Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Ways to make clear the disadvantage of disarming people

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

    Post imported post

    I've been thinking a little about how to deal with establishments that decide to prohibit weapons.

    The problem as I see it is that when, say, a mall security guard asks an OCer to put her weapon in the car, it's likely that the incident doesn't even get reported to upper management. The guard's boss will hear about it, and it get one step above that, but as long as the OCer is polite (as she should be), then there's no reason to report it all the way up to the policy level. Further, even if it does get reported, the incident will seem to have had a fully positive outcome.

    Here a are a couple of ideas I have about how to push the issue further up the management chain, without putting the OCer in any kind of antagonistic position.

    First, just to increase the impact of the prohibition on the mall staff, but in a reasonable and arguably positive way, I think the OCer should request that she be accompanied by the guard to and from her vehicle, around the mall and finally back to her vehicle, until she can rearm. Since the mall is refusing to allow her to protect herself, she requests that the mall security do the job (ignoring for the moment that mall security is untrained and unarmed). Tying down one of the handful of mall security personnel for 45 minutes or so is more likely to get the attention of management, and while the OCer's rationale for requesting such service will cause some eye rolling, it's not totally unreasonable.

    Second, I suggest that we make up a simple one-page "protection contract" that makes the undersigned legally liable for the protection of the disarmed OCer. Then, the OCer should ask the security guard to sign it on behalf of the mall ownership. He will refuse, of course, which gives the OCer an opportunity to escalate the issue. The argument, of course, is that since the ownership is disarming the OCer, they are implicitly accepting responsibility for her safety, and she would like that responsibility made explicit. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will sign the contract, but the OCer should escalate as far as reasonably possible, and leave the unsigned document in the hands of the highest level of management that she reaches.

    Of course, in the OCer should be unfailingly polite and positive throughout the whole encounter and if at any time she is asked to leave she should comply immediately -- requesting escort to her vehicle and leaving the contract.

    Thoughts? Is this pushing too hard? The goal is to get the management thinking about the possibility that they may be increasing their liability by disarming their patrons, and also to make the point that some of their patrons take the issue very seriously.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    SNIP I've been thinking a little about how to deal with establishments that decide to prohibit weapons.
    Interesting line of thinking, but I don't think it will have the result we want. Its just antagonizing. We want something that applies pressure.

    Your thread title does lead to some other thoughts.

    1) Get news clippings on the mall shootings and so forth. Make copies. Send them with your letter asking the mall to reconsider its position in regard to law-abiding citizens.

    2) Drop hints in your letter that if there is ever a violent crime, especially a massacre sort of thing, you'll make sure to tell the press that the business disarmed its customers setting the stage for the death drama. Clip and copy any news clippings that reported that on a previous shooting.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    There are some very good ideas here. I feel that both of you are right in your ideas. One is using the pen, and we know that it can be very effect. But I am not a writer and would prefer to have a more hands on experience.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    The single most effective way to apply pressure is economically. A few years back Blockbuster posted "No Gun" signs very visibly in their stores here in Utah. The pro-RKBA groups got the word out and the stores started getting cut up membership cards in the mail. A peaceful picket/protest was planned.

    The signs came down quickly as it was clear the issue WAS going to affect their bottom line.

    If we can do likewise with the malls, we will easily change their policies. If we can't, nothing else will matter. AND our lack of ability to rally popular support will also speak volumes of our odds of winning any kind of a sizable award from a jury should anyone ever be injured in a mall shooting.

    Unfortunately, we have such good concealed laws that MOST of those who feel strongly about RKBA have long since acquired permits, KNOW that violating a private policy (excepting homes or churches) is NOT a crime, and so simply adopt a "concealed means concealed" attitude. Indeed, most of the relatively small number of establishments that will hassle you over OC will tell you (privately at least) that they have no way of knowing if you are CCing and don't really care. If it doesn't come to their attention, they aren't going to go looking.

    The other possible route is to push the legislature to change the law to prevent places of public accommodation from banning the legal possession of guns. That is tough nut to crack as it splits our traditional supporters in the GOP between their loyalties to RKBA and their loyalties to private property rights. In fact, many here are very adamant that we have no right to force others to allow us to carry on their property and we should just take our business elsewhere. I certainly respect that view, and in a perfectly libertarian world, would probably accept it. In our current world, I see little reason why RKBA should be the ONE civil right that is NOT afforded such protection.

    A first, admittedly small step in this direction might be Sen. Mark Madsen's SB 67 http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0067.htm which prevents employers from taking any employment action against you for having either a gun or religious items in your car in a company owned parking lot. In brief, it is the legislative solution to the AOL decision. It is worth our support. Please contact your own State legislator and the governor asking for support on this one.

    LIFE must trump property.

    Finally, maybe I just don't get out as much as some, but I've NEVER been asked to leave a store or even to take my firearm to the car. Or maybe demeanor, dress, comportment, age, etc, all play a role in how an OC firearm is perceived.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    LIFE must trump property.
    Good point.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    I certainly agree that life trumps property rights!

    However, does the question even need to go to that level? Why isn't it a winning argument that the company's ownership of the parking lot does not extend to the interior of my car?

  7. #7
    Regular Member colormered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cache county, Utah, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    In this thread, there have been two methods discussed for dealing with businesses that would disarm their customers for whatever reason, each with its advantages and disadvantages.

    The situation can be addressed legislatively, wherein by law, businesses that are open to the public could not restrict legally carried firearms (the illegally carried ones are already restricted by law, and we all see how well THAT one is working...). The advantage being instant application statewide; and the disadvantage being the delay in getting such legislation passed in the first place.

    The situation can also be addressed economically, where the management is informed that, due to the restrictive nature of their policy, we, individually and collectively, will respect their right to establish a(n unfair) policy, by taking our individual and collective business elsewhere. The folks in Ohio came up with a pretty clever little card, link provided below, that is handed to the management of businesses that choose to prohibit firearms on their premises. If someone with a knack for graphic design could adapt this or create from scratch something equivalent but with information relevant to Utah, it's possible we could start to have an impact on the bottom lines of these businesses. A wise man once said that if you want someone to understand your point, you have to put it in terms they will understand. When it threatens their bottom line, you have their attention. Here, the disadvantage is that businesses are addressed in comparatively small numbers; but the advantage is that the cards could be created and available in a considerably shorter timespan.

    Here is the link to the card used in Ohio -

    https://secure.ohioccw.org/catalog/p...roducts_id=111

    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Desktop/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/img]The best part is that these two approaches to this situation are not mutually exclusive. We can work both sides of the street, as it were.

    Carry on.

    Mark
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Would this work...

    I could format it as a .pdf file with 10 business card sized images of the front half on one sheet, and then another sheet of the back size for easy printing.

    I could also format it as a tent card.

    Let me know if anyone is interested or simply wants to tweak it.








    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #9
    Regular Member colormered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cache county, Utah, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    I was wondering if the wording might be changed from sign to sign/policy to include those who don't post signs, but rather just ask you to leave/put your gun in the car.

    Also, to change the word turpide to turpitude.

    I also wondered if it would be beneficial to include a number representing how many CCW permit holders would be made aware of their unfriendly policy, reinforcing to the business how many customers they are offending.....

    One more thing. I might suggest changing the line that says Have passed an FBI criminal background check to read Have passed an FBI criminal background check daily - given that ANY violation automatically suspends the permit, and, carrying your gun under those conditions is against the law.

    Just my nickel's worth of two cents....

    Mark

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Good catch on that one... forgot to spell check it.



    Here is the Front side of the card...




    Here is the Back side of the card...




    Thoughts / suggestions??



    Click here for a link to a .pdf file that contains these cards formated with 10 business cards to a page (front and back).




  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    I really like that card. The bit about the database should help to ensure it gets passed up the management chain. It's probabably a good idea to mention the database verbally when handing out the card, just to make sure they don't miss that part.

    One downside of the card is that is implies that we should be allowed to carry because we have a CFP.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    ATVjunkie wrote:
    Would this work...

    I could format it as a .pdf file with 10 business card sized images of the front half on one sheet, and then another sheet of the back size for easy printing.

    I could also format it as a tent card.

    Let me know if anyone is interested or simply wants to tweak it.







    cool idea.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    really nice idea....

    I like it

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    :?

  15. #15
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    That's awesome.
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    33itmefs wrote:
    ATVjunkie wrote:
    Good catch on that one... forgot to spell check it.



    Here is the Front side of the card...




    Here is the Back side of the card...




    Thoughts / suggestions??



    Click here for a link to a .pdf file that contains these cards formated with 10 business cards to a page (front and back).


    VERY cool brotha, you dont mind if I use your idea on places that "dont want my business" either, do you?
    I dont think its a bad idea. i supposed after thinking about ti though , over night, an establishemnt such as a Walmart or a Sams, would more than likley just shrugg it off. Chalk it up to: "We'll we got millions of loyals..." I dunno. Thats another problem with offset power to retail-location ratios Walmarts are operating on, for example. Wow, run-on sentance-much.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Murray, ,
    Posts
    99

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:

    2) Drop hints in your letter that if there is ever a violent crime, especially a massacre sort of thing, you'll make sure to tell the press that the business disarmed its customers setting the stage for the death drama. Clip and copy any news clippings that reported that on a previous shooting.
    I can see that getting flipped around by the media and management....."Open carry advocates threatening a mass mall shooting if they aren't allowed to carry in mall....more at ten"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    Sounds like we should sit in a dark room then. being sure not to scare anyone or allowing themselves to understand their basic constitutional rights...

    ...Since where are following the logic of, "I want to be perfect, so I won't move" theory: lets all move to Europe where the only ppl that have guns ARE the criminals. How's that workin' out for them?

    Whos worse: The people who know/use their basic rights or the ones that shun you (one) for them? Who cares if people get scared? REALLY. Its their ignorance manifesting physiologically. We don't have any remorse for murderers, rapist, and/or any other behavior that isn't legal. Oh, but NOW it (ones actions) can't just be legal, they hve to socially acceptable? Wow. I don't remember reading that int he constitution, but we are attempting to enforce it.

    "Tonight we investigate why society has forgotten how this country was founded...more at ten"

    Except we all know that in this scenario, when one is about to become educated in a/the light they aren't accustomed/seeking to be: the WILL change the channel to something a little easier to rationalize, say: "American idol" ??

    Okay - I'm done, not makin' any sense anyway...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Murray, ,
    Posts
    99

    Post imported post

    ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
    Sounds like we should sit in a dark room then. being sure not to scare anyone or allowing themselves to understand their basic constitutional rights...

    ...Since where are following the logic of, "I want to be perfect, so I won't move" theory: lets all move to Europe where the only ppl that have guns ARE the criminals. How's that workin' out for them?

    Whos worse: The people who know/use their basic rights or the ones that shun you (one) for them? Who cares if people get scared? REALLY. Its their ignorance manifesting physiologically. We don't have any remorse for murderers, rapist, and/or any other behavior that isn't legal. Oh, but NOW it (ones actions) can't just be legal, they hve to socially acceptable? Wow. I don't remember reading that int he constitution, but we are attempting to enforce it.

    "Tonight we investigate why society has forgotten how this country was founded...more at ten"

    Except we all know that in this scenario, when one is about to become educated in a/the light they aren't accustomed/seeking to be: the WILL change the channel to something a little easier to rationalize, say: "American idol" ??

    Okay - I'm done, not makin' any sense anyway...
    You get enough sleep last night...that post was all over the place :P I have ADD and I couldn't follow that line of thinking :what:

    So I'm not sure if that was directed at me....if it was, you really have to pick your battles. Especially when dealing with the media and making any sort of reference to mass killings when you are a supporter of guns. They're worse than women when it comes to contorting, twisting and picking out your words to make it sound like you're saying the exact opposite of what you originally intended.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    GenkiSudo wrote:
    ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
    Sounds like we should sit in a dark room then. being sure not to scare anyone or allowing themselves to understand their basic constitutional rights...

    ...Since where are following the logic of, "I want to be perfect, so I won't move" theory: lets all move to Europe where the only ppl that have guns ARE the criminals. How's that workin' out for them?

    Whos worse: The people who know/use their basic rights or the ones that shun you (one) for them? Who cares if people get scared? REALLY. Its their ignorance manifesting physiologically. We don't have any remorse for murderers, rapist, and/or any other behavior that isn't legal. Oh, but NOW it (ones actions) can't just be legal, they hve to socially acceptable? Wow. I don't remember reading that int he constitution, but we are attempting to enforce it.

    "Tonight we investigate why society has forgotten how this country was founded...more at ten"

    Except we all know that in this scenario, when one is about to become educated in a/the light they aren't accustomed/seeking to be: the WILL change the channel to something a little easier to rationalize, say: "American idol" ??

    Okay - I'm done, not makin' any sense anyway...
    You get enough sleep last night...that post was all over the place :P I have ADD and I couldn't follow that line of thinking :what:...
    Lol - Nah GenkiSudo, not directed @ you: I should'a had some coffee though, BEFORE attempting to make that point; agreed.

    I understand that the public is fragile. Sometimes I just want to make my points by gently shaking people by the shoulders, sometimes...but only sometimes.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    33itmefs wrote:
    ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
    Sounds like we should sit in a dark room then. being sure not to scare anyone or allowing themselves to understand their basic constitutional rights...

    ...Since where are following the logic of, "I want to be perfect, so I won't move" theory: lets all move to Europe where the only ppl that have guns ARE the criminals. How's that workin' out for them?

    Whos worse: The people who know/use their basic rights or the ones that shun you (one) for them? Who cares if people get scared? REALLY. Its their ignorance manifesting physiologically. We don't have any remorse for murderers, rapist, and/or any other behavior that isn't legal. Oh, but NOW it (ones actions) can't just be legal, they hve to socially acceptable? Wow. I don't remember reading that int he constitution, but we are attempting to enforce it.

    "Tonight we investigate why society has forgotten how this country was founded...more at ten"

    Except we all know that in this scenario, when one is about to become educated in a/the light they aren't accustomed/seeking to be: the WILL change the channel to something a little easier to rationalize, say: "American idol" ??

    Okay - I'm done, not makin' any sense anyway...
    All Im gonna say, is youre gonna get it. Wait for it.....waitttt for it...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    268

    Post imported post


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    33itmefs wrote:
    right back at ya

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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