• 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.

The Showbox

4

.45ballers

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
imported post

heresolong wrote:
.45ballers wrote:
Interesting reading hear, total lack of common scence and or good judgement. Of the poster of this thread. JMHO, The bouncer-ers might not have known nore understood the law about OC. But they shures the hell know about private property. They are hired to protect that venue. So you are saying that them doing thier job makes them bad or ignorant?
Click to expand...
Apparently they don't know about private property or they could have easily just said "Sorry, our policy is "no firearms". If you want to stay you have to leave it outside." Instead, based on the report, they copped an attitude and made stupid, ignorant, and wrong comments on state law. Then they treated him like dirt. Now maybe his report isn't totally accurate but based on what he has told us, they were being ignorant jerks.
Click to expand...
Excelent point, Im not defending the bounce-ers. Nor Am I defending the poster. Obviously buttons where pushed, and by the posters account. He pushed thier buttons for his own, "shits and giggles". If they dont know the law, and they are hired to protect the venue. Makes the stupid, or jerks? I doubt it, Hopefully they understand that OC is legal in the state of WA as of a result of the poster. To that I say good job. But the way it was all carried out was stupid. Simple education and information is all that is needed.

Do you allow open carry here in this private venue? Ok then I will leave and take my buisness elswhere.
 
S

ScorpioMk

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
68
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

.45ballers wrote:
heresolong wrote:
.45ballers wrote:
Interesting reading hear, total lack of common scence and or good judgement. Of the poster of this thread. JMHO, The bouncer-ers might not have known nore understood the law about OC. But they shures the hell know about private property. They are hired to protect that venue. So you are saying that them doing thier job makes them bad or ignorant?
Click to expand...
Apparently they don't know about private property or they could have easily just said "Sorry, our policy is "no firearms". If you want to stay you have to leave it outside." Instead, based on the report, they copped an attitude and made stupid, ignorant, and wrong comments on state law. Then they treated him like dirt. Now maybe his report isn't totally accurate but based on what he has told us, they were being ignorant jerks.
Click to expand...
Excelent point, Im not defending the bounce-ers. Nor Am I defending the poster. Obviously buttons where pushed, and by the posters account. He pushed thier buttons for his own, "shits and giggles". If they dont know the law, and they are hired to protect the venue. Makes the stupid, or jerks? I doubt it, Hopefully they understand that OC is legal in the state of WA as of a result of the poster. To that I say good job. But the way it was all carried out was stupid. Simple education and information is all that is needed.

Do you allow open carry here in this private venue? Ok then I will leave and take my buisness elswhere.
Click to expand...



I really wasnt trying to cause problems, and he seemed very cool at first when I asked, but it was just very serious sarcasm on his part that wasnt said sarcastically. I walked away after I told him that I disagree with his take on the law, and he took it up a notch when he called other bouncers outside to watch me, and further lecture me about the 'law'. If it hadnt gone any farther after that I wouldnt have made this thread, but I was bothered and told to apologize and they wanted to kick me out. If I really had done something wrong they wouldnt have thought twice, they would have denied my entry or kicked me out shortly after. All I asked about was the firearms policy, he could have just said that the policy is no weapons allowed and that would have been all I needed to know. He brought up the law about alcohol being served and I wasnt rude about it, just told him he was in fact wrong about the law.



Marcus
 
4

.45ballers

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
imported post

I understand your point, though I might not agree with the way your post played out as it did. The confrontation I would have avoided myself. Those that are ignorant of the law are "always" going to be confrentational for the most part. Me personally would have had CCed. That part of seattle could go bad very quick. I would not feel safe leaving my weapon in the car..
 
E

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

.45ballers wrote:
Do you allow open carry here in this private venue? Ok then I will leave and take my buisness elswhere.
Click to expand...
Yeah, good luck with that. As I said before, there aren't any venues that allow firearms. If you want to pack a gun and see a musical performance in Seattle, you are SOL. There is nowhere else to take your business.
 
E

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Expvideo, What happened to the attitude you used to have about private property owners and respecting thier rights? It seems like you made a complete turnaround in this thread from what you have said before. Bear with me as I am not trying to be an a$$ but merely wondering if something happened recently that made you change your mind.

I don't think we should be looking for ways to deny someone their propertyrights. If the mall doesn't want me carrying a gun, I will respect their wishes and shop elsewhere. It's not the law, but it is their property, and they have a right to set certain guidelines of conduct.

I thought we were pro-rights here? But rather, we are trying to find some "loophole" in the law to deny the mall theirproperty rights.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Honestly... Yes, my opinion has changed. Here's my new stance:

If you have a no-gun sign, I will be respectful enough to cover it up so you can't see it. If you have a competitor that doesn't have a no-gun sign, I'll spend my money with them. If not, well, concealed means concealed.

Yeah. It's not how I want to be feeling on the situation, but when it comes to the Showbox, I'm not going to leave my gun in the car to be stolen, and I'm not hanging out at 1st and Pike unarmed. And since there is nowhere else to take my business that doesn't have the same policy, I don't really give a rat's ass about how they feel about my carrying a gun. I don't really think that whether there's a gun under my shirt is any of your business, and I don't really think that it has anything to do with property rights. Either you allow me on your property or not. Whether I carry a gun onto your property is neither your business, nor your "right" as a property owner.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

expvideo wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Expvideo, What happened to the attitude you used to have about private property owners and respecting thier rights? It seems like you made a complete turnaround in this thread from what you have said before. Bear with me as I am not trying to be an a$$ but merely wondering if something happened recently that made you change your mind.

I don't think we should be looking for ways to deny someone their propertyrights. If the mall doesn't want me carrying a gun, I will respect their wishes and shop elsewhere. It's not the law, but it is their property, and they have a right to set certain guidelines of conduct.

I thought we were pro-rights here? But rather, we are trying to find some "loophole" in the law to deny the mall theirproperty rights.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Honestly... Yes, my opinion has changed. Here's my new stance:

If you have a no-gun sign, I will be respectful enough to cover it up so you can't see it. If you have a competitor that doesn't have a no-gun sign, I'll spend my money with them. If not, well, concealed means concealed.

Yeah. It's not how I want to be feeling on the situation, but when it comes to the Showbox, I'm not going to leave my gun in the car to be stolen, and I'm not hanging out at 1st and Pike unarmed. And since there is nowhere else to take my business that doesn't have the same policy, I don't really give a rat's ass about how they feel about my carrying a gun. I don't really think that whether there's a gun under my shirt is any of your business, and I don't really think that it has anything to do with property rights. Either you allow me on your property or not. Whether I carry a gun onto your property is neither your business, nor your "right" as a property owner.
Click to expand...
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact that is exactly the way I feel. It is no one elses business that I have a concealed gun, just like it is no one's business what color my underwear are.
 
Johnny Law

Johnny Law

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
462
Location
Puget Sound, ,
imported post

joeroket wrote:
expvideo wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Expvideo, What happened to the attitude you used to have about private property owners and respecting thier rights? It seems like you made a complete turnaround in this thread from what you have said before. Bear with me as I am not trying to be an a$$ but merely wondering if something happened recently that made you change your mind.

I don't think we should be looking for ways to deny someone their propertyrights. If the mall doesn't want me carrying a gun, I will respect their wishes and shop elsewhere. It's not the law, but it is their property, and they have a right to set certain guidelines of conduct.

I thought we were pro-rights here? But rather, we are trying to find some "loophole" in the law to deny the mall theirproperty rights.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Honestly... Yes, my opinion has changed. Here's my new stance:

If you have a no-gun sign, I will be respectful enough to cover it up so you can't see it. If you have a competitor that doesn't have a no-gun sign, I'll spend my money with them. If not, well, concealed means concealed.

Yeah. It's not how I want to be feeling on the situation, but when it comes to the Showbox, I'm not going to leave my gun in the car to be stolen, and I'm not hanging out at 1st and Pike unarmed. And since there is nowhere else to take my business that doesn't have the same policy, I don't really give a rat's ass about how they feel about my carrying a gun. I don't really think that whether there's a gun under my shirt is any of your business, and I don't really think that it has anything to do with property rights. Either you allow me on your property or not. Whether I carry a gun onto your property is neither your business, nor your "right" as a property owner.
Click to expand...
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact that is exactly the way I feel. It is no one elses business that I have a concealed gun, just like it is no one's business what color my underwear are.
Click to expand...
So how does this line of thinking fit in with the "do not patronize" list. Do they get put on the list and then you make an exception andgo against their company policy?
It's the old hypocritical "my rights are more important than your rights" argument again. When people speak of their rights being trampled upon, this is exactly what is happening to the business owners. It's true they don't need to know, but what about respecting other's rights?
 
E

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

Where is this concept of them having a "right" to force me to disarm on their property coming from? They don't have a "right" to tell me that I have to wear breifs instead of boxers. They don't have a right to tell me that I can't have a hidden tattoo. They don't have a right to tell me that I can't have a hidden gun either.

I'm sick of hearing that it is the property owner's "right". I'm so sick of it in fact, that I want you to pull up a source on this so-called right, or stop reffering to it.
 
T

thewise1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
383
Location
Moscow, ID
imported post

expvideo wrote:
Where is this concept of them having a "right" to force me to disarm on their property coming from? They don't have a "right" to tell me that I have to wear breifs instead of boxers. They don't have a right to tell me that I can't have a hidden tattoo. They don't have a right to tell me that I can't have a hidden gun either.

I'm sick of hearing that it is the property owner's "right". I'm so sick of it in fact, that I want you to pull up a source on this so-called right, or stop reffering to it.
Click to expand...
First off, even thought our earlier exchange might have seemed slightly antagonistic, I don't mean this in such a manner at all.

That said, would you agree that property owners should have the right to kick you off their property at will?

If so, then it follows that they have the right to tell you to either not come on their property, or leave the gun at home. I don't see any injustice here whatsoever.
 
Johnny Law

Johnny Law

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
462
Location
Puget Sound, ,
imported post

thewise1 wrote:
expvideo wrote:
Where is this concept of them having a "right" to force me to disarm on their property coming from? They don't have a "right" to tell me that I have to wear breifs instead of boxers. They don't have a right to tell me that I can't have a hidden tattoo. They don't have a right to tell me that I can't have a hidden gun either.

I'm sick of hearing that it is the property owner's "right". I'm so sick of it in fact, that I want you to pull up a source on this so-called right, or stop reffering to it.
Click to expand...
First off, even thought our earlier exchange might have seemed slightly antagonistic, I don't mean this in such a manner at all.

That said, would you agree that property owners should have the right to kick you off their property at will?

If so, then it follows that they have the right to tell you to either not come on their property, or leave the gun at home. I don't see any injustice here whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Expvideo,

A property or business owner does not have the right to force you to do anything. They can however dictate what you can or cannot bring onto THEIR property. They can also dictate how you conduct yourself while there.

You certainly may refuse to comply, and the penalty is you will not be allowed on the property, or will be asked to leave (to which you must comply).

The person in question certainly has the choice of complying and entering the business, or refusing to comply, and being denied access.

Remember, this applies to your house the same way it does to a business. Lets say a friend brings a pet snake over, and into your house. You despise snakes, and tell him to take it out. Should his right to own/carry a pet snake trump your right to say who and what comes into your house? It's the same thing...... private property.

Or how about this. He knows you hate snakes, so he hides it in his backpack and brings it into your house anyway. Would you be pissed if/when you found out he knowingly went against your wishes and did what the hell he wanted to do anyway? Most people would feel disrespected at the least.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Johnny, I will comply with thier verbal request without a doubt but until that time I will carry on thier premises. I am sure that most businesses that do not allow firearms as policy do not have an exemtion, like state law does, for LEO. I am also certain that if they asked you if you were LEO and you replied that you were they would have no problem with you on thier premises with your firearm. It's kind of a double standard because, as I am sure you are aware of, there are many LEO that are severly undertrained in the use of a firearm but because they are LEO it is an allowable to carry in a business that says no firearms.

This being said I think LEO should be able to carry regardless of where they are at because they do enforce the law and if needed I am sure 99% would get involved in a situation that may require lethal force off duty. I do not agree with the exemtions for LEO that only allow them to carry while on duty or conducting official business. To me there is no difference if you are on or off duty as far as weapon carry goes.
 
4

.45ballers

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
imported post

expvideo wrote:
.45ballers wrote:
Do you allow open carry here in this private venue? Ok then I will leave and take my buisness elswhere.
Click to expand...
Yeah, good luck with that. As I said before, there aren't any venues that allow firearms. If you want to pack a gun and see a musical performance in Seattle, you are SOL. There is nowhere else to take your business.
Click to expand...
That was my point, CC and keep quiet sometimes works for the best..
 
E

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
thewise1 wrote:
expvideo wrote:
Where is this concept of them having a "right" to force me to disarm on their property coming from? They don't have a "right" to tell me that I have to wear breifs instead of boxers. They don't have a right to tell me that I can't have a hidden tattoo. They don't have a right to tell me that I can't have a hidden gun either.

I'm sick of hearing that it is the property owner's "right". I'm so sick of it in fact, that I want you to pull up a source on this so-called right, or stop reffering to it.
Click to expand...
First off, even thought our earlier exchange might have seemed slightly antagonistic, I don't mean this in such a manner at all.

That said, would you agree that property owners should have the right to kick you off their property at will?

If so, then it follows that they have the right to tell you to either not come on their property, or leave the gun at home. I don't see any injustice here whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Expvideo,

A property or business owner does not have the right to force you to do anything. They can however dictate what you can or cannot bring onto THEIR property. They can also dictate how you conduct yourself while there.

You certainly may refuse to comply, and the penalty is you will not be allowed on the property, or will be asked to leave (to which you must comply).

The person in question certainly has the choice of complying and entering the business, or refusing to comply, and being denied access.

Remember, this applies to your house the same way it does to a business. Lets say a friend brings a pet snake over, and into your house. You despise snakes, and tell him to take it out. Should his right to own/carry a pet snake trump your right to say who and what comes into your house? It's the same thing...... private property.

Or how about this. He knows you hate snakes, so he hides it in his backpack and brings it into your house anyway. Would you be pissed if/when you found out he knowingly went against your wishes and did what the hell he wanted to do anyway? Most people would feel disrespected at the least.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree that they can ask me to leave their property, or to not display a gun in the first place. I don't, however, agree that they can tell me I can't carry it. I can't do the same at my own home either. I have no right to not be exposed to snakes. I don't remember anything in the bill of rights protecting my right to not be exposed to snakes. I agree that I may be upset if I find out that he has a snake in his backpack, but I also don't have a constitutionally protectedright to never be upset. And frankly, I don't give two sh**s if I hurt some business owner's feelings by carrying my gun and hiding the fact from him. If he finds out about it, he can deffinately ask me to leave and I will have to comply, because it is his property. But just because it's his property doesn't mean he can tell me what color underwear to wear, or whether or not I can carry a gun. He can only tell me whether or not I'm allowed there. And a sign saying "No Guns" is not the same thing as asking me to leave. It's a request that I can either comply with or face the possibility of being kicked out.
 
thebastidge

thebastidge

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
313
Location
2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, US
imported post

Show me in the Constitution or bill of rights where it says you have to watch live music at the Showbox. It really doesn't matter if there is no other venue which allows it or not. The implied contract of patronizing an establishment is abiding by their rules and other common social conventions.

Really, this is asinine. If you don't want to cmoply with their policies, then don't patronize their establishment. If it's not convenient for you, then too bad. You have to decide whether your convenience or yourprinciples aremore important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top