Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: CCW Class with a postive on OCing

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    I attended the first half of a ccw class at Cabelas last night instructed by Larry Corriea (spelling might be wrong) who is the owner of FBMG.

    He did a wonderful job on the instruction. He covered OCing and said that is was completly legal, and said that everyone in that classroom could do it. He even told us the difference on how things are when you have a concealed permit and decided to open carry.

    He did mention somethings that still have me curious. I didn't have the oppurtunity to talk to him after class and get some clarification.

    He said that anyone who allows the public to come into therebuilding or whatever must allow guns. It is discrimination if they don't. And he said that we are perfectly legal to have a gun in any mall or anywhere there is public access. We would have a good law suit if they were to turn us away for just having a gun.

    Is that completly true? Has anyone won a lawsuit in that nature?

    Another thing that he said was about University of Utah. He made it seem that is was now okay to carry on campus.

    Have we won that battle too?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    rocknsnow wrote:
    Another thing that he said was about University of Utah. He made it seem that is was now okay to carry on campus.

    Have we won that battle too?
    AFAIK, the battle to allow concealed carry has been won, but the open carry battle is ongoing.

  3. #3
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Larry Correia and I had a great converstaion about open carry last week. As far as a private business goes, I am sure that they can discriminate against gun carriers if they want to. While it is perfectly legal to carry in one of these places, the may still ask us to leave. Thats where the legal part comes in. If you refuse to leave after being asked, you may be charged with tresspassing.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    That is awesome that we have won the concealed battle. Now to work on the open carry.

    Now Larry made it sound like we could call it discrimination if they asked us to leave. I wonder it that would work.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Clayton, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    rocknsnow wrote:
    That is awesome that we have won the concealed battle. Now to work on the open carry.

    Now Larry made it sound like we could call it discrimination if they asked us to leave. I wonder it that would work.
    Larry is dreaming. The property owner can order you to leave, his private property rights don't cease when a guy carrying a gun shows up.

    With respect to discrimination he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Gun owners, people that carry guns or just like guns ARE NOT A PROTECTED CLASS under any Federal discrimination law. State laws for the most part mirror Federal laws when it comes to discrimination.

    If a property owner litigated to establish or defend his right to ban all guns in his store, and took it fair enough (Federal Appeals court 9 Th Circuit) he would ultimately win (and should). Our rights don't trump the property owners.

    Probably the onlysituation where successfullitigation (concerning discrimination)could resultwould be if you had a group from Pink Pistols ejected from the store, on the basis of their sexual preference.Even then it would have to be established that the ejection was due to the plaintiffs sexual preference.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    jack wrote:
    If a property owner litigated to establish or defend his right to ban all guns in his store, and took it fair enough (Federal Appeals court 9 Th Circuit) he would ultimately win (and should). Our rights don't trump the property owners.
    This is my understanding as well. (BTW, in Utah it's the 10th circuit -- the 9th is everything west of UT).

    One tack that I'd like to see taken is for relatives of shooting victims where guns were banned to sue the institutions. VA Tech, Trolley Square, etc.

    If a property owner wants to ban firearms that's their prerogative, but since they're denying people the ability to defend themselves, they are implicitly accepting responsibility to protect them. If they then make no effort whatsoever to discharge that responsibility, they're negligent and deserve part of the liability.

    If they want to install metal detectors and keep armed guards on staff, then they can disarm patrons without incurring liability.

    Get that legal precedent established and watch all the "Firearms Prohibited" signs disappear overnight.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Clayton, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    jack wrote:
    If a property owner litigated to establish or defend his right to ban all guns in his store, and took it fair enough (Federal Appeals court 9 Th Circuit) he would ultimately win (and should). Our rights don't trump the property owners.
    This is my understanding as well. (BTW, in Utah it's the 10th circuit -- the 9th is everything west of UT).

    One tack that I'd like to see taken is for relatives of shooting victims where guns were banned to sue the institutions. VA Tech, Trolley Square, etc.

    If a property owner wants to ban firearms that's their prerogative, but since they're denying people the ability to defend themselves, they are implicitly accepting responsibility to protect them. If they then make no effort whatsoever to discharge that responsibility, they're negligent and deserve part of the liability.

    If they want to install metal detectors and keep armed guards on staff, then they can disarm patrons without incurring liability.

    Get that legal precedent established and watch all the "Firearms Prohibited" signs disappear overnight.
    Your right it is the 10th circuit which is good because the 9th. circuit is .

    What you suggest would be an interesting case to take to trial. The thought came to my mind when watching the VA. tech shooting live on TV. You hear shots going off inside as the police surround the building setting a perimeter, and you think about those bumper stickers that say: A trooper is our best protection. No thanks I'll keep my Sig.

    Recently I look my two year old niece to Diary Queen and this lady asked if I'm a police officer. Upon hearing no, she went into why I shouldn't be carrying "that around like that after what happened at Virginia Tech, it scares people".

    I replied see that bridgedown the street, last week some idiot grabbed a kid just about my niece's age and tossed him off a bridge just like that one. The police were there to arrest him within minutes. Someone walks in here and grabs my niece and they won't leave the building alive. What would you do if that happened ? Call 911 on your cell phone ?

    She replied,it is offensive to even think that way. :what:

    I said, killing someone to protect your kid or a mental case throwing your kid off a bridge ? She said, both !

    I said : I'm glad your not my mom !

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    jack wrote:
    I replied see that bridgedown the street, last week some idiot grabbed a kid just about my niece's age and tossed him off a bridge just like that one. The police were there to arrest him within minutes. Someone walks in here and grabs my niece and they won't leave the building alive. What would you do if that happened ? Call 911 on your cell phone ?
    I've found it helps -- not much, but a little -- to be a little more exact with your wording. In the event someone tried to grab your niece, your goal isn't to kill the BG, it's to stop him. Having the gun gives you the ability to prevent him from taking your niece. If he's dumb enough, and unlucky enough, he may die and that's unfortunate but better than him killing your niece. More than likely, though, the mere presence of your gun will stop anything bad from happening, either to your niece or to the fearful woman.

    It's likely that nothing you say could convince her, but saying the BG wouldn't leave alive probably doesn't help.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •