Open carry confrontations

[Icemanii]

Being that their business is on federal land, the law of that land applies in my opinion. Once the shop owner dies and there is nobody left to leave the business to, where does the shop and its land go to? The government. They are only renting. Even if they buy.

So does that apply to your home as well? Anyone who wishes can just make up their own rules? Sorry, still disagree on making your own rules on others property, even if they are only leasing/renting it. If you really think that applies, have you tried to OC at say a court house or a federal building where they state no weapons allowed?

 

[kerb]

What does honesty have to do with anything?

Seriously?
That statement speaks volumes about your character.

They are requesting I do not go into their establishment without my weapon. I respectfully deny that request because there is no law in place which states I am unable to do so. If they don't see my weapon, then I continue with my business. If they do see it, they can ask me to leave at which point I am obligated to which I will immediately. It's not like I'm stealing from them. They asked me to not come in armed. My answer is no

In point of fact if you were in my state, signs carry force of law. AND if you are entering someone's private property (not sure whether a business applies here), you are prohibited by law to carry a firearm, sign or no sign, without the property owner's explicit permission.

Legality aside, you are willfully disrespecting the owner's wishes. You aren't answering "no". You are sneaking. You can say "I respectfully.." all you want... but when you act to the contrary the word is meaningless.

 

[Rocketgeezer]

I have stated several times I do not open carry so to speak but I do not put a lot into concealment ether, last weekend for instince, a S&W 686 4 in barrel on my left side, a full size 1911 on my right, with a t-shirt pulled over them, (we are not req to conceal but were advised to in permit class) thats about as concealed as I get, one thing about open carry or not concealing well is ladies wont let there PITA ankle bitters near you in the checkout line at wally world,...........LOL

 

[Icemanii]

You know what I was saying. In the context that it was brought to me, it is not a question of honesty. So don't misquote or purposefully omit sections in an attempt to make me look bad. That is how the mainstream media does its business. Signs do not carry the weight of the law in my state. So I am following the law. As far as going into someone's home, of course I wouldn't enter while armed. But I wouldn't be around people if they don't agree with the second. If I need something for a store and they have a sign up requesting me to not be armed, guess what? They don't respect the Constitution so I don't have to respect their request for me to not practice my Constitutionally guaranteed right.

But doesn't the right to bear arms go both ways? I look at rights as just that, rights. Your right ends where mine begins. Because someone CHOOSES for whatever reason to have their personal business gun free, is just that, their right. To say you don't have to respect their requests on their property is self-centered and in some states, illegal.

The only rights you have in that instance are, if you choose to continue to exercise your right to carry, to exercise your right to shop/visit elsewhere. There is nothing that a store would carry that you could not also find at another store, who allowed you to carry.

Now I just have to figure out if you are playing the devil's advocate, being argumentative or are really that self-centered as to believe you don't have to respect others and their beliefs in their own stores/property.

 

[kwimby]

Given that no one making such claims against those who OC can know the true intent and character of those who do OC...

You see, this is the the root problem in this issue, and the reason why the bad apples always get outed, causing so much consternation for everyone else: It's not about YOU. Nobody cares. It's about the public and their perceptions, right or wrong. YOU don't matter in the larger scheme of things. Get over yourself.

...their tactic backfired and now they can't do it at all. That is the product of some of
the idiotic mindsets of some of the folks here.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Exercising a right is not shoving it down others' throats.

But it "can" be. And those few bad apples whether they are isolated incidents, or groups of stupid idiots in CA ruin it for everyone else. So now you're labelled. Here's your sign.

I agree, but it's too bad that is usually a concealed carrier who comes online to complain about open carrying, not the other way around...

Because some recognize the fact that we're already on the slippery slope - some people either refuse to recognize it or willfully not give a damn about it.

...like those people that don't like the sight of my gun could just go somewhere
else....

Too bad for you there's alot more of them than there are of you.

What you are saying is that it is ok for a person to carry concealed. But it isn't ok for that same person to carry openly.

What a rational person will say is it is wise to consider who, what, where, when and why they carry the way they do in any particular situation. Making blanket claims they subscribe to under all conditions regardless of common sense seems to be the other viewpoint.

Your right ends where mine begins.

Not for OC'ers. This concept is incomprehensible to them for some reason.

 

[Bikenut]

Totally agree. I know they're trying to make a statement, but I think they're going about it all wrong. There was an incident where some guys thought it was a good idea to open carry at a library and walked into the children's book area. Of course the police were called and it became a huge problem. Now there's a ban on carrying in libraries. So much for that smart move.

If you are referencing the Central Area District Library vs Michigan Open Carry case... where the library banned guns....

That case went to the Michigan Appellate Court and the court ruled the library can't ban guns. And that ruling can be read here: (the last two paragraphs are most pertinent.)

Link Removed

Now.... the library had a gun ban policy before it went to court... and after it went to court the District Court ruled the library could ban guns.. but the Appellate Court overturned that ruling... which means..

First the library banned guns... then gun owners called their bluff... the first court upheld the library but that decision was overturned upon appeal... and now the library can't ban guns.

But... please understand...

That until it went to court the library could still ban guns! all guns both open and concealed and there wasn't any way to stop them from doing so.

Now.. I've seen many responses in this thread where folks are basically saying (paraphrased)... "Don't open carry... it will only offend people and rock the boat" or "Only those who are insecure and have teeny weenies are rocking the boat wanting to show how big a bad arse they are open carrying."

But... if no one had decided the right to bear arms is not only more important than the "feelings" of some who might be offended but also had the fortitude to stand up, rock the boat, and challenge the library... the library would still be banning guns. So exactly how would concealed carry have made any progress happen with that situation?

 

[Bikenut]

What I find incomprehensible is the idea that in order to protect the right to bear arms one must hide the right to bear arms using the infringement upon the right to bear arms of government permission called a concealed carry permit.

That dang permit is NOT the right to bear arms but is the exact opposite! It is the government infringing upon the right by being in control of who is and, more importantly, who ISN'T "allowed" to bear a concealed arm.

So those who decry open carry but tout concealed carry with a permit are arguing in favor of the government being in control of the privilege of having.. government permission. Which is... government gun control.

Something else that is gun control... deciding not to exercise the right to bear arms for fear others might be "offended". That is people allowing their own fear of the opinion of others to be... gun control. Who needs gun control laws if all that is needed is a populace afraid of "offending" and are willing to hide their gun rights just so they will "fit in" with everyone?

 

[Bikenut]

No, I'm just playing devils advocate. Like I said in my previous post, the law of the land supersedes the requests of a business owner. It is not our right to carry and bear arms, it is our duty. In Vermont, the governor wants to have people who do not arm themselves register with the state so as to tax them money each month for not fulfilling their Constitutional obligation. If the government wanted that business to start making guns for a war, guess what? They would have to comply because in the end, that business is sitting on taxpayer land. I, being said taxpayer reserve the right and duty to bear arms at all times be it at or against the request of a business owner.

Please cite and/or link to any sources, Constitutional or legal, that supports your claim that you, as a taxpayer, have the right and duty to bear arms at all times be it at or against the request of a business owner.

I'm not being a smart arse... I sincerely am interested in reading where that can be found.

 

[NavyLCDR]

What I find incomprehensible is the idea that in order to protect the right to bear arms one must hide the right to bear arms using the infringement upon the right to bear arms of government permission called a concealed carry permit.

That dang permit is NOT the right to bear arms but is the exact opposite! It is the government infringing upon the right by being in control of who is and, more importantly, who ISN'T "allowed" to bear a concealed arm.

So those who decry open carry but tout concealed carry with a permit are arguing in favor of the government being in control of the privilege of having.. government permission. Which is... government gun control.

Something else that is gun control... deciding not to exercise the right to bear arms for fear others might be "offended". That is people allowing their own fear of the opinion of others to be... gun control. Who needs gun control laws if all that is needed is a populace afraid of "offending" and are willing to hide their gun rights just so they will "fit in" with everyone?

Hear, hear!

Link Removed

 

[Bikenut]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that federal law supersedes any privately owned businesses. Just like in California where they legalized weed for medical purposes. The Feds still had the right to come in and shut down those business for violating federal law. There are many codes out there in regards to this. I'd love to look them up and paste them here for you. But if I can look them up, so can you.

WRONG! You said it.. you stand behind what you said.

I didn't ask about federal law superceding anything.. you said...

No, I'm just playing devils advocate. Like I said in my previous post, the law of the land supersedes the requests of a business owner. It is not our right to carry and bear arms, it is our duty. In Vermont, the governor wants to have people who do not arm themselves register with the state so as to tax them money each month for not fulfilling their Constitutional obligation. If the government wanted that business to start making guns for a war, guess what? They would have to comply because in the end, that business is sitting on taxpayer land. I, being said taxpayer reserve the right and duty to bear arms at all times be it at or against the request of a business owner.

I asked...

Please cite and/or link to any sources, Constitutional or legal, that supports your claim that you, as a taxpayer, have the right and duty to bear arms at all times be it at or against the request of a business owner.

I'm not being a smart arse... I sincerely am interested in reading where that can be found.

You said it... You do the research.. you find the links... YOU substantiate your statements with facts.

Failure to do so relegates your statements to unsubstantiated opinion... and... deserving no more credibility than any other opinion... and you do know what is often said about opinions... correct?

I surely hope you do not hide behind the childish tactic of making a statement and then expecting others to do your work for you..... I really do hope you

man up and provide cites and/or links.

But I strongly suspect I'll be listening to the deafening sound of ...

crickets.

 

[Firefighterchen]

It's amazing they don't say a word about open carry in the academy. I've been the through two, about to go through a third. Air Force police academy, Detroit police academy and soon to be a city of Louisiana police academy. Both the Air Force and Detroit said nothing about open carriers. I had to find out for myself.

Ignorance is no excuse. So they are not taught the law? And?

Being that their business is on federal land, the law of that land applies in my opinion. Once the shop owner dies and there is nobody left to leave the business to, where does the shop and its land go to? The government. They are only renting. Even if they buy.

There is a difference between federal land, state land, and private land. Everything is NOT federal land. Federal LAW is different.

Seriously?
That statement speaks volumes about your character.


In point of fact if you were in my state, signs carry force of law. AND if you are entering someone's private property (not sure whether a business applies here), you are prohibited by law to carry a firearm, sign or no sign, without the property owner's explicit permission.

Legality aside, you are willfully disrespecting the owner's wishes. You aren't answering "no". You are sneaking. You can say "I respectfully.." all you want... but when you act to the contrary the word is meaningless.

Couldn't agree more. Then again, he doesn't believe that disobeying a sign is disrespectful no matter how disrespectful it is.

What they don't know won't hurt them. Only help them if someone comes into said business with intentions to do harm upon the business owners or its patrons.

Yes, we all got it. You don't know what respect is. You claim "logic and reason" as a facade to just how disrespectful you are, good for you

LOL ROFL @ kwimby's post and everyone's lack of interest in anything he has to say.

 

[Bikenut]

You said...

No, I'm just playing devils advocate. Like I said in my previous post, the law of the land supersedes the requests of a business owner. It is not our right to carry and bear arms, it is our duty. In Vermont, the governor wants to have people who do not arm themselves register with the state so as to tax them money each month for not fulfilling their Constitutional obligation. If the government wanted that business to start making guns for a war, guess what? They would have to comply because in the end, that business is sitting on taxpayer land. I, being said taxpayer reserve the right and duty to bear arms at all times be it at or against the request of a business owner.

And note that nowhere did you qualify anything as being your "opinion" so, seeking clarification, I asked:

Please cite and/or link to any sources, Constitutional or legal, that supports your claim that you, as a taxpayer, have the right and duty to bear arms at all times be it at or against the request of a business owner.

I'm not being a smart arse... I sincerely am interested in reading where that can be found.

And now you responded with...

I'm not here to prove anything to you. If you are interested, look it up yourself. Maybe if more people practiced reading and researching, they would see I am right.

Comment in blue added by me...

Maybe if more people were to man up and stand behind their statements with facts there wouldn't be so much BS spread around.

I really don't care what you think of my opinions or weather you think they are fact or not. Were not in a court room here. You can judge me all day. But at the end of the day, I will walk into any business I want, sign or not, armed at all times. Why? Because I can. Because that is my choice to disregard the shop owners wishes. And from his point of view I am not armed. So what's the difference? Like I said from the get go, what they see won't hurt them. If that makes me a disrespectful *******, I say so be it and thank you for your judgement. But again, I really don't care what you think of me so it doesn't matter. Crickets......

What I understand from your post is that since your statements have been challenged you are now saying your statements are your opinion.

As I suspected you have no proof... you got... nothing.... to back up your statements. But it is painfully obvious you will attempt to avoid, evade, and deflect, any responsibility to stand by your statements.

And as far as I am concerned your failure to stand behind your statements with facts and by attempting to deflect the responsibility to provide those facts onto others... you Sir.. have destroyed your own credibility and your future posts will be looked upon from that perspective.

And I do believe the portion of your post above that I put in bold for emphasis speaks volumes concerning your attitude about other people's rights.

-snip-
But at the end of the day, I will walk into any business I want, sign or not, armed at all times. Why? Because I can. Because that is my choice to disregard the shop owners wishes.-snip-

It would also appear that you think the rights of others are secondary to whatever you want to do so you have no problem sneaking a gun into places property owners don't want them. I've seen that "Hooray for MY rights and screw yours!" attitude many times before and it is always extremely unimpressive.

Have a nice day....

 

[Icemanii]

Going to fully agree with Bikernut, showing total disrespect for others, especially on THEIR property is a poor choice at best. As stated, if you don't like their policies, you are fully within your right to shop/patronize somewhere else. To blatantly disregard someone else’s rules/policies on their property is not how we gain the support and understanding from the non-gun citizens among us. If anything, it will only feed the stereotype mentality that many have to those who exercise their rights under the 2nd amendment.

 

[Bikenut]

If you don't feel it is your duty to bear arms at all times except when forbidden by the law, then why do you carry a weapon? I'm not out there or here to disrespect anyone. Simply stated, if there is no law behind a business owner telling me I cannot bear arms in his place of business, then I don't feel my duty as a citizen should be up for debate at the wishes of a person who wishes to deprive me of my duty. I have no respect for anyone who does not respect the rights of theirs countries citizens. My opinion.

LOL!!! So you say it is your opinion that you will disrespect the property owner's right to ban your gun.... yet have no respect for anyone who does not respect the rights of others?

And yes, there is a law that stands behind the property owner's right to make the rules on/in his property... it's called the "trespass laws" that puts the force of law behind any legal rule (and the property owner's rule banning guns IS a legal rule) the owner might have because anyone who disobeys the rules gets thrown out of/off of the property... or arrested for not leaving.

In short...

The trespass law is the law that stands behind the property owner's rule forbidding carrying a gun.

 

[kwimby]

LOL ROFL @ kwimby's post...

Most people are smart enough to use smilies and just click the "like" button.

LOL is soooo 90's, dude. As are your viewpoints on open carry and other troglodyte mannerisms.

 

[Warbirds]

Most people are smart enough to use smilies and just click the "like" button.

LOL is soooo 90's, dude. As are your viewpoints on open carry and other troglodyte mannerisms.

Thanks... for a long time we have had a need for a teenage girl to instruct us on current internet forum behavior.

Do your parents know you are on the internet taking to adults?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[kwimby]

Thanks... for a long time we have had a need for a teenage girl to instruct us on current internet forum behavior.

Do your parents know you are on the internet taking to adults?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

...or simply not respond unless they have something useful to contribute.

Then there are the real losers who just like to insult people. Sheeesh.

 

[kwimby]

It is my opinion that I have no respect for those who do not honor my rights.
Bit of a difference there.

Well, you know what they say about opinions.

The real difference here is when, after the court of public opinion convicts OC'ers being guilty of brandishing their rights holstered on their hip like an ersatz phallus to the affront of society and we all lose the right to carry any way at all.

 

[Warbirds]

...or simply not respond unless they have something useful to contribute.

Then there are the real losers who just like to insult people. Sheeesh.

How did your post contribute other than to insult chen?

Hypocrite teenage troglodite.

Idiots deserve the attention they receive.



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Icemanii]

Well, you know what they say about opinions.

The real difference here is when, after the court of public opinion convicts OC'ers being guilty of brandishing their rights holstered on their hip like an ersatz phallus to the affront of society and we all lose the right to carry any way at all.

This sentence with it's attempt at using the cool big words give me a headache.