The only real reason anyone carries concealed.

[Rhino]

...Sure, I would like employers and places open to the general public to be prevented from discriminating against the armed citizen, but if that's ever going to happen, it's not anytime soon.
.
I do understand why many see this act as disrespect, and I admit that it is disrespectful to a degree. I just value my life more than I value your stuff.

With all the recent shootings in gun free zones I have to confess I've done this a few times myself, though I limit it to cases where there are no other alternatives available. My wife goes with me most places, and I just couldn't bear the thought of something happening to her when I had no ability to defend her. It isn't a matter of disrespecting anyone's rights because I fully respect property rights. I just can't assume that kind of risk anymore.
.

This my friend is the entire point of the thread. Concealed carry is for sneaking, for getting away with something. If you're being honest when you carry then you are carrying openly.

I chuckle every time you say that. There's absolutely nothing dishonest or dishonorable about concealed carry. As for sneaking or getting away with something, I guess I am 'getting away with' not being an easy target of criminals, and I'm 'sneaking' my gun because those criminals can't see it. Though we know it's not a panacea, it's well known that the element of surprise can often be an incredible tactical advantage. While you and I may not agree on a lot of things, I never found you dumb. I would have thought it beneath your intelligence to claim that someone was dishonest because they were attempting to make use of a tactical advantage.
.

This is why the only real reason to carry concealed is to keep from being disarmed.

That's ONE of the reasons, though certainly not the only "real" one. Though it is absolutely possible that could be the only valid reason YOU decide to concealed carry.
.

There is no other valid reason to carry concealed, because as you said, it means you're trying to do something less than honorable.

Thanks for another chuckle. Not showing other players your hand at poker may be sneaky, but it's certainly not dishonorable. The same holds true for using camouflage in warfare. You're trying to make an axiomatic connection between "sneaky" and "less than honorable" that simply does not exist.
.

I'm being honest to my own principals (...to be at all times armed...), so no integrity is lost.
.
I'm not being honest to your principals. I have no contract with you to then have broken my word.

Nicely said. Why then can you not exercise that same meaningful manner by not attempting to claim your own personal reasons for concealed carry are applicable to everyone else?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You misunderstand. The Civil Rights Act, in reference to the private property owner being required to allow entry to certain protected classes of people IS the infringement upon having the private property right to deny entry to anyone for any reason just as any and all gun control laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms.

That's exactly how I understand it. So where's the lawsuit? Or have property owners just accepted the infringement?

Property owners have accepted the infringement(s) in the same manner as gun owners have accepted the infringements upon the right to bear arms. Sad but true about both.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So it is someone elses responsibility to make things easy for you to be honorable and respect their rights? Your honor and integrity are dependent upon what is convenient for you? Oh wait... you already said it was as shown in the quote below.

Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
I'm not going to inconvenience myself just because the property owner thinks guns are icky. I've already made the effort to keep the gun out of site, that's as far as I'll go.

And the property owner doesn't lose any of his property rights since if you get caught dishonorably ... sneaking .... your gun into/onto his property the owner will exercise his private property right to deny you entry by throwing you out. But there is something very valuable, perhaps even priceless, that is lost and that is your own integrity.

I'm being honest to my own principals (...to be at all times armed...), so no integrity is lost.

I'm not being honest to your principals. I have no contract with you to then have broken my word.

One might argue that since you let me in despite braking your rule, that you rescinded your rule.

When you... sneak... your gun into/into private property that has a no guns rule you are breaking your contract/agreement with the property owner that you will obey his rules in exchange for his permission to enter. And if I were the property owner and you were to .. sneak.. your gun in I did not LET you in. Even though you were physically able to walk in while ... sneaking... your gun in against my no guns rule you still did not have my permission to be there and I didn't let you in.... you came in against my wishes and since you do not have my permission to be there you are a trespasser.

I will go even further and say that those with integrity would understand they are committing trespass the minute they sneak their gun into/onto the private property and what really happens when the property owner throws them out is they got caught in the act of trespassing. To someone with integrity it doesn't matter if they can get away with it or if there are consequences (getting thrown out or arrested for trespass) but what matters is respecting the rights of others.... even when their rights are not respected. The phrase that comes to mind is "taking the high road".

One might argue that since you let me in despite braking your rule, that you rescinded your rule.

You can try to spin it any way you wish but the fact remains that there is a lack of integrity (and a degree of hypocrisy) in those who want others to respect their right to bear arms but disrespect the right of the property owner to deny entry to those who bear arms.

 

[Blueshell]

Nicely said. Why then can you not exercise that same meaningful manner by not attempting to claim your own personal reasons for concealed carry are applicable to everyone else?

I don't make demands of others.

Or I at least do my best to avoid making demands of others.

 

[Blueshell]

When you... sneak... your gun into/into private property that has a no guns rule you are breaking your contract/agreement with the property owner that you will obey his rules in exchange for his permission to enter.

If I form a verbal contract, spoken in front of witnesses with a handshake, or sign a written contract, like a club membership, then I've made such an agreement.

Merely walking through the door forms no such agreement. Having no contract with you, I haven't broken my word. I remain true to my principals.

....you came in against my wishes and since you do not have my permission to be there you are a trespasser.

I leave when told to. Every time. If you don't ask me to leave then I'll proceed as if I'm welcome.

I will go even further and say that those with integrity would understand they are committing trespass the minute they sneak their gun into/onto the private property and what really happens when the property owner throws them out is they got caught in the act of trespassing. To someone with integrity it doesn't matter if they can get away with it or if there are consequences (getting thrown out or arrested for trespass) but what matters is respecting the rights of others.... even when their rights are not respected. The phrase that comes to mind is "taking the high road".

The high road ends at a cliff. Just ask Californians.

See also: Link Removed

You can try to spin it any way you wish but the fact remains that there is a lack of integrity (and a degree of hypocrisy) in those who want others to respect their right to bear arms but disrespect the right of the property owner to deny entry to those who bear arms.

I don't require the property owner to respect my rights, so there's no hypocrisy on my part.

 

[Blueshell]

... it's well known that the element of surprise can often be an incredible tactical advantage...

The 'element of surprise' is an offensive tactic, not a defensive tactic. It's for retaliation, and retaliation is not a valid use of lethal force by civilians.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
When you... sneak... your gun into/into private property that has a no guns rule you are breaking your contract/agreement with the property owner that you will obey his rules in exchange for his permission to enter.

If I form a verbal contract, spoken in front of witnesses with a handshake, or sign a written contract, like a club membership, then I've made such an agreement.

Merely walking through the door forms no such agreement. Having no contract with you, I haven't broken my word. I remain true to my principals.

There is a thing called a Tacit Agreement:

Link Removed

Tacit

Implied, inferred, understood without being expressly stated.

Tacit refers to something done or made in silence, as in a tacit agreement.
Bold added by me for emphasis....

When you walk into/onto the private property of someone else you tacitly agree to abide by the property owner's rules/conditions in exchange for his permission to enter. If you ignore/disobey the owner's rules/conditions then you do not have permission to enter and if you enter anyway then you are trespassing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass

Trespass

Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Criminal charges, which range from violation to felony, may be brought against someone who interferes with another person’s legal property rights.
Bold added by me for emphasis....

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
....you came in against my wishes and since you do not have my permission to be there you are a trespasser.

I leave when told to. Every time. If you don't ask me to leave then I'll proceed as if I'm welcome.

You proceed AS IF you are welcome even though you are not welcome. Got it.

What most folks don't realize is the act of trespass occurred the moment of stepping onto/into the property and when they are asked to leave is when they got caught already trespassing. Depending on the laws of the State where trespass occurs it might be necessary for a person to be asked to leave before legal penalties can be assessed for that act of trespass but the trespass itself happened the instant a person without permission to enter... entered.

The high road ends at a cliff. Just ask Californians.

See also: Link Removed

Nice attempt at misdirection, redirection, and obfuscation but integrity, that "taking the high road" is what you personally do... or don't do... in regards to respecting, or disrespecting, the rights of someone else.

I don't require the property owner to respect my rights, so there's no hypocrisy on my part.

Yes there is hypocrisy on your part. You are requiring the property owner respect your right to bear arms while you disrespect his right to deny you entry because you bear arms. And the fact that you feel the need to ... sneak... your gun in shows you understand this quite well.

By the way... I hope you have a very good 4th of July celebrating the freedoms and the rights, ALL the rights of ALL people, so many died to protect.

 

[Nadir Point]

Sorry, no, it's not "tactical advantage". That is an offensive purpose, not defensive purpose, and is thus illegal. Carrying conceald for the "tactical advantage" is illegal. End of of debate.

Since when weren't there two sides in any tactical encounter?

Dude, sheesh, think before your type. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Blueshell]

When you walk into/onto the private property of someone else you tacitly agree to abide by the property owner's rules/conditions in exchange for his permission to enter.

Opening your property to the public is tacit agreement that you will allow all otherwise lawful behavior. By posting your sign, you brake your word.

If you ignore/disobey the owner's rules/conditions then you do not have permission to enter and if you enter anyway then you are trespassing.

I acknowledge and agree. I am willingly, knowingly trespassing. Sometimes repeatedly. The whole reason to carry concealed is to...sneak...and get away with it. I have been saying over and over that the only real reason to carry concealed is to ignore signs and laws that would disarm you. Have I not said this from OP? The only real purpose of concealing your gun is to brake federal law by carrying onto school grounds, into post offices, and into other GFZs; to be an undocumented felon. To carry against private property owner's wishes, ie to trespass and to get away with trespassing, to carry at work and not be fired; an undocumented thief.

"...a duty to at all times be armed..."

At. ALL. Times.

I apologize if I haven't made this crystal clear from page 1. Concealed carry is only for people who are trying to get away with something. When someone is being honest, they are carrying openly.

You post as if we agree that legal standing is a thing to be honored. We do not agree. We also disagree on the equality of rights. Our base premises do not align, so of course the majority of our conclusions will not align, either. 99% of all gun control is unconstitutional, including your cute little policy which I frequently violate with impunity.

When you cannot enforce a right, you therefore do not have that right. Californians are learning this lesson the hard way today.

Nice attempt at misdirection, redirection, and obfuscation but integrity, that "taking the high road" is what you personally do... or don't do... in regards to respecting, or disrespecting, the rights of someone else.

I don't demand anyone respect my rights. What you do not see me do is demand you respect my right to public access. What you do not see me do is demand you respect my right to public accommodation. You don't see me demanding anything of you or any property owner. It's your property, do whatever you want.

If you don't want someone in your business, you will find a way to eject them. If you do want someone in your business, then you will make any exception to your rules as you see fit. There is no constant. You will do what you will do, and so will I.

You are requiring the property owner respect your right to bear arms...

I do not require the property owner to respect my right to bear arms. If I did, I would be carrying openly, refuse to leave, and bring a lawsuit. That's not what I do.

You are the one making demands.

 

[Blueshell]

Since when weren't there two sides in any tactical encounter?

I never claimed there weren't.

Dude, sheesh, think before your type. You're just embarrassing yourself.

You may want to take your own advice here.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
When you walk into/onto the private property of someone else you tacitly agree to abide by the property owner's rules/conditions in exchange for his permission to enter.

Opening your property to the public is tacit agreement that you will allow all otherwise lawful behavior. By posting your sign, you brake your word.

Walking into/onto private property is tacitly agreeing to abide by the rules/conditions the owner stipulates are necessary in order to have his permission to enter. Not abiding by those rules/conditions means you do not have the owner's permission to be there and if you are there without the owner's permission you are trespassing. Trespassing is NOT lawful behavior. Please note your own response that I have quoted below:

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
If you ignore/disobey the owner's rules/conditions then you do not have permission to enter and if you enter anyway then you are trespassing.

I acknowledge and agree. I am willingly, knowingly trespassing. Sometimes repeatedly. The whole reason to carry concealed is to...sneak...and get away with it. I have been saying over and over that the only real reason to carry concealed is to ignore signs and laws that would disarm you. Have I not said this from OP? The only real purpose of concealing your gun is to brake federal law by carrying onto school grounds, into post offices, and into other GFZs; to be an undocumented felon. To carry against private property owner's wishes, ie to trespass and to get away with trespassing, to carry at work and not be fired; an undocumented thief.

By your own words above you admit to engaging in the illegal behavior of trespassing. Repeatedly trespassing.

Again, the act of trespass begins the instant you enter the property of another without permission. Being asked to leave means you got caught at it. At what point legal penalties occur for that act of trespass depends upon the laws of the State where the trespass occurs.

"...a duty to at all times be armed..."

At. ALL. Times.

It is very possible to remain armed at all times and still respect the private property rights of the property owner by simply shopping at establishments that do not have no guns rules/policies. But doing so means you must have the integrity to respect the property owner's rights as much as you want others to respect your right to bear arms.... even when doing so is inconvenient.

I apologize if I haven't made this crystal clear from page 1. Concealed carry is only for people who are trying to get away with something. When someone is being honest, they are carrying openly.

You have made that clear. You have also made it clear that you aren't being honest when you knowingly ... sneak.. your gun into/onto private property where the owner has exercised his right to not give his permission to enter to those who carry guns.

You post as if we agree that legal standing is a thing to be honored. We do not agree. We also disagree on the equality of rights. Our base premises do not align, so of course the majority of our conclusions will not align, either. 99% of all gun control is unconstitutional, including your cute little policy which I frequently violate with impunity.

Please do not confuse the difference between unconstitutional gun control instituted by the government and a no guns allowed rule of a private property owner. It is unconstitutional for the government to do it since the Constitution restricts the government but it is not unconstitutional for a private person to do it because the Constitution does not restrict individuals.

When you cannot enforce a right, you therefore do not have that right. Californians are learning this lesson the hard way today.

Another attempt to derail the discussion into what is going on in California. I am not talking about California but I am talking about how you disrespect the rights of private property owners when you... sneak... your gun into/onto property where the owner has a no guns rule/policy.

I don't demand anyone respect my rights. What you do not see me do is demand you respect my right to public access. What you do not see me do is demand you respect my right to public accommodation. You don't see me demanding anything of you or any property owner. It's your property, do whatever you want.

Please show me where you, or I, have a right to access of private property. You know, that right you just said you don't demand I respect.

And if it is my property and I can do whatever I want then I can deny entry to those who carry guns. But some folks think they can demand entry.... sneak in with a gun when I forbid it... regardless of whether they have my permission or not.

If you don't want someone in your business, you will find a way to eject them. If you do want someone in your business, then you will make any exception to your rules as you see fit. There is no constant. You will do what you will do, and so will I.

I will eject them if I catch them. But folks with integrity would respect my private property right to have rules/conditions attached to my giving permission to enter and I wouldn't need to eject them. Again... when it gets to the point of ejecting someone it means they were caught engaging in the act of trespass by being on/in my property without my permission due to disobeying my rules/conditions (trespassing).

I do not require the property owner to respect my right to bear arms. If I did, I would be carrying openly, refuse to leave, and bring a lawsuit. That's not what I do.

You are the one making demands.

The property owner is demanding you obey his rules/conditions in order to be given his permission to enter. You are demanding the property owner respect your right to bear arms by not respecting the property owner's right to not give you permission as you ... sneak ... your gun in where it is not wanted.

Oh.. and about that thing called integrity I leave you with your own words:

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

 

[Blueshell]

It is very possible to remain armed at all times and still respect the private property rights of the property owner by simply shopping at establishments that do not have no guns rules/policies.

It's also possible to remain armed at all times by just carrying against your policy.

I'm not out to respect or disrespect your rights. I'm just going about my day. If it happens that you post a sign, that's cute and all, but I'm not going to inconvenience myself over it. Your policies and opinions mean nothing to me. I'm there for a product or service you offer, not for your political opinions on property rights. Do whatever you want, and so I.

 

[Rhino]

I don't make demands of others.
.
Or I at least do my best to avoid making demands of others.

I try to do the same.
.

The 'element of surprise' is an offensive tactic, not a defensive tactic. It's for retaliation, and retaliation is not a valid use of lethal force by civilians.

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.

 

[scott_see]

Sorry, no, it's not "tactical advantage".... This is the only valid reason to carry concealed: to dodge liberal gun control laws.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. And just a bit arrogant to assume that other reasons besides your stated reason are not valid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. And just a bit arrogant to assume that other reasons besides your stated reason are not valid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's an argument for debate, not arrogance.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
It is very possible to remain armed at all times and still respect the private property rights of the property owner by simply shopping at establishments that do not have no guns rules/policies.

It's also possible to remain armed at all times by just carrying against your policy.

I'm not out to respect or disrespect your rights. I'm just going about my day. If it happens that you post a sign, that's cute and all, but I'm not going to inconvenience myself over it. Your policies and opinions mean nothing to me. I'm there for a product or service you offer, not for your political opinions on property rights. Do whatever you want, and so I.

My private property RIGHT to deny entry onto/into my private property to those members of the public who carry guns by posting a no guns sign is "cute and all"? My property rights mean nothing to you and are less important than your personal convenience just because you want to buy stuff? The arrogant self centered condescension of all that is nothing less than astounding!

Quite frankly I don't see much difference between the attitude of disrespect for the private property rights of others for mere convenience that you have expressed in this discussion and the attitude of anti gunners who disrespect the right to bear arms because they want to "feel safe". Same self centered "Hooray for me and screw your rights!" perspective.

 

[Robgmn]

It's also possible to remain armed at all times by just carrying against your policy.

I'm not out to respect or disrespect your rights. I'm just going about my day. If it happens that you post a sign, that's cute and all, but I'm not going to inconvenience myself over it. Your policies and opinions mean nothing to me. I'm there for a product or service you offer, not for your political opinions on property rights. Do whatever you want, and so I.

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?

 

[Nadir Point]

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.

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

 

[Robgmn]

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

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.

 

[Blueshell]

My private property RIGHT to deny entry onto/into my private property to those members of the public who carry guns by posting a no guns sign is "cute and all"? My property rights mean nothing to you and are less important than your personal convenience just because you want to buy stuff? The arrogant self centered condescension of all that is nothing less than astounding!

I value my life more than your stuff. Have I not said this since page one?

Quite frankly I don't see much difference between the attitude of disrespect for the private property rights of others for mere convenience that you have expressed in this discussion and the attitude of anti gunners who disrespect the right to bear arms because they want to "feel safe". Same self centered "Hooray for me and screw your rights!" perspective.

You hold that all rights are equal, so it only makes sense that you would see it this way.

I hold that rights are in a hierarchy, where the right to life is at the very top and the RKBA is an expression of that right. Any person's right to life always supersedes anyone else's right to property. In all ways and in all things. If you force your way into my house to escape a deadly a storm, that is a valid act. Your life is more important than my building or my land. Carrying a gun against someone's wishes, even the State's, is even more valid as it doesn't cause damage.