Which Would You Prefer?

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Since this thread started with a question about what you thinkthe law should be, not what it is, all this talk of licensing and laws on the books is not firm.

I don't believe in forcing business owners to get a license to persue happiness, any more than I think you need a license to own a gun or worship your deity.

Also, you are right about the word "fair" getting you laughed at in a courtroom, but I think it's interesting to discuss the meaning of the word and its relation to the concept of rights.

Click to expand...

Well, more of for a matter of opinion, since all three of these methods of handling firearms on private property exist today, but I agree that it's an interesting concept.

Basically, it all boils down to this -- and this is why the country is founded on property rights -- once you're on someone elses private property, your rights go away. You may not speak freely, your religious views are invalid, you may not bear arms, you may be searched at whim... Unless the property owner says otherwise.

However, and I think this is where it gets more interesting, let's assume the above scenario takes place in my house. Let's move it to a place of business... If some of those restrictions are placed on the customers, that can be protested by a boycott -- the business looses money and eventually shuts down. Once again, let's move the same argument to an academic environment... public pressure to allow the right to free speech and to stop invasive searches are all that can really be done.

So, since we're off on a different, but somewhat related, topic, how about thoughts to that respect in a business and academic environment?

imported post

expvideo wrote:

I support business's property rights, and respect their right to ask me to leave. However, I would preffer that there was signage on the door, so I could know in advance that they don't want my money,instead ofwasting a half an hour and having an uncomfortable conversation with the manager.

Click to expand...

I know where you're coming from exp... I think the only reservation in my mind and, perhaps, on the minds of other people is, if a store owner who's not, themselves, a gun enthusiust hears about the law, he may simply rush out and get the signs.

Whereas, the people who take more of an activist approach might rather see no sign so they have the chance to get in there, maybe talk with the manager if an issue arose and tried to educate them instead of making uninformed decisions.

imported post

Wynder wrote:

expvideo wrote:

I support business's property rights, and respect their right to ask me to leave. However, I would preffer that there was signage on the door, so I could know in advance that they don't want my money,instead ofwasting a half an hour and having an uncomfortable conversation with the manager.

Click to expand...

I know where you're coming from exp... I think the only reservation in my mind and, perhaps, on the minds of other people is, if a store owner who's not, themselves, a gun enthusiust hears about the law, he may simply rush out and get the signs.

Whereas, the people who take more of an activist approach might rather see no sign so they have the chance to get in there, maybe talk with the manager if an issue arose and tried to educate them instead of making uninformed decisions.

Click to expand...

I can understand that take on it as well. I suppose from an activist standpoint it's probably better that they don't have signs. But for a regular gun-carrying guy who doesn't support businesses that don't support the 2nd amendment, the signs would be convenient.

imported post

I am not really for the signs being posted other than to let me know which businesses to not patronize. However, if signs are to be posted banning the carring og weapons in that business, then there should be a guideline on the signs to set requirements as to size and where they are to be posted. This past week I was in Jacks Beach, FL. where if a place is posted and you carry anyway you can be prosecuted. Well I went to a movie. Looked real hard on the way in for a sign banning guns. Could not see it. On the way out I gave another look just to make sure. About knee high for me (eye level for all the small kids that CC) was a sign on the inside of the glass and the no guns part took up about 1 sq inch. Oh, did I mention that the glass had that sun reflective quality to it so you would have to be on your knees pretty much with your face on the glass looking in.

imported post

sccrref wrote:

I am not really for the signs being posted other than to let me know which businesses to not patronize. However, if signs are to be posted banning the carring og weapons in that business, then there should be a guideline on the signs to set requirements as to size and where they are to be posted. This past week I was in Jacks Beach, FL. where if a place is posted and you carry anyway you can be prosecuted. Well I went to a movie. Looked real hard on the way in for a sign banning guns. Could not see it. On the way out I gave another look just to make sure. About knee high for me (eye level for all the small kids that CC) was a sign on the inside of the glass and the no guns part took up about 1 sq inch. Oh, did I mention that the glass had that sun reflective quality to it so you would have to be on your knees pretty much with your face on the glass looking in.

Click to expand...

SC sign regulations
Have to go by this because I don't think I have ever seen one.
SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.
(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:
(1) clearly visible from outside the building;
(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;
(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;
(5) a diameter of a circle; and
(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.
(C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained in subsection (A) must be:
(1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;
(2) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black three- inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two inches wide;
(4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;
(5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.




The part I like about this is there is no confusion. If they post and you carry any way the Wally World greeter just calls the police and they haul you to jail. If they aren't posted then if the greeter stops you then you call the police and have him arrested for harassment. No argument about corporate guidelines or 2A rights. If you want to discuss 2A rights you can do that with the judge.

imported post

A business/property owner has the right to put up any sign they wish, in my opinion... but them putting up a sign should notconstitute a law.

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" is similar... it simply means that they reserve the right to not welcome your business. If they want you to leave the property, they should have to ask you to leave on a case-by-case basis... like any other person.





If no-carry signs are legally enforceable... so should be a sign which says "Democrats Prohibited"...

imported post

molonlabetn wrote:

A business/property owner has the right to put up any sign they wish, in my opinion... but them putting up a sign should notconstitute a law.

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" is similar... it simply means that they reserve the right to not welcome your business. If they want you to leave the property, they should have to ask you to leave on a case-by-case basis... like any other person.

Click to expand...

Actually in many places the No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service is law and controlled by the health department for inside dining. It is not just a request.

imported post

I prefer the sign in the parking lot too, so you can make your decision BEFORE exiting the car and not tellegraph that there is a FREE gun in this car. Ace

imported post

Statistically, lawyers file more lawsuits against businesses, so how about a no lawyer sign that your insurance company won't cover you if you don't have.:celebrate Ace

imported post

I voted yes only becuase that will tell me that I need to take my buisness elsewhere!!