• 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.

asked not to carry

charlie12

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
545
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

JeepSeller wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
It's the poorest of manners to ask me in only to throw me out. To use or threaten force in the affront is simply intolerable.

Last I checked, manners were not spelled out bylegal statute. Please cite your source.

Shirt and shoeshave long since been accepted as "rules" for these establishments. They politely ask that you do not enter unless in compliance...in spite of their "invitation". You certainly have a right to go barefoot wouldn't you say? There's no laws that say you MUST wear shoes. But, a business has the right to require them and no one would argue that.

Asking, or "inviting" customers' to enter without weapons is no different. Yes, they've invited you, but, under their terms. No one would argue that simply because they "invited" you, that you could just help yourself to their possesions and walk out. As a GUEST of their property, you must act in accordance to the property owner's guidelines.

Just because I invite you into my home does not mean that I still cannot tell you to leave your muddy shoes outside. I still have the right to tell you to conduct yourself according to the rules of my home. You would not, for instance, be allowed to put your feet on my furnature, and it would be considered just plain rude of you and I would be well with in my right to tell you to leave and if you do not comply, I'd then be well within my rights to call the cops and have you forcibly removed.
How dare you try to talk sense tosomeone smokin whatever. :D
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
imported post

charlie12 wrote:
How dare you try to talk sense tosomeone smokin whatever. :D

Yea, I know. I just can't resist trying to help the helpless. :lol:



Besides...I thought we were being ignored by the trolls.....I guess not, huh? :quirky

It's a shame too, was nice and quiet there for a day or so when we could speak the truth without listening to the trolls crying about it for 10 pages..
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
imported post

I guess in the end, it boils down to the fact that I just don't understand why you'd want to do business in an establishment that doesn't want your business in the first place. It defy's logic. Particularly in this economy, if you don't want my money, there's someone down the street who does. I'm not saying that's what the OP did in this case. I think they handled themselves admirably in this scenario. But, some people just don't get it. Some people seem to WANT to be accosted trying to exercise their right.

Why would you even want to patronize an establishment that doesn't support our 2A rights? Wouldn't you rather support financially a place that supports our rights as opposed to restricting them?

And, if you're not in there to spend money, then why are you there? Walking into a place OC simply to get a rise and create a scene is no different than the frustrating trolls we're seeing as of late here who serve no purpose, contribute nothing, and only create a scene for their own amusement. Why be that troll in a business? What do you hope to accomplish? Certainly nothing by creating a scene and getting thrown out... you think you're calling attention to our cause? How do you think that your story is going to play on the 6 o'clock news? You think the reporters are going to report YOUR side or WalMarts? Think they're going to paint you as a hero or a whack-job? You honestly think an anti-gun fella is going to watch the TV and sit there and say "look at that poor gun toting guy there".... or you think that there going to sit there and say "Look at that gun toting crazy..that's why guns should be banned'? How do you propose to change that guys mind in that manner?

I've said it before..the only thing we accomplish when we represent our cause poorly is to facilitate those that wish to restrict us. We have to be ambassadors to our rights, and, only then can we hopefully turn the tide of public perception. Because, without public perception, we can't possibly turn the political AND business environment.
 

XD-GEM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
722
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Guys, I know some of you have a personal problem with smokin357, but if you can step back from that for just a moment and pretend he isn't the poster, you might notice that there is a subtle, but still valid point to the concern brought forward.

If I can make an admittedly imperfect analogy for a moment: there is a concept known as "attractive nuisance" whereby a property owner can be held liable for actions on his property which he neither authorized nor intended. It is frequently used in cases where children drown in someone's backyard pool, and so you may be familiar with it.

In somewhat, but admittedly not exactly, manner, any store which is open to the public may be presumed to allow for anything inside the store which would be acceptable in any public place outside of it - unless they have a well publicized prohibition against it. This is why most of the big shopping malls in this country have posted rules near their entrances and why some states have legally defined the means for prohibition of certain actions, like carrying firearms.

I have never seen any type of "no guns" sign on any Walmart I've ever been to; and the Walmart corporate policy has been a subject of much discussion on many gun boards (not just this one) for a VERY long time. In most instances on those boards, someone eventually posts a notice from someone in the Walmart management, higher than an individual store level, saying that it is company policy to follow the gun laws of the area.

This is why there is such conflict in a Walmart where the citizen patronizing the store believes he is in the right with regards to corporate policy. The thread in which we are currently discussing this is an example of good behavior by all parties (except the manager who apparently doesn't know Walmarts policy). This incident was handled well by the gun-owner and calling Walmart's 800 number may actually do some good, eventually, at this particular store. I have called this number and gotten a positive response from Walmart on other issues, so I would tend to think it's worth a try on this issue.
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
imported post

Excellent points and well presented XD-GEM. First of all, the problem with Smoking is not the fact that occasionally he may offer up a valid point, it's the fact that any point is lost in his condensending, insulting, offensive attitude and a history of inflamatory posts. Heenters a converstation being conducted in a completely civil, polite manner and immediately tosses in a comment completely unrelated, off topic and totally inflamatory then spends 10 or more pages nursing the conflict he creates. So, anything that he might say of any value gets lost in the mess.

I agree that if a business isn't posted or has a well known policy that we should all have the right to attempt to enter and continue the rights we enjoy on the street outside.

However, as a "guest" to that property, we have to comply with their "house" rules. And if the proprty owner, or it's representative, decide they no longer want you as a "guest" they have the right to change thier mind regarding thier "invitation".

Just becauseI "invited" you, doesn't mean you have free reign or any rights to my property. It's still my property. I can ask you to leave because I decided I don't like the hat you're wearing. The reason I ask you to leave is truly imaterial. It's my property, yea, I may have invited you, but, now I've changed my mind and I have the right to eject you from MY property. I don't see a business as any different.

The State of Florida allows all property owners to carrya firearmwithin their own property without any permit, because it's their "castle" or their home...right? The state also allows for a business owner to do the same because, in a sense, the state recognizes that business as an extension of the owner's "castle".

If I eject you from my castle, and ask LE to do it for me, your beef isn't with LE..but, with me. LE is doing their job and enforcing the owner's wishes regarding their property. At that point, it's not a question of legalaities, but, civil disagreement. LE has a duty to enforce the property owner's wishes regarding his property rights. Since asking a "guest" to leave isn't breaking any criminal code, LE must side with the property owner. If that same representative came onto YOUR property and called LE to remove you, LE would side with you, the property owner.

I've never said that WalMart handled this situation properly. IF they're violating coporate policy, it's not LE's fault. Not even WalMart's fault, but, the representative who asked the "guest" to leave via LE.

Edit: before anyone tossed it out there...it's been argued that a business owner couldn't revoke that "invitation" to a person of color..etc... THAT would be illegal and LE facilitating that request would also be illegal and unethical. Discrimination is illegal in this country. Asking an OCer' torepsecta property owner's wishes regarding weapons within theirpropertyis currently NOT illegal.

End of THAT particular argument.

I'm not advocating it all by the way...I personally feel we should be able to carry where ever, when ever, and how ever we choose. But, currently, that's not the case..and we can't change the tide of current laws by being poor ambassadors to our cause is my real point here.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

It never ceases to amaze me how some alleged OC'ers think. Maybe they don't.
I guess we can all follow Neville Chamberlain's lead and acquiesce and compromise our way right into bondage.
Or, we can stand up and refuse to be violated.

Which one do YOU choose?
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

XD-GEM wrote:
Guys, I know some of you have a personal problem with smokin357, but if you can step back from that for just a moment and pretend he isn't the poster, you might notice that there is a subtle, but still valid point to the concern brought forward.
Of course, I'm right, but the hateful few are on the other side of me and Right, and they cannot allow me to "win," and they cannot allow to be admitted any position but the suffocatingly authoritarian.

In their worldview, the individual is subordinate to all collective forces, commercial or government, and must be suppressed.

They'll hide behind faux complaints of "attitude," because they don't like individuality. They like groupthink, and they resent anyone who feels himself bigger than they. Such is the stuff of complete illogic, so such is our contry's sad composition.

The reality is that an invitation to a business is only analogous to an invitation to enter a house in but a few instances. Entry to a house not an invitation, but merely a license. Entry to a business is an invitation. These are weighty legal concepts that are crudely used by the untrained.

When we use police power to enforce the rules of conduct on private property, we have moved into fascism. It is a terrifying state to see the governmental power married to business need. We pay our taxes to kill ourselves? Nonsense. There is a civil remedy for trespass, and a business should be left with that, absent a greater threat. It's only recently that criminal trespass came to be a crime, and it should never be the case that armed governmental thugs roam store aisles looking to arrest people for violating corporate rules. America is dead in the sight of such tyranny.

Police must never be allowed to use their office for corporate aid, and any police officer who wishes to work as security in a private business must do so stripped of his uniform, his badge and all indicia or threat of state authority.

Are we for freedom and limited government, or are we all tyrants?
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
imported post

It's very elitist and self-centered of you to presume that your rights superceede anyone else's rights.

How does your rights trump the property owner's rights? Again, as a property owner, I have the right to restrict how you behave within my property. You're welcome to come in, but, you must comply with my "rules" or you will be asked to leave.

It's really simple as that. Your rights will never trump MY rights on MY property. Why I'm asking you to leave is imaterial. If I asked you to leave because you're putting your feet on my furnature orbehaving in a manner that is against my values,no one would fault me, right. You're only mad because that request to leave has to do with our right to carry. If you were being ejected because you were climbing on the rafters, you'd likely be less hostile about it. Climbing on the rafters is also not illegal and you have the right to risk your own life, but, not on my property.

What we're talking about is semantics here....change the reason you're being asked to leave and most would side with the store owner..but, because the reason is related to carry, for some reason everyone gets mad.

AGain, I believe that we should all be able to carry all the time..read my last post. But, I also support property rights equally. I don't pick and chose which rights to support and which ones to ignore simply because they are an inconvenience to me.


It's really very simple.
 

derf-fan-182

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
15
Location
, ,
imported post

JeepSeller wrote:
It's very elitist and self-centered of you to presume that your rights superceede anyone else's rights.

How does your rights trump the property owner's rights? Again, as a property owner, I have the right to restrict how you behave within my property. You're welcome to come in, but, you must comply with my "rules" or you will be asked to leave.

It's really simple as that. Your rights will never trump MY rights on MY property. Why I'm asking you to leave is imaterial. If I asked you to leave because you're putting your feet on my furnature orbehaving in a manner that is against my values,no one would fault me, right. You're only mad because that request to leave has to do with our right to carry. If you were being ejected because you were climbing on the rafters, you'd likely be less hostile about it. Climbing on the rafters is also not illegal and you have the right to risk your own life, but, not on my property.

What we're talking about is semantics here....change the reason you're being asked to leave and most would side with the store owner..but, because the reason is related to carry, for some reason everyone gets mad.

AGain, I believe that we should all be able to carry all the time..read my last post. But, I also support property rights equally. I don't pick and chose which rights to support and which ones to ignore simply because they are an inconvenience to me.


It's really very simple.
He's not presuming that his rights supersede anyone else's rights - I'm not reading that.

And I think you're way off base on your argument about YOUR rights on YOUR property. My rights as afforded me in the amendments to our constitution certainly are not somehow suspended when I step on to your property. Do my rights for freedom of speech (1A), protection from unreasonable search and seizure (4A), etc. not apply to me when I'm on your property? Certainly they apply.

Bottom line: YOUR rules do not trump MY rights EVEN if I'm on your property.
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
imported post

Kojak wrote:
He's not presuming that his rights supersede anyone else's rights - I'm not reading that.

And I think you're way off base on your argument about YOUR rights on YOUR property. My rights as afforded me in the amendments to our constitution certainly are not somehow suspended when I step on to your property. Do my rights for freedom of speech (1A), protection from unreasonable search and seizure (4A), etc. not apply to me when I'm on your property? Certainly they apply.

Bottom line: YOUR rules do not trump MY rights EVEN if I'm on your property.

Actually, 1A rights can and are superseded by property rights. For example, any rightful legal protest, while protected by 1A must always be off property. Even on forums such as these, your 1A rights can be supeseded. It happens all the time. are you saying that the administrators of this forum do not have the right to moderate threads or posts?

Also, 4A....employers often have the right and ability to search employees. Try to enter and exit any sensative establishment without it. Try to enter a prison without it...you won't get very far. Even the theme parks so popular here in Florida search your bags before entry. It's their property, yes, you're invited, but, again, you must comply with their rules governing your behavior while on their property.

Again, semantics. No one would fault Disney for ejecting a guest who breaks line at the attractions. Breaking line isn't illegal. Certainly, one could argue you have the right to get in the front of the line..it's just rude. But no one would question the right of the company to ask a guest to leave if they are being disruptive to their business. But, because this particular right of a property or business owner is an inconvenience to some, they wish to somehow ignore that particular right of the owner.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Sure hope that guy has SOME respect for my right to life while on HIS precious property.
Nope. His property, his rules. If his rules say that if you enter, he gets to kill you, well, you knowingly accepted those rules when you entered. You don't get to violate his rules when you're on his property.
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
imported post

We can go around and around here ad nauseum. IN the end, a property owner has the right to ask their guests to conduct themselves in accordance to the property owner's values. You may not agree with those values. But, they have the right to make the request. And if you do not comply with that request, they have the right to ask you to leave. If you do not comply with that request, you are now trespassing because your "invitation" has been removed. Trespassing now allows for LE to enforce the propety owner's wishes in having you removed.

There really is no argument that isn't semantics here.

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics all day long. Come up with some concrete factual arguments, and I'll respond.
 

jnmtwo

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
144
Location
St. Tammany Parish, LA, , USA
imported post

JeepSeller wrote:
We can go around and around here ad nauseum. IN the end, a property owner has the right to ask their guests to conduct themselves in accordance to the property owner's values. You may not agree with those values. But, they have the right to make the request. And if you do not comply with that request, they have the right to ask you to leave. If you do not comply with that request, you are now trespassing because your "invitation" has been removed. Trespassing now allows for LE to enforce the propety owner's wishes in having you removed.

There really is no argument that isn't semantics here.

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics all day long. Come up with some concrete factual arguments, and I'll respond.

You are right about the "round and round", and it is not getting much settled.LE duties and store rules (no shoes=no service) are getting confused.

When asked to leave--just leave. No LE required.

When LE is called and I have not been asked to leave,the manager/owner has escalated (intentionally or not) what could have already been easily settled.

In reality LEO's handle these calls all the time, they respond and do not want to come back. They want a resolution. You're correct about property rights but if you don't tell me to 'hit the road', I cannot read your mind. Getting LE to do what you are perfectly able to do is where problems arise that none of us actually want.

Just my opinion.
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
imported post

Here's another way to look at it. There are no laws on the books that say it's illegal to smoke..right?So long as I meet theage restrictionsI have the right to infect my lungs as I see fit. Right? No one would argue that I have that right to smoke in and of itself.

Now, do I have that right to smoke inside your home? Do I have the right to smoke inside WalMart? Of course not. And no one argues that. If I walked into WallyWorld puffing away, they could ask me to put it out or leave..right? How is this any different?

AGain, what I see is people willing to acknowlage only the rights that don't inconvineince them.

I chose to acknowlage ALL rights, mine, yours, property, etc...

NOTE::. by no means is the above a support of smoking..only an example for the sake of argument.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I wish you guys would invest HALF this much time in actually OC'ing.
At the rate you're going, several million Amerikans would have been exposed to OC by now.

It's all a matter of priorities.
They don't want to OC. They want to convince you that you shouldn't. Or, if you do, that you do so where and when they are comfortable and under a duty to respond to questions from cops.
 

biggin215

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
42
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
imported post

JeepSeller wrote:
Here's another way to look at it. There are no laws on the books that say it's illegal to smoke..right?So long as I meet theage restrictionsI have the right to infect my lungs as I see fit. Right? No one would argue that I have that right to smoke in and of itself.

Now, do I have that right to smoke inside your home? Do I have the right to smoke inside WalMart? Of course not. And no one argues that. If I walked into WallyWorld puffing away, they could ask me to put it out or leave..right? How is this any different?

AGain, what I see is people willing to acknowlage only the rights that don't inconvineince them.

I chose to acknowlage ALL rights, mine, yours, property, etc...

NOTE::. by no means is the above a support of smoking..only an example for the sake of argument.

Hate to burst your bubble, but before the LA smoking ban in public places.... you could smoke anywhere that wasn't marked as "no smoking." That is the EXACT same situation here. If it is not marked that weapons are not allowed, then they are allowed. It's that simple.
 

Dustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
1,723
Location
Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
imported post

JeepSeller wrote:
How is this any different?







It’s different because carrying a gun is NOT detrimental to anyone’s health. Smoking also cannot be tied to something that will be inherently cohesive with possibly saving your life.



Your trying to connect your RIGHT to defend yourself from death or serious bodily harm, to your right to smoke in a public area?



I’d say your analogy/example fails to collectively prove your point about Private Property.



However I do agree that “PEOPLE” should be able to tell WHOMEVER they want for WHATEVER reason to get the Hell off their property.



When it comes to PUBLIC Business, I think the line becomes blurry though.





Being GAY is not a constitutional right, it’s a way of life.



Defending yourself with a firearm is not only a way of life but it is also a US Constitutional right.



So how can a store owner be able to BAN people who wish to practice their personal and constitutional rights of self defense,



BUT Damn you to hell if you try to put up a sign that says “Gay Free Zone”.



See the point?



I think if you’re willing to do your business to the public than you should be willing to accept EVERYONE who is a legal citizen.
 

jnmtwo

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
144
Location
St. Tammany Parish, LA, , USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I wish you guys would invest HALF this much time in actually OC'ing.
At the rate you're going, several million Amerikans would have been exposed to OC by now.

It's all a matter of priorities.
They don't want to OC. They want to convince you that you shouldn't. Or, if you do, that you do so where and when they are comfortable and under a duty to respond to questions from cops.
Who are these directed to?
 
Top