Ringo
A WATCHMAN
Be sure to sit in the back row?
Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?
- Thread starter HappeScrapn
- Start date
- Status
Rhino
New member
Heh heh. Good one.
.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Fight, fight, and put out that guys lights.
Before he puts out yours.
XD40scinNC
New member
If/when the governor signs HB562 (NC) it will reduce carrying a gun into posted private property from a misdemeanor to an infraction, I will definitely be more likely to 'remain concealed' and carry. First that comes to mind would be a movie theater, but I haven't been to a movie theater in decades, so not likely something that will come up. There are a few others it might be considered.
XD40scinNC
New member
NC HB562 has been signed by the governor, and effective 12/1/15 carrying into posted property is reduced from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
What does "infraction" mean in terms of fines (if any) or other consequences?
Blueshell
Banned
If you're concealing properly so no one notices then you don't have to worry if the sign is legally enforceable or not. The biggest reason to CC instead of OC is so you can go places you otherwise couldn't while armed. Customers aren't calling managers on you, owners aren't asking you to leave, cops aren't flying in while you check your PO box, you don't lose your job, etc.
XD40scinNC
New member
A fine, but you get to keep your CHP. Law specifies 'up to $500'
RayMich
Support Our 2nd Amendment
Maybe a crazy question but I wanted to hear what some of you think and/or do about this. Do any of you still carry into a business that has a "No Handguns" sign posted?
I personally always want to follow the laws. I would never want to jeopardize loosing my permit nor give conceal carry holders a bad name. There are enough people looking for any excise to take our guns away.
However, some business that are posted I just don't agree withlike say The Movie Theater. There was a little small no handguns sign that I had to actually look hard for on the side window of the ticket booth. Not on the front window of the booth and not on any of the doors but on the side window right next to the "no cell phone" sign (yea right, no cell phone). I almost missed the stupid no gun sign.
I took my gun back to my truck and went to see the movie anyway. Before I left, I actually talked to the Manager after the movies and brought up the question as to what would happen to someone who brought their CC weapon in even thought it was posted not to. Then come some crazy person, mad at the world with his gun and starts shooting. That make the CC holder have to pull their weapon to protect people and or themselves. The "bad guy" was shot, hurt and/or killed. Would they press charges against the CC holder for bringing their weapon in when they had a no handgun policy or would they overlook the fact the carried CC holder saved lives and or their own life.
The manager said "Good question, I'll have to ask my boss and see what they say." I haven't heard back yet. Go figure, but I'm going to push it and see what kind of answer they come up with.
What do you do? Carry in anyway? Put your weapon back in the car and go in? Just don't do business with them and go somewhere else that allows you to carry?
Have a blessed evening!
HappeScrapn
NOPE! - They obviously don't want my business, so I simply go somewhere else where they don't infringe on my rights to self defense...
Depending on the state, those gun-free-zone sign can carry the power of law. Not worth it to for me to risk losing my life or my rights.
PhillySoldier
New member
These businesses and gun-free zones are a really big pet peeve of mine and one of the main reasons I've decided to renew my CCW permit after nearly 20 years since Ive last carried. I think if any business or government law/ordinance is going to restrict or limit a persons right to defend themselves then they should assume the responsibility of that persons well being. I think any CCW permit holder who gets injured at such a location should sue. Looking at recent examples around the country every single one of these mass shooting has been at a gun-free zone. The one in Orlando club shooting where no patron was allowed to the right to bear arms under the assumption that the business and the local police would protect them and it took 3 hours for the police to actually enter the building to do so. I realize its an individuals choice to enter these zones/buildings in the first place but this is with the expectation that the establishment is not negligent in your safety. Overall I just think (win or lose) if these businesses or government agencies accumulate enough lawsuits against them they will relent on some of these upsurd gun control laws.
Just to add there are a couple states currently who are considering laws to allow CCW holders the right to sue exactly for this. Where as I am glad to see this I dont really see the need for it to be a law to say you have a right to sue for someone else negligence in getting your hurt.
New Law Makes Owners Liable for Gun-Free Property | LawNewz
Tennessee Makes Proprietors Of Gun-Free Zones Responsible For Injury While Disarmed
A new Tennessee law went into effect on July 1, aimed at protecting gun owners who leave their weapons behind to go to gun-free areas. Senate Bill 1736 added the statute, which deals with property where the land owner prohibits the possession of guns on the premises.
Existing Tennessee law allows the owners of certain properties to bar guns if they put up a posting declaring it. The new law says that an owner who chooses to do this “assumes absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense” of someone who has a gun carry permit who left their weapon behind to visit the property. It says that the owner is responsible for the gun permit holder while they are on the property, and when they are traveling to and from wherever they leave their gun.
Just to add there are a couple states currently who are considering laws to allow CCW holders the right to sue exactly for this. Where as I am glad to see this I dont really see the need for it to be a law to say you have a right to sue for someone else negligence in getting your hurt.
New Law Makes Owners Liable for Gun-Free Property | LawNewz
Tennessee Makes Proprietors Of Gun-Free Zones Responsible For Injury While Disarmed
A new Tennessee law went into effect on July 1, aimed at protecting gun owners who leave their weapons behind to go to gun-free areas. Senate Bill 1736 added the statute, which deals with property where the land owner prohibits the possession of guns on the premises.
Existing Tennessee law allows the owners of certain properties to bar guns if they put up a posting declaring it. The new law says that an owner who chooses to do this “assumes absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense” of someone who has a gun carry permit who left their weapon behind to visit the property. It says that the owner is responsible for the gun permit holder while they are on the property, and when they are traveling to and from wherever they leave their gun.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
More "law" is not the answer to disputes that arise between individuals, both of whom have rights that conflict with each other. The property owner doesn't want armed people on his property, and the gun carrier doesn't want to go where his/her gun is prohibited. The undeniably most equitable resolution to that conflict is for the gun owner to go elsewhere to conduct his business. Every other alternative resolution involves one party's rights being violated in order for the other party's rights to be elevated.
As far as "laws" that create gun free zones, that's a different story. By virtue of the language of the 2nd Amendment, no such "law" is valid. However, such "laws" are enforceable, because with he who possesses the force, and is ready, willing and authorized by the state to use it, resides the authority to enforce the invalid "laws."
In the first instance if someone disregards private property postings of no guns allowed, there is no way they can claim to be "right" in violating the property owner's actual rights.
In the second instance of government-imposed infringements upon gun carriers, you have every actual right to carry where you will, but you will lose almost any and all challenges to the prohibition if you get caught, because everyone from cops to prosecutors to judges to jurors believe that the state is empowered to control how you exercise your rights. And that's assuming that it even gets as far as a prosecutor, judge or jury, and you don't get shot and killed by either a security guard or cop for challenging the illegitimate "law" in the first place.
In the first instance you are inconvenienced if/when you do the right thing and have to drive to another location to conduct your business. You don't, however, put your own life and liberty at risk by accepting the option of being inconvenienced.
In the second instance your rights are legitimately being suppressed, oppressed and violated, and you are indeed in the right to challenge such "laws," but it has every potential to end very badly for you, and the state will never acknowledge that you have legal recourse beyond the normal course of time-consuming and wealth-consuming appeals.
Unjust and unconstitutional "laws" are rampant and ubiquitous. It is a Hobson's Choice for those concerned with defending their own liberty under the natural law of rights, but most citizens are not so-concerned. They accept as legitimate anything that comes from an "official" origin. It is too much work for them to suss out the actual legalities in favor of shrugging their shoulders in the face of tyranny and saying with either or both action and word, "That's just the way it is." From that statement on, no craps are given for the usurpation, and I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see someone come behind this post saying I can't accept "reality" or I'm engaging in "wishful thinking" or whatever other platitudinous rhetoric might be employed to simply shrug their shoulders and say, "That's just the way it is."
I would never patronize a business that was forced at the point of government guns to "assume absolute custodial responsibility" for my safety. I have, and may again in the future, snuck a gun in where they are prohibited by signage in order to maintain my own absolute right of self-defense, but never would I push the notion that I had a "right" to do that, or even that I was right for doing that, and neither would I wish upon another citizen who happens to own a business that government get between me and him/her over safety and security issues that I am perfectly capable of providing for me and mine. The overwhelming majority of the times I've seen such signage, I've turned around and gone someplace else, though it's been at least 30 years since I've seen such a sign on a privately-owned business anyway. Don't recall ever seeing one in AL during the 25 years I've lived here.
Blues
As far as "laws" that create gun free zones, that's a different story. By virtue of the language of the 2nd Amendment, no such "law" is valid. However, such "laws" are enforceable, because with he who possesses the force, and is ready, willing and authorized by the state to use it, resides the authority to enforce the invalid "laws."
In the first instance if someone disregards private property postings of no guns allowed, there is no way they can claim to be "right" in violating the property owner's actual rights.
In the second instance of government-imposed infringements upon gun carriers, you have every actual right to carry where you will, but you will lose almost any and all challenges to the prohibition if you get caught, because everyone from cops to prosecutors to judges to jurors believe that the state is empowered to control how you exercise your rights. And that's assuming that it even gets as far as a prosecutor, judge or jury, and you don't get shot and killed by either a security guard or cop for challenging the illegitimate "law" in the first place.
In the first instance you are inconvenienced if/when you do the right thing and have to drive to another location to conduct your business. You don't, however, put your own life and liberty at risk by accepting the option of being inconvenienced.
In the second instance your rights are legitimately being suppressed, oppressed and violated, and you are indeed in the right to challenge such "laws," but it has every potential to end very badly for you, and the state will never acknowledge that you have legal recourse beyond the normal course of time-consuming and wealth-consuming appeals.
Unjust and unconstitutional "laws" are rampant and ubiquitous. It is a Hobson's Choice for those concerned with defending their own liberty under the natural law of rights, but most citizens are not so-concerned. They accept as legitimate anything that comes from an "official" origin. It is too much work for them to suss out the actual legalities in favor of shrugging their shoulders in the face of tyranny and saying with either or both action and word, "That's just the way it is." From that statement on, no craps are given for the usurpation, and I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see someone come behind this post saying I can't accept "reality" or I'm engaging in "wishful thinking" or whatever other platitudinous rhetoric might be employed to simply shrug their shoulders and say, "That's just the way it is."
I would never patronize a business that was forced at the point of government guns to "assume absolute custodial responsibility" for my safety. I have, and may again in the future, snuck a gun in where they are prohibited by signage in order to maintain my own absolute right of self-defense, but never would I push the notion that I had a "right" to do that, or even that I was right for doing that, and neither would I wish upon another citizen who happens to own a business that government get between me and him/her over safety and security issues that I am perfectly capable of providing for me and mine. The overwhelming majority of the times I've seen such signage, I've turned around and gone someplace else, though it's been at least 30 years since I've seen such a sign on a privately-owned business anyway. Don't recall ever seeing one in AL during the 25 years I've lived here.
Blues
B
Bikenut
Guest
Well said Blues!
bofh
Banned
How about reading the new TN law by yourself, instead of relying on others to parse it for you? You may be able to actually understand what TN HB2033/SB1736 actually says. It is far from what you think it says:
Many pro-gun Web sites have cited this new TN law incorrectly, by using the text of the original bill and not the text of the amended and signed bill. This is a typical example of how we lose our gun rights. People wanting more laws to "protect their rights", but then fail to follow up what nonsense actually happens in the legislature. Then they go out and praise the new law without knowing what's actually in it.
SR9
New member
Just because a business has a "no guns" sign means nothing to me. If they find I'm concealed carrying the most they can do is ask me to leave. Then of course if I leave, so does my money and the people with me, then we will bad mouth them all over the local concealed carry website, and to people we know. So what do they think they will gain?
When I approach a place of business and see a sign, I first ask myself if what I wanted here was available elsewhere and do I really even need the item or service at all?
If I determine that I do indeed need to go into this place, I go back to the truck and secure my weapon.
If I don't need to enter, I just leave. I do not bother talking to a manager, or owner. They have already made it clear that I am not welcome and to me that is the end of the subject.
I know of some that will scrutinize the sign in effort to determine that it does or does not meet the legal requirements and then disregard it if it does not.
I on the other hand don't care. If a store owner puts up any signage that lets me know that I am not welcome, I am going to oblige them and spend my money elsewhere.
I do know
If I determine that I do indeed need to go into this place, I go back to the truck and secure my weapon.
If I don't need to enter, I just leave. I do not bother talking to a manager, or owner. They have already made it clear that I am not welcome and to me that is the end of the subject.
I know of some that will scrutinize the sign in effort to determine that it does or does not meet the legal requirements and then disregard it if it does not.
I on the other hand don't care. If a store owner puts up any signage that lets me know that I am not welcome, I am going to oblige them and spend my money elsewhere.
I do know
mikestone967
Banned
Link Removed
B
Bikenut
Guest
If you are talking about carrying where the government says you can't that is civil disobedience but if you are talking about carrying onto/into private property where the owner doesn't want guns then y'all can try to make disrespecting the property owner's right to ban those who carry guns while insisting your right to bear arms be respected some kind of noble "I carry to save you" BS but it still comes down to nothing more than the hypocrisy of:
Hooray for MY right to bear arms and to hell with your private property right to control who comes onto/into your private property!
- Status
