The only real reason anyone carries concealed.

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And if the property owner doesn't think the way you do why should he change his policy to please you?

It's pleasing not be involved in a mass shooting.

Respect the property owner's rights and shop somewhere else. You get to buy what you want/need while exercising your right to bear arms and you get to not be exposed to a possible a mass shooting.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The issue is the property owner has the right to be unwise and have a no guns policy regardless of what you, or I, think about it.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Just because you can be be ... sneaky.... and get away with disrespecting the rights of someone else doesn't mean you should.

Been there, tossed out. I came back a couple days later sporting an empty OWB holster on my hip. When he asked, I lied and said I left it in the car, showing him the empty OWB holster. He didn't see the snubie at my ankle. I bought what I was there originally for and the world kept on turning.

So what you are saying is you lied and got over on the property owner. It appears to me the issue isn't about bearing arms, avoiding a mass shooting, or even self defense from a common criminal, but is about ego where you prove to yourself you are so special you can lie and disrespect the property owner's rights with impunity.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I was referring to the ego of those who think they are so special their rights are more important than the rights of others.

Not all rights are equal. The right to life comes before all others, because without it, you have no others.

All rights ARE equally important. For example....

Without the right to free speech we have no voice to protect our lives from a tyrannical government.

Without the right to bear arms we would not have the means to protect our lives.

Without the right to be secure in our persons and papers our lives would have no protection from searches and seizures at the whim of some government official.

Without the right to not testify against one's self, and the right not be tried twice for the same crime, we could be deprived of life without due process of law.

Without the right to a speedy trial we could be imprisoned for life with no hope of release.

Without the right to a trial by jury our lives would be at the mercy of one individual, a judge, who just might not be impartial.

Without the right to not be given cruel and unusual punishment our lives would be in danger from punishments that didn't fit the crime and from horrible conditions in prisons.

So, my friend, without all those rights (and others) our lives would be in danger every day.

And while the right to life means we get to exercise those rights because we are alive... without those rights being protected it would not be long before we were not alive to exercise them. Hence ALL rights, for ALL PERSONS, are equally important.

Also protecting your life means more than just carrying a gun. If your life would be in danger by shopping at a store where the property owner is exercising his private property rights by having a no guns rule then respect his rights and protect your right to life by shopping somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I was referring to the ego of those who think they are so special their rights are more important than the rights of others.

This is only about the carrying of arms, not property rights per-se.

My point is ALL rights are equal and to disrespect property rights of others while demanding your right to bear arms be respected is hypocritical.

I do understand how this behavior is disrespectful. Just like gays joined the military during the ban, I am knowingly disobeying one of the rules. Sometimes repeatedly.

My goal is to just go about my day.

Yes, you are being disrespectful to the property owner private property rights yet you want your right to bear arms be respected.

It appears to me your stated goal of "to just go about my day" really means your daily personal convenience is more important than respecting the private property rights of others. Please consider that if you have to ... sneak... your gun in then you already know you are doing something less than honorable. And if you are willing to disrespect the rights of others for mere personal convenience then it should not be a surprise when anti gunners disrespect the right to bear arms just so they can "feel" safe. Both attitudes come from the desire to elevate personal concerns above the rights of others.

 

[Elkhorn]

So, let's get over the "property rights" thing. One, it isn't your property to begin with. The government can come and take it away... at any time...for any reason. But that is another story. Here is a right, granted by the founding fathers and enumerated in the bill of rights:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The property owners desire to keep his property "gun-free" cannot override my right to keep and bear arms. Post your property "gay free" or "black free" and see what happens! Just because guns are the current thing to hate, is no reason to ban them.
Elkhorn

 

[Blueshell]

Respect the property owner's rights and shop somewhere else.

I'm not going to inconvenience myself just because the property owner thinks guns are icky. I've already made the effort to keep the gun out of site, that's as far as I'll go.

So what you are saying is you lied and got over on the property owner.

Yes, and support and encourage others to do likewise.

All rights ARE equally important.

All rights are not equal.

If your life would be in danger by shopping at a store where the property owner is exercising his private property rights by having a no guns rule then respect his rights and protect your right to life by shopping somewhere else.

Or just carry my gun. Whichever.

My point is ALL rights are equal...

All rights are not equal.

Yes, you are being disrespectful to the property owner private property rights yet you want your right to bear arms be respected.

I expect to be removed from the property, not have my right respected. I make no demands of the property owner.

It appears to me your stated goal of "to just go about my day" really means your daily personal convenience is more important than respecting the private property rights of others.

If we're talking about gas stations I'd agree. I'd just patron a different gas station, there are several. No problem. But if we're talking about the only laundromat within 50 miles, well, there we have a problem.

And if you are willing to disrespect the rights of others for mere personal convenience then it should not be a surprise when anti gunners disrespect the right to bear arms just so they can "feel" safe.

Since when has showing liberals respect stopped liberals from infringing on the RKBA? Especially considering the law they just passed in California...

 

[Blueshell]

Please consider that if you have to ... sneak... your gun in then you already know you are doing something less than honorable.

This my friend is the entire point of the thread. Concealed carry is for sneaking, for getting away with something. If you're being honest when you carry then you are carrying openly.

This is why the only real reason to carry concealed is to keep from being disarmed. There is no other valid reason to carry concealed, because as you said, it means you're trying to do something less than honorable.

 

[Blueshell]

So, let's get over the "property rights" thing. One, it isn't your property to begin with. The government can come and take it away... at any time...for any reason. But that is another story. Here is a right, granted by the founding fathers and enumerated in the bill of rights:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The property owners desire to keep his property "gun-free" cannot override my right to keep and bear arms. Post your property "gay free" or "black free" and see what happens! Just because guns are the current thing to hate, is no reason to ban them.
Elkhorn

Well stated. Thank you

 

[BluesStringer]

So, let's get over the "property rights" thing. One, it isn't your property to begin with. The government can come and take it away... at any time...for any reason. But that is another story. Here is a right, granted by the founding fathers and enumerated in the bill of rights:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The property owners desire to keep his property "gun-free" cannot override my right to keep and bear arms. Post your property "gay free" or "black free" and see what happens! Just because guns are the current thing to hate, is no reason to ban them.
Elkhorn

Since most of the current discussion revolves around commercial "property," then it might be the case that the above bolded statement was meant to keep consistent with that vein. However, if "property" was intended as all-encompassing as it was stated above, though I have no desire to do it, nor a belief system which would support doing it, if I posted a sign at the threshold to my driveway saying no gays or no blacks or no anything I didn't authorize to be here, absolutely nothing would happen to me. No law exists that says I must invite people of any physical description or lifestyle/political/ideological persuasion into or onto my property.

The fact that definitions of words and thoughts within The Constitution have been so watered down as to be quite literally meaningless anymore concerning who and what it is "legal" to discriminate against is antithetical to the actual words and thoughts of The Constitution that have been thusly watered down and redefined. The threshold to my business door or property should be protected in that regard to the exact same extent as to my home and the property it sits on. I am the King of my castle, and you have no right to be on my property while armed unless I say you do, which I personally would say probably 95% or better of people who might come to my property can do, but which control over I do not relinquish in any manner or form just because a faded bit of 200+ year-old sheepskin parchment in a hermetically-sealed case in Washington D.C. contains the words of the Second Amendment that you boldly proclaim you would rely upon to violate said rights and control that belong exclusively to moi. It is not something I could ever see myself doing, but if I ever changed anything about myself to the extent that posting a no trespassing sign that preemptively excluded a list of particular "kinds" of people (armed, race, gay, muslim - whatever) seemed like something I needed to post, I would enforce said sign by whatever means necessary, and not one single one of their rights under the Bill of Rights would ever come into question in any legal evaluation about whether I was justified in enforcing who and what is allowed on/in my property, and who and what ain't. Your 2A rights don't matter a wit here in The Republic of Dead Cell Holler, nor should they matter at my place of privately-owned business.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

...I would enforce said sign by whatever means necessary...

Anything more than simply telling someone to leave opens you to prosecution.

I always suggest letting the police handle folks who refuse to leave. Not only do the police then absorb any liability from the trespasser, but the paper-trail helps should you need to file a restraining order.

 

[Bikenut]

This my friend is the entire point of the thread. Concealed carry is for sneaking, for getting away with something. If you're being honest when you carry then you are carrying openly.

This is why the only real reason to carry concealed is to keep from being disarmed. There is no other valid reason to carry concealed, because as you said, it means you're trying to do something less than honorable.

Incorrect. By your own words quoted below you consider doing something less than honorable, that of disrespecting the property owner's private property rights for your own mere convenience, as a valid reason to carry concealed.

I'm not going to inconvenience myself just because the property owner thinks guns are icky. I've already made the effort to keep the gun out of site, that's as far as I'll go.

 

[Bikenut]

So, let's get over the "property rights" thing. One, it isn't your property to begin with. The government can come and take it away... at any time...for any reason. But that is another story. Here is a right, granted by the founding fathers and enumerated in the bill of rights:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The property owners desire to keep his property "gun-free" cannot override my right to keep and bear arms. Post your property "gay free" or "black free" and see what happens! Just because guns are the current thing to hate, is no reason to ban them.
Elkhorn

While it is true "we the people" only rent land from the government and pay rent in the form of taxes as long as the rent is paid the property owner has the right to either grant, or deny, permission to enter.

You have the right to bear arms but you do not have any right to be on/in my private property, whether that private property be my home or my "open to the public" business whether you are bearing arms or not. It is my property and if I don't want you in my store example only as I don't own a store then I will deny you entry throw you out whether you are bearing arms or not. But I do have the right to deny entry to those members of the public who bear arms just as I have the right to deny entry to those members of the public who don't wear shirts or shoes.

And like it or not all the laws that say property owners cannot deny entry to certain classes of people are just as much infringements upon the private property right to control who is, and who isn't, given permission to be on/in that private property as gun control laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms.

What I find dismaying is how many folks who get all irate about gun control laws that infringe upon their right to bear arms think it is just fine to support infringing upon someone elses private property rights. Some even to the point of publicly stating their convenience is more important than the private property rights of someone else.. all while wanting their right to bear arms be respected.

 

[Blueshell]

Incorrect. By your own words quoted below you consider doing something less than honorable, that of disrespecting the property owner's private property rights for your own mere convenience, as a valid reason to carry concealed.

If the property owner pays for my fuel and time to go 50 miles to use the next closest laundromat (assuming that laundromat isn't also posted), I'll give it a go.

Demanding I go out of my way like that is a damage to me, a damage I can measure in money and document, unlike the perceived loss of property rights by my presence.

 

[Blueshell]

While it is true "we the people" only rent land from the government and pay rent in the form of taxes as long as the rent is paid the property owner has the right to either grant, or deny, permission to enter.

You have the right to bear arms but you do not have any right to be on/in my private property, whether that private property be my home or my "open to the public" business whether you are bearing arms or not. It is my property and if I don't want you in my store example only as I don't own a store then I will deny you entry throw you out whether you are bearing arms or not. But I do have the right to deny entry to those members of the public who bear arms just as I have the right to deny entry to those members of the public who don't wear shirts or shoes.

And like it or not all the laws that say property owners cannot deny entry to certain classes of people are just as much infringements upon the private property right to control who is, and who isn't, given permission to be on/in that private property as gun control laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms.

What I find dismaying is how many folks who get all irate about gun control laws that infringe upon their right to bear arms think it is just fine to support infringing upon someone elses private property rights. Some even to the point of publicly stating their convenience is more important than the private property rights of someone else.. all while wanting their right to bear arms be respected.

Please link to the lawsuit brought by property owners to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

 

[BluesStringer]

Anything more than simply telling someone to leave opens you to prosecution.

I always suggest letting the police handle folks who refuse to leave. Not only do the police then absorb any liability from the trespasser, but the paper-trail helps should you need to file a restraining order.

Says the guy who claims he lives in an RV (or hotel room, whatever) and has no permanent residence sufficient even to buy a gun legally, much less to establish his legal control over such as would be necessary to comply with "Castle Doctrine" or other types of property-rights-acknowledging laws. You're big on advice, and short on the personal experience necessary as a basis for offering it.

Other than that, first you suggest that I should call cops whom I want nothing to do with to apply state-authorized force sufficient to evict a trespasser off/out of my property. Then, when the trespasser doesn't get the message the first time, you assume that I (or anyone in such a scenario) is so incapable of defending their own property that I/they would "need" to file another legal document (the no-trespassing sign with the preemptive list of disqualifiers being the first) requiring more cops be called to my property should the trespasser violate the second bit of written orders, which the first one would've been just as sufficient legally-speaking, as the second one you take for granted I would "need" before escalation to violence would be justified. You're wrong on both points. In Alabama, a trespasser who has already been ejected by either cops or the property owner (or renter as the case may be) and told not to come back is legally volunteering for being live target-practice if the property owner (or renter) is so-inclined to invoke the laws stipulating that fact. A presumption of a deadly threat is written into the law under certain criteria, and a serial trespasser who has had legal notice that he's not wanted on that property would fall under that criteria.

Now, I wouldn't jump immediately to that level of force should a serial trespasser come back after the first ejection, but neither would I wave a piece of worthless paper in front of him trying to convince him that it supports the property rights I'm getting ready to enforce upon him. It doesn't support anything that I didn't have before he ever got here the first or second time, and I don't need no stinkin' cop(s) to enforce that which is already within my legal ability, capabilities and rights to enforce without them being involved.

I moved out here so I wouldn't ever need to be bothered by cops. I don't want to be around cops, period, and I'm perfectly capable of following the law while ejecting a trespasser. Your advice contradicting what I should do in any scenario is/was both unsolicited and unwanted. Ever since you said that I should be charged with felony "reckless endangerment" under a statute that exists nowhere in my state, your opinions/advice/suggestions/legal analysis on any subject has been thrown down the memory hole by me before ever reading it.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

Says the guy who claims he lives in an RV (or hotel room, whatever) and has no permanent residence...

I actually just fixed that yesterday thanks to a kind lady at the like local DMV. I transferred my car title to Ohio, and when it comes to titles they just take your word for it on where you live. The car title is proof of residency for registration, and registration is proof of residency for form 4473

I can always buy a gun privately anyway.

 

[Blueshell]

Other than that, first you suggest that I should call cops whom I want nothing to do with to apply state-authorized force sufficient to evict a trespasser off/out of my property. Then, when the trespasser doesn't get the message the first time, you assume that I (or anyone in such a scenario) is so incapable of defending their own property that I/they would "need" to file another legal document (the no-trespassing sign with the preemptive list of disqualifiers being the first) requiring more cops be called to my property should the trespasser violate the second bit of written orders, which the first one would've been just as sufficient legally-speaking, as the second one you take for granted I would "need" before escalation to violence would be justified. You're wrong on both points. In Alabama, a trespasser who has already been ejected by either cops or the property owner (or renter as the case may be) and told not to come back is legally volunteering for being live target-practice if the property owner (or renter) is so-inclined to invoke the laws stipulating that fact. A presumption of a deadly threat is written into the law under certain criteria, and a serial trespasser who has had legal notice that he's not wanted on that property would fall under that criteria.

Now, I wouldn't jump immediately to that level of force should a serial trespasser come back after the first ejection, but neither would I wave a piece of worthless paper in front of him trying to convince him that it supports the property rights I'm getting ready to enforce upon him. It doesn't support anything that I didn't have before he ever got here the first or second time, and I don't need no stinkin' cop(s) to enforce that which is already within my legal ability, capabilities and rights to enforce without them being involved.

I moved out here so I wouldn't ever need to be bothered by cops. I don't want to be around cops, period, and I'm perfectly capable of following the law while ejecting a trespasser. Your advice contradicting what I should do in any scenario is/was both unsolicited and unwanted. Ever since you said that I should be charged with felony "reckless endangerment" under a statute that exists nowhere in my state, your opinions/advice/suggestions/legal analysis on any subject has been thrown down the memory hole by me before ever reading it.

Blues

You open yourself to prosecution. That's your choice.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Incorrect. By your own words quoted below you consider doing something less than honorable, that of disrespecting the property owner's private property rights for your own mere convenience, as a valid reason to carry concealed.

If the property owner pays for my fuel and time to go 50 miles to use the next closest laundromat (assuming that laundromat isn't also posted), I'll give it a go.

Demanding I go out of my way like that is a damage to me, a damage I can measure in money and document, unlike the perceived loss of property rights by my presence.

So it is someone elses responsibility to make things easy for you to be honorable and respect their rights? Your honor and integrity are dependent upon what is convenient for you? Oh wait... you already said it was as shown in the quote below.

Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
I'm not going to inconvenience myself just because the property owner thinks guns are icky. I've already made the effort to keep the gun out of site, that's as far as I'll go.

And the property owner doesn't lose any of his property rights since if you get caught dishonorably ... sneaking .... your gun into/onto his property the owner will exercise his private property right to deny you entry by throwing you out. But there is something very valuable, perhaps even priceless, that is lost and that is your own integrity.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
While it is true "we the people" only rent land from the government and pay rent in the form of taxes as long as the rent is paid the property owner has the right to either grant, or deny, permission to enter.

You have the right to bear arms but you do not have any right to be on/in my private property, whether that private property be my home or my "open to the public" business whether you are bearing arms or not. It is my property and if I don't want you in my store example only as I don't own a store then I will deny you entry throw you out whether you are bearing arms or not. But I do have the right to deny entry to those members of the public who bear arms just as I have the right to deny entry to those members of the public who don't wear shirts or shoes.

And like it or not all the laws that say property owners cannot deny entry to certain classes of people are just as much infringements upon the private property right to control who is, and who isn't, given permission to be on/in that private property as gun control laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms.

What I find dismaying is how many folks who get all irate about gun control laws that infringe upon their right to bear arms think it is just fine to support infringing upon someone elses private property rights. Some even to the point of publicly stating their convenience is more important than the private property rights of someone else.. all while wanting their right to bear arms be respected.

Please link to the lawsuit brought by property owners to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

You misunderstand. The Civil Rights Act, in reference to the private property owner being required to allow entry to certain protected classes of people IS the infringement upon having the private property right to deny entry to anyone for any reason just as any and all gun control laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms.

Yes it is politically incorrect to say that private property rights mean the property owner has the right to deny entry to anyone, including members of the now protected classes of people, but that is what rights are... sometimes not popular and sometimes politically incorrect. However it is a good thing rights do not depend on popularity or no one would have any rights but we would only be allowed to do things that the majority thinks are reasonable, appropriate, and acceptable.

 

[Blueshell]

So it is someone elses responsibility to make things easy for you to be honorable and respect their rights? Your honor and integrity are dependent upon what is convenient for you? Oh wait... you already said it was as shown in the quote below.



And the property owner doesn't lose any of his property rights since if you get caught dishonorably ... sneaking .... your gun into/onto his property the owner will exercise his private property right to deny you entry by throwing you out. But there is something very valuable, perhaps even priceless, that is lost and that is your own integrity.

I'm being honest to my own principals (...to be at all times armed...), so no integrity is lost.

I'm not being honest to your principals. I have no contract with you to then have broken my word.

One might argue that since you let me in despite braking your rule, that you rescinded your rule.

 

[Blueshell]

You misunderstand. The Civil Rights Act, in reference to the private property owner being required to allow entry to certain protected classes of people IS the infringement upon having the private property right to deny entry to anyone for any reason just as any and all gun control laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms.

That's exactly how I understand it. So where's the lawsuit? Or have property owners just accepted the infringement?

 

[XD40scinNC]

If the property owner pays for my fuel and time to go 50 miles to use the next closest laundromat (assuming that laundromat isn't also posted), I'll give it a go.

Demanding I go out of my way like that is a damage to me, a damage I can measure in money and document, unlike the perceived loss of property rights by my presence.

If I ran a laundromat, and had it posted, you will not legally carry into my business. If you insisted, and it is detected, I will ask you to leave, if you do not, I will charge you with trespass and let LEO's deal with you. I will also state in the presence of LEO's that you are not to return, and if you do, you can and will be arrested for trespass whether you are armed or not. Those are my property rights.

Go down the street or beat your cloths on a rock in the stream, I don't give a damn.

Don't like it, express it by taking your business elsewhere.

 

[Blueshell]

If I ran a laundromat, and had it posted, you will not legally carry into my business.

I agree. My being in a state where such posting carries force of law, when I carry past your sign I will be braking the law. That's the very definition of civil disobedience.

If you insisted, and it is detected, I will ask you to leave...

And then I'll leave.

Don't like it, express it by taking your business elsewhere.

Or just carry against your policy. I'm not much of an activist.

FYI there are no streams in town. I believe the next closest stream is even further than the next closest laundromat.