Do you feel that business should have the right to Opt-Out?

[Guest WyattEarp]

Ran a couple of searches and found nothing, so I'm starting a discussion.

Do you feel that businesses and non-governmental entities should have the right to Opt-Out of allowing HCP holders to carry in their stores or on their properties?

For me, that answer is no. Carrying a handgun with a valid HCP permit is legal in the state of Tennessee. Therefore, if those businesses are located in the state of Tennessee as well, then they should follow the letter of the law. There should be no option out. Just because they don't like it, shouldn't mean they get to Opt-out.

I am not allowed to "opt-out" of paying taxes (nor is anyone else). No one is allowed to opt-out of following the speed limit.

So why is it, that business owners are allowed to Opt-out of recognizing the law and following it, which states that any person over the age of 21 may carry a handgun with a valid permit?

I don't understand this, nor do I like it, but I shall respect it until this provision is justly reversed (if and when that happens), but it seems to me that if the business owners that have opted out, don't like the law, they should pack up and setup shop in Chicago, I'm sure they'd fit in just fine.

The only places that option-out should be allowed are Federal, State, City and County Government Buildings and City Parks, and Schools.

Reasons

1. It creates an inconvenience and an interference for HCP holders exercising their "Constitutional Rights" (not privilege, but RIGHTS )

2. It cost businesses sales, which costs the state revenue from sales tax, which in turn hurts the state and then trickles back to the citizens.

3. It wastes precious manpower and police resources as seen in this post from another thread (i shortened what I copied to include only the part relating to what I'm bringing up here to validate my point)

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/53681-open-carry-thread.html#post691428

In 2009, Marshalls in Nashville West called the LEOs on me while I was in their store with my family. They never said one word to be, though I did see the manager and another customer whispering and gesticulating in my direction. We finished our shopping and went to Ross nest door. Next thing I know, 4 LEOs come bursting into Ross. They make a B-line straight for me. They were very professional and didn't disarm me, they just asked for my permit and ID. I obliged, the first one to arrive asked me how I was carrying. I showed him, my gun was in a leather holster clipped inside my back pocket, just 1/2" of the butt of the pistol was showing. He said I should never carry like that and should not carry it visibly ever. He said the customer at Marshalls saw the butt of my pistol and genuinely freaked out. He got the manager to call 911 on me.

4 LEO'S to respond to a guy who turned out to be legally carrying because someone in a store panicked. Granted this is not the norm every single day, but still, those 4 officers could have been handling 4 other situations that were much more pressing. (I understand and see the flip side of this argument, so we don't need to go there with a bunch of what-if scenarios, I'm just using this as one of the many examples).

4. Additionally with gas being as high as it is, it creates another inconvenience. Say you are coming home from work, and your son or daughters baseball game is on the way, but you have your weapon on you, you can't even go to the game and leave it in your car, you have to go all the way home first, drop your weapon off, then go back to the game. Same if you have some last minute Christmas shopping, or an errand to run at Rivergate Mall (you can't even have it in your vehicle).

Tennessee Castle Doctrine allows for the use of deadly force to protect your home, property and your vehicle, so why is your car not considered in the same light as your home?

5. Opt-out only serves to create more problems than it solves, and we need to voice our displeasure to our representatives and push this issue to get it reversed!

thoughts, comments, opinions, ideas all welcome. Debate away.

Edited July 24, 2011 by WyattEarp

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't think there should be any opt out areas,

and government buildings shouldn't be excluded

either, except court rooms. What's the problem

with carrying while getting your tags? It's just

another gun free zone, like a school, and we

know how those are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trekbike]

I can see both sides of the story. I'm not a business owner but feel they have the right in this case to opt out.

Businesses are given the right to conduct their business dealings as they wish as long it doesn't violate laws written to protect certain classes of people, handicap, etc. Currently there is no law that says they must honor the carry permits on their property. Just like someone's home, you have the right to ask someone to leave. They can ask people to leave if they are creating a problem for other customers. They can choose not to sell to someone for that same reason. You are well within your right to be in that store by law but you can be asked to leave.

Gun shops can choose not to sell a firearm to someone even though they can pass a background check if they feel the person is up to no good or display odd behavior. Maybe they're just odd people that aren't a danger to other people, but the shop has the right to do as they feel is the right thing for their business. I know that may not be the best analogy but said it to show business are given the right to conduct their business as they wish in most cases.

Right now gun rights are looked at more as a social thing rather than a legal issue unfortunately.

Just my opinion.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Trekbike

[Jonnin]

To me, shall not be infrigned means just that. No exceptions, no limitations. The 2nd states in plain english that stores do not have the right to restrict firearms (and neither does the government). I agree the store can refuse service, and can ask you to leave, for any reason, but that is difficult to do for a properly concealed weapon.

[JayC]

Wow... just wow... I can't believe people miss the entire point of liberty, freedom and property rights we fought for and the Constitution that protects those rights.

First, WyattErp, you've got it 180 degrees backwards, the places that should never be posted are Government locations, since the Constitution (both the state and federal) protect our right to keep and bear arms... It's those government office buildings, that I'm forced to go into the pay taxes and conduct other business that I can not opt out of... that I should not be disarmed.

Second, private businesses are owned by private people (at least for right now, the way things are going that might not be the case in 10 years) those people have property rights protected by the same Constitution that protects our right to keep and bear arms. You have no right to dictate to them how to operate their private property anymore than they should dictate to you how you run your home.

Unlike with the government you always have a choice when it comes to a private business, you can ALWAYS get service from somewhere else. And it's never been easier to vote with your feet! That is how the free market works, and it works pretty well. If your local business wants to post, let them... you can buy products from another company, you can encourage others to buy products from another company, and you can picket and protest their actions if you want. But, we don't have the right to force them to allow you in their business for any reason what so ever...

We don't need more government rules on private businesses we need fewer... we probably do need a lot more rules limiting the power of local and state government entities, including removing their ability to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying firearms on public land and in public buildings.

[Guest bkelm18]

Wow... just wow... I can't believe people miss the entire point of liberty, freedom and property rights we fought for and the Constitution that protects those rights.

First, WyattErp, you've got it 180 degrees backwards, the places that should never be posted are Government locations, since the Constitution (both the state and federal) protect our right to keep and bear arms... It's those government office buildings, that I'm forced to go into the pay taxes and conduct other business that I can not opt out of... that I should not be disarmed.

Second, private businesses are owned by private people (at least for right now, the way things are going that might not be the case in 10 years) those people have property rights protected by the same Constitution that protects our right to keep and bear arms. You have no right to dictate to them how to operate their private property anymore than they should dictate to you how you run your home.

Unlike with the government you always have a choice when it comes to a private business, you can ALWAYS get service from somewhere else. And it's never been easier to vote with your feet! That is how the free market works, and it works pretty well. If your local business wants to post, let them... you can buy products from another company, you can encourage others to buy products from another company, and you can picket and protest their actions if you want. But, we don't have the right to force them to allow you in their business for any reason what so ever...

We don't need more government rules on private businesses we need fewer... we probably do need a lot more rules limiting the power of local and state government entities, including removing their ability to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying firearms on public land and in public buildings.

Completely agree. Gov't property and private property are COMPLETELY different. You're right to carry shall not infringe on the rights of the property owner. I'm honestly shocked everytime I see people discussing things like this. We all say we're for rights and freedoms, but we have no problem stripping them from property owners. You are not forced to shop anywhere. It's completely your choice to enter a posted business.

[china coaster]

Do you have the right to prohibit armed persons on your property?

[Guest bkelm18]

Ran a couple of searches and found nothing, so I'm starting a discussion.

Do you feel that businesses and non-governmental entities should have the right to Opt-Out of allowing HCP holders to carry in their stores or on their properties?

For me, that answer is no. Carrying a handgun with a valid HCP permit is legal in the state of Tennessee. Therefore, if those businesses are located in the state of Tennessee as well, then they should follow the letter of the law. There should be no option out. Just because they don't like it, shouldn't mean they get to Opt-out.

They are following the law. The law that allows us to carry allows them to forbid it.

I am not allowed to "opt-out" of paying taxes (nor is anyone else). No one is allowed to opt-out of following the speed limit.

So why is it, that business owners are allowed to Opt-out of recognizing the law and following it, which states that any person over the age of 21 may carry a handgun with a valid permit?

Because that's the law.

I don't understand this, nor do I like it, but I shall respect it until this provision is justly reversed (if and when that happens), but it seems to me that if the business owners that have opted out, don't like the law, they should pack up and setup shop in Chicago, I'm sure they'd fit in just fine.

The only places that option-out should be allowed are Federal, State, City and County Government Buildings and City Parks, and Schools.

Reasons

1. It creates an inconvenience and an interference for HCP holders exercising their "Constitutional Rights" (not privilege, but RIGHTS ) Hate to break it to ya, not even the federal gov't recognizes your constitutional right to carry.

2. It cost businesses sales, which costs the state revenue from sales tax, which in turn hurts the state and then trickles back to the citizens.

That's the business's choice if they want to lose money.

3. It wastes precious manpower and police resources as seen in this post from another thread (i shortened what I copied to include only the part relating to what I'm bringing up here to validate my point)

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/53681-open-carry-thread.html#post691428

Specious argument at best. While I see your point, the same argument could be said about any law.

4 LEO'S to respond to a guy who turned out to be legally carrying because someone in a store panicked. Granted this is not the norm every single day, but still, those 4 officers could have been handling 4 other situations that were much more pressing. (I understand and see the flip side of this argument, so we don't need to go there with a bunch of what-if scenarios, I'm just using this as one of the many examples).

That scenario occurs everywhere, not just in posted businesses. Carrying a weapon is illegal in TN. Having an HCP is an exception to that law.

4. Additionally with gas being as high as it is, it creates another inconvenience. Say you are coming home from work, and your son or daughters baseball game is on the way, but you have your weapon on you, you can't even go to the game and leave it in your car, you have to go all the way home first, drop your weapon off, then go back to the game. Same if you have some last minute Christmas shopping, or an errand to run at Rivergate Mall (you can't even have it in your vehicle).

Inconvenience is not a valid reason to strip the rights of property owners. It is entirely your choice to enter a posted business.

Tennessee Castle Doctrine allows for the use of deadly force to protect your home, property and your vehicle, so why is your car not considered in the same light as your home?

5. Opt-out only serves to create more problems than it solves, and we need to voice our displeasure to our representatives and push this issue to get it reversed!

The anti-gun people use the exact same argument.

thoughts, comments, opinions, ideas all welcome. Debate away.

Edited July 24, 2011 by bkelm18

[Lumber_Jack]

I agree with jayC. Government buildings should not be posted.

I believe private property rights are as important as our right to carry. To tell someone what can or cannot happen on their property or business is counter to the idea of democracy and freedom.

[deerslayer]

Wow... just wow... I can't believe people miss the entire point of liberty, freedom and property rights we fought for and the Constitution that protects those rights.

First, WyattErp, you've got it 180 degrees backwards, the places that should never be posted are Government locations, since the Constitution (both the state and federal) protect our right to keep and bear arms... It's those government office buildings, that I'm forced to go into the pay taxes and conduct other business that I can not opt out of... that I should not be disarmed.

Second, private businesses are owned by private people (at least for right now, the way things are going that might not be the case in 10 years) those people have property rights protected by the same Constitution that protects our right to keep and bear arms. You have no right to dictate to them how to operate their private property anymore than they should dictate to you how you run your home.

Unlike with the government you always have a choice when it comes to a private business, you can ALWAYS get service from somewhere else. And it's never been easier to vote with your feet! That is how the free market works, and it works pretty well. If your local business wants to post, let them... you can buy products from another company, you can encourage others to buy products from another company, and you can picket and protest their actions if you want. But, we don't have the right to force them to allow you in their business for any reason what so ever...

We don't need more government rules on private businesses we need fewer... we probably do need a lot more rules limiting the power of local and state government entities, including removing their ability to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying firearms on public land and in public buildings.

+1

The second amendment and the Constitution apply to the government, not private companies. Stores that opt out are following the letter of the law.

[Motasyco]

A gunbuster sign on the door makes a business invisible to me. And I believe in their right to be invisible.

[Guest PapaB]

Wow... just wow... I can't believe people miss the entire point of liberty, freedom and property rights we fought for and the Constitution that protects those rights.

First, WyattErp, you've got it 180 degrees backwards, the places that should never be posted are Government locations, since the Constitution (both the state and federal) protect our right to keep and bear arms... It's those government office buildings, that I'm forced to go into the pay taxes and conduct other business that I can not opt out of... that I should not be disarmed.

Second, private businesses are owned by private people (at least for right now, the way things are going that might not be the case in 10 years) those people have property rights protected by the same Constitution that protects our right to keep and bear arms. You have no right to dictate to them how to operate their private property anymore than they should dictate to you how you run your home.

Unlike with the government you always have a choice when it comes to a private business, you can ALWAYS get service from somewhere else. And it's never been easier to vote with your feet! That is how the free market works, and it works pretty well. If your local business wants to post, let them... you can buy products from another company, you can encourage others to buy products from another company, and you can picket and protest their actions if you want. But, we don't have the right to force them to allow you in their business for any reason what so ever...

We don't need more government rules on private businesses we need fewer... we probably do need a lot more rules limiting the power of local and state government entities, including removing their ability to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying firearms on public land and in public buildings.

Well said sir! Without the right to opt out we lose the right to ban people from our private property. Business or personal is no different. Consider businesses located at or in someones home or businesses not open to the public. There should be no criminal repercussions but the individual or business should be able to ask us to leave.

[greenego]

Could not have said it any better than JayC did.

[Reservoir Dog]

Another +1 to JayC's post.

I have no problem with someone posting their store. It is their property, and they can run it as they see fit. If I see a no-carry sign, I have the option to go somewhere else, and give my business (and my money) to them.

As stated before, the US Constitution is a limitation on government, not private individuals. Anyone saying that posting by private property owners violates the 2nd Amendment, is someone who does not understand what the Constitution is about.

It is really sad to hear gun owners saying out rights should not be violated, but in the same breath state that private property owner rights should be taken away. Truly sad.

[Mike.357]

Property rights trump your right to carry a gun onto that property. If I don't want your gun on my land I have the right to demand that of you.

In TN you have no right to carry a gun anywhere but on your property. An HCP IS a privilege not a right.

People who pay to have a HCP should be able to carry anywhere except for other people's property. Gov't buildings and land are owned by all of us and therefore no gun ban should be allowed.

I do believe the exception for having a gun on private property is the gun in your car thing. If you come to my house and I do not want you armed, there should be no law prohibiting you from leaving it in your vehicle. The vehicle is your property.

[Defender]

I think the property owner has the right to decide what he does not want on his property, HOWEVER, I don't think it should be a legally posted opt out situatution, that if violated, constitutes a violation of the HCP laws. Instead, I would make it where the owners could post if they want...those who carried anyway would run the risk of being asked to leave, and if they don't, THEN would be subject to the trespassing laws. Government building should NOT be posted nor should any other place like parks, schools, etc.

I think that if a place posts, then they should incur the legal responsibility of providing reasonably adequate protection from harm while in their facility. I'm waiting for a place that IS posted to have a violent incident involving the injury of a HCP holder who wasn't able to protect himself because of his inability to carrry in a posted place...to then lodge a lawsuit against the business. If THAT happened, and the penalty was severe enough and pubicized, perhaps business owners woulf stop posting. I wish that more people would understand that LEGAL handgun carriers are not the problem...

Edited July 24, 2011 by barewoolf

[mikegideon]

I have a hard time clicking on ANYTHING that says. "No, they should not have the right". JayC nailed it.

[Tim Nunan]

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against law-abiding gun owners when they are allowed to discriminate for other reasons.

[Mike.357]

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against law-abiding gun owners when they are allowed to discriminate for other reasons.

how is a business discriminating? They aren't saying you can't come in, just your gun can't.

[DaveTN]

1. It creates an inconvenience and an interference for HCP holders exercising their "Constitutional Rights" (not privilege, but RIGHTS )

Call it rights all day long; you are just showing that you are either uninformed or the laws of the land mean nothing to you. “Just because†is not a very convincing argument.

You have a right to own arms. Where and when you can bear arms is controlled by the state; it’s called “States Rights†and we fought the bloodiest war or nation has ever been in over it almost 75 years after the Constitution was written.

Only the Tennessee legislature can allow you the “Right†to carry. We hear all the time about how “most†states allow carry. That’s ridiculous and an argument made by those that are clueless about the world around them. Four states recognize carrying as a right. I believe that Tennessee should be one of them; but we are not. Until that happens carrying a loaded gun in the state of Tennessee is a crime and an HCP is a privilege for a special group of us that can afford it.

We absolutely do not have anything close to a Constitutional Right to carry in Tennessee and pretending that we do will only result in it taking longer to make it happen.

2. It cost businesses sales, which costs the state revenue from sales tax, which in turn hurts the state and then trickles back to the citizens.

Nonsense. If you are talking about lost sales by banning those that are carrying, I think you have a very inflated idea of what’s going on. Of course there is no way of knowing that.

3. It wastes precious manpower and police resources as seen in this post from another thread (i shortened what I copied to include only the part relating to what I'm bringing up here to validate my point)

4 LEO'S to respond to a guy who turned out to be legally carrying because someone in a store panicked. Granted this is not the norm every single day, but still, those 4 officers could have been handling 4 other situations that were much more pressing. (I understand and see the flip side of this argument, so we don't need to go there with a bunch of what-if scenarios, I'm just using this as one of the many examples).

Cops go where they are called and that will never change. I can assure you that you don’t want a dispatcher that is not there making decisions about whether or not someone with a gun is a threat. As I said before it’s a crime to carry a gun in the state of Tennessee and until those changes (and even after, if it does) people will call the Police when they see guns carried openly. I have been sent to calls of a suspicious person and arrested residential burglars on calls where the person was doing nothing more than walking down the street, but looked suspicious to someone.

Anyone openly carrying a gun has to know that they may be stopped.

4. Additionally with gas being as high as it is, it creates another inconvenience. Say you are coming home from work, and your son or daughters baseball game is on the way, but you have your weapon on you, you can't even go to the game and leave it in your car, you have to go all the way home first, drop your weapon off, then go back to the game. Same if you have some last minute Christmas shopping, or an errand to run at Rivergate Mall (you can't even have it in your vehicle).

I don’t think any of that is right. If you unload a weapon and make it legal for transportation (as in someone that didn’t buy a HCP); I think you can transport it anywhere. The state is making a killing off gas taxes; they don’t care if it costs you more money.

Tennessee Castle Doctrine allows for the use of deadly force to protect your home, property and your vehicle, so why is your car not considered in the same light as your home?

No it doesn’t. It gives you a legal presumption that you were in fear of death or great bodily harm. There is nothing that prevents the Prosecutor from charging you and tearing that presumption down.

You have the right to use deadly force when in your vehicle. Give us an example of when and how you think you would have a problem.

There are no free fire zones anywhere.

5. Opt-out only serves to create more problems than it solves, and we need to voice our displeasure to our representatives and push this issue to get it reversed.

Private business will always have the option (I hope). The only way around that is to give them totally immunity from a lawsuit and ask them to take down their signs.

I don’t support the government strong arming private business. Although they did it with the smoking ban and most people were okay with that.

We have to live by the decisions of the highest courts in the land. Who would have thought that the United States Supreme Court would put their stamp of approval on Eminent Domain? I didn’t, but not only did they say local government stealing peoples land is okay, but they said it should be handled at a local level.

Edited July 24, 2011 by DaveTN

[MphsTiger1981]

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one, Wyatt. Anything that begins with taking away the right of an individual person (in this case property owner) and gives more rights to a group (even if it is a group I belong to) makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Nice conversation starter, though. This should be an interesting thread.

[deerslayer]

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate against law-abiding gun owners when they are allowed to discriminate for other reasons.

They already are. Ever seen one of those "No shirt, no shoes-no service" signs?

[Guest bkelm18]

I have a hard time clicking on ANYTHING that says. "No, they should not have the right".

You know, I didn't even think of it like that, but you are absolutely correct. Simply by saying that you believe they should not have that right is in essence saying you want that right taken away from them, which is slightly hypocritical to our beliefs of liberty and freedom to say the least.

[Jasongar8]

Completely agree. Gov't property and private property are COMPLETELY different. You're right to carry shall not infringe on the rights of the property owner. I'm honestly shocked everytime I see people discussing things like this. We all say we're for rights and freedoms, but we have no problem stripping them from property owners. You are not forced to shop anywhere. It's completely your choice to enter a posted business.

100% agree.

[Oh Shoot]

...

Tennessee Castle Doctrine allows for the use of deadly force to protect your home, property and your vehicle....

Just wanted to also emphasize to you how totally wrong this statement is -- and a jury won't really be comprised of your "peers".

- OS