Hooters doesn't care

[canadienmike]

Maybe from the precedent of the other states that don't allow businesses that are open to the public to post? Or the ones where the signs carry no force of law?

I got a questionnaire the other day from my State representative asking what legislation I'd like to see considered in the next session. That's going to be one of my suggestions, that businesses that are open to the public can't post.

They can still ask you to leave and you would have to go. The only real difference would be that you would not be breaking the law just by going into a posted location (which I agree should be the case).

[Guest ab28]

And what planet do you get this from? If I do not want you armed on my property you have no business being there with a gun. That is the bottom line. Your rights do not supercede my rights as a property owner.

Seriously, where did you come up with this?

Actually I do. A person's life is more important than property, I have a right to defend myself anywhere. You either have the right to own guns and defend yourself, or you don't. My right to defend myself is the basic right afforded to every person, nothing is higher than that.

I came up with this from common sense thinking. I don't carry on posted property because I don't feel like getting arrested. But if someone does not want me carrying on their property, how is that different than the liberals who want to take my guns?

[Guest ab28]

Actually, they do.

So if the property owner makes me disarm, is he going to be able to defend me as well as I could with a gun? Is it his responsibility since I cannot defend myself with a weapon? It goes back to personal responsibility, you cannot expect the police to be there constantly to protect you, should you expect the property owner to protect you, as he disarmed you?

[canadienmike]

Actually I do. A person's life is more important than property, I have a right to defend myself anywhere. You either have the right to own guns and defend yourself, or you don't. My right to defend myself is the basic right afforded to every person, nothing is higher than that.

I came up with this from common sense thinking. I don't carry on posted property because I don't feel like getting arrested. But if someone does not want me carrying on their property, how is that different than the liberals who want to take my guns?

And you have the right to not go on their property. Then they are not taking away your right to defend yourself. By your logic, if we wanted to hold a protest or large gathering to make some kind of statement, we should be able to just all gather on your front lawn and there would be nothing you could do about it cause you'd be taking away our 1st amendment rights.

[Guest ab28]

And you have the right to not go on their property. Then they are not taking away your right to defend yourself. By your logic, if we wanted to hold a protest or large gathering to make some kind of statement, we should be able to just all gather on your front lawn and there would be nothing you could do about it cause you'd be taking away our 1st amendment rights.

As I mentioned, I don't go to posted property. The 1st amendment analogy fails logically, as you can talk anywhere. I don't just walk on people's property. If it is a business, open to the public, that is completely different than just walking onto some random guy's yard. If it is a public location, then I should be able to carry there.

[Guest Ggun]

So if the property owner makes me disarm, is he going to be able to defend me as well as I could with a gun? Is it his responsibility since I cannot defend myself with a weapon? It goes back to personal responsibility, you cannot expect the police to be there constantly to protect you, should you expect the property owner to protect you, as he disarmed you?

The extent of a property owner's obligation to protect the safety of someone on their property depends on a lot of factors, including the status of that person's presence on the property.

It is the personal responsibility of the person who chooses to step on another's property to decide whether it is worth the risk to do so.

It's your choice whether to disarm yourself and step on another's property under their rules, as they own the property.

[canadienmike]

As I mentioned, I don't go to posted property. The 1st amendment analogy fails logically, as you can talk anywhere. I don't just walk on people's property. If it is a business, open to the public, that is completely different than just walking onto some random guy's yard. If it is a public location, then I should be able to carry there.

Ok, then take that group of people and move them from your lawn to a public business. Then they should be able to protest all they want and the owner can't do anything about it? So you wouldn't have a problem if you were at your favourite restaurant and a group of anti-gun protesters came in and disrupted your meal. I mean allowing the owner to remove them would take away their freedom of speech.

[Guest ab28]

Ok, then take that group of people and move them from your lawn to a public business. Then they should be able to protest all they want and the owner can't do anything about it? So you wouldn't have a problem if you were at your favourite restaurant and a group of anti-gun protesters came in and disrupted your meal. I mean allowing the owner to remove them would take away their freedom of speech.

I could care less, I am eating, not there to debate guns. People should be able to protest, as long as they aren't getting violent, cursing, whatever. Talking is different than defense. I know if I was somewhere without my weapon and I or a friend got shot, I would definitely be suing for not being able to defend myself. I plan on bringing a case against MTSU if I ever get mugged or assaulted there. If they won't allow me to bring a weapon to defend myself, they should have to guarantee my safety.

Edited August 19, 2009 by ab28

[Guest ab28]

The extent of a property owner's obligation to protect the safety of someone on their property depends on a lot of factors, including the status of that person's presence on the property.

It is the personal responsibility of the person who chooses to step on another's property to decide whether it is worth the risk to do so.

It's your choice whether to disarm yourself and step on another's property under their rules, as they own the property.

And their rule is that I will be disarmed, therefore they need a substitute method for my defense.

[canadienmike]

I could care less, I am eating, not there to debate guns. People should be able to protest, as long as they aren't getting violent, cursing, whatever. Talking is different than defense. I know if I was somewhere without my weapon and I or a friend got shot, I would definitely be suing for not being able to defend myself. I plan on bringing a case against MTSU if I ever get mugged or assaulted there. If they won't allow me to bring a weapon to defend myself, they should have to guarantee my safety.

Don't you know there are no guanantees in life? Carrying a gun doesn't even guarantee that you won't get shot or hurt, it just gives you a better chance to defend yourself if needed.

A business owner still has rights to limit things on his property and while I might not like it, that's his right. When we start taking rights away, you start down a slippery slope.

[Guest Isaac]

And their rule is that I will be disarmed, therefore they need a substitute method for my defense.

No, you made the choice that it was worth disarming to enter their property. You have the choice to stay armed and protected, and go elsewhere. Unless the person somehow made it mandatory that you enter their property, thereby forcing you to disarm, in which case there may be some liability.

[Guest jth_3s]

how is that different than the liberals who want to take my guns?

It is different becasue they aren't trying to take your guns. I am absolutely against the government telling property owners that they have to do anything. It is a property owners right to say they do not want guns on their property. That being said I wont be doing any business with posted resturants. Toots is an awesome substitute for Hooters. They have better food, service, and they aren't posted.

[Guest ab28]

Don't you know there are no guanantees in life? Carrying a gun doesn't even guarantee that you won't get shot or hurt, it just gives you a better chance to defend yourself if needed.

A business owner still has rights to limit things on his property and while I might not like it, that's his right. When we start taking rights away, you start down a slippery slope.

I agree that carrying a gun is no guarantee of anything. However, with my training and practice, I have a good chance of defending myself against a shooter, or anything other than a SWAT team or SF guy. The business owner does have rights, but my life is worth more to me than his rights. As someone else mentioned, as long as it is concealed, no one is the wiser anyways. I have carried in improperly posted locations. Writing "no guns" on a sheet of paper is meaningless.

[DaveTN]

Actually I do. A person's life is more important than property, I have a right to defend myself anywhere.

Very good argument, because it is exactly the same argument they are using. They believe that you are putting their lives and the lives of their customers at risk.

You either have the right to own guns and defend yourself, or you don't.

You don’t. You have the right to own guns. You do not have the right to carry them past your property line.

My right to defend myself is the basic right afforded to every person, nothing is higher than that.

I agree. But I discovered I was wrong when I was jailed. We are talking about what the laws are; not what they should be.

But if someone does not want me carrying on their property, how is that different than the liberals who want to take my guns?

Because business owners aren’t trying to take your guns away. They don’t know you or anything about you. But they know unless you got your training somewhere else the training required by the state is a joke. They don’t know if you are an HCP holder or a gang bangin’ thug; and they don’t want to ask to see your permit to find out.

But those are all secondary to the real reason. When the state on Tennessee puts all the responsibility on you, and passes legislation that makes a property owner exempt from civil suits; you will have a legitimate gripe.

Why is that when some people strap on a gun they seem to think they are wrapped in the Constitution and everything is a violation of their rights; rights that they do not have? You don’t have that gun because of the 2nd amendment; you have it because you have pro gun legislators that have sold you the privilege.

And what did our pro gun legislators get for their efforts? A very small percentage of the pro gun population that have their panties in a bunch because they can’t carry in a bar and want to vote them out of office.

[saintsfanbrian]

I am all for property owners rights to post no guns. I have said from the get go that this is how it should be. Remove the "restrictions" on where you cannot carry legally and leave it up to the owners of the restaurant. Owners are mad because the state is making them post their preferences. They used to be able to get by with the fact that the state said no. Now they can't.

[Guest ab28]

Very good argument, because it is exactly the same argument they are using. They believe that you are putting their lives and the lives of their customers at risk.

You don’t. You have the right to own guns. You do not have the right to carry them past your property line.

(I have the right to self defense anywhere, today that means guns.)

I agree. But I discovered I was wrong when I was jailed. We are talking about what the laws are; not what they should be.

Because business owners aren’t trying to take your guns away. They don’t know you or anything about you. But they know unless you got your training somewhere else the training required by the state is a joke. They don’t know if you are an HCP holder or a gang bangin’ thug (I am white, furthermore I look nothing like a thug.) ; and they don’t want to ask to see your permit to find out.

But those are all secondary to the real reason. When the state on Tennessee puts all the responsibility on you, and passes legislation that makes a property owner exempt from civil suits; you will have a legitimate gripe.

Why is that when some people strap on a gun they seem to think they are wrapped in the Constitution and everything is a violation of their rights; rights that they do not have? You don’t have that gun because of the 2nd amendment; you have it because you have pro gun legislators that have sold you the privilege. (I have the right to defend myself. That is a basic human right, not something the Constitution or 2nd gave. I didn't say everything is a violation of my rights, but something obvious like this is.)

And what did our pro gun legislators get for their efforts? A very small percentage of the pro gun population that have their panties in a bunch because they can’t carry in a bar and want to vote them out of office. (It is not the politicians, it is the bar owners that have been brainwashed into doing this that we need to convince.)

Replies in parenthesis.

[Guest ab28]

I am all for property owners rights to post no guns. I have said from the get go that this is how it should be. Remove the "restrictions" on where you cannot carry legally and leave it up to the owners of the restaurant. Owners are mad because the state is making them post their preferences. They used to be able to get by with the fact that the state said no. Now they can't.

I am not for this, people have the right to defend themselves, the only reason I won't carry there is the law. If the sign is not properly posted, I simply ignore it. I don't have a lot of extra cash to spend at restaurants anyways, so it is kind of a moot point.

[strickj]

Just a couple things.....and I did read quickly through the last couple pages..

You do not have any rights while on private property.

If you're in MY house,and I dont want you to carry,the 2nd amendment does not apply.

If you're in MY house,and you want to scream obscenities,the 1st amendment does not apply.

If you're on my porch,and you want to hand out religious pamplets,again the 1st amendment does not apply.

See,the only rights you have,are rights that can not be taken away from the Government.

There is absolutely nothing in there that reads"Joe Bob has the right to XXX while on Jimmy Joes property"

And just for the record,if anybody comes on my property doing any of the above three things mentioned,they will leave,or go to jail.The only right they have is to voluntarily go somewhere else on their own free will

[Guest ab28]

Just a couple things.....and I did read quickly through the last couple pages..

You do not have any rights while on private property.

If you're in MY house,and I dont want you to carry,the 2nd amendment does not apply.

If you're in MY house,and you want to scream obscenities,the 1st amendment does not apply.

If you're on my porch,and you want to hand out religious pamplets,again the 1st amendment does not apply.

See,the only rights you have,are rights that can not be taken away from the Government.

There is absolutely nothing in there that reads"Joe Bob has the right to XXX while on Jimmy Joes property"

And just for the record,if anybody comes on my property doing any of the above three things mentioned,they will leave,or go to jail.The only right they have is to voluntarily go somewhere else on their own free will

My rights do not change just because I go to different properties. I can carry in anyone's house that I desire to, I have visited with several different people, and don't recall asking them if I could carry or not. It never occurred to me to even ask. Some of them hate guns, some like guns, neither opinion matters to me, when my life is on the line. Someone screaming obscenities in your house is more obvious than someone carrying. The right can be taken away by the government, well, they can try. I am not discussing the constitution. My right to defend myself supercedes any document. I guess we aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue, I am surprised by the responses, especially on a gun forum. For the carry on your property, you would have to search someone to know they are carrying anyways, and as for me, a private citizen is not going to search me.

Edited August 19, 2009 by ab28

[strickj]

You can defend yourself whenever\wherever you wish,whats being debated here is your,or what you believe is your right,to carry on someone else property.

Show me where that right exist....

Just a hint....its not the 2nd one.

Your rights are not more important then my rights,period!

[DaveTN]

And just for the record,if anybody comes on my property doing any of the above three things mentioned,they will leave,or go to jail.

Note to self… There won’t be any HCP parties at Strickj's house. And if there are don’t let him catch you handing out those flyers from church.

[Guest ab28]

I am not going to tell random people that I am carrying a gun, so they won't know. My friends know I am carrying, so if anyone besides a cop asks me, I am going to say no. It is no one's business that I carry a weapon, and surprise is part of that. If I go around telling people I carry, I have lost that.

[Guest ab28]

You can defend yourself whenever\wherever you wish,whats being debated here is your,or what you believe is your right,to carry on someone else property.

Show me where that right exist....

Just a hint....its not the 2nd one.

Your rights are not more important then my rights,period!

The right to defend oneself is higher than property rights, because a human life is more valuable than property. I don't need to show you where it exists, it should be common sense. You are on a gun owner's forum, I am surprised you support someone telling you that you can't carry anywhere. I don't carry in gov buildings or properly posted businesses. With that said, otherwise, no one is going to know I am carrying unless I have to use it. The property owner has the right to say no guns allowed, sure, but what he doesn't know won't hurt him, especially when his opinion is based on liberal BS.

[strickj]

That's right,life is more important...if you wanna say your right to self defense supersedes property rights,fine I agree with that.But keep in mind a gun is not SD,its a tool for SD.If you don't like that you cant carry that tool,you can leave,no one is forcing you to stay at Hooters,or anywhere tool less.

Like I said in that first post,you do not have a right to carry a gun on private property,no more then you have the right to wear pink,and purple polka dot shoes on someones property.

The property owner has the right to say no guns allowed, sure, but what he doesn't know won't hurt him

That would be a crime.

You are on a gun owner's forum, I am surprised you support someone telling you that you can't carry anywhere

It has nothing to do with carrying,but respecting a property owners rights.

If I go to a nice restaurant and they have a sign saying I must wear a tie,Ill either put on a tie,or will be refused entrance.If I don;t agree with it,I'll leave.I might not like it,but its their right to restrict everyone,and everything on their property.

Its pretty simple here. If you want to carry a gun,and someone tells you,you cant,you can leave....your right is not lost by leaving.

Oh,and that has nothing to do with liberal BS

Edited August 20, 2009 by strickj

[Guest ab28]

That's right,life is more important...if you wanna say your right to self defense supersedes property rights,fine I agree with that.But keep in mind a gun is not SD,its a tool for SD.If you don't like that you cant carry that tool,you can leave,no one is forcing you to stay at Hooters,or anywhere tool less.

And I mentioned I just won't go to posted places.

a Like I said in that first post,you do not have a right to carry a gun on private property,no more then you have the right to wear pink,and purple polka dot shoes on someones property.

I do have the right to carry there, unless it is properly posted, in which case I won't go there.

That would be a crime.

I don't see it as a crime, I am not going to tell everyone I visit that I am carrying a gun, it is none of their business.

It has nothing to do with carrying,but respecting a property owners rights.

If I go to a nice restaurant and they have a sign saying I must wear a tie,Ill either put on a tie,or will be refused entrance.If I don;t agree with it,I'll leave.I might not like it,but its their right to restrict everyone,and everything on their property.

I still don't see it this way, but I guess we will just have to disagree.

Its pretty simple here. If you want to carry a gun,and someone tells you,you cant,you can leave....your right is not lost by leaving.

That is true, to an extent, but as I said, they won't know I am carrying.

Oh,and that has nothing to do with liberal BS

It has everything to do with it, they are trying to tell me what to do, or in what manner I can defend myself. That is my decision to make, not theirs.

I do see your side of things, although I can't really agree with it.