Can we rid the state of gunbuster signs?

[RobertNashville]

I just don't any logic behind the (apparent) opinion that a business owner should have to ask an armed person to leave his place of business when he's already "asked" them once to not be there in the first place by virtue of signage. Iif we are going to get on our high-horse about rights why do some seem to think that the have a right to ignore a business owner's stated wishes and ignore the signage and only have to leave if they are asked to leave a second time?

[RobertNashville]

...Yes, business owners have a right to be stupid, and lose a customer who's not causing any trouble by throwing them out if they want. But no one should be able to make one red cent off of that.

Some business owners may feel they make more money by catering to those who don't like to be around people who are armed - we may think that's stupid but we may be wrong and the business owner may be right (from a business perspective). That is, after all, part of the free enterprise system.

[Guest DavTN]

I just don't any logic behind the (apparent) opinion that a business owner should have to ask an armed person to leave his place of business when he's already "asked" them once to not be there in the first place by virtue of signage. Iif we are going to get on our high-horse about rights why do some seem to think that the have a right to ignore a business owner's stated wishes and ignore the signage and only have to leave if they are asked to leave a second time?

I think you are correct and that is how I will practice, but i think the main issue is if the law is changed for it to not be a criminal offense and a violation of the HCP, then a well behaved concealed carry citizen will not be asked to leave and could save themself or their family if they choose to disregard the sign. I don't think there should be signs in the first place as they are potential "Free-Fire" zones, but I respect the wishes of the business owners. I am very glad to have found a forum that lists places that post and those that do not. It will make it easier to decide before even leaving the house.

[Fallguy]

Should they (government) be able to force business owners to do anything? No. Can they? Yes. Do they? Yes. So, while perhaps things should be different, they aren't and it isn't very likely that they will be any time soon if ever, again. Maybe it is time we accept that reality and use it before our refusal to do so gets us left behind.

For instance, we shouldn't have to hide our legally carried firearms and only be allowed to keep and bear arms by the government's leave. Public opinion and concerns about frightening the masses should not be a major factor in our decisions regarding how, where and when to carry. Strictly from the perspective of our rights, we shouldn't have to think twice if we want to carry a revolver with a six inch barrel in a Mexican double loop holster on a cartridge belt right in the middle of town - and legally, we can do so. However, reality is that such actions can turn public opinion against us and the court of public opinion - right or wrong - can take away our rights (which, as some have pointed out, have already been largely downgraded to 'privileges') so we have to play that game. Why, then, should we fight with one arm tied behind our backs by refusing to play the games that could benefit our rights?

Honestly, this is not the way I felt when I first started carrying or even when the last legislative session ended (some of my previously posted opinions on the subject indicated as much.) Truthfully, there aren't many places where I normally and regularly go that have posted and I can easily find alternatives to most of the places that have. Fact is, I may not still feel this way next week. However, at least at present, I can't help but to think that it is perhaps time for us to stop being so idealistic and start being a little more pragmatic. Heck, maybe Malcolm X was right, "By any means necessary."

Honestly, I really would be satisfied if the signs meant nothing, the law said that business owners must assume that I am not carrying unless they actually see my firearm, themselves, and as long as the firearm is concealed no one other than a LEO who has approached me for some other reason (traffic stop, etc.) is legally allowed to ask if I have a firearm on me or not. Heck, I guess you could call it, "Don't ask, don't tell."

I can't really argue or disagree with any of that...

[Fallguy]

Just to add, although boycotting establishments that post is an effort in futility (IMHO) I would like to see a movement to educate local business about the "Gun Buster' signs equating to a free-fire zone and have them change their signs to "No Illegal Weapons".

I really don't think educating them about "free-fire" zones would do much either to be honest.

I believe (as a guy with a User ID almost like yours [???]) that vast majority of places post due to liability issues, not any real anti feelings.

If it was clearly stated that a business owner could not be held liable for the actions of HCP holder just because they allowed them to enter armed, then I think that would help things a lot.

But right now if HCP holder goes in a place...is attacked and fires a round and hits little Suzy by accident....not only is little Suzy's family going to sue the HCP holder but the business as well. Although IMO the business owner doesn't or shouldn't have any responsibility in that situation.

[JAB]

Your line of reasoning sounds a bit familiar to me...sort of like "I had to abandon my free market principles in order to save the free market" as stated by our last President.

I'm just not going to take that road...the second amendment is not the only right that needs to be protected and respected.

I can see your point. However, I believe that the right to defend one's life - and to be equipped for such defense - is more important, more basic and much more transcendent than any human construct such as the idea of 'property' or the rights to manage such property. Further, I am also beginning to agree that there is a difference between the 'property rights' of an individual's home and those of a business that is open to the public. I am beginning to see the sense in the argument that one gives up some control when one opens one's property to the public as a business.

In this case, laws of our society (property rights) regarding a man-made construct (the idea of individuals 'owning' a piece of the planet) - rights and a construct in which I, as a member of our society, do believe - are being used to confound and erode a natural right of the type the writers of the Declaration of Independence spoke of as being unalienable rights which are, as such, outside the purview of human laws or legislatures. As such, the right to defend one's life, IMO, trumps 'legal' rights such as property rights and such continued erosion of the right to self preservation must be stopped. I have come to the conclusion that if we have to 'play' that same set of laws to stop it then so be it.

Edited January 6, 2011 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

I can see your point. However, I believe that the right defend one's life is more important, more basic and much more transcendent than any human construct such as the idea of 'property' or the rights to manage such property. Further, I am also beginning to agree that there is a difference between the 'property rights' of an individual's home and those of a business that is open to the public. I am beginning to see the sense in the argument that one gives up some control when one opens one's property to the public as a business.

In this case, a man-made right (property rights) regarding a man-made construct (the idea of individuals 'owning' a piece of the planet) - rights and a construct in which I, as a member of our society, do believe - is being used to confound and erode a natural right of the type the writers of the Declaration of Independence spoke of as being unalienable rights, which are, as such, outside the purview of any human law or legislature. As such, the right to defend one's life, IMO, trumps 'legal' rights such as property rights and such continued erosion of the right to self preservation must be stopped. I have come to the conclusion that if we have to 'play' that same set of laws to stop it then so be it.

I'm don't see "property rights" as being "man made"; at least no more man made than any other right. U think that we need to remember that it isn't the "property" that has rights; it's the person that owns that property that has rights...I think our founders would say that the concept of property and the ability to own and control what goes on is just as as important as the right to life (and the right to defend it). At least some scholars would argue, I think correctly, that the very basis for the American Revolution was about property rights and a lot of people died in the cause to secure them.

I would suggest that all rights, if they are truly a right at all, are equal...that not one is more important than another and that all must be equally cherished and protected or all become nothing but words or vague philosophical concepts.

Edited January 6, 2011 by RobertNashville