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

[BC1]

I somewhat agree, but at the same time, didn't we crucify all the businesses who tried to set those same conditions of access to their property against minority races? How is my right to self defense on their property any less of a civil rights issue?

That's because those conditions were illegal against protected groups (minorities, race, religion, disability, sexual pref, etc.) under the United States Civil Rights Act. Gun owners are not protected by the CRA. And the second amendment is not binding on an individual, only on the government.

 

[BC1]

Again, you utterly FAIL to see or comprehend my position, and are coming up with ridiculous examples so far off into left field (off topic) that you arent even in the same ballpark....


I will try once again to get through to you in as simple a language as I can....

Your rights, my rights, everyones rights exist EVERYWHERE, period, end of story......


IF <----- PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT EFFING WORD, IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND EVERYONE SEEMS TO IGNORE IT

IF I am on someone elses "property" be it private OR business (even ignoring the inviting the public part) I still retain all of MY RIGHTS...... and IF I decide to exercise them, as long as I do no "HARM"(infringe), which for example, an inanimate object they do not know is there can no way shape or form can possibly do, then I have NOT infringed on anyones "RIGHTS"

I have NEVER stated that I had the RIGHT to BE on their property... and that is yet another aspect you all seem to ignore also..

So tell me how you handle this situation...
.
You enter a shoe store with a sign that says no guns. The owner sees the gun printing and decides to physically throw you out. He takes your arm and walks you to the door. Will you resist while armed and on his property against his wishes? Under most state laws he may physically throw you out at that point. Will you get arrested? Shot? That's a store. Consider the same situation at a yard sale in his driveway. Will you resist? What would you do to someone who resisted you, armed against your wishes, while on your property?

 

[Harry Carry]

I've been following this thread for quite some time. It is an interesting topic. I remember asking the LEO who taught our concealed carry class back in early-January about this subject. I always subscribed to the philosophy, "If it's concealed, why should it matter?" However, I've actually never carried into an establishment that had a "no concealed weapons" sign anyway.

But after reading all of the various points-of-view, I've decided to go along with those who say, "I'm taking my business elsewhere." To me, it just isn't worth the hassles that one could encounter if, Heaven forbid, one is involved in an incident. The way I see it, I'm not going to bother telling the proprietor that he or she is losing business. Let the anti-gun crowd learn it on their own.

 

[Axeanda45]

So tell me how you handle this situation...
.
You enter a shoe store with a sign that says no guns. The owner sees the gun printing and decides to physically throw you out. He takes your arm and walks you to the door. Will you resist while armed and on his property against his wishes? Under most state laws he may physically throw you out at that point. Will you get arrested? Shot? That's a store. Consider the same situation at a yard sale in his driveway. Will you resist? What would you do to someone who resisted you, armed against your wishes, while on your property?

Again, more useless examples (idiotic scenarios...) that DO NOT APPLY TO WHAT I HAVE STATED.........


I have stated on MULTIPLE THREADS AND MULTIPLE TIMES that you can kick anyone off your property at any time for any reason...... If YOU arent smart enough to figure out what I would do in your examples above,I cannot help you....

 

[BC1]

But after reading all of the various points-of-view, I've decided to go along with those who say, "I'm taking my business elsewhere." To me, it just isn't worth the hassles that one could encounter if, Heaven forbid, one is involved in an incident. The way I see it, I'm not going to bother telling the proprietor that he or she is losing business. Let the anti-gun crowd learn it on their own.

You need to know you're only hurting yourself. Business owners who post against guns don't care about losing that money. If you would lose-out on a great deal or pay more for the same item rather than frequent the store so be it. But you're not making any real point to the owner, he doesn't care. You can't expect any business owner to tie his future and success in business to your gun rights.

 

[BC1]

Again, more useless examples (idiotic scenarios...) that DO NOT APPLY TO WHAT I HAVE STATED.........


I have stated on MULTIPLE THREADS AND MULTIPLE TIMES that you can kick anyone off your property at any time for any reason...... If YOU arent smart enough to figure out what I would do in your examples above,I cannot help you....

I think you would probably leave without incident... at least that's what I think from your prior posts. I don't think you would cause a scene. But what about the guy who resists? Then consider castle doctrine. It starts getting messy. And surely no one wants that.

 

[Axeanda45]

I think you would probably leave without incident... at least that's what I think from your prior posts. I don't think you would cause a scene. But what about the guy who resists? Then consider castle doctrine. It starts getting messy. And surely no one wants that.

Never said my position came without its own unpleasant consequences, lol


I actually DO support "property rights" I just know they do NOT include the amount of "power" that most on here claim they do....

 

[whodat2710]

Again, you utterly FAIL to see or comprehend my position, and are coming up with ridiculous examples so far off into left field (off topic) that you arent even in the same ballpark....


I will try once again to get through to you in as simple a language as I can....

Your rights, my rights, everyones rights exist EVERYWHERE, period, end of story......


IF <----- PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT EFFING WORD, IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND EVERYONE SEEMS TO IGNORE IT

IF I am on someone elses "property" be it private OR business (even ignoring the inviting the public part) I still retain all of MY RIGHTS...... and IF I decide to exercise them, as long as I do no "HARM"(infringe), which for example, an inanimate object they do not know is there can no way shape or form can possibly do, then I have NOT infringed on anyones "RIGHTS"

I have NEVER stated that I had the RIGHT to BE on their property... and that is yet another aspect you all seem to ignore also..

Cut and paste from the "open carry in town" argument (I mean "thread")
-
Quite simply, so there are no big words, the property owner has the RIGHT to make RULES for those entering his property. So do you with regards to your property. How hard is that to understand?
-
You don't agree with it because it is an inconvenience to you - so you come up with progressive liberal justifications as to why you're right.

 

[whodat2710]

Again, more useless examples (idiotic scenarios...) that DO NOT APPLY TO WHAT I HAVE STATED.........


I have stated on MULTIPLE THREADS AND MULTIPLE TIMES that you can kick anyone off your property at any time for any reason...... If YOU arent smart enough to figure out what I would do in your examples above,I cannot help you....

Why can they? Is it maybe because they have the RIGHT to make those rules and you are infringing on their RIGHTS? I am convinced you don't believe everything that you are posting and re-posting, and are just too stubborn to concede the point.

 

[Bikenut]

Never said my position came without its own unpleasant consequences, lol


I actually DO support "property rights" I just know they do NOT include the amount of "power" that most on here claim they do....

Suuuurrrreee you do.... here are your own words....
From post #131 in the discussion "Why carry open in town?" on USACarry at:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/44034-why-carry-open-town-4.html#post531642

All of this "sneak" crap is in your own imagination and projecting..... WHEN I take my firearm concealed onto a business property that has invited the general public there, I do so CONCEALED in order NOT to SHOVE their idiocy down their own throats.... I am the one being polite and not infringing on anyones rights.....
-snip-

So you consider it to be polite to carry concealed (....sneak.... your gun in without the owner knowing) into property that has a gun rule you consider "idiocy" and YOU think you are the good guy?
:no:

 

[NavyLCDR]

You "property righters" are insisting you have some special power to deny others their RIGHTS...... sure, you pick a less drastic "RIGHT" to infringe on, so not many people will challenge you or point it out... yet you are STILL infringing on someone elses RIGHTS when you prohibit an inanimate object you dont even know is there....

You claim that when I say that if you have this "special power" you must also have the "power" to infringe on ANY OTHER OF THEIR RIGHTS and then give an extreme example just to show you what you are actually claiming you have the "power" to do then I get accused of being demon possessed/sick in the head.....


IF your position is the correct one, then on your property, you are 100% LEGAL to do WHATEVER YOU WANT to ANYONE who happens to be on your property.... (denying them of their rights... no picking and choosing now, YOU said you had this "power", it either applies to ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS or it doesnt apply to ANY of them)

My position is much more realistic and logical.....

Exactly +1. If I am going to deny someone the right to bear arms on my property, then I must also deny their right to leave my property. If I am going to deny anyone of their right to free speech on my property, then I must also deny their right to leave my property. I cannot understand why some gun owner's have the opinion that the right to bear arms is somehow less sacred than any other right that we have.

Now, and I know Axeandra45 will agree with me - if I want to remove you from my property because you are exercising your right to bear arms on my property, I am certainly within MY rights to do so. But unless I detain you against your will, it is impossible for me to deny your right to bear firearms on my property. And if, as some people claim, I do have the "right" to deny your right to bear firearms on my property (which I don't), then I would equally have the "right" to deny any other natural right that you have, including your right to life.

If I put up a no firearms sign and someone carries a gun past it, they are in now way shape or form denying me any of my rights unless they use that firearm to harm me or my property. If you carry a firearm past my no firearms sign all you are doing is ignoring my request. You don't leave when I tell you to, then you are infringing upon my rights to be secure on my property and we will have a problem. If I notify you that YOU are not welcome on my property by posting a KEEP OUT - NO TRESPASSING sign - and you enter my property anyway, then you are infringing upon my right to be secure on my own property, and we will have a problem.

I find it sad that some people don't know the difference between not complying with a request and the infringement of a person's rights or can't differentiate the difference between violating a law and infringing upon rights.

 

[Rhino]

I somewhat agree, but at the same time, didn't we crucify all the businesses who tried to set those same conditions of access to their property against minority races? How is my right to self defense on their property any less of a civil rights issue?

That's an excellent point. I'd love to see our 2nd amendment couched as a civil right in the eyes of the law. I don't really see that happening anytime soon though. Don't get me wrong here. I despise the business owners who want to exclude those who carry guns. I'm just saying you can't deny them their rights just to exercise yours. You have the right to protest abortion if you want, but you don't have the right to do it on someone else's front yard. It's really a simple concept.

 

[Rhino]

You "property righters" are insisting you have some special power to deny others their RIGHTS......

That's what you've been advocating all along, insisting you have some special power to infrings on the property rights of others, or rather to ignore (deny) them completely because you think your rights trump them into oblivion.
.

sure, you pick a less drastic "RIGHT" to infringe on, so not many people will challenge you or point it out...

I was unaware there was a 'drastic' scale for rights. Is this like the EF scale for tornadoes? Where do we get a copy of this scale? Please tell us what the ratings are for the various rights listed in the Bill of Rights. I never knew that the founders had assigned varying importance, but I'd sure like to see what it is now that you've discovered it. It does explain some things though. Now we all know why liberals keep demeaning some rights in comparison to others they deem more important. They apparently knew about this scale all along. So please, give us a link. We're dying to see it.
.

yet you are STILL infringing on someone elses RIGHTS when you prohibit an inanimate object you dont even know is there....

So when someone passes a law that says I can no longer concealed carry, it's okay because they're prohibiting an inanimate object that people don't even know is there. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
.

You claim that when I say that if you have this "special power" you must also have the "power" to infringe on ANY OTHER OF THEIR RIGHTS and then give an extreme example just to show you what you are actually claiming you have the "power" to do then I get accused of being demon possessed/sick in the head.....

Do you actually read what you post before posting it? You want the power to infringe rights, and you attempt to justify that by claiming they're only small rights, so that makes it okay. And you can't understand why people would have a problem with that? Really?
.

IF your position is the correct one, then on your property, you are 100% LEGAL to do WHATEVER YOU WANT to ANYONE who happens to be on your property.... (denying them of their rights... no picking and choosing now, YOU said you had this "power", it either applies to ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS or it doesnt apply to ANY of them)

I'm not sure who "YOU" is supposed to be, but I have seen no one here say anything of the sort.
.

My position is much more realistic and logical.....

On what planet?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm just saying you can't deny them their rights just to exercise yours. You have the right to protest abortion if you want, but you don't have the right to do it on someone else's front yard. It's really a simple concept.

However, a pregnant woman who believes in the right to life and has no intention of killing her unborn baby is in no way infringing upon the abortion clinic's owner's rights just because she is on their property with her baby that she intends to keep.

 

[Axeanda45]

Cut and paste from the "open carry in town" argument (I mean "thread")
-
Quite simply, so there are no big words, the property owner has the RIGHT to make RULES for those entering his property. So do you with regards to your property. How hard is that to understand?
-
You don't agree with it because it is an inconvenience to you - so you come up with progressive liberal justifications as to why you're right.

and your point is what? is it that you have no fricking clue that rules are something entirely different from RIGHTS? If they are the same thing, WHY DO YOU USE 2 DIFFERENT WORDS FOR THEM?

 

[Axeanda45]

Suuuurrrreee you do.... here are your own words....
From post #131 in the discussion "Why carry open in town?" on USACarry at:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/44034-why-carry-open-town-4.html#post531642

So you consider it to be polite to carry concealed (....sneak.... your gun in without the owner knowing) into property that has a gun rule you consider "idiocy" and YOU think you are the good guy?
:no:

ABSOLUTELY.... I am NOT the one trying to infringe on anyones RIGHTS.... (and I am NOT infringing on their RIGHTS when I break their RULES)

 

[foxytwo]

I think this is getting carried away and should be closed.

 

[Axeanda45]

That's what you've been advocating all along, insisting you have some special power to infrings on the property rights of others, or rather to ignore (deny) them completely because you think your rights trump them into oblivion.
.
I was unaware there was a 'drastic' scale for rights. Is this like the EF scale for tornadoes? Where do we get a copy of this scale? Please tell us what the ratings are for the various rights listed in the Bill of Rights. I never knew that the founders had assigned varying importance, but I'd sure like to see what it is now that you've discovered it. It does explain some things though. Now we all know why liberals keep demeaning some rights in comparison to others they deem more important. They apparently knew about this scale all along. So please, give us a link. We're dying to see it.
.
So when someone passes a law that says I can no longer concealed carry, it's okay because they're prohibiting an inanimate object that people don't even know is there. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
.
Do you actually read what you post before posting it? You want the power to infringe rights, and you attempt to justify that by claiming they're only small rights, so that makes it okay. And you can't understand why people would have a problem with that? Really?
.
I'm not sure who "YOU" is supposed to be, but I have seen no one here say anything of the sort.
.
On what planet?

Your ENTIRE premise/side/argument is FLAWED on its foundation.... You think that someones rules somehow equal the same thing as his rights... UNTIL you come to grips with reality, you are arguing from a losing position from the start.....

 

[Axeanda45]

Look, all of you "property righters" on here.... If I felt like I needed to put up a no-guns sign on my property I would.... and I would fully expect ANYONE who came onto my property that was posted to abide by my posted "rule" , and I would be upset if they ignored my request and did it anyway. However, I at least have half a brain and I understand logic and know the difference between chit and shinola..... and I KNOW that they would be breaking my RULE, not infringing on my RIGHTS...

RIGHTS are ours from birth...... rules are something entirely different, otherwise you would be born with no gun signs.... (in this example)

If you posted a sign (of a rule you have for your "PROPERTY" ) that said "No Free Speech" would you be within your RIGHTS as a "property owner" to search everyone coming onto your property for the tools to talk with (voice box/larynx) and if they had one could you have them arrested for trespass if they refused to leave just because they had the capability to talk, even if they never spoke a word? Ridiculous isnt it?

 

[Eidolon]

OMG are you guys still beating this horse?