I know some of you are going to bash me

[Brandon Taylor Kitts]

I'm a firm believer in the old saying "It's better to be tried by 12, than be carried by 6. " Criminals don't follow the laws and I'm gonna do whatever it takes to protect my family and myself. This may not be politically or morally right for some but it is my choice.

 

[wolf_fire]

If they require you to be disarmed while taking part in their business, are they liable for your safety?

Actually, in some respects, yes they are liable. The biggest reason a retail store owner does not want his employees armed is the resulting law suit if the employee (i.e. representative of the store) should have to use them against a person who tries to rob them. The civil laws are screwed up in this sense. A person walking into the store "has a reasonable assumption not to be harmed by store personnel". Therefore, if they try to rob you with a weapon, and you shoot them, if alive they can sue the store for injuries and if you kill them, the family can sue the store for their death.

The lawsuit sounds incredulous, but I have worked in many retail establishments and this is the rhetoric they hand to the employees. They are either in fear of a legitimate lawsuit (which I cannot possibly see being won, nor do I know of any cases where it has been won) OR they are in fear of the publicity such a lawsuit brought on would give to the store.

But again, people are missing the point. No person has the RIGHT to shop anywhere they want. Why do you even WANT to shop at a store that would say you cannot be armed on their private property? Every property owner's rights trumps anyone else's rights on his/her property (unless of course that owner is doing something illegal to you). Anytime you see a "no guns" sign, make it as publicly known to the gun-carrying community that they don't want your business and boycott that store. Why continue giving money to an organization that is that screwed up? Or worse yet, why would you break the law to do so? And those who bring up the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment need to read more carefully. Is your right taken away when a private property owner says "not on my property". No, your right is still intact. You may still keep and bear arms. You may also shop elsewhere. If you were invited to dinner to a co-workers house who did not know you carried and found out at his house you were carrying and asked you to take it off or leave, would you seriously start ranting about YOUR rights in HIS house? If so, you are one messed up individual and I would not want to know you any longer. It's the same deal.

I have an AutoZone less than a mile from my house. There is a NAPA store 9 miles from my house. Guess who gets my business now?

 

[Bikenut]

Bike nut don't want to waste anymore of my time with you. Think I now know why others have not either. You really think I am going to spend my time copying laws on to this site to show you why this site even exists? You know "USA Carry" like laws in different states that give us the ability to carry legally (yes on even private property). When a point is made that you can't defend, you resort to calling me some lefty and you won't discuss. I bet you think the earth is only a few thousand years old. Trading posts with you has to be lowering my IQ.

If you can't prove what you state is true with actual facts then what you say is nothing more than opinion. Don't get me wrong... everyone is entitled to their opinion but if you make the point that the law grants you the right to carry concealed on private property that has a no guns policy/rule then you should be willing to prove it with cites and/or links to those actual laws instead of resorting to insults, ridicule, (and even the weak tactic of playing the race card) as you have in past posts and continue to do.

Failure to provide actual factual cites and/or links to black letter law that proves your point casts doubts upon your credibility.

-snip-
A good lesson know all the gun laws where ever you live and travel, or you could always ask bike nut for advise .

If the guy carrying the gun was breaking the law he would be arrested for a weapons violation. Like you said he was asked to leave. Just like someone not wearing shoes or a shirt could be asked to leave if there was a sign saying no shirt or shoes, the store owner can ask someone to leave for almost any reason. If they don't leave after they were asked to leave then they would be trespassing. You really don't get it do you?

You really don't get it do you?

I agree... it is wise to know all the laws that pertain to carrying a gun. Not just the laws that specifically pertain to guns but the other laws that affect the carrying of guns... such as...

The trespass laws of your State are not specifically gun laws yet they are the laws that back up the private property owner's right to have rules that say a person cannot behave in a manner or do a certain thing, like carry a weapon concealed or otherwise, that the property owner bans on/in his property. Disobey the rule the owner boots you out... refuse to obey the property owner's demand ... and here is where there might be some misunderstanding...... although the owner might be very polite when he "asks" you to leave he really isn't "asking"... he is telling you to get the hell out or he will have the cops arrest you and the cops WILL arrest you for violating the trespass laws if you are foolish enough to not leave because you think your carry permit "gives" you the right to carry a gun on/in private property.

What was the infraction that constituted the crime (yes it is a crime) of trespass? Refusing to leave after "being caught" carrying a gun in violation of the property owner's "no guns" rule. And what will be introduced into evidence at the hearing/trial? Refusing to leave after getting caught disobeying the property owner's "no guns" rule by sneaking in a gun.

It's really quite simple... the property owner's private property rights trump ALL of your rights if you decide to accept the invitation to enter the owner's private property. And the trespass laws are the laws that support that.

Now you can argue all day long yet you even admit that if a property owner discovers you are disobeying his private property right of having a 'no guns' rule by sneaking in a gun he will kick you out. So if there is a law that makes your right to carry trump the property owner's 'no guns' rule.... why can he kick you out?

I would be content if you could just answer this question...

"If the law trumps the private property owner's right to ban guns by granting a person the right to carry concealed on/in said property.... why can the property owner require a person who is lawfully carrying concealed to leave?"

Cites and/or links to the actual pertinent black letter law(s) would be appropriate as proof of your assertion. Lack thereof relegates your assertion to mere personal opinion.

General comments directed at no individual...

But I do understand that many folks who carry concealed have the attitude that "concealed means concealed so as long as no one knows I'm sneaking a gun into a business that bans it then I'm Ok as long as I don't get caught."

But that attitude fails simply because someone does know they are sneaking in a gun. They themselves know.

And it is a shame that many of those concealed carriers who have no problem disrespecting the property owner's rights will shout long and loud demanding their right to bear arms be respected.

 

[AndeyHall]

If they require you to be disarmed while taking part in their business, are they liable for your safety?

Actually, in some respects, yes they are liable. The biggest reason a retail store owner does not want his employees armed is the resulting law suit if the employee (i.e. representative of the store) should have to use them against a person who tries to rob them. The civil laws are screwed up in this sense. A person walking into the store "has a reasonable assumption not to be harmed by store personnel". Therefore, if they try to rob you with a weapon, and you shoot them, if alive they can sue the store for injuries and if you kill them, the family can sue the store for their death.

The lawsuit sounds incredulous, but I have worked in many retail establishments and this is the rhetoric they hand to the employees. They are either in fear of a legitimate lawsuit (which I cannot possibly see being won, nor do I know of any cases where it has been won) OR they are in fear of the publicity such a lawsuit brought on would give to the store.

But again, people are missing the point. No person has the RIGHT to shop anywhere they want. Why do you even WANT to shop at a store that would say you cannot be armed on their private property? Every property owner's rights trumps anyone else's rights on his/her property (unless of course that owner is doing something illegal to you). Anytime you see a "no guns" sign, make it as publicly known to the gun-carrying community that they don't want your business and boycott that store. Why continue giving money to an organization that is that screwed up? Or worse yet, why would you break the law to do so? And those who bring up the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment need to read more carefully. Is your right taken away when a private property owner says "not on my property". No, your right is still intact. You may still keep and bear arms. You may also shop elsewhere. If you were invited to dinner to a co-workers house who did not know you carried and found out at his house you were carrying and asked you to take it off or leave, would you seriously start ranting about YOUR rights in HIS house? If so, you are one messed up individual and I would not want to know you any longer. It's the same deal.

I have an AutoZone less than a mile from my house. There is a NAPA store 9 miles from my house. Guess who gets my business now?

We've got 2 movie theaters in town and my preference of the 2 doesn't allow concealed weapons. I carry there anyways but it would just be much better if they would allow it. I guess they think that sign on the door is gonna stop something like Aurora?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Pitbull11 View Post
Bike nut don't want to waste anymore of my time with you. Think I now know why others have not either. You really think I am going to spend my time copying laws on to this site to show you why this site even exists? You know "USA Carry" like laws in different states that give us the ability to carry legally (yes on even private property). When a point is made that you can't defend, you resort to calling me some lefty and you won't discuss. I bet you think the earth is only a few thousand years old. Trading posts with you has to be lowering my IQ.

Perhaps I can be helpful by providing an example of a cite and a link?

Michigan Legislature - Section 750.552

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.

Sec. 552.

(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.

Please note that (a) and (b) would be the pertinent portions of Michigan's trespass law that stands behind the private property owner's right to have, and enforce, a "no guns" rule.

NOWHERE in Michigan concealed carry permit laws was I able to find a law that said the concealed carry permit "gave" a person the "lawful authority" or "the right" to carry a concealed pistol on/in private property.

But then perhaps the law in your State is different? Care to provide a cite and/or a link to any such laws?

 

[Pitbull11]

If you can't prove what you state is true with actual facts then what you say is nothing more than opinion. Don't get me wrong... everyone is entitled to their opinion but if you make the point that the law grants you the right to carry concealed on private property that has a no guns policy/rule then you should be willing to prove it with cites and/or links to those actual laws instead of resorting to insults, ridicule, (and even the weak tactic of playing the race card) as you have in past posts and continue to do.

Failure to provide actual factual cites and/or links to black letter law that proves your point casts doubts upon your credibility.



You really don't get it do you?

I agree... it is wise to know all the laws that pertain to carrying a gun. Not just the laws that specifically pertain to guns but the other laws that affect the carrying of guns... such as...

The trespass laws of your State are not specifically gun laws yet they are the laws that back up the private property owner's right to have rules that say a person cannot behave in a manner or do a certain thing, like carry a weapon concealed or otherwise, that the property owner bans on/in his property. Disobey the rule the owner boots you out... refuse to obey the property owner's demand ... and here is where there might be some misunderstanding...... although the owner might be very polite when he "asks" you to leave he really isn't "asking"... he is telling you to get the hell out or he will have the cops arrest you and the cops WILL arrest you for violating the trespass laws if you are foolish enough to not leave because you think your carry permit "gives" you the right to carry a gun on/in private property.

What was the infraction that constituted the crime (yes it is a crime) of trespass? Refusing to leave after "being caught" carrying a gun in violation of the property owner's "no guns" rule. And what will be introduced into evidence at the hearing/trial? Refusing to leave after getting caught disobeying the property owner's "no guns" rule by sneaking in a gun.

It's really quite simple... the property owner's private property rights trump ALL of your rights if you decide to accept the invitation to enter the owner's private property. And the trespass laws are the laws that support that.

Now you can argue all day long yet you even admit that if a property owner discovers you are disobeying his private property right of having a 'no guns' rule by sneaking in a gun he will kick you out. So if there is a law that makes your right to carry trump the property owner's 'no guns' rule.... why can he kick you out?

I would be content if you could just answer this question...

"If the law trumps the private property owner's right to ban guns by granting a person the right to carry concealed on/in said property.... why can the property owner require a person who is lawfully carrying concealed to leave?"

Cites and/or links to the actual pertinent black letter law(s) would be appropriate as proof of your assertion. Lack thereof relegates your assertion to mere personal opinion.

General comments directed at no individual...

But I do understand that many folks who carry concealed have the attitude that "concealed means concealed so as long as no one knows I'm sneaking a gun into a business that bans it then I'm Ok as long as I don't get caught."

But that attitude fails simply because someone does know they are sneaking in a gun. They themselves know.

And it is a shame that many of those concealed carriers who have no problem disrespecting the property owner's rights will shout long and loud demanding their right to bear arms be respected.

No shirt no shoes allowed. Not against the law not to wear a shirt or shoes. Hope that helps you understand.

 

[Pitbull11]

Perhaps I can be helpful by providing an example of a cite and a link?

Michigan Legislature - Section 750.552

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.

Sec. 552.

(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.

Please note that (a) and (b) would be the pertinent portions of Michigan's trespass law that stands behind the private property owner's right to have, and enforce, a "no guns" rule.

NOWHERE in Michigan concealed carry permit laws was I able to find a law that said the concealed carry permit "gave" a person the "lawful authority" or "the right" to carry a concealed pistol on/in private property.

But then perhaps the law in your State is different? Care to provide a cite and/or a link to any such laws?

Not trespassing on a business property during business hours unless you are asked to leave and you refuse. Do you really not understand that simple concept?

 

[Bikenut]

No shirt no shoes allowed. Not against the law not to wear a shirt or shoes. Hope that helps you understand.

Still no cites and/or links to black letter law I see.

Well... "No shirt, no shoes, no service"... nope it's not against the law to not wear a shirt or shoes but if you don't wear a shirt or shoes into a store that has a rule requiring you to wear a shirt or shoes the store owner has the right to throw you out... and if you don't go the trespass laws will give the police the legal means to put you behind bars.

Which means the store owner's 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' rule has the weight of law behind it.

Now instead of, or in addition to, the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule the store owner has a "no guns" rule. Sooooo.... no shirt = thrown out... no shoes = thrown out... sneak in a gun = thrown out. And in all of those instances refusing to leave results in the weight of the trespass law becoming operative.

Hope that helps you to understand because if a concealed carry permit "gives" the right to carry on/in private property then why can the store owner throw you out on your ear?

One more thing.... if you refuse to provide cites and/or links to actual laws to prove your assertions then, in my opinion, your assertions have no validity and your Sir... have no credibility.

Originally Posted by Pitbull11 View Post
Don't listen to bike nut if your state gives you the legal right to carry concealed in a store that has a sign that states "no weapons" then you have the legal right to carry concealed on their property.

Please provide cites and/or links to actual black letter law that supports your claim. Man up and prove what you say is true.

Edited to add.... please understand it isn't just me but is everyone who is reading this thread that is watching to see if you provide cites and/or links to prove your assertions.

 

[Bikenut]

Not trespassing on a business property during business hours unless you are asked to leave and you refuse. Do you really not understand that simple concept?

Demanding the right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting the property owner's right to ban guns is being a hypocrite... what part of that simple concept do you not understand?

 

[Billy_B]

No bashing here

 

[Pitbull11]

Demanding the right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting the property owner's right to ban guns is being a hypocrite... what part of that simple concept do you not understand?

No individual has any " right " to tell me I can't carry a concealed weapon anywhere the law allows me to carry. They also don't write laws that tell you everything you "can" do. I hope that helps you understand that your point is not about the law of the land it's about your personal moral compass. If someone does not agree with your personal moral code you call them a hypocrite. I personally don't respect someone that does not respect my right to protect myself.

 

[Bikenut]

No individual has any " right " to tell me I can't carry a concealed weapon anywhere the law allows me to carry. They also don't write laws that tell you everything you "can" do. I hope that helps you understand that your point is not about the law of the land it's about your personal moral compass. If someone does not agree with your personal moral code you call them a hypocrite. I personally don't respect someone that does not respect my right to protect myself.

Now if the store owner doesn't have the right to tell you that you do not have the right to carry a gun in his store even if the law allows it.... explain why the store owner can ban guns in his store and tell you you do NOT have the right to bear arms in his store by throwing you out if you bring in a gun.

And if you are going to use the law in your explanation please provide cites and/or links to actual black letter law that supports your claim.

And the part of your post I put in bold pertains to my comment about those who demand their rights be respected while disrespecting the rights of others being hypocrites.

 

[Pitbull11]

Now if the store owner doesn't have the right to tell you that you do not have the right to carry a gun in his store even if the law allows it.... explain why the store owner can ban guns in his store and tell you you do NOT have the right to bear arms in his store by throwing you out.

I don't respect or care what he wants or care why he posted the sign, some do it for liability reasons or because they don't want their other customers to feel threatened by a gun being displayed in their business. If they really cared about concealed carry they would install a metal detector at the entrance and have every customer sign a contract that allowed the owner to physically search every customer. (might hurt his business . ) Remember concealed means concealed.

 

[tricolordad]

May I have some popcorn please?

 

[Bikenut]

I don't respect or care what he wants or care why he posted the sign, some do it for liability reasons or because they don't want their other customers to feel threatened by a gun being displayed in their business. If they really cared about concealed carry they would install a metal detector at the entrance and have every customer sign a contract that allowed the owner to physically search every customer. (might hurt his business . ) Remember concealed means concealed.

Why the store owner has decreed that guns aren't allowed on/in his property is immaterial since he has the right to do it for any reason he wishes including the reason that he doesn't give a hoot about your right to bear arms concealed or otherwise. It's his property and he has the right to limit access to whomever he wishes except for the laws that forbid denying access to certain protected classes of people but concealed carriers are NOT one of those protected classes. Unless you have a cite and/or a link to a law that says otherwise?

Once again you haven't addressed your claim that the law allows you the right to bear arms on/in private property when the simple fact is that the property (store) owner has the right to not allow you to carry a gun on/in his property (tell you that you do NOT have the right to bear arms on/in his property).

I don't respect or care what he wants or care why he posted the sign,
-snip-
Remember concealed means concealed.

You don't respect or care about the property owner's right to ban guns and will rely on sneaking your gun in "concealed means concealed so I can do whatever I want as long as I don't get caught" but you demand the property owner respect your right to bear arms. Now what was that I mentioned about hypocrisy?

One more time...

Now if the store owner doesn't have the right to tell you that you do not have the right to carry a gun in his store even if the law allows it.... explain why the store owner can ban guns in his store and tell you you do NOT have the right to bear arms in his store by throwing you out if you bring in a gun.

And if you are going to use the law in your explanation please provide cites and/or links to actual black letter law that supports your claim.

-snip-

 

[Totidem Verbis]

Maybe this will help:

Why aren't prisoners allowed to have guns?
Why bother having a fence around your house?
Do you know who King Leonidas is?
If they have planes, tanks and artillery, why even bother taking hand guns and rifles away?
If you're dealing with planes, tanks and artillery raining down, hopefully you'll be getting the hell out of dodge preparing to strike back with more than just stick, stones, and a few choice words.
Until weapons achieve sentient being status; no matter the size, caliber, shape or sophistication of the weapon, there is a human being who is ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger. So why make it too easy for them; reach out and touch someone by giving them a lead present that they won't remember.
If you are ok having a defeatist mindset, then don't expect me or anyone else to cover your six.

 

[Pitbull11]

You don't respect or care about the property owner's right to ban guns and will rely on sneaking your gun in "concealed means concealed so I can do whatever I want as long as I don't get caught" but you demand the property owner respect your right to bear arms. Now what was that I mentioned about hypocrisy?

One more time...

Let's get this straight, I don't give a crap if the store owner respect my right to bear arms!!! I don't care to meet him or talk to him period. His sign pretty much says it all about how he feels about my rights. Your the nut case that is all concerned about this guy. I'm just exercising my legal right in my state to carry a concealed weapon with my CCW permit into his store even though he put up his dumb ass sign.

Concealed means concealed

 

[AndeyHall]

Damn I've gotten in my share of arguments on forums before but when the argument drags out that long and the responses get that long, I have no problem letting them have the last word. These guys have got some endurance!

 

[Pitbull11]

Damn I've gotten in my share of arguments on forums before but when the argument drags out that long and the responses get that long, I have no problem letting them have the last word. These guys have got some endurance!

I use to power lift but now I try and do more endurance training. Wing nut and firefart are helping, they are great comic relief. Join in the water is warm and feels good, but that might just be because wing nut and firefart have bladder problems

 

[wolf_fire]

We've got 2 movie theaters in town and my preference of the 2 doesn't allow concealed weapons. I carry there anyways but it would just be much better if they would allow it. I guess they think that sign on the door is gonna stop something like Aurora?

Personally, I'm not going to go on forums and call myself a law-abiding citizen who carries a firearm and then willingly trespass on someone's private property. I would sooner choose netflix and watch my movies at home rather than trample on someone else's rights on their property. But hey, it's your choice.