Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Business's Rights to limit carrying firearms.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rutland, Vermont, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Hello to all the members in Vermont. I just recently found and joined OPDO and I had a question. What's the general consensus on private business's ability to issue a trespass order on someone because they carry a firearm? I recently had an experience at the local Cumberland Farms where I was expelled by a clerk who called the cops and issued a trespass order on me because she felt uncomfortable around any sort of gun. The thing is, however, that I had open carried in the store before, she displayed a dislike of guns and the following visits I used a CC IWB holster and my gun was not visible. However this was not good enough and I was questioned by her when I entered the store and when I refused to answer if I was armed she called the police. I know that some states make it so that businesses are unable to discriminate against those who carry firearms, but what about Vermont? Would anyone be opposed to legislation that limited the rights of businesses to create rules that would deny the right to carry on their property? I look at it as an issue of discrimination against gun owners as it would be against someone who is a minority or openly gay. We wouldn't want businesses posting signs restricting access to businesses by either of them, what makes it ok to discriminate against the constitutionally protected bearing of arms?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    It is simple; you just don't give them your business. These clerksat many stores who treat customers poorly don't realize that it is not there boss who pays there salary but is the customers.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    N. Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    29,200

    Post imported post

    Tb0n3 wrote:
    Hello to all the members in Vermont. I just recently found and joined OPDO and I had a question. What's the general consensus on private business's ability to issue a trespass order on someone because they carry a firearm? I recently had an experience at the local Cumberland Farms where I was expelled by a clerk who called the cops and issued a trespass order on me because she felt uncomfortable around any sort of gun. The thing is, however, that I had open carried in the store before, she displayed a dislike of guns and the following visits I used a CC IWB holster and my gun was not visible. However this was not good enough and I was questioned by her when I entered the store and when I refused to answer if I was armed she called the police. I know that some states make it so that businesses are unable to discriminate against those who carry firearms, but what about Vermont? Would anyone be opposed to legislation that limited the rights of businesses to create rules that would deny the right to carry on their property? I look at it as an issue of discrimination against gun owners as it would be against someone who is a minority or openly gay. We wouldn't want businesses posting signs restricting access to businesses by either of them, what makes it ok to discriminate against the constitutionally protected bearing of arms?
    There is no discrimination actionable except to protected classes of which gun ownership is not so enumerated.

    What you are discussing is really personal property rights vs RTBA - there are numerous threads to that regard.

    Take your business somewhere else and enjoy the benefits thereof.

    Yata hey
    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.

    Yata hey

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    somewhere, somewhere USA
    Posts
    380

    Post imported post

    Technically a normal clerk cannot govern or question you for doing something legal. if her bias opinion makes her nerveous she should move out of a gold star state. as grapeshot said, take your business elsewhere. or if you feel the need, call up the head store manager or store owner *cumbys are franchise businesses* and speak to the man in charge. he may have a different view than hers..........if he doesnt want it in his store, the store is his property and he has the right to refuse service, but if he has no problem , you could get it in writing then the clerks opinon would be moot........but then again that is too much time an effort to squash the ignorance of one person. i say just go to another convience store from now on ;-)

  5. #5
    Super Moderator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    N. Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    29,200

    Post imported post

    jay75009 wrote:
    Technically a normal clerk cannot govern or question you for doing something legal. if her bias opinion makes her nerveous she should move out of a gold star state. as grapeshot said, take your business elsewhere. or if you feel the need, call up the head store manager or store owner *cumbys are franchise businesses* and speak to the man in charge. he may have a different view than hers..........if he doesnt want it in his store, the store is his property and he has the right to refuse service, but if he has no problem , you could get it in writing then the clerks opinon would be moot........but then again that is too much time an effort to squash the ignorance of one person. i say just go to another convience store from now on ;-)
    Yes he/she can refuse you service or permission to be on the property - it is private property.

    Should the question come up, take note of all pertinent data, leave peacefully, shop somewhere else and contact upper management after the fact.

    I suggest that we are not attempting to "squash the ignorance of one person" but to educate one person at a time.

    Yata hey
    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time.

    Yata hey

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,225

    Post imported post

    Tb0n3 wrote:
    Would anyone be opposed to legislation that limited the rights of businesses to create rules that would deny the right to carry on their property?
    You have no right to carry on their property.




  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rutland, Vermont, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Well, the way things are moving now I'm actually looking to use legislation from California that forces businesses to serve gay patrons as precedent for legislation in Vermont that would do the same for the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. What do you think about that? I thought the irony of using a CA law for pro-gun legislation would be awesome. I am, though, prepared to cite Utah's laws as well. It's always good to have a backup. So far I've spoken to the mayor of Rutland for ideas, and Kevin Mullen looking for a sponsor for a bill, though it's always hard to be convincing on the phone. I'm going to go forward with this, and I'll be looking for any help I can get, be it information/data, or a sympathizer to help show the dedication to the cause. Getting kicked out of Cumby's was a great motivator for me.

    PS: for the record, city hall has apparently been found to be a public space and so OC/CC is allowed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    I would have to ask why do you feel the need to push the issue? Is it pride on your part? It is privet property just like your home. That is like someone saying Ihave a right to come into your home and insult you over and over again because I havethe right to free speech. Just because the business is open to the public does not give you the right to go. Goto store managementand talk to them first or shop at a different store.


    It just sounds to me like you are looking fora fight to brag about.

    Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my emotions!

    I guess that's the difference between no crime and "stopping" a crime in progress. I prefer no crime.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rutland, Vermont, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Packer fan wrote:
    I would have to ask why do you feel the need to push the issue? Is it pride on your part? It is privet property just like your home. That is like someone saying Ihave a right to come into your home and insult you over and over again because I havethe right to free speech. Just because the business is open to the public does not give you the right to go. Goto store managementand talk to them first or shop at a different store.


    It just sounds to me like you are looking fora fight to brag about.
    well, something like that would be something to brag about indeed. but no, the reason I want to do this is because "going to another store" and "voting with my wallet" won't work if nobody knows the story and the majority of gun owners won't see hide nor hair of this if I don't make a big deal about it. I do believe Utah is a great state to cite as far as locations to carry are concerned.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    Tb0n3 wrote:
    Packer fan wrote:
    I would have to ask why do you feel the need to push the issue? Is it pride on your part? It is privet property just like your home. That is like someone saying Ihave a right to come into your home and insult you over and over again because I havethe right to free speech. Just because the business is open to the public does not give you the right to go. Goto store managementand talk to them first or shop at a different store.


    It just sounds to me like you are looking fora fight to brag about.
    well, something like that would be something to brag about indeed. but no, the reason I want to do this is because "going to another store" and "voting with my wallet" won't work if nobody knows the story and the majority of gun owners won't see hide nor hair of this if I don't make a big deal about it. I do believe Utah is a great state to cite as far as locations to carry are concerned.
    Forgive me if I missed the point. You have a low level clerk who asked you to leave because she doesn't like guns, so instead of going over her head and talking to the manager because you said, "you have carried there before" you are now wanting to sight laws from other states. Did you get arrested; did you get a ticket?Have you talked to management since you have OC there before? I just missed the point of wanting to sight another state's law. They could come back with a law from Ill, or N.Y. to sight. What is the point? I'm just trying to understand your point in pushing the issue before talking to management or is there something you aren't telling us?
    Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my emotions!

    I guess that's the difference between no crime and "stopping" a crime in progress. I prefer no crime.

  11. #11
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Hearing of this stuff iritates me. A buisness owner can't discriminate against a customer based on who he voted for, what religion he is, or the color of his skin, but yet, either they play it politically correct/ safe, and post nothing, or roust an Open Carrier because some "fawn" is upset. They never seem to take the side of the Open Carrier, and say Put your invalid fears aside, and let this Open Carrier be! He is merely exercising a right you have chosen not to. Your choice, not his, get off of him for it! We bucked the sissy trend, and posted Open Carry allowed. Rights and Power to ALL the people!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    I agree with your point. I think a business owner, such as yourself, should be able to discriminate with whom ever he/she wants after all it is a privet business. I think it is wrong that the gov. tells a privet business who they can and can not serve. So, keeping consistent with my point of view that if a business wants to discriminate against guns owners than it's them that looses my business.

    I've managed a store and had to kick people out for not wearing the right clothes, or harassing the clerks; could they then come back and say I was discriminating against their free speech.

    If a person has OC before at a location with no problems then go over the clerks head complain to upper management and if the clerk says anything polity tell her to talk to her boss.

    Just because you have a right doesn't give you the right to force it upon someone else. No one likes their rights infringed but yet this is infringing on the store owners rights too. All I'm saying is talk to upper management before blowing it up more than it needs to be. Could be that upper management has n idea that this clerk is kicking people out of the store for her personal whim.
    Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my emotions!

    I guess that's the difference between no crime and "stopping" a crime in progress. I prefer no crime.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post


    Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my emotions!

    I guess that's the difference between no crime and "stopping" a crime in progress. I prefer no crime.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,631

    Post imported post

    Tb0n3 wrote:
    Packer fan wrote:
    I would have to ask why do you feel the need to push the issue? Is it pride on your part? It is privet property just like your home. That is like someone saying Ihave a right to come into your home and insult you over and over again because I havethe right to free speech. Just because the business is open to the public does not give you the right to go. Goto store managementand talk to them first or shop at a different store.


    It just sounds to me like you are looking fora fight to brag about.
    well, something like that would be something to brag about indeed. but no, the reason I want to do this is because "going to another store" and "voting with my wallet" won't work if nobody knows the story and the majority of gun owners won't see hide nor hair of this if I don't make a big deal about it. I do believe Utah is a great state to cite as far as locations to carry are concerned.
    So, you want to infringe on another persons rights (in this case, property rights)in order to exercise your own (RTKBA)?

    Sorry, your discremination argument doesn't hold legal clout. The "discremenation" argument gets over use far too much.

    There are many businesses that discreminate about their clientel all the time. Ritzy restaurants often require men to wear a coat and tie to dine in their establishments. Haven't your seen those signs that say "No Shirt No Shoes No Service"?

    Talk to the owner of the store. If he/she doesn't want firearms in his store, take your business elsewhere.

    How the heck do you expect our RTKBA to be respected, if we do not respect other peoples rights as well?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stanwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,586

    Post imported post

    Have you talked to the actual owner/manager of the store and asked if that is management's policy? If I was an owner/manager and found out one of my employees was taking those kinds of actions without notifying me, I would fire them.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,433

    Post imported post

    Tb0n3 wrote:
    Well, the way things are moving now I'm actually looking to use legislation from California that forces businesses to serve gay patrons as precedent for legislation in Vermont that would do the same for the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. What do you think about that? I thought the irony of using a CA law for pro-gun legislation would be awesome. I am, though, prepared to cite Utah's laws as well. It's always good to have a backup. So far I've spoken to the mayor of Rutland for ideas, and Kevin Mullen looking for a sponsor for a bill, though it's always hard to be convincing on the phone. I'm going to go forward with this, and I'll be looking for any help I can get, be it information/data, or a sympathizer to help show the dedication to the cause. Getting kicked out of Cumby's was a great motivator for me.

    PS: for the record, city hall has apparently been found to be a public space and so OC/CC is allowed.
    Please note the part I've placed in bold typeface. You are on the wrong track here. The second amendment has not, so far, been deemed to apply to the states. And before you bring up the Heller decision I feel I must point out that DC is not a state or even IN a state. It is a federal legislative district, governed by the federal government. That means that the Heller decision has merely been upheld as applying to the federal government.

    Pay attention to MacDonald v Chicago, though. It is scheduled to be heard in the spring by the USSC.

    Even if the second amendment DID apply to the states it wouldn't come into play here. It would only apply to the government's right to regulate firearm ownership and carry. What you're dealing with are property rights. It's as if you went to someone's house and they asked you not to wear your firearm in their house. You're left with two choices; comply or go elsewhere.

    Same thing with business. Comply or go elsewhere.

    Please remember, we can't expect anyone to respect OUR rights if we don't respect theirs.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  17. #17
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,225

    Post imported post

    Packer fan wrote:
    It is privet property just like your home. That is like someone saying Ihave a right to come into your home and insult you over and over again because I havethe right to free speech.
    This is a very good example.

    If someone wanted to come on my property to insult me over and over, I would not allow it.

    Yet, if someone wanted to insult me over and over on their property, or some other place they have a right to be, then I would understand that is their right.

    Like Bookman suggests, we (gun carriers/owners) are honor-bound to respect the rights of others if we are to ethically expect others to respect OUR rights.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    somewhere, somewhere USA
    Posts
    380

    Post imported post

    very well said hank, thankfully in the town i live in i have not been harassed by any business owners. i partly believe it is because of the way i dress, slacks, button up shirt *sometimes even a tie* i usually get "have a nice day detective" and have to correct them lol but i believe while OCing a good apperance towards others is always a good idea. puts business owners and other citizens at ease :-)

Posting Permissions

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