• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

It will be our own fault

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I don't see the issue. Stupid people who think signs protect them will always be stupid people who think signs protect them.

What is the worry here?

You promise legislative action, but what is your awareness of the last 8 years of DPS proposals to the legislature?
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
As far as the legislature is concerned you may not be concern with Dannel Malloy but I am.

So because you are concerned that you might have a restriction to your rights, no one should be able to exercise theirs?

Again, do you think that DPS hasn't been trying to legislate method of carry for years now? What is different now?
 

SPOProds

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
464
Location
Orono, ME
By all means exercise your rights, but don't complain when other citizens exercise theirs by limiting your rights (allowing you on their property) and using situations, like the one in New Haven, to make your right more restrictive.

I guess the difference is what your ultimate goals are. Mine is to protect myself and my family and right now I can do that. If it's other people’s goal to prove a point or to show they know more than the police, so be it, we will all live with the consequences.

My reasons for carrying are the same as yours. And as so, I don't patronize businesses that don't allow me to carry. By not patronizing that business I don't put myself or family at risk. I also carry "No Guns=No Money" cards to leave at businesses that ban firearms. A business that doesn't allow me on their property isn't limiting my rights, they are limiting my choices of stores but not rights(IMHO). I have a right to choose where to shop and in doing so I'll choose not to shop there, as opposed to disarming just to shop there. Point being Home Depot has changed their policy to allow local stores to ban firearms. I go across the street to Lowe's where they are Firearm and OC friendly.

Also, I agree with Rich. The owner is stupid. We're not calling him stupid for banning firearms, but stupid because he thinks banning firearms makes his business safer. If he did his research before deciding to ban firearms because "Aurora" he would see he's stupid because the Aurora theater itself was a no-gun zone.

Seriously, not just here but other forums as well, I'm getting tired of the liberal gun owners. Do you think that if OCers stop OCing that legislature will stop trying to place more restrictions on guns? Also why you think people OC just to prove a point? I haven't heard anyone here or elsewhere say they are OCing to prove a point. Most OCers choose to OC because it is more comfortable, it allows quicker access to your firearm etc. Did you testify at the readings of any of the proposed bills to restrict gun rights last legist. session? 95% OCers fight for all gun rights, we don't pick and choose which ones to support. It seems as lately many gun owners are of the frame of mind that if the law doesn't effect the guns they own or the way they shoot than they are against the right. Examples; gun owners against OC, gun owners against hicap mags, in support of AWBs etc.

Ranting Over.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
By all means exercise your rights, but don't complain when other citizens exercise theirs by limiting your rights (allowing you on their property)

Um. Isn't that what you are doing?

and using situations, like the one in New Haven, to make your right more restrictive.

Well, you won't find most of us 'complaining'. You will find us doing something about it.

I guess the difference is what your ultimate goals are. Mine is to protect myself and my family and right now I can do that. If it's other people’s goal to prove a point or to show they know more than the police, so be it, we will all live with the consequences.

Indeed. You can do that right now. Thanks to people who have stood up for rights instead of laying down and letting us become like Chicago, NYC, California or D.C.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Open carry all you want, I have no issue with it, just use some common sense is all. If you think that walking into that particular movie with a gun showing was a smart thing to do we will never agree. As I said the attorney involved may very well win has case. However what are the ramifications of his action? Do you think that the public would support police not responding to a call of a man with a gun?

The attorney in New Haven wasn't openly carrying. I have no idea why you are here arguing about him here.

I am willing to bet if your shirt had lifted up and inadvertently exposed your firearm you would be singing a different tune.

The guy who owns the store is not afraid of having guns in his store. He is afraid that someone will OC and cause an incident and his store will be in the news costing him business.

Then he is stupider than I originally thought.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I'm sure that’s what happened.

Well it is. So I am not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic or not, but if you think this was an 'open carry stunt', then you are wrong.


As more and more people become familiar with the laws due to these types of incidents more and more people with put up no gun signs. The list will grow and grow. Then we can all stand our front yards with our gun congratulating ourselves. Then go lock it away because our kids want us to take them to the movies.

This has not been the case in any other state where this kind of movement progressed. I don't see why CT would be much different. Certain ignorant people will do stupid and ignorant things like putting signs up. Those signs likely will eventually come down as their reactionary nonsense fades away into common sense.

The bottom line is that this incident has not helped my personal situation.

Your stance has not helped my personal situation either. I just don't go around trying to tell you what to do to 'help my personal situation'.

This the first time I could not go someplace I wanted to and it was caused by a gun owner. That's why I'm complaining!

I thought we weren't supposed to complain about this?

There are many places with signs like this. It is nothing new. Stop patronizing the businesses of stupid people and politely let them know why. Then move on.


I don't think you will find too many other people who are so willing to throw in the towel on such an important fight just because one person wet themselves at the thought of a gun in their store and put up a sign.
 

customcreationllc

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
90
Location
Naugatuck CT
... Next year when you have to display your permit at all times (like a hunting license) don't be surprised. ...

What state are you from?
You don't have to display your hunting license in CT, actually you just print them off your computer and keep it in your pocket.

Open carry needs to be legal to allow for concealed carry to work. In case you accidental showing your gun when you bend over to tie your shoe.

If the person is that scared of guns they should move to England or something.
Guns are all around us just because they don't see them doesn't mean there not there.


And no gun signs in some states the owner is responsible for every ones safety I'm sure if there is a shooting in CT in a no gun area you know there will be some law suites.
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Rich, look at the situation that I posted regarding the fake 911 call. Do you believe that most people in Connecticut would view that as a reasonable response by the police? When people find out that the police aren’t going to do anything when someone calls about a man with a gun they will want to change the law. We are pushing people into the arms of the Brady’s; I just don't understand how you don't see that.

Luckily we don't live in a land where mob rule makes laws. I don't really know where you are getting this kind of stuff from, but it makes no difference whether the majority of people want to take rights away or not, that is not how rights and laws work. Assuming most people hate rights in the first place is also false ground.


Next year when you have to display your permit at all times (like a hunting license) don't be surprised. We have a different Governor now.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. So one minute you are telling us to keep all guns concealed and not fight for rights, but in the next, you suppose that they will make us all openly display our permits?

Have you heard of that occurring in any state so far?
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
There is only one thing to say to someone that believes a sign will stop someone determined to commit violence. I always tell folks that law abiding citizens are law abiding for a reason, just as criminals are criminal for a reason. If he places a sign he is doing nothing but keeping law abiding citizens from purchasing from his store (if it is against the law in CT to ignore a "no weapons" sign), and eliminating possible protection from someone bent on causing destruction to Human life. Anyone that is willing to commit MURDER or ASSAULT will pay no mind to a little sign on a door.
 
Last edited:

Freiheit417

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
167
Location
Connecticut
Could you site please? I've been looking for info on this.

Wisconsin is one. In that state, a "no guns" sign will cause the business to lose their protection from liability.


See this thread >> http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?97657-Posting-no-guns-signs-carries-liability
“Property owners or occupants who do not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on their premises are immune from any liability arising from their decision,” says Ron Von Haden, CIC, Executive Vice President of the Professional Insurance Agents of Wisconsin (PIAW). “Conversely, if a business prohibits concealed carry, it may be accepting some liability for the actions of customers and employees arising from the use of a concealed weapon.”
 

luckyykid

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
74
Location
Meriden, CT
As more and more people become familiar with the laws due to these types of incidents more and more people with put up no gun signs. The list will grow and grow. Then we can all stand our front yards with our gun congratulating ourselves. Then go lock it away because our kids want us to take them to the movies.

Hate to say it but I agree. The reality is that the people who are afraid of any and all guns are greater in number than those who are at ease around guns, and incidents like New Haven will lead to legislative change. Personally, I believe that public education and activism are necessary to make the general public comfortable around guns...then they won't be calling the police in the first place, and police won't be faced with Lead's hypothetical 911 call.
 

Good Citizen

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
104
Location
US
CC seneakers askin for trouble

My take on the New Haven incident is that if the lawyer was open carrying his pistol, everyone would've seen it, openly displayed a total non-issue, my bet is no one would've even called. In my opinion it was his poor attempt to be sneaking around with his gun i.e. concealed carrier, when he didn’t have to, that led to this whole incident. If the lawyer was in another state that mandated concealed carry, the inadvertent showing of his firearm would've constituted some type of state sanctioned penalty, luckily he was in the Constitution state and broke no laws, that I am aware of .

To each his own, Lead, this is an open carry thread, if you want to go sneaking around with your pistol go right ahead, that’s your choice, but is not state law in any manner, concealed carry along with poor imprinting and occasional flashes to the public that are inadvertent, cause alarm not open carry. Most individuals usually only get spooked, when they catch a glimpse of someone who's concealed carrying, at that point they think they've discovered some kind of illegal activity, like there some vigilante gun spotting detective, and then call the police.​


Lead for the record what is the name of the business that denies axcess to legally armed citizen's
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I do not believe he would appreciate me posting his information. It is attention he is trying to avoid in the first place. I'm hoping when things calm down he will remove the sign.

Wait a minute.

So he has a store which serves the public. He posted a sign in public to alert the public of his new policy. But you won't make public his policy?

It would be very beneficial to me not to drive and extra half hour to get what I need.

Then take it up with him. We cannot help you.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I don't want your help. The point of this thread is, like it or not there are sometimes negative consequences to our actions. I would hate for us to win the battle but lose the war. That war is waged in public opinion. Right now we have the public, at least enough of it to keep the politicians on our side. Loose the public support and the politicians will jump ship and laws will change. Thant is all I'm trying to get across.

So what exactly are you recommending? What are you asking anyone here to do?
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Just giving a different perspective on the issue. Our action, no matter how noble, has consequences and we should be mindful of them.
Take care everyone, thanks for hearing me out.

Well that is a nothing answer. Stepping on a bug today could have consequences in certain period of time as well.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
So what exactly are you recommending? What are you asking anyone here to do?

One should introduce legislation that would require theater owners to allow carry.

Opponent would say that this is an infringement of property rights.

One could use the same arguments about a ban of carry in theaters as well, right? (after all, the argument is about the land owners having the power to make these decisions w/o government interference)

This would paint the legislature into a corner because you cannot have it both ways.

I imagine that legislation will be proposed .. useless and dangerous bills that would, if enacted, result in the use of chemical weapons and cause greater deaths.
 
Top