# Right to Carry.... really?



## usmcj

*

On my property I can deny you the right to bear arms if I so wish. Doesn't matter if the property I own is my personal home or my mega big box Wal Mart store... I own it and I make the rules.

On my property I can deny you the right to free speech if I so wish. I can make a rule that you will NOT be allowed to preach a sermon (I can deny the right to freedom of religion too) nor will you be allowed to pester people by trying to convince them your right to bear arms trumps my right to throw you out.

On my property I can deny you the right to be secure in your person and possessions by posting a sign stating I reserve the right to look in the bags you bring in. Sound familiar? Many stadiums do this.. even Hobby Lobby does this! And it is their right!

And on my property I can deny you.......... entry if I so wish. And if I do and you don't like it you can take yourself, and your rights, on down the road. If you don't want to go I will ask the police to escort you off the property perhaps even arrest you for trespass. You do know that trespass means your person, YOU, as an individual person.. YOU specifically!, are not welcome and no longer allowed to be on the property.... right? The reason would not be gun control.. the reason would be control of YOU because YOU disobeyed the rule about guns.

I have the private property right to do all those things. You have the right to stay the hell off my property if you don't like my rules.

The funny thing is... on YOUR property you have the exact same property rights.....

Gander Mountain has the rule that anyone bringing a gun into the store must check them at the check out desk.. but guns carried under a lawful concealed carry permit are not subject to that demand. (Gander Mountain has a gunsmith on duty and folks bring in guns other than carry guns to be worked on or traded). Plus.... a particular Gander Mountain (according to my understanding) also has a rule that any guns carried under a lawful concealed carry permit MUST remain holstered while in the store. In other words... checking to see if a holster fits your loaded carry gun is not allowed in the store.

So there you have a store (private property) that made rules that respect the right to bear arms... but still put restrictions upon that right while on the private property!

"Shall not be infringed" is directed at the government.... only the government!.. so gun control is when the government passes laws that restrict the right to bear arms. Only the government can institute gun control through laws that restrict the right to bear arms.

"Shall not be infringed" is not directed at the individual so private property rights is when the property owner presents people with an agreement, spoken or otherwise, that if folks want to use the property they agree to abide by the rules concerning being allowed to use said property. Break the rules and you will no longer be allowed to use the property. Private property owners do not institute gun control.. they have the right to control who has access to their property... for almost any reason. Including carrying guns. A property with a "no guns" rule denies access to those who carry guns. They are not denying access to guns.. Dude.. they are denying access to PEOPLE! who carry guns.

A general comment directed at no one in particular...

Sometimes I wonder if the contention about property rights isn't about the right to bear arms but is really about being offended by the idea that people do not have a right to shop but are only being "allowed" to go into a store. As if the customers of a business have some kind of right to be there and the store owner has no rights at all. Some ego strokers, just won't believe, or cannot comprehend that a license to carry does NOT trump private property rights.

:smt1099​


*


----------



## chessail77

Well said......and totally correct as well....


----------



## Benny1636

And its my right not to patronize your private property and to warn others on handgun forums that your a nazi who tries to infringe and my rights. The above post that your so butthurt over (businesses that dont want us) soes not make an arguement that we should be able to do whatever we want on private property. It simply points out what properties law abiding upstanding citizens are not allowed to protect themselves on.


----------



## chessail77

By enforcing their rights, they are NOT infringing on yours, just feel free to go elsewhere.....


----------



## usmcj

Benny1636 said:


> And its my right not to patronize your private property and to warn others on handgun forums that your a nazi who tries to infringe and my rights. The above post that your so butthurt over (businesses that dont want us) soes not make an arguement that we should be able to do whatever we want on private property. It simply points out what properties law abiding upstanding citizens are not allowed to protect themselves on.


Sir, those businesses that lose your business, will not even notice your absence. As fragile as your ego is, I'm very concerned as to whether your level of maturity truly lends itself to possession of a firearm, much less carry. Name calling is a junior high school activity, but if the shoe fits.......

My opinion, Benny... is that attitudes like yours are by and large, the reason behind some of the "no guns" signs in the first place.

*

A License to Carry a Handgun is NOT the right to bear arms. It is an infringement on the right to bear arms because it is the government requiring folks to ask for permission to bear an arm in a concealed manner.​


*


----------



## Benny1636

Says the guy that starts bashing on people hes.never met because they dont carry the same way he carries. Also i didnt see any name calling in my post. For a guy who talks so much about his abnormally high level of common sense and everyone elses lack thereof, you seldom display intllegence in your posts. You oftem make arguements againsts points that were not even made, and point out things that were never even said.


----------



## berettabone

Although I like Gander Mountain, I usually make my purchases elsewhere......not because of their rules, but because of their prices...........as a business, they can do what they like....doesn't mean I have to give them my business.....


----------



## Benny1636

Gander mountain does support legal carry. The one around here has great prices. The best i can fimd without going online. That being said we do not have a cabelas or bass pro anywhere close. So they easily beat the local shops inflated prices.


----------



## Harryball

Thank god for rights....


----------



## usmcj

Well, folks, lets try this..... the other thread was to list, and boycott businesses that "don't want us", ... "us" being folks who carry guns. We (yes, I carry concealed, and open, depending on the situation) don't like to be singled out, just because we choose to "keep and bear arms". 

Many here want their "rights" to be recognized and accepted, as evidenced by the indignant reaction to my assessment of some folks who were so wrapped up in their rights, they were willing to run roughshod over the rights of other folks. 

I have to wonder how outraged some of you would be if you should discover that business owners may access CCW information, and publish a list of gun owners who my not be welcome in some establishments?

This thread I started to point out that business owners also have rights. I find it more than a little hypocritical for some folks to howl about the infringement of their perceived rights, but in the next breath, seek to infringe upon the rights of others. 

y'all have a Merry Christmas if it applies, or if it doesn't, a peaceful celebration of whatever faith you choose to observe.


----------



## usmcj

oh... Benny... "name calling".... ? See "nazi"... post number three... this thread. And you should really work on your spelling. This forum does have a spell-check system.

Good day, sir.


----------



## jakeleinen1

As the silly ignorant tagline of my generation says

I'ma do me, you do you...


----------



## SouthernBoy

usmcj said:


> *
> 
> A License to Carry a Handgun is NOT the right to bear arms. It is an infringement on the right to bear arms because it is the government requiring folks to ask for permission to bear an arm in a concealed manner.​
> *


This is absolutely correct. If you must request permission of your employees (read that as civil servants) to carry a firearm, then it is no longer a right but rather a privilege. In my state there is only one way to carry which adheres to the Second Amendment and that is openly. No permission is necessary for this.


----------



## jakeleinen1

I think its worth mentioning that criminals don't care if they have the right to carry on your properties tho so property owners who don't allow carry are extremely foolish


----------



## Reddog1

I appreciate your clear and simple definition of rights. I agree with you. As a staunch conservative by nature I like to discuss (not debate) the application of just about any issue relating to the constitution. I am always amazed at how people who do not agree with me, when faced with facts that do not support their position, always want to imply that I am not "open" to modern interpetation. Facts be dammed I guess. Likewise, the issue of peoples rights, when discussed such as in this thread, always seems to illustrate very graphically how little most people know or understand the constitution. We have even made healthcare a so called right! Thanks again for the great thread starter.


----------



## Benny1636

Reddog1 said:


> I appreciate your clear and simple definition of rights. I agree with you. As a staunch conservative by nature I like to discuss (not debate) the application of just about any issue relating to the constitution. I am always amazed at how people who do not agree with me, when faced with facts that do not support their position, always want to imply that I am not "open" to modern interpetation. Facts be dammed I guess. Likewise, the issue of peoples rights, when discussed such as in this thread, always seems to illustrate very graphically how little most people know or understand the constitution. We have even made healthcare a so called right! Thanks again for the great thread starter.


This isnt a great thread this is him being butthurt after he attacked me on the last page of this thread.....http://www.handgunforum.net/ccw/17966-businesses-dont-want-us-4.html...... because I open carried and then I proceeded to make him look stupid.


----------



## Benny1636

usmcj said:


> oh... Benny... "name calling".... ? See "nazi"... post number three... this thread. And you should really work on your spelling. This forum does have a spell-check system.
> 
> Good day, sir.


That wasnt name calling, it was calling you for what you are. Nazi isnt a name its a party. Also this forum does not have a spell check for my phone, which is what I mistyped (not misspelled) on. Again, you misrepresenting the facts.


----------



## SouthernBoy

This is a visceral argument on a number of gun websites with some claiming that a business opens its doors to the invitation of the public while other claiming as usmcj has in his post that a business is still a privately owned property and no different than someone's home when it comes to property rights. Regardless of how one may feel about this issue, it ultimately comes down to what the law in a given state says and it is prudent to know these laws if you are of a mind to carry a firearm. However, there is one fly in the ointment in this.

Businesses can refuse service to most anyone for most any reason... unless you are a member of a "protected class", which is the ultimate governmental discrimination. It would be very interesting if a business attempted to have a person removed from their premises if he was carrying and happened to be black, or handicapped, or some other "protected class". I wonder how that would iron out.

From my perspective, I am fully in support of private property rights for one simple reason. You cannot be free if you don't own property. So if you cannot exercise your chosen control over your property, you have lost a measure of freedom. This concept is straight from Jefferson and very eloquently elaborated upon by Michael Badnarik in his seven part class on the Constitution... seven hours which I highly recommend you folks take the time and watch (link provided below).

You have two options when entering a business which is not friendly to the carrying of arms. Keep you mouth shut, your firearm concealed and go about your business. Or take your business elsewhere where it is appreciated. I am NOT advocating the first option, merely mentioning it. I make every effort to avoid businesses that post gun buster signs. Fortunately there are almost none in my area.

While some may believe that their right to defend themselves trumps property rights, think about this for a moment. Do you have a right to march around in a store with protest signs, screaming your dissatisfaction with the store's policies in vulger and vile language? Of course not. So why would you think you have a right to carry a firearm onto someone's property against their wishes? Would you do this on a neighbor's lawn or in his home?

The one thing that is cast is stone is rights come with responsibility. Exercise both without infringing upon others to do the same.

Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik : Michael Badnarik : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## Benny1636

SouthernBoy said:


> This is a visceral argument on a number of gun websites with some claiming that a business opens its doors to the invitation of the public while other claiming as usmcj has in his post that a business is still a privately owned property and no different than someone's home when it comes to property rights. Regardless of how one may feel about this issue, it ultimately comes down to what the law in a given state says and it is prudent to know these laws if you are of a mind to carry a firearm. However, there is one fly in the ointment in this.
> 
> Businesses can refuse service to most anyone for most any reason... unless you are a member of a "protected class", which is the ultimate governmental discrimination. It would be very interesting if a business attempted to have a person removed from their premises if he was carrying and happened to be black, or handicapped, or some other "protected class". I wonder how that would iron out.
> 
> From my perspective, I am fully in support of private property rights for one simple reason. You cannot be free if you don't own property. So if you cannot exercise your chosen control over your property, you have lost a measure of freedom. This concept is straight from Jefferson and very eloquently elaborated upon by Michael Badnarik in his seven part class on the Constitution... seven hours which I highly recommend you folks take the time and watch (link provided below).
> 
> You have two options when entering a business which is not friendly to the carrying of arms. Keep you mouth shut, your firearm concealed and go about your business. Or take your business elsewhere where it is appreciated. I am NOT advocating the first option, merely mentioning it. I make every effort to avoid businesses that post gun buster signs. Fortunately there are almost none in my area.
> 
> While some may believe that their right to defend themselves trumps property rights, think about this for a moment. Do you have a right to march around in a store with protest signs, screaming your dissatisfaction with the store's policies in vulger and vile language? Of course not. So why would you think you have a right to carry a firearm onto someone's property against their wishes? Would you do this on a neighbor's lawn or in his home?
> 
> The one thing that is cast is stone is rights come with responsibility. Exercise both without infringing upon others to do the same.
> 
> Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik : Michael Badnarik : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


I absolutly agree that on your property it is your right to say weather or not someone can have a firearm. Your property your rules. If someone doesnt believe in handguns thats their right. The original arguement that got him butthurt and caused him to make this irrelivent post was on a thread made for people to post businesses that dont want us (people who carry firearms). I posted that I went to purchase gas from a 7/11 (with no sign posted about firearms) I was open carrying and I offered the teller a 20$ bill and asked for 20$ in gas which I was denied. The teller told me I had a gun and I could be a robber so I had to leave and I couldnt have my gas. I then left and never returned. I posted about this gas station in the "Businesses that dont want us" thread to which the above poster then replied if I was open carrying I had it coming. And that he concealed carries to said gas station all the time without a problem. And that I need to use common sense bla bla bla. After pointing out that my post was revelevent to the thread, above poster got butthurt and made this thread, which, isnt even relevent to the original argument, seeing as how no one was argueing that a business didnt have the right to not allow you to carry, but rather that you didnt have to patronize their establisment if they didnt allow you to exercise your rights. And I find it ironic that he admits to carrying himself in said gas station while at the same time saying that they had the right to kick me out for carrying because I was open carrying. Implying that they ONLY kicked me out for open carrying as opposed to having a handgun on me at all. Which is not the case as the employee did not say "Cover your firearm and you can have your gas", he instead said "You have a gun". In other words, everything is irrelivent and it all boils down to above poster is a proponent of concealed carry only and thinks anyone who open carrys is failing to use "Common sense" as he puts it. So instead of going about his merry way and letting people do as they please (within the boundries of the law) he choses to criticise he fellow handgun enthusiasts because he fails to realize we live in a world where his opinions and beliefs arent law. Thus making him a nazi.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Benny1636 said:


> I absolutly agree that on your property it is your right to say weather or not someone can have a firearm. Your property your rules. If someone doesnt believe in handguns thats their right. The original arguement that got him butthurt and caused him to make this irrelivent post was on a thread made for people to post businesses that dont want us (people who carry firearms). I posted that I went to purchase gas from a 7/11 (with no sign posted about firearms) I was open carrying and I offered the teller a 20$ bill and asked for 20$ in gas which I was denied. The teller told me I had a gun and I could be a robber so I had to leave and I couldnt have my gas. I then left and never returned. *I posted about this gas station in the "Businesses that dont want us" thread* to which the above poster then replied if I was open carrying I had it coming. And that he concealed carries to said gas station all the time without a problem. And that I need to use common sense bla bla bla. After pointing out that my post was revelevent to the thread, above poster got butthurt and made this thread, which, isnt even relevent to the original argument, seeing as how no one was argueing that a business didnt have the right to not allow you to carry, but rather that you didnt have to patronize their establisment if they didnt allow you to exercise your rights. And I find it ironic that he admits to carrying himself in said gas station while at the same time saying that they had the right to kick me out for carrying because I was open carrying. Implying that they ONLY kicked me out for open carrying as opposed to having a handgun on me at all. Which is not the case as the employee did not say "Cover your firearm and you can have your gas", he instead said "You have a gun". In other words, everything is irrelivent and it all boils down to above poster is a proponent of concealed carry only and thinks anyone who open carrys is failing to use "Common sense" as he puts it. So instead of going about his merry way and letting people do as they please (within the boundries of the law) he choses to criticise he fellow handgun enthusiasts because he fails to realize we live in a world where his opinions and beliefs arent law. Thus making him a nazi.


I fully agree and concur with the part I bolded. I am a member of another gun website where we do post the names of businesses that are not friendly to folks who carry. I am also a member of the finest gun rights group in my state, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and that organization has a page on their website which names anti-gun businesses so that we may know where not to spend our money. This falls under the heading of responsibility.


----------



## kg333

usmcj, although I criticized your post in the other thread, I have a similar understanding of private property rights. Private property owners have the right to control firearms on their property, including businesses. Although not legally barred from doing so, I consider it disrespectful of others to attempt to regulate certain rights...continuing off your example, it may be legal for you to ban Jews from your home, as freedom of religion does not apply to your property, but I will avoid dealing with you in any way as a result.

Following from that, the other thread was for informing others whether a business has stated anti-gun polices, or has asked those carrying to leave, in case we wish to avoid dealing with such businesses. However, your post in the other thread was offtopic, and highly critical of Benny's method of carry. You clearly feel strongly against open carry, which is fine; there are reasonable arguments that it's counterproductive. *But *Benny's post, as I said in that thread, was informational, and many of us here do not wish to patronize businesses that oppose open carry, as well as those opposing CCW.

You asked over there:



usmcj said:


> By the way, I have frequented the 7-11 at 22nd, and Post Road in Indy on many occasions. I have always carried concealed, and never had an issue there. KG, since you've inserted yourself into my questions for Benny, do you think the business owner at the 7-11 was truly anti gun, or could he have been anti open-carry? ..... how would you know?


Considering the owner was not aware you were carrying, the answer is probably "anti-gun". Of business owners who choose not to post signs, most probably didn't even think to do so...the idea that a business owner would have the conscious thought "I'm not going to post, since concealed is ok, but I don't want anyone openly carrying a gun" is a stretch in most cases other than a gun store. Occam's Razor applies.



usmcj said:


> Another thought for you sir. I don't know how familiar you might be thei the area of 22nd and Post Road in Indianapolis, bult it's not an area that you see mothers walking their children. The business owner may well have sought to avoid any gang-related confrontation due to any obvious presence of a firearm.


I am not, but someone who sees a properly holstered, openly carried firearm and thinks "gangbanger" is likely anti-gun in the first place.

In short, your post in that thread didn't contribute, and was looking to pick a fight against open-carry as detrimental to gun rights. In my opinion, you're kicking up unnecessary fuss. Very few people here actually want to ride roughshod over others' rights, but there are a fair number who would like businesses to respect their decision to carry, whether it's open or concealed.

KG


----------



## usmcj

KG... point taken. That being said, I know several business owners who have no objection to guns, or carrying guns, but have seen other patrons leave when openly carried guns have appeared in their establishments, resulting in anti open carry, which has evolved into anti gun signs. 

I don't care who open carries, or for what reason. What seems wrong to me is to vehemently promote one's own rights, and then cry foul when someone else's rights come into play. I've carried a handgun for over 40 years, without being asked to leave any establishment. Most of the time I carry concealed. 

Should I decide one day to carry openly and get asked to leave private property, I don't see as I'd have a complaint coming. Accountability, and taking responsibility for one's actions plays in sooner or later. I didn't and still don't see any of either in this instance. 

Regards.


----------



## wjh2657

We get so tied up in the Bill of Rights that we forget that these 10 amendments were just that, amendments. They were additions after the Constitution was written. The Constitution of the U.S. was written primarily about property rights, not individual rights. The Revolutionary War was over property rights not individual rights. Delve into the writings of the founding fathers and you will see that their primary concern was in being able to conduct business without interference from the Crown. Thomas Jefferson was the only true "enlightened" member of this elite group. If he had not really pushed the point, there wouldn't even be a Bill of Rights. (The BofR was not popular with the majority of the founding fathers,)

As our laws were written in the beginning to protect property rights, so will they continue in that vein. As much as it hurts, a reality check will show that this country was not formed by a "peoples' revolution over individual rights violations but by was instigated by a group of wealthy businessmen in response to an overbearing and meddling Central Government. I don't agree with everything the Tea Party says, but this part they have right. Before we start with the "Liberty" calls, reflect on history. Liberty and freedom of individuals has only occurred in those nations that have enforced strong property rights. This is one of the biggest reasons that socialism fails.


----------



## Skarrde

While I agree somewhat with what has been said by the OP there is the option to us to sway the business owner. I have seen businesses change their practices because their customers have "boycotted" them to show their protest. While it is the business's choice to do business the way they want it is also our choice on if we want to give them our business. So there is no reason to put someone down for their choice to put a thread up showing their dissatisfaction over the fact of being kicked out of a business because of our choice of wearing a gun or not. And while there may seem to not be a lot of us who will boycott an establishment you might be surprised at how many there actually are. Just ask Amazon about the boycott over the pedaphile book that they tried to sell.


----------



## pic

I apologize if this was said already i did not read all the posts.
There is an issue of the property owner being liable of an accident involving that open carry handgun. Store owner knowingly allowing that person or persons to carry on their property may have significant liability issues.


----------



## CMaki

Pic:
I could be wrong elsewhere, but I do know in WI, that you are not liable for someone's gun because you allow it in your property. However, that may apply to just private land, not businesses. As I don't own a business, I haven't looked into it. Original Poster; I'm going to agree with your nemesis on here. He is free to post this thread, just as you are to complain about it. However, using terms like "butthurt" instead of frustrated is going to NEVER get you anywhere in an argument, especially if you are speaking to a non-gunner about gun rights. Also: the term Nazi is used to describe someone who is part of the National Socialist Party, not someone who disagrees with your views, because generally as a rule, someone disagreeing would mean that they believe in free speech, not something granted by your German Socialist pals.

Cheers!


----------



## SouthernBoy

wjh2657 said:


> We get so tied up in the Bill of Rights that we forget that these 10 amendments were just that, amendments. They were additions after the Constitution was written. The Constitution of the U.S. was written primarily about property rights, not individual rights. The Revolutionary War was over property rights not individual rights. Delve into the writings of the founding fathers and you will see that their primary concern was in being able to conduct business without interference from the Crown. *Thomas Jefferson was the only true "enlightened" member of this elite group. If he had not really pushed the point, there wouldn't even be a Bill of Rights.* (The BofR was not popular with the majority of the founding fathers,)
> 
> As our laws were written in the beginning to protect property rights, so will they continue in that vein. As much as it hurts, a reality check will show that this country was not formed by a "peoples' revolution over individual rights violations but by was instigated by a group of wealthy businessmen in response to an overbearing and meddling Central Government. I don't agree with everything the Tea Party says, but this part they have right. Before we start with the "Liberty" calls, reflect on history. Liberty and freedom of individuals has only occurred in those nations that have enforced strong property rights. This is one of the biggest reasons that socialism fails.


It wasn't Thomas Jefferson who pushed for a Bill of Rights. It was George Mason and Patrick Henry. They badgered James Madison who initially saw no need for one, until they convinced him of a real need.

And the Bill of Rights does not grant or issue rights to the individual. It recognizes rights which exist by virtue of an individual's birth.

As for property, keep in mind that everyone's original property is their own self.


----------



## SouthernBoy

pic said:


> I apologize if this was said already i did not read all the posts.
> There is an issue of the property owner being liable of an accident involving that open carry handgun. Store owner knowingly allowing that person or persons to carry on their property may have significant liability issues.


They also have liability issues when someone is injured or killed by a BG in their place of business.


----------



## berettabone

If said business does NOT have a sign posted, they are not liable.........if said business DOES have a sign posted, then they are in effect guaranteeing it's customers, that it is a gun free zone....then if a shooting occurs, they are liable.


CMaki said:


> Pic:
> I could be wrong elsewhere, but I do know in WI, that you are not liable for someone's gun because you allow it in your property. However, that may apply to just private land, not businesses. As I don't own a business, I haven't looked into it. Original Poster; I'm going to agree with your nemesis on here. He is free to post this thread, just as you are to complain about it. However, using terms like "butthurt" instead of frustrated is going to NEVER get you anywhere in an argument, especially if you are speaking to a non-gunner about gun rights. Also: the term Nazi is used to describe someone who is part of the National Socialist Party, not someone who disagrees with your views, because generally as a rule, someone disagreeing would mean that they believe in free speech, not something granted by your German Socialist pals.
> 
> Cheers!


----------



## sleepy

Two words----INSURANCE COMPANIES. Think of the liability and money involved if someone is accidently shot in a business. Insurance companies set the rules in many aspects of our lives these days. The company I work for (apt. owner/ management company) allows pets in one of the apt. complexes I manage but not the other. In the one that does allow it, an additional non-refundable deposit is required and the size limit is set at 17 lbs. Why at 17 lbs? The insurance companies charge an abhorrent more money on our liability coverage for anything over the 17 lb. weight limit. The rates they set and charge, controls many aspects in our daily lives.


----------



## sleepy

berettabone said:


> If said business does NOT have a sign posted, they are not liable.........if said business DOES have a sign posted, then they are in effect guaranteeing it's customers, that it is a gun free zone....then if a shooting occurs, they are liable.


Depends on the state you are in.


----------



## TurboHonda

pic said:


> I apologize if this was said already i did not read all the posts.
> There is an issue of the property owner being liable of an accident involving that open carry handgun. Store owner knowingly allowing that person or persons to carry on their property may have significant liability issues.


That works both ways. Many states provide immunity to the business owner when he allows a properly authorized person to carry his gun in the place of business. Disallowing the person to have protection could create a liability situation in itself.


----------



## berettabone

It's not the "law" persay, but it's what will happen when attorneys get involved


sleepy said:


> Depends on the state you are in.


----------



## pic

Some of the open carry laws do allow the police to check your credentials if they choose to , depending on the state or town you are in. 
I think Wisconsin might be one of the states, not exactly sure on that.
If I were a business owner I might have to do the same, maybe give a breathalyzer,lol .Drinking and driving is against the law, so would drinking and walking into my place of business with a firearm not be allowed.
I think a person who open carries would be more closely watched,lol. 
I'll have another beer bartender,and give me a shot of that crowne royal whiskey , it helps the arthritis in my shooting hand,lol.
I like to feel loose before I go shopping with the wife. She drives me crazy, she has to touch and look at everything walking down the aisle,lol.
I personally choose to conceal carry in public to avoid anyone knowing I am in posession of a handgun, I feel more comfortable.
If the store or Bank I am in gets robbed I am running the other way,lol.
If your open carrying, you might just have become part of the bad guys plans ,robbers, their possible awareness that you are present and holding a firearm.
I choose to open carry if I am out hunting or walking my own property maybe plinking, target shooting.
There are times to conceal carry, and there are times to open carry ,just in my personal opinion.


----------



## SMann

Benny1636 said:


> I went to purchase gas from a 7/11 (with no sign posted about firearms) I was open carrying and I offered the teller a 20$ bill and asked for 20$ in gas which I was denied. The teller told me I had a gun and I could be a robber so I had to leave and I couldnt have my gas. I then left and never returned.


It sounds less like a situation where an employee is enforcing company policy and more like the 7/11 just had an idiot employee making up their own rules. Did you ever contact the store manager or even better the owner? Maybe the clerk just needed their boss to straighten them out. Or maybe the company really deserved to lose your business. I don't know, but it sounds like neither do you.


----------



## tacman605

The issue of property rights trumping 2A rights and vis versa is a complicated matter.

A business open to the public is still private property. The legal definition states "Public property is that which is owned by the Government or the community as a whole, everything else is private" so basically their house their rules. Even though the doors are open to the public you are what is known as an "Invitee" and as such you must abide by their rules while on their property.

As far as the business assuming liability by posting no guns a "Duty to Care" must be shown. There are some different standards to measure this but one of the main one's is "Was the incident forseeable?" Obviously a random act of violence be it robbery or an active shooter is not so whether the business is posted or not it would not make any difference. A business is charged in regards to your safety as far as warnings about a wet floor, the coffee is served hot and so on but as long as they meet the general guidelines then they are not liable. As an example a store located in tornado alley has no obligation to provide a shelter in case it happens anymore than they are required to provide you with a free flashlight in case the power goes out.

It is a bit different in regards to employers and employee's. You have something called the "Law of Vicarious Liability". They are responsible for what there employee does while they are on the clock just as you are responsible for what your children do or what the person does who borrowed your car to run to the store. If that person slams into a car full of people that law would treat it just as if you were driving the car.

In regards to not supporting businesses that are anti gun we do it everyday whether we realize it or not. In the other topic I posted a link to anti gun businesses and organizations including hospitals, physician and nurses organizations, administrator and teacher organizations, groups that support retired persons, unions, religious leaders and religions, actors, musicians and so on. If we boycotted all the things that were anti gun we would be sitting in our homes eating peanut butter and crackers reading a 40 year old book. You would be home schooling your children, not be employed if you worked for a union and would be giving home medical care to your family.

Most people will support something up until it makes them go out of their way. If WalMart banned carry in their stores today yes their would be an uproar initially and I assure you that within a week many of the same people who were the loudest would be right back in the store for the sale on toilet paper.

In regards to the OC/CC thing either or whatever is legal and your choice. The only difference being if you OC there is a good chance you will be noticed and will have to deal with whatever comes up. 

It is a slippery slope simply due to the fact that property rights that allow a business owner say what comes onto his property are the same ones that protect your property rights in your own home so we kind of have to be careful what we wish for.


----------



## acepilot

SouthernBoy said:


> From my perspective, I am fully in support of private property rights for one simple reason. You cannot be free if you don't own property. So if you cannot exercise your chosen control over your property, you have lost a measure of freedom.


Playing devil's advocate here, I own land. I fly airplanes. Why must I apply for a "land use permit" to build a runway on MY property if I indeed have freedom by owning land?


----------



## CMaki

A very good point. ND toyed with the idea of eliminating property taxes, for a similar view. How can you truly "own" something if you are required to pay an annual fee to the government for it? If you don't pay, they can seize. Income is often viewed the same way, it is an extenson of yourself, and thus, yours. But you must pay taxes on it or face penalites. But alas, how could our _wonderful and all-knowing government_ function without collecting some change from you? I'm all for a property owner being able to tell youo their wishes. The freedom that allows them to do so, is the same freedom that allows me to do as I wish on my property.


----------



## SouthernBoy

CMaki said:


> A very good point. ND toyed with the idea of eliminating property taxes, for a similar view. How can you truly "own" something if you are required to pay an annual fee to the government for it? If you don't pay, they can seize. Income is often viewed the same way, it is an extenson of yourself, and thus, yours. But you must pay taxes on it or face penalites. But alas, how could our _wonderful and all-knowing government_ function without collecting some change from you? I'm all for a property owner being able to tell youo their wishes. The freedom that allows them to do so, is the same freedom that allows me to do as I wish on my property.


You can really own your property and pay no taxes on it. All you need to do is get allodial title on it. Same with your car. Get the statement of origin and you don't have to have it registered or pay taxes.

If I am wrong on this, please correct me, but I got if from a class on the Constitution.


----------



## rolandrock

I applaud GM's policy of allowing CCW in their store.

I also applaud their policy of not allowing people to handle loaded weapons inside their store for any reason what-so-ever.

Some people, even with CCW's are flipping IDIOTS!


----------



## acepilot

Benny1636 said:


> And its my right not to patronize your private property and to warn others on handgun forums that your a nazi who tries to infringe and my rights. The above post that your so butthurt over (businesses that dont want us) soes not make an arguement that we should be able to do whatever we want on private property. It simply points out what properties law abiding upstanding citizens are not allowed to protect themselves on.


I'll go back to one of my earlier statements a while back...

HYPOTHETICAL scenario:

I own 80 acres and my neighbor owns 80 acres. I have to apply for a land use permit to build and use my private airstrip. When I apply, a letter gets sent to all adjacent landowners for comment. If someone objects, my permit may be denied. My neighbor rides 4 wheelers and snowmobiles freely on his land whenever he wants, no land use permit required.

To me, airplanes are recreational vehicles, the same as 4 wheelers and snowmobiles. Why are my rights to use MY land ANY different than his rights to use HIS land?


----------



## guardrail

Because your recreational use may affect his land. He's not going to fly his toys over your land or house.

I see your point though. My neighbor rides his crappy, un-muffled 4 wheelers on his land. The noise is enough that a box of roofing nails has cone to mind a time or two.


----------



## plp

My default position is about getting along with others.

Face it, right or wrong, open carry makes some people nervous. We all know them, deal with them every day, and many times are related to them.

Sometimes those people are customers of businesses, and will have an unpleasant association with that business because something made them uncomfortable.

Living in the South I was always raised to be considerate of others, just as I now go outside for a cigarette rather than ask a new acquaintance if I can smoke in their home, I choose to carry concealed, even when outdoors. I see no need to advertise and carry in a fanny pack, the epitome of wimpdom. I want to be dismissed as a potential threat to anyone *because* I am carrying and wish to avoid any possibility of confrontation.

What I do instead is practice and try to be the best marksman I can, so if a situation arises I am prepared to be an asset, not an antagonist.


----------



## kerrycork

Right to carry a concealed firearm: Many years ago when I got my carry permit there were no restrictions .Now however, if you are caught in Ct. with a hand gug showing you will be arressted for breech of peace, your permit will be revolked , your gun confiscated and yoy will be jerked around for a couple months and then your property is returned because you did not violate any laws. Open carry is legal in Ct. Concealed carry is a beaurocratic mandate. So much for the rights of the people


----------



## Steve M1911A1

This post was removed by the poster.
It is no longer pertinent.


----------



## Donn

pic said:


> There is an issue of the property owner being liable of an accident involving that open carry handgun. Store owner knowingly allowing that person or persons to carry on their property may have significant liability issues.


Precisely. Insurance is the 800 pound gorilla in the room the militant open carry crowd seems to forget, by accident or on purpose. A definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome. Bottom line? Unless you're a uniformed police officer or plain clothes with a badge prominently displayed, someone will call 911 if you walk thru their neighborhood or into a business open carrying.


----------



## LONGHAIR

tacman605 said:


> It is a bit different in regards to employers and employee's. You have something called the "Law of Vicarious Liability". They are responsible for what there employee does while they are on the clock just as you are responsible for what your children do or what the person does who borrowed your car to run to the store. If that person slams into a car full of people that law would treat it just as if you were driving the car.


Not so, about the person borrowing your car. Your only responsibility is to be sure that this person is legally able to drive, and even then it is only at the time you give them the keys. If they have a valid license and not impared, you have met your obligation. They assume the normal liability of driving away.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Um, try telling that to your insurance company—or to the insurance company representing the driver whose car your friend or employee hit.

If the driver himself is uninsured, the injured party's representative will go after the owner of the vehicle he was driving. The complaint against the vehicle owner would be that he lent the car negligently to someone he knew to be uninsured—or should have known to be uninsured.
The car owner may win the case in the end, but only at great expense and after tremendous difficulty.


----------



## LONGHAIR

You are splitting hairs on this one.
The point of the comment was that the law would see it as if it were you driving. Not so, as I said, as long as the driver is legal. States very quite a bit about insurance regulations. Some states the insurance follows the car, not the individual. So that person would not have to be insured seperately. Your insurance may have to pay, but if there is some civil suit beyond that, it's not on you....it's on the actual driver.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

LONGHAIR said:


> You are splitting hairs on this one...


Nope.
I was just offering somewhat more complete information than your post delivered.

Your original comment placed all of the responsibility upon the person who borrowed the vehicle, which is not completely true.


----------



## swany66675

I've open carried in Gander Mountain was there to pick up a pistol they were the only ones at the time could get. No one that worked there even flinched. Good people to do business with when I can't find what I want locally. Just think its kind a funny this topic has such a life here. I live in a state were a no firearms sign has any legal meaning. Now you can be asked to leave and if you don't it becomes trespassing with a firearm and is a bigger legal problem. Some people may just need to switch from Scott's to Charmin.


----------



## BearTaylor

It's very simple. I won't go to any private business or establishment that will not allow me to carry on their property. If the owner has taken steps to insure bad guys will be detected and stopped before entering I'll make an exception. Nobody has anything I want or need that I can't get elsewhere. I respect the right of property owners to make and enforce rules just as I have the right to deal only with people that support concealed carry. I'd rather have my money go the people that appreciate it. 

It's kind of funny but often anti-gun business owners seem unaware that losing the business of one concealed carry permit holder often results in the loss of business from family members and friends. Heck, here in Kansas we have a forum that tracks progun and antigun establishments. I have noticed that in the last year I have been seeing fewer no gun signs. Money talks.


----------



## OregonGreg

"a forum that tracks progun and antigun establishments." What a great idea. We should do this in every city. Money definitely talks. The Leftists have been doing exactly this for decades. Sometimes we have to learn from our enemies.


----------



## Funeralguy

Benny, with all respect, you're not doing your argument any favors by the overuse of the juvenile phrase "butthurt". (And no, I'm not trying to supress your First Amendment rights.) Also, calling someone a Nazi is usually a sign that one is not confident in his argument. I'm not trying to involve myself in your fight, and I haven't read the whole thread word for word. Just throwing in my two cents regarding the art of arguing respectfully.


----------



## Lee Hunter

Private property is not open to the general public. If it is legal to carry on the street, the owners of businesses open to the general public should not be allowed to restrict access to armed citizens; as long as those who are armed behave themselves in a responsible and respectful manner.

Anti-gunners are counting on this issue to create even more divisive confusion.

However, as a home owner, I can and do restrict access to my private property as I so choose. It wasn't too long ago that I had a contracted worker terminated for expressing a far less than professional attitude when he should have been concentrating on his sole purpose for being in my home. I now make it perfectly clear to contractors that I don't have to tolerate their uninvited opinions regarding any issues irrelevant to the work being performed. My private property is my sanctuary where the following rule applies absolutely: It's my way or the highway.


----------



## GCBHM

usmcj said:


> *
> 
> On my property I can deny you the right to bear arms if I so wish. Doesn't matter if the property I own is my personal home or my mega big box Wal Mart store... I own it and I make the rules.
> 
> On my property I can deny you the right to free speech if I so wish. I can make a rule that you will NOT be allowed to preach a sermon (I can deny the right to freedom of religion too) nor will you be allowed to pester people by trying to convince them your right to bear arms trumps my right to throw you out.
> 
> On my property I can deny you the right to be secure in your person and possessions by posting a sign stating I reserve the right to look in the bags you bring in. Sound familiar? Many stadiums do this.. even Hobby Lobby does this! And it is their right!
> 
> And on my property I can deny you.......... entry if I so wish. And if I do and you don't like it you can take yourself, and your rights, on down the road. If you don't want to go I will ask the police to escort you off the property perhaps even arrest you for trespass. You do know that trespass means your person, YOU, as an individual person.. YOU specifically!, are not welcome and no longer allowed to be on the property.... right? The reason would not be gun control.. the reason would be control of YOU because YOU disobeyed the rule about guns.
> 
> I have the private property right to do all those things. You have the right to stay the hell off my property if you don't like my rules.
> 
> The funny thing is... on YOUR property you have the exact same property rights.....
> 
> Gander Mountain has the rule that anyone bringing a gun into the store must check them at the check out desk.. but guns carried under a lawful concealed carry permit are not subject to that demand. (Gander Mountain has a gunsmith on duty and folks bring in guns other than carry guns to be worked on or traded). Plus.... a particular Gander Mountain (according to my understanding) also has a rule that any guns carried under a lawful concealed carry permit MUST remain holstered while in the store. In other words... checking to see if a holster fits your loaded carry gun is not allowed in the store.
> 
> So there you have a store (private property) that made rules that respect the right to bear arms... but still put restrictions upon that right while on the private property!
> 
> "Shall not be infringed" is directed at the government.... only the government!.. so gun control is when the government passes laws that restrict the right to bear arms. Only the government can institute gun control through laws that restrict the right to bear arms.
> 
> "Shall not be infringed" is not directed at the individual so private property rights is when the property owner presents people with an agreement, spoken or otherwise, that if folks want to use the property they agree to abide by the rules concerning being allowed to use said property. Break the rules and you will no longer be allowed to use the property. Private property owners do not institute gun control.. they have the right to control who has access to their property... for almost any reason. Including carrying guns. A property with a "no guns" rule denies access to those who carry guns. They are not denying access to guns.. Dude.. they are denying access to PEOPLE! who carry guns.
> 
> A general comment directed at no one in particular...
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if the contention about property rights isn't about the right to bear arms but is really about being offended by the idea that people do not have a right to shop but are only being "allowed" to go into a store. As if the customers of a business have some kind of right to be there and the store owner has no rights at all. Some ego strokers, just won't believe, or cannot comprehend that a license to carry does NOT trump private property rights.
> 
> :smt1099​
> 
> 
> *


I'm not sure anyone would argue this, but this really isn't the issue. The entire gun control debate is not, nor has it ever been, about rights or safety. It is all about control. It isn't individuals or business owners. It is about a particular segment of society attempting to control another. The reason the political class want to outlaw/ban guns is so they can control a society what has no means of defense. It is about precedent and the incremental and systmatic brainwashing of an unsuspecting society that will allow a tyrannical body of government push it to give up guns under the guise of safety and what's best for the greater good. NOTHING could be further from the truth, however.

What you're talking about is individual liberty. What you're trying to talk about is gun control. The two are entirely separate issues altogether. Gun control is merely a moniker invented by policitians to advance their agenda, which is to control.


----------



## desertman

GCBHM:
Amen brother!


> I'm not sure anyone would argue this, but this really isn't the issue. The entire gun control debate is not, nor has it ever been, about rights or safety. It is all about control. It isn't individuals or business owners. It is about a particular segment of society attempting to control another. The reason the political class want to outlaw/ban guns is so they can control a society what has no means of defense. It is about precedent and the incremental and systmatic brainwashing of an unsuspecting society that will allow a tyrannical body of government push it to give up guns under the guise of safety and what's best for the greater good. NOTHING could be further from the truth, however.


That same group of people "Progressives" are encouraging people to become dependent on government. Once that happens they will become slaves to government and be condemned to a life of poverty and despair. Thus the need to import more impoverished people into the United States from third world countries to help achieve this goal. Someone will have to pay for all this and it will indeed be the middle class who will then be pushed further down the economic ladder into poverty and governmental dependency themselves. Government will then have complete control over our lives. This is the main reason they want to take our guns as people will be so miserable there will be a need to revolt. Folks, this has already been taking place. Elections do have consequences. Remember this in November!


----------



## GCBHM

At this point, the problem cannot be fixed with a mere election. This is b/c all government is corrupt. The federal government has bought off the local state governments, for the most part, to the point that the old quid pro quo system rules the day. The elected official (representative of The People) does not run the country. Big business runs this country, and it won't be until the states realize they do not have to do what the federal government tells it to that we can begin the process of taking our country back.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> At this point, the problem cannot be fixed with a mere election. This is b/c all government is corrupt. The federal government has bought off the local state governments, for the most part, to the point that the old quid pro quo system rules the day. The elected official (representative of The People) does not run the country. Big business runs this country, and it won't be until the states realize they do not have to do what the federal government tells it to that we can begin the process of taking our country back.


Agreed. In addition, if you look back over what the Feds have done over the past 40 years or so, primarily with the Democrat's help, is to strengthen the Federal power base, either with mandated programs which the states have to enact without funding, or more centralization of power, such as in instances of new departments like the EPA. the mantra of any Federal Bureaucrat is to gather and hold more power unto himself, thus is becomes increasingly difficult to wrest it free and return it to the states and localities. It is truly scary if you look at what has happened right under our noses about the increased centralization of power and control. Now I have to stop typing because I'm sure some snoop at the NSA is reading this and checking out my IP address so they can find out where I live and send the storm troopers from Homeland Security over to my front door.


----------



## pic

Y


Lee Hunter said:


> Private property is not open to the general public. If it is legal to carry on the street, the owners of businesses open to the general public should not be allowed to restrict access to armed citizens; as long as those who are armed behave themselves in a responsible and respectful manner.
> 
> Anti-gunners are counting on this issue to create even more divisive confusion.
> 
> However, as a home owner, I can and do restrict access to my private property as I so choose. It wasn't too long ago that I had a contracted worker terminated for expressing a far less than professional attitude when he should have been concentrating on his sole purpose for being in my home. I now make it perfectly clear to contractors that I don't have to tolerate their uninvited opinions regarding any issues irrelevant to the work being performed. My private property is my sanctuary where the following rule applies absolutely: It's my way or the highway.


Establishments that are open to the public are mostly private property. Just as you invite public people into your home , you are allowed to set or make the rules. Liability, insurance, etc are all a big part of doing business with the public.
Unless I'm mistaken what public properties are you referring to.
I was thinking restaurants, coffee shops, shopping stores, etc . Along that line


----------



## GCBHM

I agree, but as badly as I hate to admit it, President George W Bush (for whom I voted twice) oversaw the most massive expansion of central government in the history of the country. The DHS, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, just to name a few, are all things Bush initiated that Obama has only taken further. I have come to realize there is little difference btwn the GOP and DEMs. Both seek first power, then to maintain that power. Granted the GOP is typically more supportive of the 2nd Amendment, but to be honest, we have far bigger problems than just that alone. 

The gulible mindset of the average American is just astounding. The biggest atrocity ever was the Dept of Education. That is where the brainwashing starts, and most of us don't have a clue that we have no clue.


----------

