Properly posted?

[Guest copperhead_1911]

i THINK ITS  one thing about someone open carrying if its posted, but whose business is it if you conceal carry. I am all for private property, but the gov has stepped in and said who you have to serve or let in your establishment yet its ok to discriminate against people who just want to insure they are protected. Its pathetic. Like the crooks will abide by that sign. 

[Dolomite_supafly]

Why not just respect their wishes even if it isn't properly posted?

It is their property and they make the choice in what and how you can or cannot carry or come on their property. If they say you must wear a pink tutu and use Nerf guns for self defense to enter then that is what you must do. If you refuse to do that and refuse to leave when asked, regardless of the reason, you are in violation of the trespassing law.

There is nothing worse for us than being caught breaking the rules. And honestly why would you want to support a business that doesn't allow you to carry. People talk about principles but push them by the wayside when it becomes a minor inconvince.

As much as it has upset those with me I very, very rarely enter a business that is posted.

[JAB]

Why not just respect their wishes even if it isn't properly posted?

 

As I said, I normally would not even enter because if they don't want my gun in their establishment then I figure that they don't want me or my money, either.  That said, if for some reason I did have to enter then it would make a difference to me whether they were properly/legally posted or not.

 

I am not going to be looking to break the law so a properly posted establishment is a different matter.  With an improperly posted establisment, as you say, I used to figure that either way we should respect their wishes.  Lately, however, I have come to the conclusion that as they do not respect me and my ability to safely and legally carry but can't be bothered to actually post properly then screw their 'wishes'.  I would not open carry into such an establishment as that would just be 'looking for trouble' but if I did decide to enter and my firearm is in my pocket, not visible and not 'disturbing' anyone else in a case where the posting is not legal then I figure that is my business.  Maybe not a very 'moral' argument but that is the way I feel.

Edited July 31, 2013 by JAB

[Guest copperhead_1911]

Ok

 

I know this is not going to be popular and I am in no way defending racism, but when people say "why not just respect the owners wishes" the thing that comes to mind is to see the civil rights act.

 

Property owners cant control their own property and if someone is allowed to wear a rag and mask because of their religion ( islam) who the heck is anyone to tell me I cant have my firearm. They don't want to see it then fine, but the second amendment is clear. Property rights are clear, but the civil rights act made that a bit vague since people were forced to admit people they did not want to. Again I am not endorsing racism or segregation just using history as a guide.

[TMF]

Ok

I know this is not going to be popular and I am in no way defending racism, but when people say "why not just respect the owners wishes" the thing that comes to mind is to see the civil rights act.

Property owners cant control their own property and if someone is allowed to wear a rag and mask because of their religion ( islam) who the heck is anyone to tell me I cant have my firearm. They don't want to see it then fine, but the second amendment is clear. Property rights are clear, but the civil rights act made that a bit vague since people were forced to admit people they did not want to. Again I am not endorsing racism or segregation just using history as a guide.

In my opinion a private business owner should have the right to discriminate against anyone he wants. If you don't like black people you shouldn't be forced to serve them just as if you don't like white people, Muslims, Christians, atheists or purple people.

But carrying a firearm is a very different thing than spiritual faith or race. There are many things inherent to firearm carry whether we like it or not. One of those is sheeple scaring. Some businesses lose customers when someone comes OCing a hand cannon
it isn't fair to the owner to say he can't regulate that. I fully respect a person's right to regulate who comes on to their property or whether or not they can carry certain weapons there.

[Guest 270win]

I wouldn't do some sort of protest with an empty of a private business to make a point.  If you are legal, then carry your gun.  The whole sign thing is silly that it is a criminal offense both at private businesses and also local/state government buildings.  The park deal is silly too because that is a fairly high potential fine.

 

I would change the law, even for the local parks and schools, that if they find out you are carrying, they can ask you to leave, but you can't get charged with anything weapons wise.   But on the flip side, I would not force businesses and local/state governments to allow guns.  There is a big difference between not being allowed due to some policy VS being a criminal offense.  I'd take the criminal offense away for those with permits but in no way tell property owners they must allow guns no more than they aren't required to allow people to drink beer or chew gum on their property.

Edited July 31, 2013 by 270win

[Dolomite_supafly]

Plus. Carrying a firearm is not protected in the same way religion, race, sex, handicapped...etc

Your second amendment protections are from the giv and not from other private entities. On someone else's private property you are not guaranteed any second amendment protections. It only protects you from infringement from the gov. If you want to truly exercise your second amendment rights walk into any government building. That is what the second amendment protects you against, not another private party.

[Twin]

 If you want to truly exercise your second amendment rights walk into any government building. That is what the second amendment protects you against, not another private party.

 

I'm pretty sure you would leave in the back of a car and not the front of one. :P

[JAB]

But on the flip side, I would not force... local/state governments to allow guns.

 

I would.  I can understand private businesses not being 'forced' to allow guns (although I believe that - as in other states - the sign should have no force of law and the only 'violation' should be if you are asked to leave and refuse.)  That said, government buildings, land, etc. are NOT private property and should NOT have the legal ability to post, period.

[Oh Shoot]

I would.  I can understand private businesses not being 'forced' to allow guns (although I believe that - as in other states - the sign should have no force of law and the only 'violation' should be if you are asked to leave and refuse.)  That said, government buildings, land, etc. are NOT private property and should NOT have the legal ability to post, period.

 

Totally agree. Government property is "my" property, city, county, state, and federal.

 

- OS