Firearms Owner's Rights V. Property Owner's rights

[Axeanda45]

I do believe I have figured out what many of you are confused about... I will now attempt to explain it so even bikenut can understand it (bikenut, that was meant as a good natured kidding, you and I see eye to eye on basically everything other than this subject, and I think most of this is just because of what words mean to different people)

Anyway, here it comes...

These "property rights" we seem to be arguing about are to me "rules" put in place by the owner, NOT "rights"... (hence, I argue that I would not be infringing on his "rights"because to me, that is NOT what they are)

Many have even been arguing that it is disrespectful or even hypocritical to "infringe" on these so-called rights... when we at the same time insist that our "rights" trump theirs... (again, I dont consider it a right, but just a rule) Yet my argument is that unless safeguards are taken like metal detectors and armed security, their "rules" ARE IN FACT TRUMPED by my "Right" to carry a firearm anywhere I darn well please.... My LIFE and the lives of those around me are worth way more than some "property owners rules".


My position and reasoning about "rights" come from the base understanding that my (our) "Rights" exist no matter where on this earth we are located. (I am mainly talking about the right to have in our possession whatever we want as far as tools for self defense/preservation) and that no-one else has any valid "power" to take them away from us unless we allow them to...

I have said many times before when this subject has come up that a "property owner" has the 100% RIGHT to tell ANYONE he wants to leave his/her property at any time for whatever reason they want... and I would even go so far to say they have the RIGHT to ventilate anyone who refuses to leave in a timely and civil manner. However..... it is 100% none of the property owners business what color panties I am wearing or what else I may have on me as long as it stays hidden and does no harm to anyone while hidden....

 

[Glockout]

I never carry my weapon into an establishment that says no to guns. I either leave it in my car or I shop elsewhere.

 

[Bikenut]

I do believe I have figured out what many of you are confused about... I will now attempt to explain it so even bikenut can understand it (bikenut, that was meant as a good natured kidding, you and I see eye to eye on basically everything other than this subject, and I think most of this is just because of what words mean to different people)

While my style of arguing can sometimes be a bit brusk rest assured I bear you no ill will Axeanda45.

Anyway, here it comes...

These "property rights" we seem to be arguing about are to me "rules" put in place by the owner, NOT "rights"... (hence, I argue that I would not be infringing on his "rights"because to me, that is NOT what they are)

Ok... it isn't the rules that are rights... it is that the property owner has the right to make rules. And if folks disrespect the rules they are, in effect, disrespecting the right to make those rules

Many have even been arguing that it is disrespectful or even hypocritical to "infringe" on these so-called rights... when we at the same time insist that our "rights" trump theirs... (again, I dont consider it a right, but just a rule) Yet my argument is that unless safeguards are taken like metal detectors and armed security, their "rules" ARE IN FACT TRUMPED by my "Right" to carry a firearm anywhere I darn well please.... My LIFE and the lives of those around me are worth way more than some "property owners rules".

You do have the right to carry your gun but neither you nor I have the right to BE wherever we darn well please. Case in point... If you had the right to carry your gun anywhere you darn well pleased then you would have the right to carry your gun while sitting in my living room whether I liked it or not. However...even though you have the right to carry your gun you do not have the right to sit in my living room... with or without your gun. And because I own my living room I get to decide who is allowed, who I will give permission, to sit therein... and I can decide to have a rule not allowing anyone who is carrying a gun to sit in my living room. I can decide that anyone carrying a gun does not have my permission to be in my living room.

And, with the exception that there are some laws against discrimination for property open to the public, as far as the private property right to deny entry there isn't any difference between my living room and Wal Mart. Both are private property and both have the right to make rules that deny access to people.

My position and reasoning about "rights" come from the base understanding that my (our) "Rights" exist no matter where on this earth we are located. (I am mainly talking about the right to have in our possession whatever we want as far as tools for self defense/preservation) and that no-one else has any valid "power" to take them away from us unless we allow them to...

Again... you (we) do not have the right to be anywhere on this earth you (we) want. It's not that you don't have the right to bear arms.. you do... neither you (nor anyone else) just don't have the right to be anywhere you want whether you are bearing arms or not.

I have said many times before when this subject has come up that a "property owner" has the 100% RIGHT to tell ANYONE he wants to leave his/her property at any time for whatever reason they want... and I would even go so far to say they have the RIGHT to ventilate anyone who refuses to leave in a timely and civil manner. However..... it is 100% none of the property owners business what color panties I am wearing or what else I may have on me as long as it stays hidden and does no harm to anyone while hidden....

And this is where the personal integrity comes in because even if the property owner doesn't know you are sneaking a gun in contrary to the rules he has the right to make... (and you just said he has the right to make those rules by acknowledging he has the right to ask you to leave) YOU know you are sneaking in a gun.

Part of my response is within your post in blue.

Thing is.. while it may not be any of the property owners business if you are wearing pink panties he still has the right to ban people wearing pink panties from entering his business. Yes, doing such a thing is ridiculous but the property owner still has the right to do it regardless of whether you and I think it is stupid and silly. Actually I think banning guns is stupid and silly but I understand that property owners have the right to make stupid and silly rules.

But because we do not have any right to be anywhere we darn well please (carrying or not) all we have is the permission of the property owner. Remember my living room? If I don't give you permission to enter then you are not allowed in.. gun or not. And if my permission is contingent upon you not carrying your gun then if you do carry your gun against my rule then, by default, you do not have my permission.

By the way..some businesses, like restaurants or stadiums, deny entry to anyone bringing in food or drink. And they have the right to do it because no one has the right to even be on/in the property without permission in the first place... and the business has decreed that only those who abide by the no food/no drinks rule will be given permission to enter. Break that rule and the permission is rescinded and the person is asked to leave/kicked out.

In short... yes, we all have the right to bear arms but none of us has the right to be on/in the property of someone else.... .

 

[alternety]

Axeanda - You have stated very nicely what I have been trying to get across; but I did not do it well. Yes. A property owner can tell you to leave their own private property. Your panty color is none of their business. However your right to bear arms is a real actual Constitutional right. It is valid everywhere in the country. This includes other peoples private property unless that owner specifically has told you he does not want you on his property. That activates his (or her, but I get tired of this silliness) right to determine who is allowed on his property and what acts they may perform. Much of this varies according to statutes in effect in the local area. A fundamental issue, in my mind, remains that property rights trump a Constitutional right. It is, however the way it is.

To extend the thinking a bit (actually a lot). Are these "private property rights" a larger problem than we believe? I have problems with corporations being treated as persons. I certainly think they should not be considered as a person in relation to political funding. That horrendously skews skews who controls the country. Should the people (us people) or a few extremely wealthy persons running a corporation or said corporation doing the same thing with being driven by the extremely wealthy person(s). It leads to, amongst other things, massive advertising that lies like a rug but opponents simply do not have the finances to refute them. We have watched the last set of elections being subverted locally and nationally by special interest groups with the resources to out-shout everyone else. Nationally you can make your own analysis. An election should not be about how much money the candidate has available (actually or effectively). This is not the way the country is supposed to work. To a large extent this is also enabled by a population that will not actually research the issues beyond what the "impartial" media presents.

Here in Washington state we have had multiple elections where strong (read really really wealthy with a profit motive) corporate propaganda have caused initiatives to be passed, that are really rotten for the citizens. The truth was there; but the general population does not look beyond the corporate purchased media presentations. Or media that supports something because the wealthy owner believes this is what should happen. I know, that is not possible because of the unbiased free press. We got rid of the state controlled liquor sales (on a campaign of lowered retail price), with conditions that raised retail prices by a minimum of 20%. It is now cheaper to go to Oregon with a state controlled system. We have just passed a marijuana legalization measure. You can have 2 oz. The grower is licensed. They can only sell to a licensed distributor, who in turn, only sell to a licensed reseller. Fees and compliance costs at all levels. Plus regulation and enforcement costs. I do not remember off hand what the tax rates are but I think it is around 25 -30% on each transfer. Think compound interest here. I suspect illegal sources can easily beat the legal price. And there is no provision for growing your own (like a home brewery). Simply a method to raise money for the state and members of the supply chain. Oddly, the old state Liquor Control Board is in control.

And then we have the credit cards that won't allow the purchase of firearm related goods. We are in a situation where the owners/leaders of major corporations are able to make their services an integral part of everyday commerce and then impose restrictions on our rights. The big corporations are creating what amounts to their own government. They make rules based on their own beliefs (frequently of only one person with a lot of money and no sense) that are imposed on the population without the involvement or agreement by the (unpurchased, though unlikely) representatives of the people. We are well into a shadow government run by a small number of very rich people. We fear the UN and Obama on gun controls. What if no bank would handle a purchase transaction involving firearms or ammunition (this happens ). A search engine would not return any item related to firearms (this has happened ). Your ISP refused to allow your web site because your are involved in firearms (this happens, to gun manufacturer recently). This goes far beyond the issue of "you can't carry here" but has the same basis of private property "rights".

I suggest that while arguing the issues of private property "rights" you take a wider view than that of Bubba (sorry Bubba) with a guy shooting up his cattle (or gators) or just being distressed by you having a gun he can't see and you have not told him about.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here you go, the Missouri statutes (laws) about signage:

Well, thank you. I learned something new!

 

[JohnMover]

Sometimes I forget I even have my firearm and walk into places that prohibit it.

 

[BC1]

As BC1 said the 2nd Amendment is only binding on the government... not individuals.

Private property rights.. the right to be in control of your own property... trumps ALL rights simply because the property owner can deny you, and your rights, entry according to his rules.

If he so wishes a private property owner can deny access to his property to anyone who..

Decides to preach a sermon or to suddenly hold mass or a prayer meeting in the middle of aisle 2... so much for freedom of religion.

Decides to make a political speech or to make a speech of any kind.... so much for freedom of speech.

Decides to carry a gun on/in his property... so much for the right to bear arms...

And that is exactly as it should be because... you have no right to be on/in anyone's property without their permission.... and entering is tacitly agreeing to abide by the owner's rules in exchange for that permission. Failure to abide by the rules results in revocation of that permission... (you get kicked out).

In regards to property rights your home isn't any different than your local Wal Mart in that it is not owned by the government.. and the Bill of Rights ONLY binds the government... not individuals.

Please consider this simplistic example:

You decide to have a garage sale so you open your property to the public giving tacit permission to individual members of the public to enter your property for the purpose of doing business (buying your junk stuff). You still have the right to make rules governing the behavior of anyone who takes you up on your permission and that your permission is contingent upon those folks obeying your rules.

Folks who do enter your property also tacitly agree to your rules for the privilege of being on your property. Please note I said "privilege" because no one other than the owner has any right to be on/in that property at all.

Here is the important part...

In respect to private property rights your garage sale is the very same thing as a big corporation store like Wal Mart... the only difference is Wal Mart is a much bigger............... garage sale.

Very well stated.

 

[BC1]

I do believe I have figured out what many of you are confused about... I will now attempt to explain it so even bikenut can understand it (bikenut, that was meant as a good natured kidding, you and I see eye to eye on basically everything other than this subject, and I think most of this is just because of what words mean to different people)

Anyway, here it comes...

These "property rights" we seem to be arguing about are to me "rules" put in place by the owner, NOT "rights"... (hence, I argue that I would not be infringing on his "rights"because to me, that is NOT what they are)

Many have even been arguing that it is disrespectful or even hypocritical to "infringe" on these so-called rights... when we at the same time insist that our "rights" trump theirs... (again, I dont consider it a right, but just a rule) Yet my argument is that unless safeguards are taken like metal detectors and armed security, their "rules" ARE IN FACT TRUMPED by my "Right" to carry a firearm anywhere I darn well please.... My LIFE and the lives of those around me are worth way more than some "property owners rules".


My position and reasoning about "rights" come from the base understanding that my (our) "Rights" exist no matter where on this earth we are located. (I am mainly talking about the right to have in our possession whatever we want as far as tools for self defense/preservation) and that no-one else has any valid "power" to take them away from us unless we allow them to...

I have said many times before when this subject has come up that a "property owner" has the 100% RIGHT to tell ANYONE he wants to leave his/her property at any time for whatever reason they want... and I would even go so far to say they have the RIGHT to ventilate anyone who refuses to leave in a timely and civil manner. However..... it is 100% none of the property owners business what color panties I am wearing or what else I may have on me as long as it stays hidden and does no harm to anyone while hidden....

But heres the rub... you don't have the right to even be there, let alone be there armed. First you must get past setting foot on private property if the owner says no. Then you can argue doing it armed. What happens if I come on your property for a yard sale and begin to argue with you about a price? What right or law prevails. Castle doctrine? Don't you have the right to throw me out? If I won't go don't you have the right to forcibly remove me? Do you bekieve you lose that right if I'm armed? No. I better skit.

 

[S&W645]

I do believe I have figured out what many of you are confused about... I will now attempt to explain it so even bikenut can understand it (bikenut, that was meant as a good natured kidding, you and I see eye to eye on basically everything other than this subject, and I think most of this is just because of what words mean to different people)

Anyway, here it comes...

These "property rights" we seem to be arguing about are to me "rules" put in place by the owner, NOT "rights"... (hence, I argue that I would not be infringing on his "rights"because to me, that is NOT what they are)

Many have even been arguing that it is disrespectful or even hypocritical to "infringe" on these so-called rights... when we at the same time insist that our "rights" trump theirs... (again, I dont consider it a right, but just a rule) Yet my argument is that unless safeguards are taken like metal detectors and armed security, their "rules" ARE IN FACT TRUMPED by my "Right" to carry a firearm anywhere I darn well please.... My LIFE and the lives of those around me are worth way more than some "property owners rules".


My position and reasoning about "rights" come from the base understanding that my (our) "Rights" exist no matter where on this earth we are located. (I am mainly talking about the right to have in our possession whatever we want as far as tools for self defense/preservation) and that no-one else has any valid "power" to take them away from us unless we allow them to...

I have said many times before when this subject has come up that a "property owner" has the 100% RIGHT to tell ANYONE he wants to leave his/her property at any time for whatever reason they want... and I would even go so far to say they have the RIGHT to ventilate anyone who refuses to leave in a timely and civil manner. However..... it is 100% none of the property owners business what color panties I am wearing or what else I may have on me as long as it stays hidden and does no harm to anyone while hidden....

I can name a number of places where you would find you have absolutely no right to carry anywhere you want. One of which is a gun shop with a posted "no loaded guns/magazines" sign unless you have prior approval of the owner or are law enforcement.

 

[BluesStringer]

I can name a number of places where you would find you have absolutely no right to carry anywhere you want. One of which is a gun shop with a posted "no loaded guns/magazines" sign unless you have prior approval of the owner or are law enforcement.

The store I normally use to buy ammo and/or guns and/or shooting at their indoor range doesn't have such a sign, but if they did have one that said that only cops could carry in their store, I'd never go there again. I don't really get the point of a no-loaded-weapons policy in a gun shop to begin with. I use the example all the time to demonstrate why more guns equals less crime, by pointing out that that's why you rarely hear of gun stores being robbed, because everyone knows armed people are inside.

I may be mistaken, but I think this is kind of what alternety was getting at earlier in the thread when talking about discrimination of blacks or women being analogous to discrimination of people who exercise their rights by being CC'ers. If one group, cops for example (on or off duty), are allowed to exercise their rights inside of a given establishment, I would definitely feel discriminated against if I wasn't allowed to just because I chose not to go into that profession. It may not pass a legal test, but I don't think the analogy is such a far stretch, and I also don't think legal tests are always decided correctly anyway.

I get the "respect the property owner's rights" argument, but respecting the weapon's potential for falling into other-than-my-own hands is a consideration too. Kind of a thread drift, but one time about 15 or so years ago I drove my new (at the time) Dodge Ram p/u to one of those self-service car washes with the bays and a pressure-washer hose coming out of the wall in 'em. Jumped out of the truck with it still running (it was really hot, so I wanted the AC to keep running - I know, I know, I'm just a planet-killing maniac! LOL), and accidentally hit the power door-lock switch when I was getting out. So my truck's running, keys locked inside, wife is out of town and can't bring me the spare set, and I have to break into the truck, which I'm not good at because I've never done it before. There's no attendant at the car wash, no way to get a hanger or other tool to snake through the window and reach for the door locks or switch, so I figured what the hey, I've got this pressure washing wand in my hand and finding a replacement side window at a junkyard is going to be cheaper than calling out a locksmith, so BOOM! I put the wand through the window, reached in, unlocked the truck and went on my merry way straight to the junkyard where I bought a window for $30 bucks. As I'm driving home I realize my gun was in my center console the whole time. Once I decided how I was gonna get into the truck, it took no more than 10 seconds to accomplish the deed. I have never left my weapon in my vehicle since, and never will.

There's a fine line as far as I'm concerned between respecting someone else's rights and acting irresponsibly to do it. For me, it's really not a question of going to a friend's house who has rules against guns. It's just never happened, and being as my circle of friends doesn't change much at all, I seriously doubt it ever will. So if this were going to be a problem for me, it would happen at a commercial location where I'd be inside doing my business, with my vehicle out of view, and a gun in it accessible within seconds by anyone who wanted to see what was in there. The responsible thing to do is keep the weapon with me at all times. If my "integrity" is damaged because I disrespect someone else's rights, well, I consider the scales fairly well balanced because I made the most responsible choice I could make.

It's not an "in-your-face, I-don't-care-about-your-rights" mindset, but if losing control of my weapon by respecting someone else's rights is my only choice, call me lacking integrity and/or disrespectful, but I'm maintaining command and control of my weapon, period.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

Sometimes I forget I even have my firearm and walk into places that prohibit it.

I hear this line a lot...How can anyone forget they are armed? I mean, it's our life line, it should never be forgotten. If a threat appears, I surely hope you don't forget you are armed...that could have devastating effects to the outcome.

It also makes me feel like even though the firearm is on you, you have misplaced it since you no longer remember where it is. Bad habits in my mind.

 

[Glockout]

Sometimes I forget I even have my firearm and walk into places that prohibit it.

I'm sure the BG is hoping the same thing. For your sake, I hope you're kidding.

 

[S&W645]

The store I normally use to buy ammo and/or guns and/or shooting at their indoor range doesn't have such a sign, but if they did have one that said that only cops could carry in their store, I'd never go there again. I don't really get the point of a no-loaded-weapons policy in a gun shop to begin with. I use the example all the time to demonstrate why more guns equals less crime, by pointing out that that's why you rarely hear of gun stores being robbed, because everyone knows armed people are inside.

I may be mistaken, but I think this is kind of what alternety was getting at earlier in the thread when talking about discrimination of blacks or women being analogous to discrimination of people who exercise their rights by being CC'ers. If one group, cops for example (on or off duty), are allowed to exercise their rights inside of a given establishment, I would definitely feel discriminated against if I wasn't allowed to just because I chose not to go into that profession. It may not pass a legal test, but I don't think the analogy is such a far stretch, and I also don't think legal tests are always decided correctly anyway.

I get the "respect the property owner's rights" argument, but respecting the weapon's potential for falling into other-than-my-own hands is a consideration too. Kind of a thread drift, but one time about 15 or so years ago I drove my new (at the time) Dodge Ram p/u to one of those self-service car washes with the bays and a pressure-washer hose coming out of the wall in 'em. Jumped out of the truck with it still running (it was really hot, so I wanted the AC to keep running - I know, I know, I'm just a planet-killing maniac! LOL), and accidentally hit the power door-lock switch when I was getting out. So my truck's running, keys locked inside, wife is out of town and can't bring me the spare set, and I have to break into the truck, which I'm not good at because I've never done it before. There's no attendant at the car wash, no way to get a hanger or other tool to snake through the window and reach for the door locks or switch, so I figured what the hey, I've got this pressure washing wand in my hand and finding a replacement side window at a junkyard is going to be cheaper than calling out a locksmith, so BOOM! I put the wand through the window, reached in, unlocked the truck and went on my merry way straight to the junkyard where I bought a window for $30 bucks. As I'm driving home I realize my gun was in my center console the whole time. Once I decided how I was gonna get into the truck, it took no more than 10 seconds to accomplish the deed. I have never left my weapon in my vehicle since, and never will.

There's a fine line as far as I'm concerned between respecting someone else's rights and acting irresponsibly to do it. For me, it's really not a question of going to a friend's house who has rules against guns. It's just never happened, and being as my circle of friends doesn't change much at all, I seriously doubt it ever will. So if this were going to be a problem for me, it would happen at a commercial location where I'd be inside doing my business, with my vehicle out of view, and a gun in it accessible within seconds by anyone who wanted to see what was in there. The responsible thing to do is keep the weapon with me at all times. If my "integrity" is damaged because I disrespect someone else's rights, well, I consider the scales fairly well balanced because I made the most responsible choice I could make.

It's not an "in-your-face, I-don't-care-about-your-rights" mindset, but if losing control of my weapon by respecting someone else's rights is my only choice, call me lacking integrity and/or disrespectful, but I'm maintaining command and control of my weapon, period.

Blues

As for the cops, if there was a sign that just said no loaded guns, it would not be binding on them anyways. You cannot tell an on duty cop that he can not carry a loaded gun onto your property. Even the most anti gun persons would find that out if they got drug into court. Many off duty cops are never really off duty. Many are allowed by their departments to carry off duty as extra coverage for their dept's area. Same as Flag Officers of the military are never really retired and some employees were never really off the job. Such as I was from May 1 to Dec 1. Expected to be on the job in less than 4 hours 24/7 during that period

If I have to leave my gun in the center console, it is under lock and key. Can't understand why so many trucks have consoles/gloveboxes that can't be locked.

 

[doublebarr]

Well, thank you. I learned something new!

You're welcome There are so many different laws in every state that unless you are working on them directly, it's hard to stay on top of all of them. Makes for some interesting discussions though when someone, unlike you, who thinks they know it all doesn't really have a clue once they get outside "their" area. It's a big country folks, there IS more than just your little corner of it

 

[doublebarr]

If I have to leave my gun in the center console, it is under lock and key. Can't understand why so many trucks have consoles/gloveboxes that can't be locked.

You do realize how easy most of those are to break into, don't you? Even the aftermarket ones. Leaving it in your vehicle is NOT secured unless you have a specialty vault, and even then if the vehicle is stolen, the gun is gone and you can bet they WILL get it open and their hands on YOUR gun. Unlike a solid gun vault at home bolted to the floor, a vehicle vault is NOT secure. Safer than just laying in the vehicle, yes, but not secure.

 

[Icemanii]

You're welcome There are so many different laws in every state that unless you are working on them directly, it's hard to stay on top of all of them. Makes for some interesting discussions though when someone, unlike you, who thinks they know it all doesn't really have a clue once they get outside "their" area. It's a big country folks, there IS more than just your little corner of it

Blasphemy!!! Are you trying to say the world doesn't revolve around me?? :laugh:


Seriously though, good advice. Myself I read the rules on where I am heading so I don't make an error that will at the least, disrupt my trip.
Every state has their own certain rules and even within the states things are different.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

There's a fine line as far as I'm concerned between respecting someone else's rights and acting irresponsibly to do it. For me, it's really not a question of going to a friend's house who has rules against guns. It's just never happened, and being as my circle of friends doesn't change much at all, I seriously doubt it ever will. So if this were going to be a problem for me, it would happen at a commercial location where I'd be inside doing my business, with my vehicle out of view, and a gun in it accessible within seconds by anyone who wanted to see what was in there. The responsible thing to do is keep the weapon with me at all times. If my "integrity" is damaged because I disrespect someone else's rights, well, I consider the scales fairly well balanced because I made the most responsible choice I could make.

It's not an "in-your-face, I-don't-care-about-your-rights" mindset, but if losing control of my weapon by respecting someone else's rights is my only choice, call me lacking integrity and/or disrespectful, but I'm maintaining command and control of my weapon, period.

Blues

It seems to me the responsible thing to do would be to simply not go into/onto property that bans guns. That way you retain command and control of your gun AND you do not disrespect someone else's rights.

The following are general comments not directed at Blues or anyone else for that matter.

Thing is... it seems many folks frame this "My right to bear arms vs your right to ban guns on your property" thing in the light of the only choices are to disarm and go in or stay armed and go in. But since no one has any right to be on/in property owned by someone else there is another choice.... Don't go in. That choice respects the property owner's rights while retaining the right to bear arms simply by not entering the property.

No need to disarm... go somewhere else. But if unwilling to go elsewhere all the mental gymnastics in the world used in an attempt to justify deciding to go armed in a place that has a right to, and does, deny access to those who are armed cannot hide the simple fact that .......... there is no right to go there in the first place... armed or not.

And because there isn't any right to be on/in someone elses property those who decide to go there tacitly agree to any conditions placed upon the privilege of having the owner's permission to be there.

Don't agree to the conditions? Don't go there.

Don't agree to the conditions but still go there in violation of those conditions? That is disrespect regardless of if caught or not. And that old "concealed means concealed" thing about if no one knows then it is Ok doesn't get it either because the one doing the concealing knows.

Want a right respected but disrespect the different rights of others and try to justify it with a myriad of excuses (like "concealed means concealed")? Ummmm... wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical?

 

[Firefighterchen]

The store I normally use to buy ammo and/or guns and/or shooting at their indoor range doesn't have such a sign, but if they did have one that said that only cops could carry in their store, I'd never go there again. I don't really get the point of a no-loaded-weapons policy in a gun shop to begin with. I use the example all the time to demonstrate why more guns equals less crime, by pointing out that that's why you rarely hear of gun stores being robbed, because everyone knows armed people are inside.

I may be mistaken, but I think this is kind of what alternety was getting at earlier in the thread when talking about discrimination of blacks or women being analogous to discrimination of people who exercise their rights by being CC'ers. If one group, cops for example (on or off duty), are allowed to exercise their rights inside of a given establishment, I would definitely feel discriminated against if I wasn't allowed to just because I chose not to go into that profession. It may not pass a legal test, but I don't think the analogy is such a far stretch, and I also don't think legal tests are always decided correctly anyway.

I get the "respect the property owner's rights" argument, but respecting the weapon's potential for falling into other-than-my-own hands is a consideration too. Kind of a thread drift, but one time about 15 or so years ago I drove my new (at the time) Dodge Ram p/u to one of those self-service car washes with the bays and a pressure-washer hose coming out of the wall in 'em. Jumped out of the truck with it still running (it was really hot, so I wanted the AC to keep running - I know, I know, I'm just a planet-killing maniac! LOL), and accidentally hit the power door-lock switch when I was getting out. So my truck's running, keys locked inside, wife is out of town and can't bring me the spare set, and I have to break into the truck, which I'm not good at because I've never done it before. There's no attendant at the car wash, no way to get a hanger or other tool to snake through the window and reach for the door locks or switch, so I figured what the hey, I've got this pressure washing wand in my hand and finding a replacement side window at a junkyard is going to be cheaper than calling out a locksmith, so BOOM! I put the wand through the window, reached in, unlocked the truck and went on my merry way straight to the junkyard where I bought a window for $30 bucks. As I'm driving home I realize my gun was in my center console the whole time. Once I decided how I was gonna get into the truck, it took no more than 10 seconds to accomplish the deed. I have never left my weapon in my vehicle since, and never will.

There's a fine line as far as I'm concerned between respecting someone else's rights and acting irresponsibly to do it. For me, it's really not a question of going to a friend's house who has rules against guns. It's just never happened, and being as my circle of friends doesn't change much at all, I seriously doubt it ever will. So if this were going to be a problem for me, it would happen at a commercial location where I'd be inside doing my business, with my vehicle out of view, and a gun in it accessible within seconds by anyone who wanted to see what was in there. The responsible thing to do is keep the weapon with me at all times. If my "integrity" is damaged because I disrespect someone else's rights, well, I consider the scales fairly well balanced because I made the most responsible choice I could make.

It's not an "in-your-face, I-don't-care-about-your-rights" mindset, but if losing control of my weapon by respecting someone else's rights is my only choice, call me lacking integrity and/or disrespectful, but I'm maintaining command and control of my weapon, period.

Blues

As for the cops, if there was a sign that just said no loaded guns, it would not be binding on them anyways. You cannot tell an on duty cop that he can not carry a loaded gun onto your property. Even the most anti gun persons would find that out if they got drug into court. Many off duty cops are never really off duty. Many are allowed by their departments to carry off duty as extra coverage for their dept's area. Same as Flag Officers of the military are never really retired and some employees were never really off the job. Such as I was from May 1 to Dec 1. Expected to be on the job in less than 4 hours 24/7 during that period

If I have to leave my gun in the center console, it is under lock and key. Can't understand why so many trucks have consoles/gloveboxes that can't be locked.

But unless the officer is there on official business, he too has no right to be on private property. There is a cafe in Portland OR, they banned officers from coming in, so unless a crime is committed and officers have reason and paperwork to enter, they can not carry their loaded or unloaded gun in there.

 

[B2Tall]

I don't even bother to look for gunbuster signs. It's not some sort of concious effort on my part to skirt the property owner's wishes.......I just don't read what's on the door. Unless the sign (any sign or lettering for that matter) is at or near eye level and is clearly visible then I'm probably not going to see it. That being said if I did see the sign then I'd go elsewhere.


I was in Utah last week visiting family for the holiday and I was packing. Went to a mall and walked into Tiffany's for a few minutes. After coming out of the store my nephew and I were waiting for the rest of the family when he pointed out a sign near the bottom of the door that said "Firearms prohibited". It was mixed in with some other stuff and was very low-contrast - it blended in with everything else. Add in the fact that it was at shin-level and my only response was "Really??".


Did I break the law?? I think not.

 

[NavyLCDR]

As for the cops, if there was a sign that just said no loaded guns, it would not be binding on them anyways. You cannot tell an on duty cop that he can not carry a loaded gun onto your property. Even the most anti gun persons would find that out if they got drug into court. Many off duty cops are never really off duty. Many are allowed by their departments to carry off duty as extra coverage for their dept's area. Same as Flag Officers of the military are never really retired and some employees were never really off the job. Such as I was from May 1 to Dec 1. Expected to be on the job in less than 4 hours 24/7 during that period

If I have to leave my gun in the center console, it is under lock and key. Can't understand why so many trucks have consoles/gloveboxes that can't be locked.

Very incorrect. Unless a police officer is on official business - as in performing a "welfare check" or investigating probable cause of a crime committed, they have no more right to be on private property than anyone else - armed or not. Just because they are wearing a uniform and badge does not give them immunity from trespassing. This falls under 4th amendment protections.