The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 19, 2013, 08:56 PM   #26
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Actually, since it is open to the public for business, it is not private property in the sense that a home is.

In your home, you do not have to entertain protected class individuals. In a business, such refusal would put you on the wrong side of a civil rights suit.

Personally, I think anybody who wants to deny my right of self defense needs to have a positive system in place to defend me. If not, I ignore such signs - in Missouri, that is my legal option, as signs only have force if somebody notices, then asks me to leave, and then I refuse.

Nobody notices.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 09:31 PM   #27
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 230
You're right, and I agree regarding protected class citizens. That doesn't apply to firearms or concealed carry, however.
WyMark is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 09:54 PM   #28
AndyWest
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2011
Posts: 621
MLeake, carrying is a behavior, a choice, an action. A business owner can deny you service or access based on this in the same way as if you weren't wearing a shirt and shoes. Not the same as discrimination.

But I suppose that brings us back to ignoring those signs and OP's question about consequences. Sorry for the slight derailment
__________________
Shoot smart. Shoot S-Mart.
AndyWest is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 10:29 PM   #29
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,926
Quote:
MLeake, carrying is a behavior, a choice, an action. A business owner can deny you service or access based on this in the same way as if you weren't wearing a shirt and shoes. Not the same as discrimination.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in "places of public accommodation" based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The definition of "places of public accommodation" includes hotels, motels, theaters, and restaurants. Now, while a person obviously has no control over his/her race, color, or national origin, the same cannot be said for religion. I choose to practice Christianity just like other people choose to practice Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or even Atheism. As such, religion could be argued to be a behavior itself and thus the argument for carry not being defined as a civil rights issue becomes rather weak.

Also, as MLeake pointed out, a business that is open to the public does not enjoy the same latitude as a person's home or even businesses that are not open to the public such as private clubs. Businesses that are open to the public bear a certain degree of responsibility to provide a reasonably safe environment for the people that they are inviting onto their premises. This is why businesses have to abide by regulations such as fire codes and why they can be found liable for injury or death of their customers if it can be proven that said injury was a result of the business failing to provide a reasonably safe environment for its customers.

By abridging my right to carry a firearm for self-defense without providing adequate security against violent attacks, such businesses put me and my family at unnecessary and, in my view, unreasonable risk when patronizing said establishment. This would be akin to a business barring its customers from bringing fire extinguishers onto its premises while at the same time refusing to have a sprinkler system or fire extinguishers of its own.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 10:44 PM   #30
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 230
Quote:
By abridging my right to carry a firearm for self-defense without providing adequate security against violent attacks, such businesses put me and my family at unnecessary and, in my view, unreasonable risk when patronizing said establishment. This would be akin to a business barring its customers from bringing fire extinguishers onto its premises while at the same time refusing to have a sprinkler system or fire extinguishers of its own.
This argument fails a simple logical (and smell) test. Go. Somewhere. Else.

The businesses don't put you and your family at unnecessary risk, you do so yourself by patronizing them. Go elsewhere. Why would you patronize an establishment with no fire control system that barred you from bringing your own, if fire was your primary concern?

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." And I reserve the right to go somewhere I'm comfortable.
WyMark is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 11:05 PM   #31
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
WyMark, I realize gun owners are not a protected class. I am saying that the moral argument of "private property" has already been shown not to be absolute with regard to businesses open to the public, and therefor I feel no moral anxiety at lawfully - if covertly - thumbing my nose at business owning antis.

In my state, if they notice, and ask me to leave, I leave and there is no crime of any type committed. If I argue, it becomes simple trespass. I would not argue, but they have not noticed in any case.

If they ever do notice, it will be because I needed to display or use a gun, and in such a case I really would not care about the business owner's feelings.

I am not advocating breaking the law, and the law differs by state. I am just talking about the moral side of the house, and if the business owner isn't screening potential bad guys, he is in no moral position to strip me of part of my ability to defend myself.

Edit: part of my ability, because one who trains to fight with his bare hands is never fully disarmed; but, an armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity...
MLeake is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 11:34 PM   #32
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,926
Quote:
Quote:
By abridging my right to carry a firearm for self-defense without providing adequate security against violent attacks, such businesses put me and my family at unnecessary and, in my view, unreasonable risk when patronizing said establishment. This would be akin to a business barring its customers from bringing fire extinguishers onto its premises while at the same time refusing to have a sprinkler system or fire extinguishers of its own.

This argument fails a simple logical (and smell) test. Go. Somewhere. Else.

The businesses don't put you and your family at unnecessary risk, you do so yourself by patronizing them. Go elsewhere. Why would you patronize an establishment with no fire control system that barred you from bringing your own, if fire was your primary concern?
Well, I certainly hope you don't own a business without adequate fire protection because if you do, you're likely in for a very unpleasant surprise if there's ever a fire. You can say go somewhere else all you like, but the fact of the matter is that there is copious regulation regarding businesses providing safe environments for customers and employees and I fail to see how security is any different. After all, if going somewhere else is the answer to it all, why can a business be sued when someone slips in a puddle? That person had a choice to patronize a business that didn't leave puddles in the middle of their floors didn't they?

My point here is not that I think all businesses should be legally required to allow carry, but rather that there is a distinct double standard applied to carry and other safety issues. I do not believe that "no guns" signs should carry force of law; if they don't have to recognize my right to self-defense then it should be up to them to enforce their policy. I also think that businesses which ban carry and fail to provide adequate security of their own should be open to civil liability for their unwise decisions just as they would for other safety concerns. Were this the case, I think that you'd see a lot of "no guns" signs taken down as insurance and liability is a large part of the reason that many businesses prohibit carry on their premises.

I also agree with MLeake about ignoring "no guns" signs that do not carry force of law. I've never once seen a private business that has both a "no guns" sign and armed security. Since said business obviously feels no moral obligation to provide for the safety of their patrons, I feel no moral obligation to concern myself with their asinine policy.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:31 AM   #33
AndyWest
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2011
Posts: 621
Quote:
I've never once seen a private business that has both a "no guns" sign and armed security.
Banks?
__________________
Shoot smart. Shoot S-Mart.
AndyWest is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:56 AM   #34
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,926
Quote:
Quote:
I've never once seen a private business that has both a "no guns" sign and armed security.

Banks?
The bank at which I conduct my business does not have a "no guns" sign nor do they have obvious armed security. I do not frequent other banks so I cannot speak for them. The only place, outside of government buildings, I can think of that has both a "no guns" sign and armed security (uniformed city police to be specific) is the local hospital. The hospital, however, is a county hospital that accepts some public funding so I do not count it as a private business.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 09:21 AM   #35
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
I've not seen armed security in a financial institution in probably 30 years, and I currently live in Washington, DC.

Last armed security I saw in a business was in a grocery store in Stamford, Connecticut, in the 1990s.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 09:29 AM   #36
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyWest View Post
Banks?
I've never seen a bank in NY with a No Guns sign.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 09:44 AM   #37
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,461
Quote:
Also, as MLeake pointed out, a business that is open to the public does not enjoy the same latitude as a person's home or even businesses that are not open to the public such as private clubs. Businesses that are open to the public bear a certain degree of responsibility to provide a reasonably safe environment for the people that they are inviting onto their premises. This is why businesses have to abide by regulations such as fire codes and why they can be found liable for injury or death of their customers if it can be proven that said injury was a result of the business failing to provide a reasonably safe environment for its customers.
They have a responsibility to abide by the letter of the law. Any other responsibilities you think they should have are your own personal ethics. Anything they do beyond the letter of law is what they may consider to be their responsibility and part of their ethics, which may have nothing to do with your ethics.

Businesses do not have to protect you from robbers and bad guys. The police don't have to protect you either. You can go elsewhere or you can secretly thumb your nose at the anti-gun business and if legal, carry inside, supporting the business while making your secret protest.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 11:29 AM   #38
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
DNS, don't get me wrong, I try to avoid giving business to such places. But...

... when it is Christmas season, and the only shopping mall in the area is posted, I am not driving thirty miles to the next city;

... if my wife or family really want to go to a place, I will also make an exception on a limited basis, but I will carry.

I used to be on the "just don't go there" side of the aisle, but then I realized that just lets the antis convince more and more businesses to post. So, while I try to give most of my business to places that do not post, I am not going to induly inconvenience myself for thr antis.

In Arizona, where any reasonably understandable sign carries force of law, then I go somewhere else.

In Kansas, where ignoring the sign is a $50 citation, I will most likely go elsewhere - not sweating the $50, but not wanting the citation.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 11:39 AM   #39
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,926
Quote:
They have a responsibility to abide by the letter of the law. Any other responsibilities you think they should have are your own personal ethics. Anything they do beyond the letter of law is what they may consider to be their responsibility and part of their ethics, which may have nothing to do with your ethics.

Businesses do not have to protect you from robbers and bad guys. The police don't have to protect you either. You can go elsewhere or you can secretly thumb your nose at the anti-gun business and if legal, carry inside, supporting the business while making your secret protest.
You're missing my point. I know full well that no one other than myself has a duty to protect me from violent criminals. My point is that private businesses are held legally responsible to provide reasonable accommodation for certain aspects of their patrons' safety such as fire protection, but not others such as violent crime and that represents a double standard. I fail to understand why a business should be able to be sued for damages if I'm injured or killed in a fire because they failed to provide adequate fire protection, but they're immune to liability should I be killed by a violent criminal when they not only failed to provide adequate security, but refused to allow me to provide for my own.

As I said before, I'm not in favor of private businesses being legally required to allow carry. All I'm saying is that if a business both bans carry on their premises and refuses to provide security of their own, they should be open to to civil liability just as they would for choosing to ignore any number of other potential safety issues. Conversely, if we're going to apply the "go somewhere else" standard to carry, then we should also be applying it to other safety concerns such as fire protection and clear walkways.

I also belive that with a very few very specific exceptions, "no guns" signs should carry no force of law for private businesses beyond a trespassing charge if the carrier refuses to leave when asked. The way I see it, if the law has no say in a private businesses' policy, then it also has no responsibility to to enforce those policies for them.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 12:58 PM   #40
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,734
In Austin and San Antonio, Whole Foods used to have no gun signs and armed guards. They ditched the no gun signs when the law was modified to make the sign truly large.

Some banks here have armed guards - bored minimum wage with 38 SPL RNL.

Go elsewhere? - the hospitals have signs - I prefer not to die or not see a competent physician. I can undestand the doctors not wanting a gun to be on the loose when you take off your clothes - so give you a locker.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 01:29 PM   #41
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
My point is that private businesses are held legally responsible to provide reasonable accommodation for certain aspects of their patrons' safety such as fire protection, but not others such as violent crime and that represents a double standard. I fail to understand why a business should be able to be sued for damages if I'm injured or killed in a fire because they failed to provide adequate fire protection, but they're immune to liability should I be killed by a violent criminal when they not only failed to provide adequate security, but refused to allow me to provide for my own.
Actually, they're by no means immune from liability. Businesses are routinely held liable for failing to provide adequate security to protect patrons from assault or murder. The standards vary from one jurisdiction to another, and it's an area in which the case law is evolving (including the question of how much fault should be apportioned to the business and how much to the assailant). But the basic principle is well established. See this article titled "The Law of Premises Liability," originally from the Defense Research Institute (a bunch of defense attorneys), for a lengthy discussion of the case law.

I wonder how carrying, with or without the implicit permission of the business, would affect the outcome of a lawsuit if one were injured or killed by a criminal on the premises in spite of being armed...
Vanya is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 07:17 PM   #42
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,102
I imagine "no guns" signs are intended to attract anti's as much as they're intended to fend anyone off. It's a socially acceptable political sign.

In all honesty I don't think I've ever seen one. If they started popping up I'm not sure what my reaction would be. Some places I'd avoid, some places - the ones with really good food/prices - I'd probably keep going to. Most, what with wrangling kids, I'd probably not notice.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum
dayman is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 05:30 PM   #43
EODK9Trainer424
Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 18
So are you going to name this chain restaurant?
EODK9Trainer424 is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 12:09 AM   #44
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Respect their right not to want firearms on their premises. And go somewhere else.
X 2

They have the right to post their property and if I am in the mood to abide by their rules, I will and if I am not, I will move on. It is not really a big deal to me as there are plenty of places that I go that will not allow me to carry.
shootniron is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 10:59 AM   #45
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,734
In some states, the posting has force of law - do not suggest breaking the local laws.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 11:21 AM   #46
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
I am not sure what parameters need to be breached in Florida for the "armed trespass" segment of the trespass laws to be brought against a person...

Armed trespass is no laughing matter as it is a felony charge...

So if simple possession of a firearm is all that is needed, it isn't worth trying to support as business that is against the right of a person to defend their self...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 11:35 AM   #47
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
In some states, the posting has force of law - do not suggest breaking the local laws.
^^^This^^^

Quote:
They have the right to post their property and if I am in the mood to abide by their rules, I will and if I am not, I will move on. It is not really a big deal to me as there are plenty of places that I go that will not allow me to carry.
I would hope that everyone that choose's to 'move on' from a place of business posting a "no gun" sign to do business with a place not posting a sign, takes the time to stop in the place with the sign to politely inform the owner/manager of your reason for doing business elsewhere.

You may not think this has an impact but it does. Especially in our current economic times when every sale counts. I've seen "no gun" signs in business's come down in our area for this reason alone. But if we do not take the time to inform "said" business owner/manager of the reason we aren't doing business with them, they don't know they've lost our business.
shortwave is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:28 PM   #48
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,926
Quote:
In some states, the posting has force of law - do not suggest breaking the local laws.
Not sure if this was directed at anyone in particular or if it was just a general admonishment, but I would point out that my comments about ignoring the signs were qualified to apply only to jurisdictions where the sign does not carry force of law.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 10:34 PM   #49
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
Gun Free Zone Kits

This video is priceless. Think how much fun it would be to play this on your smart phone for the proprietor of a place with the signs posted...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoh45Jh1oBg
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 05:53 PM   #50
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
No "illegal" guns...

When I see a "no guns or weapons" sign(s) in a private business, I assume it's for illegal or unlawful carry of concealed weapons.
If you have a concealed weapon or a valid carry license, I wouldn't worry about it. If they see or spot your sidearm(or folder knife), just pay your bill & leave.
Most servers, managers & waitresses are far to busy to stop and stare at customers. If you are a "quiet professional" & are a mature adult, you should be okay.
I wouldn't pack heat in a bar or nightclub anyway. If you carry, do not drink either. It may be legal but you'll face a lot of problems over it if you draw a loaded firearm in public.

I agree with the other forum members too, you could just avoid spending $ in a business that does not support CC license holders or the 2A.

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14136 seconds with 9 queries