Looks as if Panera Bread has caved to MDA

[Bikenut]

I guess I could have let her do it but as outlined in her post above in BOLD, I don't think she's asking about a place like Panera Bread that is only "asking" customers to leave their carry protection at home. She did say an establishment with a posted "no guns" sign.

But anyway, if someone "thinks"... that the object under your shirt or other article of clothing is a gun printing though it, they can one, ask you about it and two, ask you to leave with threat of trespass if you don't? Only because you have something under your shirt that "looks like a gun"?

In many states (please check the laws of your own state and the states you might visit), unless a person is a member of the protected by law groups (race, color, creed, etc.) that person can be required (being supposedly "asked" really is the property owner requiring) to leave for any reason. Doesn't matter what the reason is nor does it matter if anyone thinks that reason is fair or even reasonable the property owner still has the right, and the legal protection of the trespass law(s), to deny entry.

 

[corneileous]

In many states (please check the laws of your own state and the states you might visit), unless a person is a member of the protected by law groups (race, color, creed, etc.) that person can be required (being supposedly "asked" really is the property owner requiring) to leave for any reason. Doesn't matter what the reason is nor does it matter if anyone thinks that reason is fair or even reasonable the property owner still has the right, and the legal protection of the trespass law(s), to deny entry.

So in reference to as XD said in his post 15 at the bottom of the first paragraph, a customer can all of the sudden be revoked of their entry privileges just because they don't want to bow down to some paranoid, scaredy-cat gun hating store owner/manager to reveal a colostomy bag, insulin pump or even just a harmless cell phone?

If so, I would make sure my gun didn't print. I Feel sorry though for the harassment of people carrying a colostomy bag, any other medical device or even a simple smartphone that looks like a gun.

I would almost guess that the first couple of times some wiener-store owner gets embarrassed by making a scene and revealing something of that, would be future hesitant to singling people out unless they saw a lot more evidence suggesting a gun.

 

[Bikenut]

So in reference to as XD said in his post 15 at the bottom of the first paragraph, a customer can all of the sudden be revoked of their entry privileges just because they don't want to bow down to some paranoid, scaredy-cat gun hating store owner/manager to reveal a colostomy bag, insulin pump or even just a harmless cell phone?

If so, I would make sure my gun didn't print. I Feel sorry for the harassment of people carrying a colostomy bag or any other medical device that looks like a gun.

As I said, it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks the property owner denying entry is fair or reasonable the property owner still has the right, and the protection under trespass law(s), to deny entry for any reason. With the exception of those legally protected classes of race, creed, color, etc..

Any reason includes suspicious bulges under clothing regardless of what is causing those bulges.

But, just for me, I will respect the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns and not patronize that business. It isn't about being able to sneak my gun in by making sure it is concealed nor is it about patronizing businesses because it is personally convenient but, at least for me, it is about respecting the rights of others even if I don't agree with how they exercise those rights.

 

[corneileous]

As I said, it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks the property owner denying entry is fair or reasonable the property owner still has the right, and the protection under trespass law(s), to deny entry for any reason. With the exception of those legally protected classes of race, creed, color, etc..

Any reason includes suspicious bulges under clothing regardless of what is causing those bulges.

But, just for me, I will respect the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns and not patronize that business. It isn't about being able to sneak my gun in by making sure it is concealed nor is it about patronizing businesses because it is personally convenient but, at least for me, it is about respecting the rights of others even if I don't agree with how they exercise those rights.

And see... that, in my humble opinion, is what I think is one of the many, many things wrong with this country and why I simply refuse to go in these places unarmed. That, and as I said in a previous post (and that other thread), I'm not going to punish and inconvenience myself over a stupid, poorly thought out and "should be" illegal sign. Kudos to you if you think these gun free zones should be allowed to exist over a "right".

 

[niceshootintex]

I pocket carry everywhere except the usual suspects. I have never worried about it, don't print, and if I'm made then I'll just leave. I highly doubt it's even enforced.

The Place To Be

 

[Bikenut]

And see... that, in my humble opinion, is what I think is one of the many, many things wrong with this country and why I simply refuse to go in these places unarmed. That, and as I said in a previous post (and that other thread), I'm not going to punish and inconvenience myself over a stupid, poorly thought out and "should be" illegal sign. Kudos to you if you think these gun free zones should be allowed to exist over a "right".

And the lack of respect for the rights of others just because respecting those rights is personally inconvenient is what, in my not so humble opinion, is wrong in this country.

Sadly it has been my experience that those who do not respect the rights of others because they consider those rights unimportant are the most outraged when someone disrespects the rights they themselves consider important.

 

[corneileous]

And the lack of respect for the rights of others just because respecting those rights is personally inconvenient is what, in my not so humble opinion, is wrong in this country.

That is your opinion but in mine, no. People who think things like gun free zones should be protected because a "certain" right allows them to exist is one of the many things wrong with this country. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it deserves to exist. Especially those- like this one- that robbers, thugs, gangbangers for example like to exploit.

I don't expect you to agree with that so hopefully this will go unresponded to.

Sadly it has been my experience that those who do not respect the rights of others because they consider those rights unimportant are the most outraged when someone disrespects the rights they themselves consider important.

Nice blanket response to a particular right by adding an "s" like there's multiple rights in question whenever this subject arises. Just like old times, this is one particular right that's being discussed yet you make it sound like many. lol.

Whatever though, that's your prerogative. You believe gun free zones should be protected by a specific "right" and I do not. You refuse to cater to this right and I do not. You approve of letting yourself be forced to shop elsewhere because of a sign. And no, I'm not totally saying that's a bad thing although I do think it's rather funny but that's besides the point.

Until I go to a state that gives these people's signs force of law, I'm not going to stop doing what I do. Concealed means concealed and if I do it properly, they won't even know I have it. Just as it should be.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And the lack of respect for the rights of others just because respecting those rights is personally inconvenient is what, in my not so humble opinion, is wrong in this country.

That is your opinion but in mine, no. People who think things like gun free zones should be protected because a "certain" right allows them to exist is one of the many things wrong with this country. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it deserves to exist. Especially those- like this one- that robbers, thugs, gangbangers for example like to exploit.

I don't expect you to agree with that so hopefully this will go unresponded to.

Sadly it has been my experience that those who do not respect the rights of others because they consider those rights unimportant are the most outraged when someone disrespects the rights they themselves consider important.

Nice blanket response to a particular right by adding an "s" like there's multiple rights in question whenever this subject arises. Just like old times, this is one particular right that's being discussed yet you make it sound like many. lol.

Whatever though, that's your prerogative. You believe gun free zones should be protected by a specific "right" and I do not. You refuse to cater to this right and I do not. You approve of letting yourself be forced to shop elsewhere because of a sign. And no, I'm not totally saying that's a bad thing although I do think it's rather funny but that's besides the point.

Until I go to a state that gives these people's signs force of law, I'm not going to stop doing what I do. Concealed means concealed and if I do it properly, they won't even know I have it. Just as it should be.

Private property right(S) are just as much a right as are any of the other rights. Your not wanting to recognize them as valid while thinking the right to bear arms is valid is nothing more than picking and choosing which rights are convenient for you to personally like and which rights are inconvenient for you to have to deal with. Guess what? Anti gunners hypocritically use the right of free speech to do exactly that with the right to bear arms.

And once again you try to control the conversation with silly things like hoping I won't respond. Sheesh.

I never said I believe gun free zones should be protected. I have steadfastedly maintained that RIGHTS should be protected. All rights including the ones that are used in ways I don't agree with. Got that? Let me spell it out for you....

....I do not agree with private property owners denying entry to those who carry guns but I will defend their right to do so. And I, unlike you and some others, will respect their right to do so by not patronizing their business. And I won't support their use of their property right to deny entry to people who carry guns by sneaking my gun in concealed because it is convenient for me to purchase things there helping them increase their profits so they can open yet another business with a no guns policy/rule.

But in this thread, as in the other thread, you just can't seem to understand that it is the selfish position of "Hooray for my rights and to hell with the rights of other folks because it is inconvenient for me to respect them." that is what is wrong with this country.

And this "concealed means concealed" sanctimonious crap is merely a way to disrespect the property rights of others just because it is convenient and easier to sneak the gun in justifying doing so with all manner of mental masturbatory gymnastics evident in every thread where the private property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns is discussed.

 

[corneileous]

Private property right(S) are just as much a right as are any of the other rights.

Again, we're not taking about- well, I'm not anyways, about all the other rights. That's your doing of lumping them all together. I don't agree with the right to create a dangerous gun free zone. Sadly you think a right is a right that deserves full recognition and respect as any other right just because someone says it's a right. I just can't believe you also put that right to gun free zones in the same boat that the right to bear arms sets in. Hmm.

Your not wanting to recognize them as valid while thinking the right to bear arms is valid is nothing more than picking and choosing which rights are convenient for you to personally like and which rights are inconvenient for you to have to deal with.

Wait, what's this "them" crap? There's only one right that I oppose and it's the right that takes my right away to defend myself. Listen, learn it, remember it.

But no, I don't recognize it because I think it's a right that doesn't deserve to exist. Because it's dangerous. You think that just because the property is privately owned that the same rules should apply like it was a private residence. Again, you're just blinded by the term "right", and that's it. That's all you care about. If people are allowed to enter the... establishment... at will, without screening, this right needs to cease to exist because it's usually after the fact of something horrible happening when these people lose their right to be in there.

Guess what? Anti gunners hypocritically use the right of free speech to do exactly that with the right to bear arms.

Guess what? I don't give a toot less what them anti-gunners think. They're ignorant. They think guns are the problem. They think people like you and me are the problem. You really going to come on a pro- 2nd amendment forum and defend the ignorance of the anti gunner liberals just to try and prove a point? Wow. Holy crap, wow.

And once again you try to control the conversation with silly things like hoping I won't respond. Sheesh.

Please tell me that was very poor attempt at humor and that you were only being facetious?

Just like last time and the time before that, that was only just me hoping you'd finally leave it alone for a change since we all know how vigilant you are about the right to create gun free zones and how hard you work to strike down all those that disagree.

Control the conversation....lol. Seriously? You got problems if you haven't figgered that out by now that that is hardly the case. You're free to make an idiot out of yourself all you want....[emoji6]

I suppose the next thing your gonna do is respin that other broken record of yours about how only the forum owner can control what you post and not me... with that fancy word decree that you liked using so much...lol.

No please, seriously, I wasn't asking for a, I dunno, what's the word for a three or four, or five times over encore? Whatever that is, I'm not asking for that.

I never said I believe gun free zones should be protected. I have steadfastedly maintained that RIGHTS should be protected.

Although yes, you have actually yet to state that you think gun free zones need to be protected and be allowed to flourish but...

WHAT... THE... HELL... DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU SUPPORT THESE IDIOT'S RIGHTS TO MAKE AND KEEP ONE!?!?

How can you say you are so against a gun free zone but so viciously defend these idiot's right to have it?...

You can't be both!

You're doing and have been doing a wonderful job all this time at presenting your argument like youre in such support of the notion because you won't leave it alone. Most people say their peace... ONCE!!! ...and leave it the hell alone. Not you, tho. Not you.

All rights including the ones that are used in ways I don't agree with. Got that?

Whatever you say, pal. I highly disagree but whatever.

Let me spell it out for you since your comprehension skills seem to be lacking....

My comprehension skills are just fine, btw. I've just never talked to anyone so highstrung and hellbent on defending a right that allows the creation, such as a gun free zone..... which they don't agree with..[emoji848]

....I do not agree with private property owners denying entry to those who carry guns but I will defend their right to do so.

Why?

You know what, I don't care. I never have. You keep saying all this drivel like you really think I care. Lol.

And I, unlike you, will respect their right to do so by not patronizing their business.

Somewhat get it, but don't understand why and frankly don't care.

Oh and you can spare us all the self-righteousness...

And I won't support their use of their property right to deny entry to people who carry guns by sneaking my gun in concealed because it is convenient for me to purchase things there helping them increase their profits so they can open yet another business with a no guns policy/rule.

Do you really think you're preventing anything? Seriously? Do you really think that boneheaded store owner cares that you, a filthy gun owner isn't going to shop in his store anymore? Really? Wow. Wake up! If he cared about losing your business he wouldn't put that retarded sign up.

Why don't you just quit making things up and just stick to the real reasons why?

You're not doing a damn thing to prevent the furthering of gun free businesses. All you're doing is only punishing and inconveniencing yourself, and at the same time trying to get your martyr Merit Badge by trying to serve a purpose by trying to defend them. But it's cool because you're obviously ok with that. To each is own.

Oh, and why do you keep using the word "sneaking"? Are you trying to suggest that this is all a game, as in the prize is to not to get caught like back when ole Winona Ryder shoplifted all that stuff because it was fun to her and because she wanted to see if she could get away with it?

It's not a game. I don't carry in these "badguys welcome" places just to see if I can get away with it. I'm not "sneaking" my gun in, in the general sense, just because it's forbidden. That has not a single gottdamn thing to do with it. Matter of fact, gun free zones make me want to carry even more. I don't really need to anyways... but I will in a guns welcome store because a bad guy would have to be a fool to try to hold that place up. A place that declares them as unwelcome? Easy prey, buddy.

But in this thread, as in the other thread, you just can't seem to understand that it is your selfish position of "Hooray for my rights and to hell with the rights of other folks because it is inconvenient for me to respect them." that is what is wrong with this country.

You're wrong. That is your opinion and you have that right to it. Doesn't mean you're right, tho. Just means that it burns your backside that I disagree with you and you'll almost stop at nothing to argue your point and change my mind.

And again bud, stop referring to it as right-s. I'm sick of you trying to perceive me as someone who is against rights, all rights in general. That is not the case! That is your stubbornness that clouds your brain into thinking that because you think all rights are worthy and deserve respect because some bozo said so.

I. Am. Only. Talking. About. One. Specific. So-called. Right.

Call me selfish because I value my interest against unnecessary inconvenience all you want. It's none of your business what I do. You're not in the position to judge. Like I said, if it's ok with you to do so, YOU go right ahead. That's your business.

And this "concealed means concealed" sanctimonious crap is merely a way to disrespect the property rights of others...

SO!! Good!! Go tell it to somebody who cares.

But I ask ya... how do the property owners even know to care they are being disrespected if they do not know their ridiculous and unsafe right is being ignored? Oh wait, they DON'T!! This is just you AGAIN... as always, pushing the guilt trip on everyone...lol. That's all it is.

...just because it is convenient and easier to sneak...

There you go with that gratuitous use of the word "sneak" again. lol. Whatever, it's not sneaking but you fail to think otherwise.

...gun in justifying doing so with all manner of mental masturbatory gymnastics evident in every thread where the private property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns is discussed.

Holy crap, what the hell ever, man. Get a life.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Your not wanting to recognize them as valid while thinking the right to bear arms is valid is nothing more than picking and choosing which rights are convenient for you to personally like and which rights are inconvenient for you to have to deal with.

Wait, what's this "them" crap? There's only one right that I oppose and it's the right that takes my right away to defend myself. Listen, learn it, remember it.

But no, I don't recognize it because I think it's a right that doesn't deserve to exist. Because it's dangerous. You think that just because the property is privately owned that the same rules should apply like it was a private residence. Again, you're just blinded by the term "right", and that's it. That's all you care about. If people are allowed to enter the... establishment... at will, without screening, this right needs to cease to exist because it's usually after the fact of something horrible happening when these people lose their right to be in there.-snip-

I left out all the useless drivel in your post about how you think you are correct and you think I am wrong and only left the important part where you think it is ok to just decide which rights are valid and which rights are not based upon your own selfish desire to not be inconvenienced. Because that really is what this discussion, and every other discussion on this topic you and I have had, is about.

And it is that attitude of "Hooray for my rights and to hell with the rights of others when those rights prevent me from getting my way." that is the biggest problem in our country today.

And you use the mental masturbatory gymnastics of sanctimoniously equating sneaking your gun in where you are not allowed to with the right to self defense never understanding that the private property owner isn't saying you are not allowed to defend yourself. He is saying you are not allowed to be on/in his property in the first place. You still have the right to defend yourself ... just take your right to self defense, your gun, your money, and your person somewhere else because you have no right, nor do you have permission, to be on/in the property in the first place. And if you get caught.. sneaking.. your gun in that property owner will move you and your right to self defense on down the road to somewhere else using the trespass laws to enforce it.

And it IS sneaking your gun in when you know the property owner's rules/policies deny permission to enter to those who carry guns but you make sure that no one can see you are .. sneaking .. your gun in because, as you are so fond of saying, "concealed means concealed". After all, if you weren't afraid of being caught you wouldn't worry about "concealed means concealed" but would man up and either open carry where legal or flat out tell that property owner he can't stop you from carrying. But then you know exactly what would happen if you did that so you.... sneak... your gun in.

Oh....and the private property owner of a business open to the public has just as much power to deny entry to a person carrying a gun as does a private property residence owner. Check the trespass laws of your state. Also check the protected classes of individuals laws in your state and you will discover that gun carriers are not one of those protected classes.

One more time... neither you, I, or anyone has the right to be on/in the private property of an establishment that is open to the public. All you, me, or anyone, has is an invitation to enter that property contingent upon agreeing to abide by any and all rules/policies of the property owner. Get caught breaking those rules/policies and your invitation is revoked resulting in being kicked out. But then you know that will happen and that is why you ... sneak... your gun in.

Just because you personally don't like a right doesn't make it any less of a right. Listen, learn it, remember it.

 

[bofh]

I guess I could have let Reba do it and make get own response to your post but as outlined in her reply above in BOLD, I don't think she's asking about a place like Panera Bread that is only "asking" customers to leave their carry protection at home. She did say an establishment with a posted "no guns" sign.

But anyway, if someone "thinks"... that the object under your shirt or other article of clothing is a gun printing though it, they can one, ask you about it and two, ask you to leave with threat of trespass if you don't? Only because you have something under your shirt that "looks like a gun"?

This thread is about Panera Bread. I just pointed out that Panera Bread does not have "no guns" signs posted.

Yes, any business representative can ask you to leave. If you do not comply, you commit criminal trespass. This has nothing to do with guns. Criminal trespass is entering or remaining on another's property without the owner's consent.

 

[Reba]

Again, Panera is not a gun-free zone by law. There are no signs.

Any business representative can ask you to leave. If you do not comply, you commit criminal trespassing.

The enforcement of gun-free zones depends on state law. In some states, signs do have the force of law, while in some other states, they don't. In any case, if you get asked to leave, you have to leave.

I'm sorry, I wasn't asking about Panera, so I guess I was astray of the original topic.

I wanted to know more specifically about someone at a business questioning a customer about whether or not the customer was wearing a gun.

 

[corneileous]

I left out all the useless drivel...

Yet pretty much everything you post along with what you have posted before is useless drivel with too much of a need to argue because of your inability to let it go because you have "gotta be right" syndrome.

..in your post about how you think you are correct and you think I am wrong...

When it pertains to me and what I do, of course I'm right and you're wrong. How's about you just worry about you and let me worry about me, hmm?

...and only left the important part where you think it is ok to just decide which rights are valid and which rights are not based upon your own selfish desire to not be inconvenienced.

Whatever, man. I don't care who said these store owners have the right to perpetrate slaughter zones but as I said, since this bozo- whoever they are- said so, don't make it a feasible, respectable right and that's all I'm going to argue with you on it.

Because that really is what this discussion, and every other discussion on this topic you and I have had, is about.

No...... it's your extreme perversion of this guilt trip you like pushing on people.

And it is that attitude of "Hooray for my rights and to hell with the rights of others when those rights prevent me from getting my way." that is the biggest problem in our country today.

Whatever man. Quit talking out your backside.

Even if that truly was a problem, which it isn't, it damn sure wouldn't be the biggest!...

Blah- blah blah-.... snip.

He is saying you are not allowed to be on/in his property in the first place.

No he's not! How can he say I'm not allowed to be there if he doesn't know I'm doing something against his cheesy policy/rule anyways?

You still have the right to defend yourself ... just take your right to self defense, your gun, your money, and your person somewhere else...

How bout you just do that and leave the rest of us alone?

...because you have no right, nor do you have permission, to be on/in the property in the first place.

Again.... It ain't about self-policing. This isn't preschool or kindergarten.

And if you get caught..

"If"... being the operative word...

sneaking.. your gun in that property owner will move you and your right to self defense on down the road to somewhere else using the trespass laws to enforce it.

If I get caught, I'll leave. Simple as that.

And it IS sneaking your gun in when you know the property owner's rules/policies deny permission to enter to those who carry guns but you make sure that no one can see you are .. sneaking .. your gun in because, as you are so fond of saying, "concealed means concealed". After all, if you weren't afraid of being caught you wouldn't worry about "concealed means concealed" but would man up and either open carry where legal or flat out tell that property owner he can't stop you from carrying. But then you know exactly what would happen if you did that so you.... sneak... your gun in.

Man up and open carry? Lol. Wow. Getting a little belligerent, aren't you?? Do you just live to argue? Lol. Getting mad are ya because you're barking up the wrong tree?

You know, it's one thing to argue open carry vs. conceal carry but resorting to going as far as telling me to do it on the lines of not being a man if I don't? That's below the belt, bud.

Oh....and the private property owner of a business open to the public has just as much power to deny entry to a person carrying a gun as does a private property residence owner.

Duh, that's the problem that desperately needs to be outlawed.

*Edited* so that you wouldn't be able to use my words against me since you like doing that but, yes, of course they can. Problem is - which apparently keeps flying right over your head is that people aren't just walking right in of the guy's residence like they do at his store. Get it now??

Check the trespass laws of your state. Also check the protected classes of individuals laws in your state and you will discover that gun carriers are not one of those protected classes.

I know that.

One more time... neither you, I, or anyone has the right to be on/in the private property of an establishment that is open to the public. All you, me, or anyone, has is an invitation to enter that property contingent upon agreeing to abide by any and all rules/policies of the property owner. Get caught breaking those rules/policies and your invitation is revoked resulting in being kicked out. But then you know that will happen and that is why you ... sneak... your gun in.

Just because you personally don't like a right doesn't make it any less of a right. Listen, learn it, remember it.

Just let it go man. What I do is my business not yours.

 

[corneileous]

This thread is about Panera Bread.

Yes, I know, but Reba was asking about places that actually post a "rob me" sign.

 

[bofh]

I'm sorry, I wasn't asking about Panera, so I guess I was astray of the original topic.

I wanted to know more specifically about someone at a business questioning a customer about whether or not the customer was wearing a gun.

Well, the thread has gone off topic anyway.

About your question, you certainly have no legal obligation to answer any question or to truthfully answer a question that is being asked by a business representative or the owner. The real question is, how to answer such a question? There are very good answers, such as "It's a medical device". I personally like: "It's a colostomy bag."

 

[corneileous]

I'm sorry, I wasn't asking about Panera, so I guess I was astray of the original topic.

I wanted to know more specifically about someone at a business questioning a customer about whether or not the customer was wearing a gun.

No need to apologize in my book, I knew exactly what you were talking about and what you were asking.

 

[corneileous]

Well, the thread has gone off topic anyway.

That ain't no joke. Well, not really, even though it's the same ole song as before, this thread IS about a business that doesn't welcome carry protection. They may not be doing it with a sign but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent so, it's still basically related to the topic. But sadly since you've done it before, I highly doubt you're placing the blame on the correct person.

About your question, you certainly have no legal obligation to answer any question or to truthfully answer a question that is being asked by a business representative or the owner. The real question is, how to answer such a question? There are very good answers, such as "It's a medical device". I personally like: "It's a colostomy bag."

So you're suggesting... lying to the business owner?? Hmm, that may go against a particular someone's code....[emoji6]

 

[Reba]

Well, the thread has gone off topic anyway.

About your question, you certainly have no legal obligation to answer any question or to truthfully answer a question that is being asked by a business representative or the owner. The real question is, how to answer such a question? There are very good answers, such as "It's a medical device". I personally like: "It's a colostomy bag."

Maybe some people would be embarrassed to reveal their medical conditions to a stranger in public. There's probably ADA protection in place for that anyway, like how people using service dogs can't be asked what's "wrong" with them.

Rather than lie or reveal one's secrets, I was thinking more along the line of "I'd prefer not to say" as a response.

 

[corneileous]

Maybe some people would be embarrassed to reveal their medical conditions to a stranger in public. There's probably ADA protection in place for that anyway, like how people using service dogs can't be asked what's "wrong" with them.

I hate to give it away that I'm being facetious but since property owners rights trump yours, I would think you wouldn't be protected while in his store.

Rather than lie or reveal one's secrets, I was thinking more along the line of "I'd prefer not to say" as a response.

Don't matter, if that store owner is unsettled enough to assume your hiding an unwelcome gun, using, "I'd prefer not to say" or, "It's none of your damn business" would probably be immediately taken as guilt and then the next words out of his mouth would be asking you to leave.

 

[bofh]

Maybe some people would be embarrassed to reveal their medical conditions to a stranger in public. There's probably ADA protection in place for that anyway, like how people using service dogs can't be asked what's "wrong" with them.

Rather than lie or reveal one's secrets, I was thinking more along the line of "I'd prefer not to say" as a response.

Well, the idea is to embarrass the person asking you if you carry a gun by revealing that you have a (non-existing) medical condition and carry a medical device for it. He/she won't ask further questions and will leave you alone.

If a business owner ask you and you say "I prefer not to answer that question", then this is certainly your right. However, the business owner may simply tell you to leave based on your answer.