The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 6, 2012, 03:21 PM   #26
KBP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Location: Luthersburg, PA
Posts: 273
Law and Civil Rights

What might happen if you go into a store or onto private property with a concealed pistol that has posted a sign saying its a "gun free zone" or "no guns allowed"? Maybe somehow someone notices your carrying or suspects it. Other than asking you to leave, what can they do? Have you committed a crime?
KBP is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 03:39 PM   #27
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
While I was not vocal about it, in Texas, I avoided private businesses as much as possible that posted the legal "no gun" sign (in Dallas, theres a load of them). Now, here in Florida, I don't have to worry about it as much because the "no carry" list is extremely short.

I park across the street to pick my kids up from school, and I go to my local UPS store to mail items instead of the USPS. I believe we're such a minority that a boycott by us CCers wouldn't even be noticed....so it's a personal, quiet action of my own, for my own convenience.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 03:46 PM   #28
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
I believe we're such a minority that a boycott by us CCers wouldn't even be noticed....so it's a personal, quiet action of my own, for my own convenience.
Just because it would not be noticed, does not mean it should not be done..... patronize businesses that respect you, it's the right thing to do. If they think they have any business with anything under my clothing, then they are disrespecting my rights of privacy.

I like the copies of recipts spent elsewhere idea ..... that would get more notice.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 03:50 PM   #29
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
Quote:
What might happen if you go into a store or onto private property with a concealed pistol that has posted a sign saying its a "gun free zone" or "no guns allowed"? Maybe somehow someone notices your carrying or suspects it. Other than asking you to leave, what can they do? Have you committed a crime?
In Texas there are requirements to be legally valid: specific statutory language; specific minimum size; and in both ENlgish and Spanish (IIRC on the last one). Some CHL'ers will ignore an invalid sign, others will not patronize such.

I can understand a jewelry store and a bank due to exigent circumstances. I also don't frequent the insides of those locations often. Frankly if you're gong into a jewelry store your wallet is already about to die...
zincwarrior is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 07:47 PM   #30
Micropterus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 29, 2009
Location: Newport News, Virginia
Posts: 306
I think it's a little humorous in that you have to be on the land or in the parking lot to even see the sign. By then, you are in violation. Maybe they ought to put it in a sign near the street so people can see it before they even turn into their parking lot.
__________________
Regards,
Rowland
Micropterus is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 08:31 PM   #31
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
Jim; I agree, it should be done, but who will start\lead it? It's way easy to talk about such things...action is another. I Live in Florida now, where private businesses by law can't post no carry....
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 10:16 PM   #32
RamItOne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 983
Carry 24/7 - were those places in texas legitimate 30.06 postings or just some kinkos printed sign? lived in texas and florida, i pay no mind to illegitimate postings. Figure if im somewhere and am forced to use a gun id be happy to face any issues arriving afterwards as to why i ignored a kinkos cardboard sign vs ending up dead.
RamItOne is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 10:24 PM   #33
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
Nope, its no good. Here's a better example
http://www.practicaltacticaltraining...as-sign-guide/
zincwarrior is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 10:32 PM   #34
Herr Walther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
If it's really concealed, how will they know it's there?

Or, as has been said, shop somewhere else.

Only one state has no problems with signs yet...with the exception of Jared's. Apparently.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors"
-------------------------------------
"...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime."
-------------------------------------
"In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare."
Herr Walther is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 10:33 PM   #35
hoytinak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,719
I've seen the same posting at our local Jared's but as that sign means nothing in legal terms here in TX, I walked right in.....PM9 concealed on my waist.
hoytinak is offline  
Old February 6, 2012, 11:25 PM   #36
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
Ramit; legit signs....
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 12:25 AM   #37
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 237
Quote:
Glenn E. Meyer
That's it folks. I'm on the side of gun rights trumping property rights if you open for business to the general public. My call on the battle of rights. Life trumps your property. You don't have to have a business open to the public, just as folks say you don't have to go there.
I (still) respectfully disagree. My property, my rules. You don't have a right to enter my business simply because it's open to the public. "No Shirt, No Shoes: No Service" is pretty universally understood, how is "No Shirt, No Shoes, a Gun: No Service" that different? Simply because I'm open to the public doesn't mean I have to accept anything and everything that comes along.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is valid, as long as it's not based on race, color, religion, or natural origin. Self protection is not at this time considered a protected class. Maybe someday, but not today.

Suppose that Jared's arms and trains all of it's employees, and that while you're browsing for a Valentine's gift for the Mrs someone comes in waving a gun. You pull your ccw to protect yourself, but now you've become another potential bad guy. Could you fault the sales clerk for putting you down as well?
WyMark is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 10:33 AM   #38
Prof Young
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Posts: 666
A little lost here . . .

So, when a store posts a sign like this one, does it have the effect of law? If a person does "carry" into a Jared's are they breaking the law? Can a business legally enforce a gun restriction? This seems like a form of discrimination not much different than saying left-handed people aren't allowed in the store either.
Prof Young is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 10:57 AM   #39
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,666
Quote:
So, when a store posts a sign like this one, does it have the effect of law? If a person does "carry" into a Jared's are they breaking the law?
Let me give some more specific information on what various posters have said regarding "No Gun" signs in TX.

A business that doesn't sell liquor for on-premise consumption (more on this in a minute..) is required to post a sign meeting the requirements of TX Penal Code Sec. 30.06 in order to prohibit a CHL holder from entering the premises with a concealed handgun.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ignposting.htm

Other signage, including the generic "Gunbuster" sticker, does not carry the force of law to a legal CHL holder in TX.

Once inside the premises, a CHL holder is required to leave or disarm upon receiving verbal or written communication that guns are prohibited. However, in practice, this is a de facto "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. How often have you walked into a store and immediately had a clerk ask you "Excuse me, sir (or ma'am), are you carrying a concealed handgun?"

As I wrote in another recent thread (that I can't seem to find right now... hmmph), I have never seen a legal Sec. 30.06 sign posted at any DFW-area business; the only places I've ever seen them have been major hospitals and a couple of municipal buildings.

If the business serves alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption and derives more than 51% of its revenue from such sales, CHL holders are not supposed to enter the business with a concealed handgun; no 30.06 sign is required. Such businesses are supposed to post a prominent "51%" sign near the entrance to comply with the TX Alcoholic Beverage Code (ABC). Fortunately, 51% businesses are uncommon due to all the other regulatory hurdles required to comply with the TX ABC; business owners will go to great lengths to avoid this classification. Very, very few sit-down restaurants qualify, and many dance halls and live music venues skirt the regulations by charging high cover fees and selling cheap drinks.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 10:58 AM   #40
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
It is not legal discrimination because it is not one of the "protected" classes as are race, gender, etc.

I agree with WyMark - property rights trump here, and have since this country's founding - one of the major reasons.
oneounceload is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 11:37 AM   #41
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,850
Going nowhere - we've discussed property vs. life into the ground.

That's an interesting theoretical debate governed by philosophy and evolutionary biases. Fun but no conclusions. My property, me king of the jungle. My life, tough, your majesty.

However, I do disagree with:

Quote:
Suppose that Jared's arms and trains all of it's employees, and that while you're browsing for a Valentine's gift for the Mrs someone comes in waving a gun. You pull your ccw to protect yourself, but now you've become another potential bad guy. Could you fault the sales clerk for putting you down as well?
That's a wonderful example that the antigunners used for NOT having concealed carry at all. What if the police shoot you also?

Stick with the king of the castle, jungle philosophy as compared to making a Brady Bunch argument.
__________________
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 February 7, 2012, 11:54 AM   #42
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Seems as though any argument limiting firearms either comes from evolutionary dominance traits or the antigun agenda.

I find it rather offensive that what I, and many others, consider to be a well thought out, carefully explained opinion, that seems to be backed by 200 years of legal standing, is passed of as nothing more than a primal urge in line within antigun philosophy.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 12:13 PM   #43
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
er..what?

I'll note the primacy of Property rights are a key theme in the theories behind the Constitution and Declaration. Indeed, Locke's concept of Life, Liberty, and Property was well known by the Founders (and roughly stolen by Jefferson).

Further, on private property other rights: speech, assembly, religion, etc. are held in abeyance at the sufference of the property owner. Firearm rights would be no exception to that.

The right of property owners to mandate "leave your guns at the door" is as deep as the right of gun owners to not be forced to have to use that business.

Last edited by zincwarrior; February 7, 2012 at 12:23 PM.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 12:17 PM   #44
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,850
My intensive training in psychology delves beneath what leads to various philosophical positions. Many traditions have long histories but that does not mean that they cannot be understood for what processes generated them. We are creatures of our evolution and experience - plus their interaction.

Nor does a long belief tradition mean they are useful in modern society.

I like
Quote:
primal urge in line within antigun philosophy
- it explains it well. You are free to disagree with that view. If you find it offensive, that it the way of the world.

My opinion, I state them! I will not agree with property bans based on an argument used by the opponents of gun rights. You are free to do so. You are on stronger ground with the property rights argument. If you don't want to understand why it is important to human psychology - that's your free choice also.
__________________
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 February 7, 2012, 12:43 PM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,641
Quote:
Going nowhere - we've discussed property vs. life into the ground.
Agreed. I come down a little more on the side of property rights, but it's hard to say where the line should be drawn.

On one hand, I can bar people for behaviors (ie. what they do). I can tell someone they can't hand out political flyers or wear clothing with offensive slogans. I can refuse service to someone who's intoxicated or acting irresponsibly.

What I can't do is ban people based on what they are. Refusing service solely on the basis of race, age, or handicap will land me in court in a big hurry, and for good reason.

Now, is carrying a gun something people do, or something they are? That's the question in my mind. At the moment, folks carrying guns aren't a protected class. We may have such a definition at some point in the future, but it hasn't happened yet.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 03:09 PM   #46
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,103
I don't like the policy, but I'm not in the market for jewelry either. Unfortunately we really need some sort of education drive, preferably one that starts with the schools. Most teachers are anti-gun liberals who foist their ideas on the impressionable younger generation. Well, here in the northeast anyway and it continues into college.

So what I'm getting at is we need a culture change in parts of the country. I've given up on the older crowd, their mind is set and isn't likely to change. But give younger people the facts and let them make up their own minds instead of being bombarded with anti-gun crap.

What does this have to do with the current topic, you have to change the minds of their customers and future executives if you want something that sticks. Younger people are more flexible in their thought process than someone who has been anti-gun for 40 years.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 03:10 PM   #47
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I will not agree with property bans based on an argument used by the opponents of gun rights. You are free to do so. You are on stronger ground with the property rights argument.
Seems like an odd position to take... I disagree with the groups conclusion, therefore any and all points which they might use to justify their conclusions are presumptively invalid. Invalid even in another context or perspective.

And I thought that WAS the property rights argument. What other argument have I made?

Oh, and any arguments made by products of evolution have no actual moral basis. They are neither right nor wrong, merely convenient social contracts. We might want to change them for our own perceived benefit but there is no place for any overriding moral imperative.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 03:54 PM   #48
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Jared is mostly overpriced mass market junk.

Even their diamonds are not very high quality.

Shop elsewhere.
brickeyee is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 04:10 PM   #49
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
Quote:
Jared is mostly overpriced mass market junk.

Even their diamonds are not very high quality.

Shop elsewhere.
Thread winner.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old February 7, 2012, 04:10 PM   #50
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,850
Oh, now we are off topic. Want to call and end. They have the right to sell junk.

I went into a Tiffany's that opened locality. The clerk (not spotting the gear under concealment) asked if I wanted to bring home some karats for the little lady. I said - If she wants carrots, I better stop at the market!

They did have some hard looking guy in a suit starting at everyone. Very impressive.
__________________
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  
Closed Thread

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 12:55 PM.


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 0.13541 seconds with 8 queries