that time in Texas. Carrying anywhere would have been a crime.

2) Now that they have concealed permits, there's still no reason why Dr. Hupp would only be able to choose from restaurants that ban carry.

So the question is, why don't you just find restaurants and businesses that don't restrict carry, and deny your hard-earned cash to those that do?
 
Going from memory and some hearsay here, but a few years ago, a guy walked into a local Wal-Mart strapped, even though there was a sign on the door prohibiting firearms. The sign was covered up by the sliding door and not visible to the guy when he walked in.

As he stood in line at the photo counter, another man came in and jumped over the counter and began stabbing the clerk who was working the counter. The armed gentleman drew and fired, killing the attacker.

Wal-Mart had the balls to sue the guy for carrying illegally in the store but in the process, they drew a lot of bad press. Wal-Marts in this area no longer post that sign.

A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I went into a Flying Star cafe and had dessert. As we left, we saw their "No Firearms" sign. How we missed it going in is beyond me at this point because it wasn't hidden at all. But we would have had to spend a mountain of money to get off on that, regardless of the outcome.

--Wag--
 
At the risk of oversimplifying matters, the following comes to mind, regarding No Weapons Signs in a business establishment.

1. Would the proprietor be responsible for the safety of customers who, while abiding by his expressed wishes, he had posted a No Weapons Sign, were unarmed in his store, and were injured as a result of criminal action therein? Has this ever been setteled in any court? I'm not any sort of legal expert either.

2. That old adage about it being better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 comes to mind at this point.
 
Would the proprietor be responsible for the safety of customers who, while abiding by his expressed wishes, he had posted a No Weapons Sign, were unarmed in his store, and were injured as a result of criminal action therein?
Click to expand...
There's never been a successful case brought. I think we're a long way from being able to field one.

I imagine I'd have to prove that a) the owner's policy forbidding guns directly influenced the shooter's actions, and b) significantly reduced my ability to defend myself.
 
In Texas, as already mentioned, they have the 30.06 statute. If the business posts a sign that is pretty close to the correct signage, e.g. right verbage but maybe incorrect size or color, I don't take a chance (and I usually don't go in either, but that's actually never come up). Businesses with the "gunbuster" sign or simple text like "firearms prohibited" - I'm lookin at YOU, Cinemark - I just cruise right on in. The sign is legally meaningless. They won't know I am carrying unless the feces hits the oscillator anyway.
 
Not the best example I admit. Another thing to consider is the number of places that post these signs for insurance purposes. One of the few posted places I do go to is a jewelry store. I started my account years ago in another state, after moving down here I found the local store posted. None of the store's in Alabama were. I talked to the manager and told him up front I would not do business with them if they did not respect my right to self defense. He told me the sign was there because of the insurance company and told me to pay it no attention! One of my local gun shops has a no loaded weapons sign. Once he gets to know you a bit and feels comfortable with your safe handeling of firearms he doesn't mind if you carry in his shop.
 
I need a lawyers help on this but I have heard of a legal idea that is called "the law of greater good" or something like that. I could very well be wrong but it states something like; "if you break a lesser law (carrying in prohibited place) but by doing so you prevent or stop a bigger offense (murder) that the DA may decline to prosecute." Or something like that.

DISCLAIMER I am NOT a lawyer and are not offering legal advice. However, for purposes of the discussion and this seems relevant to the OP I put it out there.

A similiar legalism to this is one I actually heard in school where a burgular (committing a crime) broke in a house and discovered grisly evidence that a serial killer lived there, told police and his info produced search warrant that defendant tried to quash but could not even though the info was "discovered" during an illegal act.

My feeling is that in the OP presented whether to prosecute the gunnie would be a DA descretionary call?
 
csmsss said:
I consider this the height of arrogance and rudeness. You KNOW you are not welcome in an establishment with your firearm, yet choose to enter it anyway just because you think you can get away with it. I can tell you that you would never be welcome in my home.
Click to expand...

Since I'm so arrogant and rude, I could care less of what you think. ;) I don't care to visit your home either, thank you very much.

alan said:
At the risk of oversimplifying matters, the following comes to mind, regarding No Weapons Signs in a business establishment.

1. Would the proprietor be responsible for the safety of customers who, while abiding by his expressed wishes, he had posted a No Weapons Sign, were unarmed in his store, and were injured as a result of criminal action therein? Has this ever been setteled in any court? I'm not any sort of legal expert either.

2. That old adage about it being better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 comes to mind at this point.
Click to expand...

This is more along my line of thought. I personally believe that a "No Firearms Alllowed" sign is MUCH more likely to attract criminals. Is the business going to ensure my security? I don't believe so.
 
in SC you are possibly screwed..

if you..

Are somewhere you can legally be

have a proper CCW

stopping the comission of a violent crime

you are immune criminal or civil prosecution

Now.... if you use your pistol in a business that is banned(a sign, somewhere that serves alcohol, daycare, etc),, you are not immune to the prosecution...

More than likely you avoid ciminal charges,, but you are gonna get your ass sue'd off in a civil trial!

But, most signs do not meet the legal requirments set down by our state law enforcement division.. They must be a specific size, specific lettering, specific location,,, etc.. Most places have misplaced or mis-sized signs,, and you can ignore them!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top