Private property owners have the right run their establishments as they see fit (within the law of course) if the owner chooses to ban fire arms that's his right
Many states' signs don't carry the force of law, they are simply indicating that if someone notices you carrying, you will be asked to leave. If you refuse to leave after being asked to then that, my friend, does carry the force of law.Not in Nevada, Missouri and maybe other states where it carries no force of law. Concealed means concealed . But I think that if you and others want to stand outside a business and read all the signs or maybe you might go in and discuss your life philosophy and see if he wants you in his store
Many states' signs don't carry the force of law, they are simply indicating that if someone notices you carrying, you will be asked to leave. If you refuse to leave after being asked to then that, my friend, does carry the force of law.
I don't like anyone who posts a sign on their door prohibiting concealed carry or any type of carry, but at the same time I find it to be a bit hypocritical to expect them to accept our wishes when we refuse to accept theirs simply because it holds no legal weight for you to go against it. If they have a sign you should do 1 of 2 things:
1) Go in respecting their wishes and not carrying, or (my favorite)
2) Walk away and do business elsewhere.
I've been around long enough to run into a ton of people that want to manipulate me to follow their BS rules, beliefs or whatever you want to call them while at the same time not giving a damn about what I care about. Example a store owner that does not want a honest citizen that has qualified to legally carry a concealed weapon, carrying that concealed weapon in their business. Now you tell me what common sense reason that store owner would have to want to disarm a law abiding citizen? I'm lucky enough to live in a state that thinks this store owner is an idiot and by doing so places no force of law on his BS wishes and BS signs. Now the sheep among you will take off your gun and follow the business owners rules, even though they have no force of law. Bike nut likes to talk about rights. Doubt he ever put his life on the line for them. Just a bunch of Internet BS. I just hope that the majority of the law abiding CCW holders ignore these signs that have no force of law.
In general I am up in the air over this one. First I absolutely agree that the property owner has a right to set the rules of his establishment. 100% correct...The owner can make any RULE he wants... He doesn’t have to give you a “common sense reason” it’s his store; he’s paying the bills (AKA My house, my rules). Same thing.. 100% correct...
His sign may not have for force of law in the sense that just ignoring it is a violation but respecting his wishes is just common courtesy and basic human respect; BULLCRAP... how is him putting everyone elses lives in danger so HE can FEEL safe an act of respect when HE HAS SHOWN HE DOESNT GIVE ABSOLUTELY ANY RESPECT FOR OTHERS??? the fact that a person refuses to give that respect while demanding it for themselves tells me everything I need to know about their upbringing and manners. No, it tells me/us that you havent thought this through at all... You only scratched the surface of what these "rules" cover You are only thinking as far as the owners wishes or rules, not even considering the general publics RIGHTS........ A Business that is open to the PUBLIC means they have INVITED the PUBLIC onto their property.... The RIGHTS of those he has invited onto such property do NOT disappear once they cross an invisible property line...
Having said that I get that me having a pistol in my pocket really isn’t doing the owner any harm, most of the time. It would ONLY harm someone if YOU did something with it... leave it in the holster and it harms absolutely no-one or anything.... A couple of months ago I had to go for my yearly UA. As soon as I walked into the clinic one of the MAs met me at the door and told me you can’t carry a gun in here if you have one it has to go back in your car. He didn’t even look to see if I was carrying (I was in my uniform). So why did you even bother disarming unless you would have to let your weapon be seen somehow? Since I was there on the company dime I didn’t argue I complied. BAAAAAA
Long story short the guy told me later that some idiot from an armored car service had a negligent discharge in the clinic a month prior while trying to clear his pistol (he was being weighed for a yearly physical) and that since then they had instituted a “no guns” rule.
Sounds pretty common sense to me. Still does NOT justify everyone else having to be in danger because someone else did something stupid...
Look, I get that YOU want to "be nice" and follow the property owners advice/rules, whatever.... I actually have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with people complying with such RULES for any reason they want to... You can call it courtesy, whatever, more power to ya... (even though those labels are not justified)
BUT..... I have a HUGE problem with people, like you did above.. saying when I or others choose to NOT follow someones RULES that it is somehow disrespectful or not common courtesy when we do... That is utter bull right there... IF common courtesy and respect were a factor, the property owner would be the one who is disrespectful and not courteous... as HE has endangered the lives of those he disarms if something would happen where they would have been saved if they had the tools to defend themselves with....
Having an inanimate object strapped to your hip or whatever in no way shape or form infringes on anyones RIGHTS whatsoever...
So why did you even bother disarming unless you would have to let your weapon be seen somehow? ...
It is a misconception that the term "open to the public" means there are no conditions attached to that invitation. The conditions for the "public" to have the owner's permission to enter/remain are the owner's rules. When an individual member of the public disobeys the owner's rules that individual has his permission to be there rescinded and he gets thrown off the property. But after that individual leaves that property is still "open to the public" contingent upon each individual member of the public obeying the owner's rules.No, it is convoluted twisted thinking to say in the same statement that invited the public and then it actually is only part of the public... it is one or the other no matter how many ways you try to lawyer speak it.........
Hmmm.... what about the property owner's rights?Again, confusing RIGHTS with rules has you grasping at things that cloud the real issue....... RIGHTS do NOT magically appear and disappear as you walk across this earth...