lets say you are CCW in a business with no carry allowed

[alan]

I think, and this my personal opinion only, likely an inexpert opinion at that we've reached the point of circular conversation, possibly interesting, but going nowhere.

As to the lack of a relevant court case being anywhere brought, I certainly cannot say. Ditto for "being a long way" therefrom. Additionally, whatever might "make sense" to me, or "stands to reason" is a purely personal stipulation, one that carries NOTHING in the way of the force of law.

Suffice it to say that should the merchant "post" their business establishment, such action on their part being offensive to you or I, that we simply stay away. We might politely inform the merchant that he is loosing any possibility of our patronage, his reaction to that being his choice, then simply let it go at that. I once heard that the best way to get a mule's attention was with a 2 x 4. That just might prove correct, however all the effort garnered you was perhaps the momentary attention of a mule. How much is that worth?

 

[Tom Servo]

it states something like; "if you break a lesser law (carrying in prohibited place) but by doing so you prevent or stop a bigger offense (murder) that the DA may decline to prosecute." Or something like that.

I'm not aware of anything like that on the books, but it happens sometimes in practice. In self-defense cases, DA's have been known to forgo charges, grand juries have no-billed the charges if considered, and juries have found defendants not guilty of lesser malum prohibitum stuff.

Then again, I'm sure there are cases where they don't. I wouldn't stake my future on it.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I wouldn't stake my future on it.

Would you stake your life on it? If you get my drift

 

[Tom Servo]

Would you stake your life on it? If you get my drift

I'm not sure I do.

I pray I never have to harm another person in anger. I don't want to pull my gun at any point. If I do, there's very good reason for it. Most likely, a jury will see that.

I stress "most likely" because it could go horribly wrong. Everyone should consider that the next time they decide to chant "concealed means concealed" while carrying somewhere that doesn't want them doing so.

 

[Talin342]

My two cents

Just a couple observations that I wanted to make.
Per Glenn E. Meyer:

Commercial property is not immune to changing expansion of rights. It used to be OK for a commercial enterprise to discriminate based on race and religion. It's not anymore. Fine with me.

I will admit that while in practice that is generally true, I can't think of a federal statue that prohibits that practice. While there may be various state laws prohibiting general discrimination, I don't believe that it generally applies to most businesses (with the possible exception of banks).

Surely, you've been in a restaurant or bar and seen a sign stating "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Anyone means anyone. The expansion of rights, however, does prevent the discriminiation on the basis of religion, race, and gender by the GOVERNMENT.

Being from Texas and because, unfortunately, the no carry statue has a cool name (30.06). Maybe the carry statue should be referred to as statute .45. I'll use it in the following missive.

Remember that the same legislation that enacted 30.06 also permits you to carry a concealed weapon. As citizens, we are responsible to follow all laws not just the ones that we find convenient. Take the example of speeding I am sure that everyone has at one time or another broken the speed limit. Does breaking the limit and injuring someone make you any less guilty than breaking the limit and just getting a ticket? No, the point is that the laws are there to protect the rights of both those that carry and those that DO NO want to carry.

 

[Idahoser]

I can see the philosophical value of a discussion like this, even though upon reflection we all will of course recommend you not put yourself in this position.

So were I to discover myself in this scenario, I think my best option is to hide myself and my companions from the fray, if possible; my weapon is for the defense of me and mine, not people who choose to disarm themselves and their customers.

If I'm an intended target, well then, it's better to be tried by 12...

 

[Skadoosh]

If a commercial business has the right to disarm me, does that mean they are then responsible for my safety?

 

[Wag]

Valid question but circumstances have not yet provided a courtroom test.

In the meantime, since the law does allow a business to keep you and your gun out with a little signage, you risk not only your rights, but the rights of others when you violate that rule. A lot of people have worked very hard to promote and enact legislation to allow CCW. Breaking the rules compromises the efforts of those people.

--Wag--

 

[Tom Servo]

If a commercial business has the right to disarm me, does that mean they are then responsible for my safety?

Nope. They're responsible for not creating dangerous situations, and they are expected to handle those as they come up, but that's within reason.

I'd have a very, very hard time convincing a jury that Squat-n-Gobble was criminally negligent because their "no guns" sign made some deviated pervert come in and shoot up the place.

If it's such an emotional issue, let me ask: has anyone but me ever politely approached the management and tried to convince them to change their policy?

 

[alan]

Tom Servo:

Re the "polite" request you made of management somewhere, what did you get by way of reply?

Having said that, the following reflects my thinking on this subject.

1. It's the other guy's establishmet.

2. That being established, the proprietor bears responsibility for the safety of people, in his establishment.

3. The state, being convinced that I'm one of the Good Guys, issued me a concealed carry permit or license.

4. The proprietor chooses to make his establishmenbt a "no guns zone", I being a law abiding type, who is licensed by the state to carry concealed weapons, assuming that I enter the premises, abides by the owners desires, rendering myself without defensive weaponry while in his establishment.

5. While in his establishment, I'm injured by another, who didn't abide by the ower's expressed desires, and who also acted in violation of the law.

6. At this point, it seems logical to me, being perhaps handicapped by my engineering background, that the proprietor bears responsibility for my injuries.

7. I could be all wet here, but I still subscribe to the theory that 2 + 2 = 4, as I mentioned earlier, I could well be handicapped by my engineering background.

 

[silvercorvette]

I respect the owners right to ban guns at his place of business, if I see a sign I turn around and leave but before I go I inform the owner I will not enter his store and then I walk out. If I chose to enter with a gun and something happens and I had to use a gun where it was banned the lawyers fees would bankrupt me even if I won I would be a broke winner

 

[Tom Servo]

Re the "polite" request you made of management somewhere, what did you get by way of reply?

In one case, the policy was reconsidered and rescinded. The owner's response, was "you carry a gun? But you're...normal." It gave me a good opening, and he was an open-minded fellow.

In the other case, the policy was kept, but I was granted an allowance provided I exercised a great deal of discretion.

 

[HoraceHogsnort]

"Also, I consider it an act of discourtesy to the proprietor and fellow customers to carry a firearm into a place where the proprietor has clearly indicated that patrons with guns are not welcome. It's more than a question of just being able to "get away" with a simple trespass charge, it's just common courtesy. If the store owner or manager doesn't want me with my firearm in that establishment, I don't go inside with it."

I guess I'm just one discourteous S.O.B.

 

[silvercorvette]

If the store owner or manager doesn't want me with my firearm in that establishment, I don't go inside with it."

I would change that to I don't go inside. I would rather spend my money to support a place the supports my right to carry.

 

[alan]

Tom Servo writes:

Quote:
Re the "polite" request you made of management somewhere, what did you get by way of reply?

In one case, the policy was reconsidered and rescinded. The owner's response, was "you carry a gun? But you're...normal." It gave me a good opening, and he was an open-minded fellow.

In the other case, the policy was kept, but I was granted an allowance provided I exercised a great deal of discretion.

----------------------------------

There was/is an old saw going to the following effect.

One gets more bees with honey than with vinegar. Still valid it appears.

Tom:

Re the first business man you approached, who commented on you being "normal". Did he expect a person who carried a gun to have multiple heads, one wonders or was he surprised as being approached politely by a gun carrying person. If so, one also wonders as to why, either prejudice or unfortunate past experiences come to mind as possible answers.

 

[Tom Servo]

Re the first business man you approached, who commented on you being "normal". Did he expect a person who carried a gun to have multiple heads, one wonders or was he surprised as being approached politely by a gun carrying person.

This was in a very "bohemian" neighborhood, which (as many bohemian neighborhoods do) bordered on some pretty unpleasant areas. There had been a string of armed muggings in the area, and he'd thought that putting up a "no guns" sign would deter criminals from his establishment.

No, really. That line of reasoning seems to make sense to some folks.

In any case, he knew me well, and the subject of the gun had never come up. I explained that I carried, why I carried, and why the sign was no deterrent to people who didn't live by rules, and he was willing to listen.

Or, I could have ranted about how he was violating my rights and called him a fascist, in which case he would have felt his prejudices justified.

How we present ourselves goes a long way towards how we're perceived.

 

[armsmaster270]

My feeling are if they don't want my gun, they will not get any of my money.

 

[WANT A LCR 22LR]

"" There had been a string of armed muggings in the area, and he'd thought that putting up a "no guns" sign would deter criminals from his establishment.

No, really. That line of reasoning seems to make sense to some folks. ""


I wonder if shop owners that use that line of thought believe a no gun sign turns a "gun used during a crime" in to a higher level offence.



On another note, I wonder if anti gun patrons have ever brought their own stickers and placed them on the front door of a business. I suspect such a add on could go unnoticed by workers for a long time at a box store where a "owner" isn't present paying attention to details. ( And maybe to a lesser extent at some smaller businesses. )

 

[alan]

Tom Servo wrote in part:

This was in a very "bohemian" neighborhood, which (as many bohemian neighborhoods do) bordered on some pretty unpleasant areas. There had been a string of armed muggings in the area, and he'd thought that putting up a "no guns" sign would deter criminals from his establishment.

No, really. That line of reasoning seems to make sense to some folks.
----------------------------

Seems to me that someone, one time offered the following. "There is simply no accounting for taste, or the lack thereof". Might I make so bold as to add, "common sense" to that?

 

[Ramman911]

As we left, we saw their "No Firearms" sign. How we missed it going in is beyond me at this point because it wasn't hidden at all.

This is my problem. In Iowa there is no unification in sign regulations that I know of. I do not see 90% of the signs ban ccw carry. Not that I WANT to break their rules/wishes, but rather that I just do not see the signs.