Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?

[CharlesMorrison]

sneaking it in " drops you to a thugish level in my opinion.

Then a "thug" I will be.

I walk a fine line between "light & dark" as it is.

Link Removed

 

[kelcarry]

Who are you replying to?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Anyone who wants to read it and to the initial intent of the thread title.

Lots of wordsmithing on what the "ban" means both in its english definition/intent and legality---NO MEANS NO---Clear enough?

 

[BC1]

Your private property? But didn't you just argue that private property rights aren't important?

I think the point he misses is that the law deals with personal property much differently than real property. For example one can't use deadly force to sop someone from burning their TV but they can use deadly force to prevent the arson of their home. I think he believes private property and real property are equal. They aren't.

 

[jer85]

Mr. Morrison I believe I am on the watchlist .

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[AndeyHall]

Now that I see someone else doing it. It does come off pretty dang annoying. I'm gonna have to stop w my sporadic cap habit as well.

I was more or less just being sarcastic. I've never noticed it in your posts. But I was just trying to picture in my mind an emphasis on those words and it seemed kinda random. So I just felt compelled to comment.

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

I was more or less just being sarcastic. I've never noticed it in your posts. But I was just trying to picture in my mind an emphasis on those words and it seemed kinda random. So I just felt compelled to comment.

Yes and I got a good laugh out of it- and assure you I do suffer from sporadic caps affliction myself.

 

[firefighterguy]

I haven't made it through all 35 pages, but there is some really good info in here.

I live in a state where no weapons signs carry no weight with the law. I'll admit that before reading this thread I would still carry in these buildings. I'm man enough to admit my wrongs and see the fault in it now.

Respect goes a long ways with me and I sure would hate for someone to disobey my requests when entering my household.

Legally, I could still carry in these building. But out of respect for them I no longer will.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[whodat2710]

I haven't made it through all 35 pages, but there is some really good info in here.

I live in a state where no weapons signs carry no weight with the law. I'll admit that before reading this thread I would still carry in these buildings. I'm man enough to admit my wrongs and see the fault in it now.

Respect goes a long ways with me and I sure would hate for someone to disobey my requests when entering my household.

Legally, I could still carry in these building. But out of respect for them I no longer will.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

That is one option. Consider that you may be placing yourself (or family) in danger by frequenting these potential killing zones. The better option is to stop funding them with your patronage. I'd guess that a large percentage of the news reports on shootings (outside of Detroit, DC, Chicago, etc.) begin with how unimaginable it was that it could happen there...

 

[golddigger14s]

I haven't made it through all 35 pages, but there is some really good info in here.

I live in a state where no weapons signs carry no weight with the law. I'll admit that before reading this thread I would still carry in these buildings. I'm man enough to admit my wrongs and see the fault in it now.

Respect goes a long ways with me and I sure would hate for someone to disobey my requests when entering my household.

Legally, I could still carry in these building. But out of respect for them I no longer will.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Thank you for respecting these businesses, and "voting" with you dollars. I may not agree with their decision, but me, and my wallet will go somewhere else that does. I have only run across one place (in 5 years of OC) with an issue, but after posting my experience on their FB page, the owner said he would fix the issue. So I may know signs have no "legal" weight (in WA state), to me they have moral weight (although I have never seen one in WA).

 

[Shockwave]

If a friend or family member is deeply averse to firearms and doesn't want them in their home, then I'm happy to leave mine in the car safe. I respect their wishes. In fact, I'll generally leave my firearm stored when visiting any private domicile. In my experience, these are extraordinarily safe places. People giving you hospitality, letting you use their furniture, serving you food and drink - not a high-danger, high-risk environment. Unlikely that gun play will occur in the next hour or so. So respect, courtesy, that's all on the table.

When it comes to some bozo establishment like Jared's Jewelers or whatnot, there's no person involved. There's no respect issue at hand. It's not like the CEO or founder of the company has some deep, sincere opposition to the Second Amendment and has personally posted a "no handguns" sign on all his franchisee's stores. Nope. That's not the situation.

What's happening here is that the HR or legal department at the company's HQ has determined that legal liability for firearm accidents or casualties on their premises is greatly mitigated by the defensive posting of such signage. Look, let's take an example: AMC movie theaters. Some clown gets into an altercation (we had one in that popcorn-throwing incident) with another patron, a shot is fired. Maybe that bullet strikes the target, or maybe it hits somebody else downrange. Huge, massive legal liability for the theater owner, the chain, corporate, lots of people on the blame line who could potentially be sued for large sums of money.

A $1.25 sticker out front of the place is real cheap insurance. Gets everybody off the hook. They really don't care about you or your firearm or the Second Amendment. It's not about that. It's about legal liability for your conduct.

So. My eyesight isn't very good and to be honest, I just don't notice these signs anyplace I'm shopping. If I'm carrying concealed, nobody's going to notice that either.

 

[firefighterguy]

I agree completely about not funding the business with my patronage. I don't shop in places that have these signs if there is an alternative.

Where I live (Oklahoma) I don't run across these signs very often. They're mostly in chain stores that are found all over the country. Sometimes I can't avoid going in the places that have the signs. If I can, you better believe I'll take my business elsewhere!

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[johnknapp1962]

No..... and the reason is because the owners who have posted this sign have clearly indicated they do not want my business. Much like the signs that identified what color you must be to patron an establishment violating civil rights these anti gun signs violate the right of law abiding citizens to freely exercise their 2A right.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[BC1]

No..... and the reason is because the owners who have posted this sign have clearly indicated they do not want my business. Much like the signs that identified what color you must be to patron an establishment violating civil rights these anti gun signs violate the right of law abiding citizens to freely exercise their 2A right.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Yeah but a store can't violate your 2nd amendment rights. That's between you and the government. Bearing arms is not a civil right.

 

[BC1]

If a friend or family member is deeply averse to firearms and doesn't want them in their home, then I'm happy to leave mine in the car safe. I respect their wishes. In fact, I'll generally leave my firearm stored when visiting any private domicile. In my experience, these are extraordinarily safe places. People giving you hospitality, letting you use their furniture, serving you food and drink - not a high-danger, high-risk environment. Unlikely that gun play will occur in the next hour or so. So respect, courtesy, that's all on the table.

When it comes to some bozo establishment like Jared's Jewelers or whatnot, there's no person involved. There's no respect issue at hand. It's not like the CEO or founder of the company has some deep, sincere opposition to the Second Amendment and has personally posted a "no handguns" sign on all his franchisee's stores. Nope. That's not the situation.

What's happening here is that the HR or legal department at the company's HQ has determined that legal liability for firearm accidents or casualties on their premises is greatly mitigated by the defensive posting of such signage. Look, let's take an example: AMC movie theaters. Some clown gets into an altercation (we had one in that popcorn-throwing incident) with another patron, a shot is fired. Maybe that bullet strikes the target, or maybe it hits somebody else downrange. Huge, massive legal liability for the theater owner, the chain, corporate, lots of people on the blame line who could potentially be sued for large sums of money.

A $1.25 sticker out front of the place is real cheap insurance. Gets everybody off the hook. They really don't care about you or your firearm or the Second Amendment. It's not about that. It's about legal liability for your conduct.

So. My eyesight isn't very good and to be honest, I just don't notice these signs anyplace I'm shopping. If I'm carrying concealed, nobody's going to notice that either.

The sign isn't enough to absolve the company of all liability. Companies without a violence policy will generally pay more in premiums. But a law suit against a business who failed to protect customers has no traction as they're under no obligation to protect anyone, even though they ban firearms. Free will. No one must shop or work there. To date I've seen one sign in NY... at HSBC bank. Nowhere else. I don't understand why the gun grabber governor hasn't tried to enact legislation giving signs weight of law.

 

[Shockwave]

The sign isn't enough to absolve the company of all liability.

I'm no lawyer, so I can't say how much liability is absolved by such signage - just saying that I can understand how a major chain might decide such a policy is prudent. It has absolutely no effect on a concealed carry citizen, but it would act to deter the sort of high-jinx we saw with Texas Open Carry - a bunch of yahoos sporting shotguns and AKs and ARs walking into a store en mass. That's obviously a major liability and I can see the bean counters balking at the idea.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'm no lawyer, so I can't say how much liability is absolved by such signage - just saying that I can understand how a major chain might decide such a policy is prudent. It has absolutely no effect on a concealed carry citizen, but it would act to deter the sort of high-jinx we saw with Texas Open Carry - a bunch of yahoos sporting shotguns and AKs and ARs walking into a store en mass. That's obviously a major liability and I can see the bean counters balking at the idea.

I'd rather see a bunch of Yahoo's than a self centered push over concealed carrier who thinks only they should be respected as they wave their mommy flag.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

I'm no lawyer, so I can't say how much liability is absolved by such signage - just saying that I can understand how a major chain might decide such a policy is prudent. It has absolutely no effect on a concealed carry citizen, but it would act to deter the sort of high-jinx we saw with Texas Open Carry - a bunch of yahoos sporting shotguns and AKs and ARs walking into a store en mass. That's obviously a major liability and I can see the bean counters balking at the idea.

Are you aware that what you have called "high-jinx" is the only legal method of open carry allowed in Texas? Yes.. that is what I said.... openly carrying handguns is illegal in Texas leaving long gun open carry the only legal option of open carry.

Now... let me ask you if you are aware that the entire concealed carry permit scheme is the exact kind of infringement upon the right to bear arms the framers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment? That 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the government from infringing upon the right to bear arms by using laws and schemes to be in control of who is... and who isn't... allowed to carry a gun. And the entire concealed carry permit scheme is the government being in control of who is... and who isn't... allowed to carry a gun concealed.

And in places where open carry doesn't require a permit... open carry, whether of a pistol or long gun... is exercising the right to bear arms (don't need to ask, pay, beg, for the government's permission to have a permit) while a concealed carry permit is the infringement upon the right to bear arms because one must ask, pay, beg, for the government's permission to have a permit that allows one to carry a concealed gun. In short... open carry of long guns in Texas is legally exercising the right to bear arms while concealed carry in Texas (and everywhere else) is nothing more than enjoying the privilege of being blessed with the government's infringement... it's permission.... to carry a concealed gun.

A personal note not directed at any individual(s) and a bit of a rant with some sarcasm included:
It annoys me to no end when folks describe concealed carry with a permit as the right to bear arms. A concealed carry permit is NOT the right to bear arms but is the exact infringement of government control that "shall not be infringed" was supposed to stop. But instead of folks understanding what the right to bear arms really means not having to ask permission they decided that "reasonable restrictions" (actually reasonable infringements!) are Ok as long as those infringements only apply to people other than themselves.

Has anyone figured out that the concealed carry scheme discriminates against poor people? People who can't afford to buy their kids winter coats can't afford to pay for a carry permit either... not even if someone gives them a gun for free they still can't pay the costs of the permit. But that doesn't matter to those who can afford the permit... after all... it is "reasonable" to "restrict" people to having to pay and get permission because that will prevent bad people from carrying concealed guns.............. right????????

 

[BC1]

I'd rather see a bunch of Yahoo's than a self centered push over concealed carrier who thinks only they should be respected as they wave their mommy flag.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

What I think is that both pro and anti-gun groups have taken THEIR fight to stores. And the store was previously minding it's own business. That's a loser. I used to tell my employees to work-out their differences between each other. Because if you make me get involved, or if it affects my business is any way both parties are being fired. Exactly what's happening. Neither the moms or guns are now wanted in many places.

 

[Firefighterchen]

What I think is that both pro and anti-gun groups have taken THEIR fight to stores. And the store was previously minding it's own business. That's a loser. I used to tell my employees to work-out their differences between each other. Because if you make me get involved, or if it affects my business is any way both parties are being fired. Exactly what's happening. Neither the moms or guns are now wanted in many places.

True, but when did the open carry Texas start getting national attention? They have been doing what they've been doing for years and the stores didn't care. It was only till the mommies from another state got involved did a fight occur.

It's almost as if the victim is bring blamed for fighting back when a bully comes strolling in fighting people.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Harry Carry]

Your private property? But didn't you just argue that private property rights aren't important?
.
First, the "shall not be infringed" part applies to the government, not to individual people. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can come onto my property at 2 AM and start screaming at the top of your lungs, even if I'm wearing earplugs and don't hear you. You don't have the right to build a cabin on my back 40 where I can't see it. It's still against the law, even if all the materials used were your "private property" and even if it never causes me any tangible harm. That doesn't mean I don't respect your right to have those materials or your right to build a cabin. It means I have the right to control my land and what happens there, even if I never see it and even if it never directly affects me. You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around that simple, irrefutable fact. Having one right doesn't mean you can trample the rights of others. You seem perfectly willing to accept that concept as long as it works in your favor, but you inexplicably forget the concept ever existed when it works against you. I want to exercise my right to carry as much as you do and in as many places as you do, but I don't want to deny or trample the rights of others in order to do so. That would be very hypocritical of me. It would also make me very much like the anti-gunners.

Well-said.

I pop in on this thread every so often just to see what people are writing. This is an on-target, succinct post. Excellent analogies.