Got denied entry into gun show today

[Axeanda45]

Try this one on for size...You have a right to speak freely "Freedom of Speech"...except you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. You do not have the right to incite to riot with your speech. With rights come some common sense responsibilities so it seems that the reason we cannot carry a loaded firearm into a gun show is perhaps someone long ago did not exercise some common sense and someone was harmed. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. I am all for the right to bear arms but ya gotta ask yourself why you would want to be in a theater and have some one yell "Fire!" That person is now infringing on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All of our rights described in the Constitution are pre-existing rights, however you can forfeit rights...your right to life for example. Timothy McVeigh found out as have so many others that the right to life has limits.

Actually, you couldnt be more wrong in your statements if you tried...... You Absolutely DO have the RIGHT to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, even if there is no fire... You just cannot use that RIGHT as an excuse to keep yourself from being punished by a Jury of your peers if you caused any injuries or deaths because of what you yelled.......

I really hate it when people blather/spit out this WRONG assumption of what the court finding actually was.....

 

[Bikenut]

Generalized food for thought..... and even a bit of a rant.....

It has been my personal experience that when someone says "I am all for the right to bear arms BUT..." what they are really saying is they are for the right to bear arms as long as it is done the way they personally think is "reasonable", "appropriate", and... most importantly... what they personally consider "acceptable".

No one can ever "forfeit" their rights...folks can voluntarily decide not to exercise those rights (like leaving their gun in the car when going into a store that has a "no guns" rule or agreeing to not carry a gun because their employer says no guns on the job is a condition of employment)... or people can be penalized, even unto death, for exercising those rights in ways that harm others... or in ways that governments consider to threaten their power. But people still retain their rights whether they decide not to exercise them or are oppressed into not daring to exercise them.

You, I, and everyone on this earth, are born owning all the same rights for no other reason than we were born. It is the penalties that are assessed for the exercising of those rights by governments, or by laws, or even by rules and policies, that is the basis of control of peoples. Governments remain in power by using laws that criminalize the exercising of rights to keep their populations under control. Businesses and private property owners use rules and policies to keep their customers and their employees under control. Both share the same process of assessing penalties (criminals/threats to power are arrested and imprisoned/killed, employees are fired, customers are denied entry/kicked out) to anyone who doesn't submit to that control.

Please do not think that I am advocating having no degree of control of people at all. Some penalties do result in controlling the greater share of society into behaving in a manner that doesn't cause harm to others and/or gives those who have been harmed a way to be compensated for having suffered that harm. What I do advocate is to not restrict the right/rights of people but to punish those who misuse those rights to harm others.

In other words... do not restrict the right of free speech in any way but punish those who yell "FIRE" when there isn't any fire... and punish those who's speech incites riots... and even punish those who's speech causes someone to come to some kind of harm (slander). And do not restrict the right to keep and bear arms but punish those who use guns to cause harm to innocent others.

Oh... and in my not so humble and likely to be unpopular opinion.... all too often folks are focused on "MY RIGHTS!" without realizing that everyone else has those very same rights.

 

[doctorw]

Each state has laws about where you can and cannot carry. Always comply. If anything happens, and you you cannot defend yourself, hold them liable. I have never been allowed to carry a loaded weapon into a gun show in Missouri.

 

[Peggy Reist]

Pleasant surprise in Kansas today. This is the sign at the entrance to a gun show in SW Kansas that runs today and tomorrow. It's the first one like it I've seen anywhere. This is the 3rd gun show I've been to this month and the others did not allow concealed carry, but maybe it's a sign of better things to come.

 

[wolf_fire]

Pleasant surprise in Kansas today. This is the sign at the entrance to a gun show in SW Kansas that runs today and tomorrow. It's the first one like it I've seen anywhere. This is the 3rd gun show I've been to this month and the others did not allow concealed carry, but maybe it's a sign of better things to come.

It's interesting they would allow the firearm that is hidden but not the one worn openly. I wonder if this applies to police officers too.

 

[12GA]

It's interesting they would allow the firearm that is hidden but not the one worn openly. I wonder if this applies to police officers too.

i wonder what percentage of folks who open carry have been trained on weapon retention. I'm guessing the prohibition of open carry at gun shows is related to this issue.

As for carrying concealed at gun shows, this past January was the 1st time I've ever been asked at the door. And yes, those who answered "yes" were redirected away from the entrance to a table where firearms were being checked and secured.

 

[JimTh]

Some of the replies are way off base. There is a major difference between having the ability to do something simply because you are ambulatory and have your vocal chords still intact and having the right to do something. You have the ability to take your silly little gun and shoot your way into a courthouse simply because you don't like your rights infringed upon. Ability does not equal "rights". Get to know the difference before you kill someone just because you have a gun and a trigger finger. You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater...you may be a big enough dumbass to do it simply because you were not taught otherwise. If you get yourself sent to prison because you exercised one of your "dumbass rights" then Bubba has the right to treat you like his mistress simply because he is bigger and can. Gag on that for awhile! Do you wanna be the mama or the papa says Bubba...okay then come over here and suck on mamas you know what!

 

[Bikenut]

i wonder what percentage of folks who open carry have been trained on weapon retention. I'm guessing the prohibition of open carry at gun shows is related to this issue.

As for carrying concealed at gun shows, this past January was the 1st time I've ever been asked at the door. And yes, those who answered "yes" were redirected away from the entrance to a table where firearms were being checked and secured.

I wonder what percentage of CC folks have been trained in weapon retention? Or are you suggesting that a shirt or jacket covering a gun negates the need for weapon retention skills?

 

[walknotinfear]

I think very very very and very little ccw people have weapons retention training. This is an advanced class and most people don't go looking for handgun weapons retention instruction. I touch on this topic a bit in my class verbally only.

 

[Axeanda45]

Some of the replies are way off base. There is a major difference between having the ability to do something simply because you are ambulatory and have your vocal chords still intact and having the right to do something. You have the ability to take your silly little gun and shoot your way into a courthouse simply because you don't like your rights infringed upon. Ability does not equal "rights". Get to know the difference before you kill someone just because you have a gun and a trigger finger. You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater...you may be a big enough dumbass to do it simply because you were not taught otherwise. If you get yourself sent to prison because you exercised one of your "dumbass rights" then Bubba has the right to treat you like his mistress simply because he is bigger and can. Gag on that for awhile! Do you wanna be the mama or the papa says Bubba...okay then come over here and suck on mamas you know what!

Please give cites to your claim that freedom of speech is legally infringed upon while you are in a theater....

 

[Bikenut]

Some of the replies are way off base. There is a major difference between having the ability to do something simply because you are ambulatory and have your vocal chords still intact and having the right to do something. You have the ability to take your silly little gun and shoot your way into a courthouse simply because you don't like your rights infringed upon. Ability does not equal "rights". Get to know the difference before you kill someone just because you have a gun and a trigger finger. You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater...you may be a big enough dumbass to do it simply because you were not taught otherwise. If you get yourself sent to prison because you exercised one of your "dumbass rights" then Bubba has the right to treat you like his mistress simply because he is bigger and can. Gag on that for awhile! Do you wanna be the mama or the papa says Bubba...okay then come over here and suck on mamas you know what!

Please understand that the right to bear arms does not mean the right to shoot people.

Folks most certainly do have the right to free speech which includes yelling "FIRE" in a theater... but there will be consequences for exercising the right to free speech by yelling "FIRE" if there isn't actually a fire. One must be able to understand the difference between having the right to do something and being punished for exercising that right in a way that causes harm. There is a difference between having the right to free speech and exercising that right in a way that causes harm. But having the right to free speech does not equate to the right to cause harm while exercising that right.

Same thing goes for bearing arms. We all, everyone in the entire world, have the natural right to bear arms but that does not mean the right to bear arms equates to any right to harm people while bearing arms. Please understand the difference.

Oh... and using sensationalized references to "Bubba" doesn't help with your credibility nor does it lend credence to your argument. Quite the contrary.....

I have a question for you though.... do you believe that a concealed carry permit is the same as the right to bear arms?

 

[JimTh]

I don't know about that. You guys seem to think you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. Ya see that just because you got a mouth does not mean you can use it in any way you feel you want to just as because you got a gun does not mean you can use it any way you want. You really don't get it do you?

 

[Bikenut]

I don't know about that. You guys seem to think you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. Ya see that just because you got a mouth does not mean you can use it in any way you feel you want to just as because you got a gun does not mean you can use it any way you want. You really don't get it do you?

One more time.... everyone in the world has the natural right to free speech. That means we all have the right to say anything we want about anything or anyone at any time anywhere. That is what the right to free speech means.

However... that right does not mean there won't be any punishment for saying something about someone somewhere sometime that causes harm to a person. But there is a difference between having the right and being punished for exercising that right in a way that causes harm.

Now... about that right to yell "FIRE" in a theater...

People have the right to yell anything they want to in a theater, including yelling "FIRE", but they will be punished if there is harm caused by what they yelled.

People have the right to bear arms too... but they will be punished if they cause harm with the gun they are carrying.

Please understand the separation between having a right and being punished for causing harm while exercising that right.

And I'm still curious if you believe a concealed carry permit is the right to bear arms?

 

[JimTh]

What ever...like arguing with a fence post! No such thing as a natural right to say anything...only a biological and physiological mechanism (a mouth) to say something. The way you exercise your jawbone is the right that remains unrestricted until your exercise of your jawbone causes harm to others. Then your "rights" are curtailed just as Adma Lanza would have lost his right to bear arms if he hadn't shot himself in the head.

 

[BC1]

One more time.... everyone in the world has the natural right to free speech. That means we all have the right to say anything we want about anything or anyone at any time anywhere. That is what the right to free speech means.

However... that right does not mean there won't be any punishment for saying something about someone somewhere sometime that causes harm to a person. But there is a difference between having the right and being punished for exercising that right in a way that causes harm.

It's a little more than that. You have no first amendment rights on private property. Same as the second amendment. Its between you and the government not you and the owner of private property. If you go to the mall and start speaking to the crowd that property owner doesn't have to honor your first amendment rights. If someone won't stop talking they get arrested for the trespass. Now that charge is only if they won't stop talking. When they get to the courthouse the judge will tell them to stop speaking. They have no first amendment right in that courtroom. If they continue to speak they're charged with criminal contempt of court, or, like in the case of "The People V. Larry Flint" the judge will order their mouth taped shut. The person is charged with trespass and contempt because there are no crimes specifically for refusing to shut-up. People have tied to invoke the first amendment as a defense in cases of trespass, criminal contempt... even obstructing governmental administration. They haven't prevailed thus your rights can be violated by the government or another citizen with impunity.
.
A gun show is a private operation renting a venue from another privately owned entity. They can tell you to leave your gun and speech outside without having violated anything. A movie theater can remove someone for speaking. Any municipality will also stop full freedom of speech during public meetings. Same for religious service. In fact in many states refusing to be quiet in church even has a specific charge. While some people want them to be prohibited from doing this I celebrate it. Property owner rights are too important. I'm glad I live in a country where I can tell someone to be quiet or get off my property.

 

[apvbguy]

What ever...like arguing with a fence post! No such thing as a natural right to say anything...only a biological and physiological mechanism (a mouth) to say something. The way you exercise your jawbone is the right that remains unrestricted until your exercise of your jawbone causes harm to others. Then your "rights" are curtailed just as Adma Lanza would have lost his right to bear arms if he hadn't shot himself in the head.

oh my, we have an "interesting" one here, does the constitution grant rights or does it enumerate our natural god given rights?

 

[Bikenut]

What ever...like arguing with a fence post! No such thing as a natural right to say anything...only a biological and physiological mechanism (a mouth) to say something. The way you exercise your jawbone is the right that remains unrestricted until your exercise of your jawbone causes harm to others. Then your "rights" are curtailed just as Adma Lanza would have lost his right to bear arms if he hadn't shot himself in the head.

Yes.... I've considered that it might be much easier to explain to a fence post the difference between rights and being punished for causing harm while exercising a right.

Had Adam Lanza lived and been arrested/convicted he would NOT have lost his right to bear arms but the law concerning felons and owning/carrying firearms would have made it illegal for him to exercise his natural right to keep and bear arms... which means he would still have the natural right to keep and bear arms but would be punished if he were caught exercising that right by having and/or carrying a gun.

When a person, a human being, is born they are born owning rights. Just because they are human and are living they own those rights. No one can ever "lose their rights" and no one can ever take them away.... but the human person, the individual, can be punished for actually exercising those rights.

All I'm trying to explain is that there is a difference between a "right" and "being punished for exercising a right". And it is very important for folks to understand the difference because rights are not something we are "allowed" to have... rights are something we all own just because we live.

You still haven't answered my question about if you believe that a concealed carry permit is the right to bear arms.

 

[dogshawred]

Actually, you couldnt be more wrong in your statements if you tried...... You Absolutely DO have the RIGHT to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, even if there is no fire... You just cannot use that RIGHT as an excuse to keep yourself from being punished by a Jury of your peers if you caused any injuries or deaths because of what you yelled.......

I really hate it when people blather/spit out this WRONG assumption of what the court finding actually was.....

CONSEQUNCES, consequences of one's actions, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions you can DO ANYTHING you want to in life. (not referring to career accomplishments) As an extreme example; if you wish to be a serial killer and are willing to accept the outcome then you can do it, even though their a laws against such an action.

Generalized food for thought..... and even a bit of a rant.....

It has been my personal experience that when someone says "I am all for the right to bear arms BUT..." what they are really saying is they are for the right to bear arms as long as it is done the way they personally think is "reasonable", "appropriate", and... most importantly... what they personally consider "acceptable".

No one can ever "forfeit" their rights...folks can voluntarily decide not to exercise those rights (like leaving their gun in the car when going into a store that has a "no guns" rule or agreeing to not carry a gun because their employer says no guns on the job is a condition of employment)... or people can be penalized, even unto death, for exercising those rights in ways that harm others... or in ways that governments consider to threaten their power. But people still retain their rights whether they decide not to exercise them or are oppressed into not daring to exercise them.

You, I, and everyone on this earth, are born owning all the same rights for no other reason than we were born. It is the penalties that are assessed for the exercising of those rights by governments, or by laws, or even by rules and policies, that is the basis of control of peoples. Governments remain in power by using laws that criminalize the exercising of rights to keep their populations under control. Businesses and private property owners use rules and policies to keep their customers and their employees under control. Both share the same process of assessing penalties (criminals/threats to power are arrested and imprisoned/killed, employees are fired, customers are denied entry/kicked out) to anyone who doesn't submit to that control.

Please do not think that I am advocating having no degree of control of people at all. Some penalties do result in controlling the greater share of society into behaving in a manner that doesn't cause harm to others and/or gives those who have been harmed a way to be compensated for having suffered that harm. What I do advocate is to not restrict the right/rights of people but to punish those who misuse those rights to harm others.

In other words... do not restrict the right of free speech in any way but punish those who yell "FIRE" when there isn't any fire... and punish those who's speech incites riots... and even punish those who's speech causes someone to come to some kind of harm (slander). And do not restrict the right to keep and bear arms but punish those who use guns to cause harm to innocent others.

Oh... and in my not so humble and likely to be unpopular opinion.... all too often folks are focused on "MY RIGHTS!" without realizing that everyone else has those very same rights.

Consequences, if people were held accountable personally for their action, then legislators would not need to keep trying to box each and every citizen into this little corner of obedience by law. If a moral society would stand up for what is right, what is proper for society in general less people would be apt to stray from normal behavior.
~
We have through convenience become a society that allows someone else think for us with little regard to the consequences of giving up control of our lives. This will be hard, difficult, next to impossible to reverse without extreme sacrifice by all concerned. I've made mistakes in my life and have paid for those mistakes, some of which take a toll on me emotionally every day. But their my mistakes and my consequences, which I own and accept.
~
Alexander45 & Bikenut, I agree with you whole heartedly. Not enough people are willing to own up to their actions and willing to accept punishment. Maybe if society was of such an honorable state and people knew they would have to fess up and pay for their actions they would think long and hard before they took those steps to violate another's liberty/rights. (no mistake I know that this world doesn't run this way and I'm fully aware that society is not ready for such honestly, nor do I delude myself into thinking that this will ever come to fruition in my life time, but I do believe in paying for one's actions honestly)

 

[Peggy Reist]

It's interesting they would allow the firearm that is hidden but not the one worn openly. I wonder if this applies to police officers too.

I saw a couple of Wildlife & Parks officers that were open carrying.

 

[Peggy Reist]

It's interesting they would allow the firearm that is hidden but not the one worn openly. I wonder if this applies to police officers too.

Interesting story a friend at the gun show told me. At the big show in Tulsa, they also allowed concealed carry with a few rules, but absolutely NO open carry, including cops. When someone tried to stop an off-duty cop from open carrying in there, he pretty much told them to mind their own business and brushed right past them. Wasn't but about 5 minutes later, he shot himself in the calf when he either pulled it out to show someone or was putting it back in the holster. I'm guessing they may be a little less friendly about any kind of carrying after that.