What is the basis for open cary?

[Logan 5]

Many people claim it's the Second Amendment. Ok, that's fine. I firmly support the Second Amendment. But....

I know- "but". And I've already noticed a good number of you have a hard time with "but". That is something you need to get over.

Like the right of property owners. I've noticed a number of the Open carry supporters ALSO support ignoring the preferences and rights of property owners. Open carrying on private property against the wishes of the property owners.

So explain to me how you can justify you right to keep and bear arms when you refuse to honor the rights of property owners. This includes commercial property as well.
Perhaps you miss this part, or perhaps you simply do not care. But how can you have more right to safety on your property when you openly endorse other property owners not having the same rights?

You do realize that in today's technology not only do you, supporters of Open Carry have access to this forum, but so does the Brady Bunch....?
So when you talk about how you don't care about property owner's preferences and wishes and you STILL open carry on private property....
They see that.

And it adds more fuel to their fire.

You do realize that, right?

So explain to me how you can justify any kind of carry, open or concealed, when the property owner, no matter if it's residential or commercial, says not to.

[MAC702]

On the contrary, I find that MOST OC-ers are proactive in telling such businesses why we do not patronize their stores.

It is those carrying concealed that seem to do more of the purposeful ignoring of the wishes of private property owners, would you not agree?

[carsontech]

Like the right of property owners. I've noticed a number of the Open carry supporters ALSO support ignoring the preferences and rights of property owners. Open carrying on private property against the wishes of the property owners.

Do you care to cite the posts you read where people are not leaving private property when told? I don't see any posts where anyone was charged with trespassing, so I doubt anyone here has refused to leave once a person in charge private property told them they're not welcome.

[Logan 5]

Yes, there have been several such posts. As for CC, it doesn't matter. If there is a sign saying no weapons, then honor it.
I'll dig up those posts and put their links here.

[SouthernBoy]

Yes, there have been several such posts. As for CC, it doesn't matter. If there is a sign saying no weapons, then honor it.
I'll dig up those posts and put their links here.

You may find one here and there on some sites. I read through one not long ago where one of the posters was adamant that his right to self defense exceeded anyone's private property rights. But I would wager that the vast majority of people who carry openly or concealed do honor the wishes of private property owners and do as they say. After all many, if not most, of us are also private property owners and we have certain rules and requirements with our property as would others.

[TruxLupus]

I will leave property when asked to because it is the law and I will respect that. (And because I don't want to go to jail!!!) And I will not come back later CCing either, or just CC if I see a sign.

However, I believe that when you decide to open your doors to the public for business, you *shouldn't* be able to deny entry to someone based on such purely arbitrary grounds as their second amendment rights. I see it as similar (although much lesser in gravity) to denying entry to someone because they are black, or Catholic, in a wheelchair, denying someone a house because they have kids, etc. I've chosen perfectly legal and constitutionally protected means for self defense, and I pose no threat (yes, I realize you don't choose to be disabled or choose your skin color, it's just an example). Should I also be denied entry if I, hypothetically, was a grandmaster in three different forms of martial arts? That's also a legal means of self defense, but I can't "disarm" myself of that without a lobotomy and/or amputation.

"Private" private property, on the other hand (i.e., not a place that is open to the general public) is a completely different story. The hitch point here is if you've chosen to allow the general public onto your property or not.

Just my opinion. I know that isn't ever going to change, so I will just continue not to provide business who do not support my second amendment rights with my business. I do, and will continue to, honor private property rights above my second amendment rights despite my personal opinion on the matter.

[carsontech]

While I agree with the OP that everyone should honor private property owner's rights, after looking into some previous discussions the OP was in, it appears this thread might have been created on an emotional basis.

I see where this thread is going, it seems like a continuation of countless other threads.

[SovereignAxe]

You may find a few users who will ignore property rights, but the general consensus that I've seen among this forum is that we will respect the rights of property owners by not patronizing their establishment.

Nobody wants to give money to those that don't respect the 2nd amendment, so most of us don't carry in those places. Those that do you will find to be few an far between.

[wmodavis]

A bit off topic but I think the OP gives a lot more credit to the "Brady bunch" than they deserve.
I suggest you read "Shooting the Bull" by Guy Smith to get insight as to what makes them tick and why what is said here would not affect their actions. Here is one small exerpt:

"On the subject of gun control nary a truth can be found emanating from her (Sarah Brady's) lips. Her web site fumes statistical irregularities than cannot be explained by sloppiness or stupidity. Sarah’s newspaper interviews echo grander, borrowed falsehoods. The organization that bears her name, the Brady Campaign, is a veritable misinformation factory employing a full set of machinery for minting political falsehood. Well, almost the full set. We have yet to see them produce a doctored photograph of Ted Nugent pumping a few rounds into Chuck Schumer. Why then does Sarah Brady and nearly everyone else campaigning for gun control lie? For the same reason that men lie to their wives about matrimonial infidelity and politicians lie about … well, everything. She is possessed with the same motivation as a jewel thief who lies to the police as they drag him away from a mansion. Sarah lies for the same reason as a street-corner drug dealer who slips crack junkies a homebrew of candle wax and baking soda, or as Michael Moore does when claiming not to eat children whole. Sarah lies in order to gain something she could not otherwise acquire honestly. Sarah and her cohorts fib to achieve political ends for which they have fading public support and finance. Sarah and her minions propagate propaganda to take from you what the law says they cannot take. Call it the “do-gooder” syndrome, a disease in which blind fixation on correcting a perceived social ill makes rampant dishonesty a permissible tool. This Holy Cause – or Unholy Curse – that permits telling lies in order to change the world is easily observed and difficult to swallow. Not even the famous Stomach from Flint could manage to ingest it all. Sarah is my proxy for everyone in the gun control industry who has bent a statistic, knowingly cited flawed studies or denied demonstrable fact. She is the gentle face that masks flagrant falsehoods spun by the Dianne Feinsteins and Josh Sugarmanns of the world. Sarah uses her grandmotherly façade as a distraction from the impassioned and equally fictitious rhetoric of Rebecca Peters, the Stalin-cast mistress of global gun control. Mrs. Brady is the lovable decoy for Clintonesque proclamations that “we don’t want to ban guns.”

Smith, Guy (2011-04-19). Shooting The Bull . Free Thinkers Media. Kindle Edition.

And I do agree that whether or not you carry, or how you choose to carry should not affect having a rational view of respect of personal property. And Mrs. Brady has little that affects my view of any of those.

P.S. I recommend the book to all. It is a good read!

[lockman]

In situations where the private property is a business and they invite the general public their "rights" as the private property owners should be taken into consideration but not necessarily trump others. An example of this would be placing a sign refusing entry based on religious beliefs.

Businesses that set a prohibitory policy against carry should be allowed to do so, but enforcement should be under the civil law and not criminal. If I exhibit a pattern of violating the "ban" then take me to court and have be permanently banished from your property. Only then should it be a criminal matter if I return. We have become a lazy society expecting the police to solve all our petty problems. Why there ought to be a law!

[XD4ME]

I think the argument boils down to personal property rights vs commercial property rights . The difference is that a person ( individual) that owns property for self has every right in excluding who and what enters .

Commercial ( for profit) owners of property open their doors to the public in order to make a profit . They invite the public in . Should they not be held to the laws ? If it is not illegal , then what right do they have to refuse entry of a "public" institution? Is that not discrimination?

Now , if it is a members type of store ( BJs , Sams club, etc) then you are agreeing beforehand to the rules they set in place in order to enter .

"the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
Marsh v. Alabama

That seems reasonable .

Now , a few other things get thrown into the mix . If a company opens their business up to buying stocks , have they not become "public" , rather than private? If my taxes are increased in order for a business to get an exemption so they will build a store , does it seem right to prevent me from entering , legally by state /fed laws , after providing them such breaks?

Granted , the constitution is there to prevent abuses by government , not private individuals. But , if gov takes an active role outside of just collecting taxes , does that mean I now have a vested part of that "private property"?

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own."
James Madison


Sadly , like most rights , I think property rights have been bastardized and changed from the original meanings put forth in the ultimate law of the land . Businesses are no longer owned by individuals , but instead by corporations , who the court has deemed "people" .


.................................................. ........................

Just as an aside , it would be interesting to see what would happen if a shareholder etc were to be asked to leave a store . Or for that matter , an individual with a letter from a shareholder stating they are fine with OC, etc etc .

[Beau]

I've found that a lot of places have a "No Guns" sign up just because. They don't actually care if you carry. Those that do care will ask you to leave. If asked to leave you do so and decide if you give them any more of your business or not.

[hjmoosejaw]

I think there are some very good replies to this thread! Particularly #6 and #11. While I believe respecting the property owners wishes are to be adhered to, and if I am asked to leave, I will, "BUT", after reading some of these posts, I am really looking at the issue in a whole new light. Why should we be discriminated against for practicing a perfectly legal activity? Should an LEO have to leave his gun outside if he stops at a store on his way home? I could see if the wearing of the weapon really disrupted the place. Trumpet playing is a legal activity, but I could see where people wouldn't want to be there, with a trumpet sounding. ( or heaven forbid, rap music ). Nothing against a trumpet, but it could be disruptive. I have never walked into a place and had the carrying of my sidearm disrupt anything. Never a person tugging on the arm of the manager while pointing at me. Never seen anybody running out screaming. No disruption,whatsoever! Do any of the OCers here have any stories of any major interruptions they have caused while OCing into a place? Just curious.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Yes, there have been several such posts. As for CC, it doesn't matter. If there is a sign saying no weapons, then honor it.
I'll dig up those posts and put their links here.

Logan 5, you are missing one very basic concept of desiring to be armed, whether open or concealed.

Self-defense.

If there is a store which has something I need and I can not reasonably get elsewhere (due to time, distance, etc.), I will go there. If that store does not allow guns, then I may choose to disarm.

If I do and get killed because of it, I would just feel silly!

IF, however, I choose to enter such a business while carrying concealed, I would be commiting a crime or civil violation. I would also have the ability to defend myself, if needed. I would not display my gun, on purpose, unless needed. The store wouldn't know. The sheep in the store wouldn't know. I wouldn't tell.

This is the reason there is 'pushback' against no guns policies at private businesses. Being robbed is not a hazardous condition they have to protect you from. Even if it was, what's the outcome if they don't do a good job?

If I fail to protect myself, I have only myself to blame.

[XD4ME]

Ok , here is a question.

You enter a store within a mall while you OC. You are asked to leave because of that . But, the mall has no rule against OC . Do you need to leave? The store is a renter , not an owner , so do they have "property rights"?

Take that one step further . WalMart stores are generally NOT owned by Walmart . They are owned by a real estate company and rented to them . Do THEY (Walmart) have private property rights?

I do know if an apartment renter calls the police because someone will not get off of the property their building is on , the police call the owner of the building . (here in Maine anyway, from what I have seen) . The owner , not the renter , has the private property rights . Although , the renter is secure in their domain that they rent for habitation . But they are not "open to the public" .

I think private property rights have been extended beyond what they were meant to do , at the detriment to others and their own individual rights .

[Logan 5]

In a thread here at OpenCarry.org that is the very subject - http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-quot-signs
Some people feel they're right to OC or CC trumps the rights of the property owner. Well, let's see here. I think my right to get some poontang prevails over your wife's right to retain her privacy. Would that justify me ignoring her wishes and demands? Yes, very extreme. But accurate.
Just as no man has any right to remove your wife's privacy against her will in such a manner, neither can anyone OC or CC on property that is listed as "no weapons".

And likewise, the idicoy and carelessness of a few numbskulls is going to come back and bite the entire community.

[XD4ME]

Interesting analogy Logan ....... and completely off base . Associating rape with OC is specious at best .

[Lthrnck]

There is NO GREATER RIGHT.. then the RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE.

This right TRUMPS... all other rights, hands down, without a doubt.

BECAUSE.... if we can't defend ourselves and be able to protect all the other rights, they won't matter.

We have to be here to do that... if we can't defend ourselves... There will be no one left to protect them...


Now how you go about that is your .....CHOICE....!!!

Some will agree with you some won't.

But this crap about person property rights being as important as my right to self defense is bull pucky.

[OC for ME]

This should clear up any confusion for the wording of the perfect "No Weapons Allowed' sign?

ATTENTION: NO WEAPONS ALLOWED

Prior notice for trespassing.

Your right to defend yourself stops at my property line unless I give you permission to be able to defend yourself. You don't like this rule go some place else. You get caught with a weapon on my property, by violating the 'NO WEAPONS ALLOWED' rule on my private property, you will be charged with trespass and any other crime I can get LE to charge you with.

So....respect the sign on 'private property'.

[Big Gay Al]

When you mention private property, are we talking true private property, or public accommodation type businesses?

If we're talking public accommodation businesses, then I would refer you to Judge Napolitano.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE

[WalkingWolf]

This should clear up any confusion for the wording of the perfect "No Weapons Allowed' sign?

So....respect the sign on 'private property'.

Good sign but some people can't or claim to not read. IMO checking for signs on a property at the entrance that have any type of restriction is the person entering responsibility. There is an easy option for business that do not allow weapons, don't do business with them. Especially in this day and age anything can be bought online that can be bought in a store. There is no excuse for not respecting rights and wishes of property owners. Non gun people that normally do not care start to care when there is some a-hole with a gun making a fool of himself. As far as Walmart maybe it is just here but there has never been a word said. In fact sometimes the employees will ask about my guns, and very little problems here in our area at all with OC. Maybe some of you need to move~~never mind too many people moving here now.

[rushcreek2]

Respecting fervently the right of private property owners to CONTROL their private premises - whether they be open to the general public or not - I still do not see this issue as being "black or white".

I stand with an earlier poster who stood his ground concerning the safety of himself and his family- if he absolutely had no other option than to patronize a business ( the only pharmacy, or grocery in town) in which case he would conceal . So would I.

Now I am going to address my favorite subject which is - HOW WE PRESENT OUR SELVES WHEN WE OPEN CARRY.

I had a very interesting discussion with my brother-in-law in Kress, Texas the other day.

We were talking about handgun carry, licensing, and open carry (where legal). He is well aware of my personal habits on the subject. He assured me that I could wear my handgun in his house anytime I wanted.

He also commented that he could understand WHY - no one ever took exception to my openly carrying a handgun (where legal) - because OF THE WAY I DRESSED, THE WAY I CUT MY HAIR (G.I. cut), and the way that I carried myself when out in the public square. In other words - he was addressing MY PRESENTATION.

Believe me - I work at it - too ! And I have yet to cause any alarm, or concern.

I stand with LOGAN 5 - in my concerns regarding evidence of an attitude that some have that we simply "have this right be armed - and people better just get used to it."

NO - We had better prepare ourselves to SELL the concept to them- because THEY ARE THE BUYERS - who VOTE ! My brother-in-law is a firm believer in the 2A - but he also has concerns about JUST ANYBODY being allowed to walk around wearing a handgun- because "some people" would alarm him.

I know very well what the 2A says - what the Colorado Constitution says - what the Texas Constitution says. Nevertheless people are simply not going to stand idly by and tolerate a system of laws that permit just "anyone" to carry a handgun legally. Texas will soon (2013 Legislative Session) enact a LICENSED CC/OC law similar to the one just enacted in Oklahoma.

Mark my words - There WILL BE A BACKLASH - if proper respect is not shown for the very real concerns that many people have about the sight of a handgun in public. So we all need to proceed VERY cautiously.

We have a SELLING JOB to do.

[Dana Vennie]

Everyone has their rights. Everyone seems to want to other side to honor their rights and p****** and moans when they don't. Guess what if someone doesn't want guns in their business it is their right not to allow guns. And yes that right trumps our right for self defense. Go into a posted building, it may not happen the first time but after a warning you may be looking at some trouble. Respect peoples wishes plain and simple. And what is the deal with boycotting and badmouthing places that don't allow guns? I don't understand it. Be the bigger person.

[WalkingWolf]

Everyone has their rights. Everyone seems to want to other side to honor their rights and pisses and moans when they don't. Guess what if someone doesn't want guns in their business it is their right not to allow guns. And yes that right trumps our right for self defense. Go into a posted building, it may not happen the first time but after a warning you may be looking at some trouble. Respect peoples wishes plain and simple. And what is the deal with boycotting and badmouthing places that don't allow guns? I don't understand it. Be the bigger person.

I personally have no problem with boycotting, not badmouthing that is bad for us. I just think it is downright stupid to push against a business or persons wishes on their own property. Most people just don't care but become the backside of a horse in public and they start to give a damn real fast. Not only that the word gets past from one person to another and grows.

On the other hand I believe it is unconstitutional for the state to limit a businesses client base by outlawing cc/oc in a restaurant that serves alcohol. I only eat at no alcohol restaurants, and it really is unfair to the restaurants that serve alcohol when it is not their choice.

[Dana Vennie]

There is no law stating that you cannot cc in a tavern or restaurant that serves alcohol. You cannot OC in taverns, you must CC if it is not posted, if I am not mistaken. Also you cannot drink in a tavern while CC.

I really don't think boycotting a business is really going to hurt them unless the majority of their client base boycotts. It really is just a drop in the bucket. When I was younger I worked at a gas station and had people 'boycott' for various reasons. Guess what? Station is still there to this day because that $100/month or so that we lost did not hurt one bit.

But to each their own I guess. If it makes you feel better thinking that losing ones business hurts them then by all means do it. But as for me I just lock my weapon in my vehicle, respect their wishes and see if they have better deals then someone else.