The only real reason anyone carries concealed.

[Blueshell]

Keep that in mind if someone decides to come on your property and do what THEY want, regardless of what YOU like.
If it conveniences someone to drivce their car across your lawn to get somewhere they need to be, then it is quite alright.
Or, would this be a case of what is OK for you is not OK for anyone/everyone else?

Even if lawns were open to the public, which most aren't, my carrying a gun into a business doesn't damage the business but someone driving a car on a lawn does.

Please only compare like items.

 

[Blueshell]

Nice try, but allowing the public on your private property as a business owner does NOT mean you relenquish your right to say what will and will not happen on that property.
If you or anyone wants to claim a business owner cannot tell people they are not allowed to bring a gun on their PRIVATE property, then you must also concede that a person cannot mandate any such rules on private property that their home is on.
Except in the case of classes protected from discrimination, the laws of private property do not change based on the use of said private property.

You may not like it, you may not think it applies to you, but you personal feelings, desires and subjective opinion are irrelevant when it comes to law and rights.

Perhaps you could be a little more eloquent though, and clearly spell out how my thinking is "short-circuited".
Feel free to cite factual legal references. Constitution, Bill Of Rights, etc. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your anal cavity.

Residences are not open to the public, but if you would like to go that rout...I was invited to a 4th of July BBQ, I carried my gun as I always do. Over the course of the evening I discovered that the lady of the house doesn't care for guns and her husband had to keep his rifles out in the garage. So there I am in her living room with a concealed pistol and keeping my mouth shut about it. Even if I knew her wishes in advance, I still would have carried, and if discovered I would have left peacefully.

A business owner can make whatever policy they like. I won't tell them not to. Post any sign you wish, make any rule. It's your property, do whatever you want. I'm not going to make a fuss over a policy of yours I don't like. I'll just ignore it.

I generally advise business owners to follow my example and just ignore things they don't like.

 

[Blueshell]

Comparing a private residence with a business in terms of welcome guests? You are yet another poster with a clearly short-circuited thought process.

^agreed

 

[Blueshell]

I try to do the same.
.
Though you are correct that surprise is most often thought of as an offensive tactic, it can be a very good defensive tactic and quite often is. That's why militaries use camouflage and go to great lengths to keep many of their capabilities classified. But in the context in which we're speaking, having an antagonist be unaware that you're carrying can be, and often is, of tactical advantage. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods of carry, and the degree of both varies depending on the circumstances. But your claims that concealed carriers are being dishonest or dishonorable are no more valid than the claims that open carriers are just people with low self esteem who are trying to play macho man.

Oh it's a tactical advantage, no doubt.

Surprise is ambush, ambush is offensive, and civilians aren't supposed to use lethal force offensively. Civilians aren't supposed to ambush anyone.

 

[Rhino]

Oh it's a tactical advantage, no doubt.
.
Surprise is ambush, ambush is offensive, and civilians aren't supposed to use lethal force offensively. Civilians aren't supposed to ambush anyone.

Camouflage and concealment alone are not offensive, and the overwhelming majority of that is done without the purpose of ambush. I worked in intelligence programs almost my entire military career, and we concealed almost everything we did. That wasn't for the purpose of ambush. It was so the enemy couldn't know how we'd exploited their weaknesses, how they might be able to exploit ours, and how we might prosecute the next military conflict. Your assertion that surprise equals ambush is understandable since those things are normally associated with each other in the context of conflict or combat. But that context isn't universal and that association is not absolute, even when it comes to combat.
.
Of course you could be venturing into the realm of 'nitpicky' with this, but I sincerely hope that isn't the case. If a customer surprises an armed robber who is threatening the life of a clerk at a convenience store by drawing his gun from concealment, that's using surprise as a sound tactic, but it isn't setting up an ambush. Now if you were really venturing into the realm of the nitpicky you could claim the customer was being offensive rather than defensive because he initiated a separate attack from behind or from the side, i.e. separate from the original attack the perpetrator made on the clerk. But if you use that logic then all defensive uses of guns would be redefined as offensive because they weren't part of the original attack. You could further nitpick by categorizing the customer's actions as offensive because he wasn't the intended victim of the armed robber, and therefore his actions weren't defensive. But people can and do come to the defense of others all the time. I chose to use the customer scenario first simply because it better highlighted the element of surprise, but surprise doesn't require actions on the part of someone other than the victim. If the clerk was the one drawing a concealed firearm instead of the customer, the perpetrator will still very likely be surprised. We see documented cases all the time where attackers are surprised when their victims pull guns in self defense. Any attempt to portray such incidents as an ambush would be a gross and quite blatant mischaracterization, and I'm sure that wasn't your intent.
.
You're taking a generalization, 'surprise equals ambush', that is applicable far more to military conflict than it is to concealed carry, and attempting to treat it as an axiom. It's not even an axiom in military conflict, and it certainly isn't when it comes to concealed carry, where the generalization itself is even less applicable to begin with. I do agree with you that civilians aren't supposed to use lethal force offensively and aren't supposed to ambush anyone, but concealed carry is nothing of the sort. But with these highly misguided notions you seem to have about supposed connections between surprise and ambush, I can see how you might have come to such an erroneous conclusion.

 

[Blueshell]

Camouflage and concealment alone are not offensive, and the overwhelming majority of that is done without the purpose of ambush. I worked in intelligence programs almost my entire military career, and we concealed almost everything we did. That wasn't for the purpose of ambush. It was so the enemy couldn't know how we'd exploited their weaknesses, how they might be able to exploit ours, and how we might prosecute the next military conflict. Your assertion that surprise equals ambush is understandable since those things are normally associated with each other in the context of conflict or combat. But that context isn't universal and that association is not absolute, even when it comes to combat.
.
Of course you could be venturing into the realm of 'nitpicky' with this, but I sincerely hope that isn't the case. If a customer surprises an armed robber who is threatening the life of a clerk at a convenience store by drawing his gun from concealment, that's using surprise as a sound tactic, but it isn't setting up an ambush. Now if you were really venturing into the realm of the nitpicky you could claim the customer was being offensive rather than defensive because he initiated a separate attack from behind or from the side, i.e. separate from the original attack the perpetrator made on the clerk. But if you use that logic then all defensive uses of guns would be redefined as offensive because they weren't part of the original attack. You could further nitpick by categorizing the customer's actions as offensive because he wasn't the intended victim of the armed robber, and therefore his actions weren't defensive. But people can and do come to the defense of others all the time. I chose to use the customer scenario first simply because it better highlighted the element of surprise, but surprise doesn't require actions on the part of someone other than the victim. If the clerk was the one drawing a concealed firearm instead of the customer, the perpetrator will still very likely be surprised. We see documented cases all the time where attackers are surprised when their victims pull guns in self defense. Any attempt to portray such incidents as an ambush would be a gross and quite blatant mischaracterization, and I'm sure that wasn't your intent.
.
You're taking a generalization, 'surprise equals ambush', that is applicable far more to military conflict than it is to concealed carry, and attempting to treat it as an axiom. It's not even an axiom in military conflict, and it certainly isn't when it comes to concealed carry, where the generalization itself is even less applicable to begin with. I do agree with you that civilians aren't supposed to use lethal force offensively and aren't supposed to ambush anyone, but concealed carry is nothing of the sort. But with these highly misguided notions you seem to have about supposed connections between surprise and ambush, I can see how you might have come to such an erroneous conclusion.

This has already been covered, and I provided a link. Since you choose to ignore my links I will choose to ignore your argument.

 

[Rhino]

Sorry. I didn't see any links. I kind of came in in the middle of this.

 

[Blueshell]

Sorry. I didn't see any links. I kind of came in in the middle of this.

I apologize for being short with you.

Here is one example:

"...Now, with these considerations in mind, let’s revisit the element of surprise. If we are the target of a spontaneous, vicious attack, our best chance of prevailing and surviving is to fight back aggressively and viciously—to launch an offensive counter-attack and make Mr. Monster react to us. So, we must naturally train for this. Remember that our reason for carrying concealed is self defense. ..."

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/the-element-of-surprise/

From our own beloved USCCA, of which I've been a member for a long time. USCCA is endorsing offensive use of lethal force as the key reason to CC.

Civilians are only supposed to use lethal force in reaction to a threat. Once the threat has stopped, your gun should remain holstered. There should be no counter-attack.

Earlier in that article USCCA claims that OC will give the perp the drop on you. USCCA conveniently forgets to back that claim up.

 

[Rhino]

I apologize for being short with you.

Not a problem. I've gone through the same thing before, so I understand exactly where you're coming from.
.

Here is one example:
.
From our own beloved USCCA, of which I've been a member for a long time.

Personally I never cared much for the USCCA, but that's nether here nor there.
.

USCCA is endorsing offensive use of lethal force as the key reason to CC.

Are we reading the same link?
.
"...we good guys and gals are forced to react to a spontaneous attack..."
.
"...If we are the target of a spontaneous, vicious attack, our best chance of prevailing and surviving is to fight back aggressively and viciously—to launch an offensive counter-attack..."
.
"...Our focus will naturally be on our attacker..."
.
"...If someone initiates a spontaneous attack against us..."
.
"...Be trained to respond to a deadly attack..."
.
"...If you are attacked by a predator, it is probably because your attacker expects you to give up. So, surprise him!"
.
"...in the face of attack..."
.
"...employing deadly force to protect yourself, your family, and others in the face of attack..."
.
"...We all must train to win a fight if attacked..."
.
Everything in that article is about defending against a violent attack, so I'd have to guess you either misinterpreted it or maybe you linked to the wrong article.
.

Civilians are only supposed to use lethal force in reaction to a threat. Once the threat has stopped, your gun should remain holstered. There should be no counter-attack.

Nobody said there should be. The only time the article mentioned a counter attack was to advise it as a response to an attack in progress, not as something to do after an attack was over. That should have been plainly obvious by the text you quoted, "If we are the target of a spontaneous, vicious attack, our best chance of prevailing and surviving is to fight back..." They're saying you should fight back, and fight back aggressively, preferably with your gun. You can't be saying you oppose fighting back with your gun. This is just a play on the old 'the best defense is a good offense' argument. But if you read the article fully, they also say plenty to make it quite clear what goal your action is predicated on, and when it should end.
.
"...take him out of the fight..."
.
"...neutralize your attacker..."
.
"...to take out (i.e., stop, neutralize) an attacker..."
.
Nowhere do they advocate an offensive posture after the attack has stopped, and nowhere do they depict concealed carry as an offensive act. You're either misinterpreting what they said or I'm starting to think you may be deliberately mischaracterizing the issue in an attempt to spark debate. While the latter case may seem a valid goal, you must realize the probability that such an action is far more likely to produce anger than debate on this forum.
.

Earlier in that article USCCA claims that OC will give the perp the drop on you. USCCA conveniently forgets to back that claim up.

They don't actually mention open carry specifically. They just say you lose tactical advantages if the perp knows you have a gun, without acknowledging the other side of the coin. Like I said, I never cared much for the USCCA. Which brings me to another point. They are hardly the arbiter on what the definition of offensive and defensive are, or the definition of anything else for that matter.

 

[Rhino]

And now I must apologize because I just realized you said that link was only one example. I haven't seen the others yet, or at least not those that would apply directly to what we've been discussing. Just stuff on the definition of civilian. I'll go back further when I have more time. Sorry I can't do that right now. Have a good evening. Hopefully I'll be back by tomorrow.

 

[Robgmn]

Blueshell, any chance you could post something other than your OPINION on the subject?
How about some proofs like I asked for?

"I generally advise business owners to follow my example and just ignore things they don't like." is NOT backing up your claims in any way, it's just posting yet more subjective opinion.

 

[Blueshell]

Blueshell, any chance you could post something other than your OPINION on the subject?

You say this 3 posts after I give one such link, meaning you're either trolling or illiterate.

 

[Robgmn]

You say this 3 posts after I give one such link, meaning you're either trolling or illiterate.

Well, I looked back to post #282 (well beyond the "3 posts" you mention), and see no such link you've posted that proves a person gives up their private property rights when they operate a business on their private property.
If you're alluding to your link in post # 288, it has to do with "element of surprise" in an attack, and not private property rights.

Perhaps you should question your own literacy and ability to grasp the concepts of things you read.
Nice try at deflection, though.

 

[Blueshell]

Well, I looked back to post #282 (well beyond the "3 posts" you mention), and see no such link you've posted that proves a person gives up their private property rights when they operate a business on their private property.
If you're alluding to your link in post # 288, it has to do with "element of surprise" in an attack, and not private property rights.

Perhaps you should question your own literacy and ability to grasp the concepts of things you read.
Nice try at deflection, though.

I apologize, I thought you were discussing the thread topic, but it seems you want a sidebar on property rights.

I haven't claimed property owners give up their property right when opening their property to the public, so it's not something I need to prove. Even-though private property open to the public has to abide by Public Accommodation, gun carriers aren't a protected class by those laws for Public Accommodation to apply even as a sidebar to this thread.

I keep adding "open to the public" to help the casual reader understand that homes/residences are not what we're talking about. Even in the 4th of July celebration I offered above, I was invited in person, it was not open to the public.

When I carry past a sign, I am violating that owner's property rights. I am doing so in full knowledge of my violation; it's why I concealed my gun. I am trespassing and I know I'm trespassing; it's why I concealed my gun. I chose to trespass; that's why I concealed my gun.

 

[Blueshell]

Are we reading the same link?

"...If we are the target of a spontaneous, vicious attack, our best chance of prevailing and surviving is to fight back aggressively and viciously—to launch an offensive counter-attack..."

Yup, that's the one.

Nowhere do they advocate an offensive posture after the attack has stopped, and nowhere do they depict concealed carry as an offensive act.

They even use the word: "...If we are the target of a spontaneous, vicious attack, our best chance of prevailing and surviving is to fight back aggressively and viciously—to launch an offensive counter-attack..."

All I'm saying is USCCA's article is an example of why I started this thread. USCCA has a significant footprint in the gun-owning community and they are clearly advocating offensive use of lethal force as the key reason to carry concealed.

They don't actually mention open carry specifically. They just say you lose tactical advantages if the perp knows you have a gun, without acknowledging the other side of the coin. Like I said, I never cared much for the USCCA. Which brings me to another point. They are hardly the arbiter on what the definition of offensive and defensive are, or the definition of anything else for that matter.

For those unfamiliar with USCCA's position on open carry: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/vi.../?id=facebookuscca&sid=fanpage_article_7-6-16

 

[Rhino]

They even use the word: "...If we are the target of a spontaneous, vicious attack, our best chance of prevailing and surviving is to fight back aggressively and viciously—to launch an offensive counter-attack..."

Yes, they do use the word, predicated by the words, "to fight back". I.e. it was being done as an act of defense against an attack. But since I suspect you're just trying to stimulate debate, and I don't harbor the illusion I'm going to change your tune anyway, we can just agree to maintain the status quo for now and continue on.
.

All I'm saying is USCCA's article is an example of why I started this thread. USCCA has a significant footprint in the gun-owning community and they are clearly advocating offensive use of lethal force as the key reason to carry concealed.
.
For those unfamiliar with USCCA's position on open carry: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/vi.../?id=facebookuscca&sid=fanpage_article_7-6-16

Yeah, well, like I said, I never cared much for the USCCA. The guy who started it was a liar and a con artist, but that's a whole other story. The organization has come a long way since then, but I still wouldn't in any way consider them the leading authority on any topic, firearms related or otherwise.

 

[Robgmn]

I apologize, I thought you were discussing the thread topic, but it seems you want a sidebar on property rights.

I haven't claimed property owners give up their property right when opening their property to the public, so it's not something I need to prove. Even-though private property open to the public has to abide by Public Accommodation, gun carriers aren't a protected class by those laws for Public Accommodation to apply even as a sidebar to this thread.

I keep adding "open to the public" to help the casual reader understand that homes/residences are not what we're talking about. Even in the 4th of July celebration I offered above, I was invited in person, it was not open to the public.

When I carry past a sign, I am violating that owner's property rights. I am doing so in full knowledge of my violation; it's why I concealed my gun. I am trespassing and I know I'm trespassing; it's why I concealed my gun. I chose to trespass; that's why I concealed my gun.

Another attempt at deflection.
I was commenting on a thread tangent that you yourself had commented on. Don't act as if you're confused.

And, you admit that you will gladly violate someone's private property rights in order to do what YOU want to do.
Yet, you would not be happy if someone violated YOUR rights.
Hypocrisy.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
When I carry past a sign, I am violating that owner's property rights. I am doing so in full knowledge of my violation; it's why I concealed my gun. I am trespassing and I know I'm trespassing; it's why I concealed my gun. I chose to trespass; that's why I concealed my gun.

Translation:

-Hooray for MY!!! rights and to hell with yours.-

And the real reason you ... sneak.. your gun in is you know you will be thrown out, maybe suffer legal penalties, for trespassing. But I already know that this whole thing for you isn't about anything noble like rights or anything practical like self protection and has nothing to do with personal integrity but is all about satisfying your ego by getting over on the property owner. See the quote below.

Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
Been there, tossed out. I came back a couple days later sporting an empty OWB holster on my hip. When he asked, I lied and said I left it in the car, showing him the empty OWB holster. He didn't see the snubie at my ankle. I bought what I was there originally for and the world kept on turning.

Bold added by me for emphasis....

So you came back after being thrown out for .. sneaking.. in a gun and then, while intentionally "sporting" an empty holster so you could mislead the property owner, you lied to the property owner because you were yet again... sneaking... in a gun on your ankle and you are telling us all how you got away with it right under the property owner's nose? Now try to tell me that was about any kind of rights or even self protection and not all about puffing up your ego by getting over on the property owner.

 

[Blueshell]

Another attempt at deflection.
I was commenting on a thread tangent that you yourself had commented on. Don't act as if you're confused.

And, you admit that you will gladly violate someone's private property rights in order to do what YOU want to do.
Yet, you would not be happy if someone violated YOUR rights.
Hypocrisy.

I cheer when my team scores and boo when the opposing team scores. I'm sorry you think that's hypocrisy.

 

[Blueshell]

Translation:

-Hooray for MY!!! rights and to hell with yours.-

And the real reason you ... sneak.. your gun in is you know you will be thrown out, maybe suffer legal penalties, for trespassing. But I already know that this whole thing for you isn't about anything noble like rights or anything practical like self protection and has nothing to do with personal integrity but is all about satisfying your ego by getting over on the property owner. See the quote below.


Bold added by me for emphasis....

So you came back after being thrown out for .. sneaking.. in a gun and then, while intentionally "sporting" an empty holster so you could mislead the property owner, you lied to the property owner because you were yet again... sneaking... in a gun on your ankle and you are telling us all how you got away with it right under the property owner's nose? Now try to tell me that was about any kind of rights or even self protection and not all about puffing up your ego by getting over on the property owner.

Well, that's the shop my insurance told me to take my car to. I don't decide their coverage membership, and I don't decide the shop's policies. I'm just going about my day.