Perks for permits.

imported post

For restaurants that I already know the answer I would not patronize them.

This "law" isn't really for lawfulness, it's for a misconstrued sense ("feeling") of comfort by other patrons or establishment owners/management.

If they support OC already, I doubt they will immediately change their tune if some law gets passed saying CC is now OK. Most of the businesses are either pro-carry or anti. The CC issue is rarely of concern.

I have a CC for the perks, like probably most of us here in VA. I prefer OC, but the CC permit comes in handy for CYA situations or when it is truly advantageous to conceal, of which I can think of only a few admittedly weak arguments.

If pressed about it in a venue/establishment I have never visited before I might inquire the reason and, anticipating the answer to be dismissive, offer to take my money elsewhere.

Carry should not be a mandate issue. If a business owner could provide reasonable evidence to suggest that CC is better in his establishment (unlikely) I would consider it, but on its face I would not be able to conscientiously oblige.

imported post

kennys wrote:

snip......
How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.

Click to expand...

There is a restaurant in Richmond that doesn't allow hats/head covering. I could simply put my hat in my coat pocket. I don't, I won't.

If the choice is mine (hat or OC/CC) than all is good in the world. The question is removed when the choice is mine w/o outside influence.

Let's make the hypothetical decision much more difficult. Would you patronize a restaurant that required legally qualified customers to carry?

Yata hey

imported post

kennys wrote:

How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.

Click to expand...

So if a restaurant asks you to switch to CC and you don't have a CHP, can their request be interpreted as permission to CC on their private property?

I would prefer restaurants allow OC but would not be that offended if they asked for me to CC (once it is legal). My first goal in carrying is safety and my second is making the political statement of OC-ing. OC in restaurants "was" a good statement because it exposed a "stupid" law. I wish we could just go to the Alaska method of carry what you will as you like and get rid of CHP's altogether.

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

So if a restaurant asks you to switch to CC and you don't have a CHP, can their request be interpreted as permission to CC on their private property?

Click to expand...

No, because under the code section it would be subject to having a permit.

While it would be private property, it would still be illegal to CC without a permit. This is a "perk" for permit holders.

What it really does is give the CC "community" (for lack of a better term) the option. It does not provide additional privileges to non-CHP holders.

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

kennys wrote:

How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.

Click to expand...

So if a restaurant asks you to switch to CC and you don't have a CHP, can their request be interpreted as permission to CC on their private property?

I would prefer restaurants allow OC but would not be that offended if they asked for me to CC (once it is legal). My first goal in carrying is safety and my second is making the political statement of OC-ing. OC in restaurants "was" a good statement because it exposed a "stupid" law. I wish we could just go to the Alaska method of carry what you will as you like and get rid of CHP's altogether.

Click to expand...

Someone jump in if I am not correct. Other than specified by law to be exempt, you can not cc with the permission of any one else legally without a permit. They do not have permission from owner as an exemption but for the owner in his own place of business. That would be a positive if they did.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"

Let's make the hypothetical decision much more difficult. Would you patronize a restaurant that required legally qualified customers to carry?

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Sounds like my kind of restaurant:celebrateAnd safe to boot. As long as you meant OC as well.

In another hypothetical, if owners could legally allow concealed on their premises, so even non permit holders could do so , I would support that as well.

imported post

kennys wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"

Let's make the hypothetical decision much more difficult. Would you patronize a restaurant that required legally qualified customers to carry?

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Sounds like my kind of restaurant:celebrateAnd safe to boot. As long as you meant OC as well.

In another hypothetical, if owners could legally allow concealed on their premises, so even non permit holders could do so , I would support that as well.

Click to expand...

But therein lies the moral problem. We don't want to patronize those establishments that do not allow OC or CC - so how could we endorse one that requires it. It is the same shoe on the opposite foot.

Just playing the devil's advocate. The answer is that I'm going to wear the shoe that fits the best.

Is it legal to chew or dip in restaurants? Never tried it, but hay times is tough. They could replace the ash trays with spit cans. :shock:

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

But therein lies the moral problem. We don't want to patronize those establishments that do not allow OC or CC - so how could we endorse one that requires it. It is the same shoe on the opposite foot.

Just playing the devil's advocate. The answer is that I'm going to wear the shoe that fits the best.

Is it legal to chew or dip in restaurants? Never tried it, but hay times is tough. They could replace the ash trays with spit cans. :shock:

Yata hey

Click to expand...

As owners choice, just as we do now. Than the antis could have no carry brunches.:dude:

Than again I couldn't put my self in the shoes of someone looking for a no carry venue.:uhoh:

Just because a place says no shoes, no shirt no service, doesn't mean I will go ten miles up the road for a different venue, unless I didn't have my BUS( Back up shoes)available.:lol:

imported post

kennys wrote:

45acpForMe wrote:

kennys wrote:

How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.

Click to expand...

So if a restaurant asks you to switch to CC and you don't have a CHP, can their request be interpreted as permission to CC on their private property?

I would prefer restaurants allow OC but would not be that offended if they asked for me to CC (once it is legal). My first goal in carrying is safety and my second is making the political statement of OC-ing. OC in restaurants "was" a good statement because it exposed a "stupid" law. I wish we could just go to the Alaska method of carry what you will as you like and get rid of CHP's altogether.

Click to expand...

Someone jump in if I am not correct. Other than specified by law to be exempt, you can not cc with the permission of any one else legally without a permit. They do not have permission from owner as an exemption but for the owner in his own place of business. That would be a positive if they did.

Click to expand...

My understanding from the code is that if you are NOT on your property or are an authorized employee of the property owner, you cannot CC without permit.

Thus,I can CC in my yard / house without issue.

I can CC at work if my employer authorizes me to do so as part of my job.

I cannot CC at my neighbor's house because I don't work for him and don't have a CHP. I would have to OC on his property (subject to his permission).

I agree though. The property owner *should* be able to allow/authorize carry in any mode on property under their control / ownership.

imported post

...

imported post

nuc65 wrote:

Within the confines of your 'curtilage' (behind curtains in your house) you can do whatever you want including allowing your guest to feel at home by CC or OC as per your wish IANAL and this may really be opinion. If your yard is open to common view of public property I believe legally it is no longer your curtilage and therefore one must obey common law regarding OC or CC. CC in your yard depends on what the court determines as your curtilage therefore it may be a problem because of the dependence on the courts view or your situation.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that is how it should be, but I do not believe a careful reading of 18.2-308 supports your assertion.

The basic, very summarized structure of the law is:

It's illegal to carry a concealed weapon.
Unless you are in your own home, curtilage, etc.
Unless you have a CHP and follow all the associated rules.

There is simply no provision for a home owner (or perhaps resident, depending on who is covered by "his own place of abode") to grant another person an exception to the law.

TFred

imported post

...

imported post

nuc65 wrote:

I believe it can apply - the law states "...his own place of abode or the curtilage thereof. " curtilage is the area immediately surrounding a residence that "harbors the `intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life...

In my home the words make yourself at home carry the intimate association of my home is your home... this is a crux of a the right to privacy in my home who can say I don't consider a guest a resident at that time? So while in my home you are a resident of my home and therefore currently in your place of abode or maybe curtilage thereof.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not going to say that you are wrong, but I suspect you'd be in for a long, expensive and up-hill battle, should your view ever come to test.

TFred

imported post

nuc65 wrote:

snip......
In my home the words make yourself at home carry the intimate association of my home is your home... this is a crux of a the right to privacy in my home who can say I don't consider a guest a resident at that time? So while in my home you are a resident of my home and therefore currently in your place of abode or maybe curtilage thereof.

Click to expand...

Might seem logical at first blush, but I don't think one's own determination of who is a resident will carry any weight.

Someone not on the deed or lease and not residing there as a co-occupant does not meet the standard. They are a visitor or guest. This is generally determined by the aforementioned documents and/or by the length in days (overnight) of their stay. This most frequently has been determined to be a week or longer continuously.

Bear in mind that I have not and am not quoting or citing either statute or case law, but rather drawing on what is considered common knowledge in the property management industry.

That said - I seriously doubt that there is any case law in Va. pertaining specifically to CCing in someone else's private residence with their permission.

Yata hey

imported post

...

imported post

nuc65 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

nuc65 wrote:

snip......
In my home the words make yourself at home carry the intimate association of my home is your home... this is a crux of a the right to privacy in my home who can say I don't consider a guest a resident at that time? So while in my home you are a resident of my home and therefore currently in your place of abode or maybe curtilage thereof.

Click to expand...

Might seem logical at first blush, but I don't think one's own determination of who is a resident will carry any weight.

Someone not on the deed or lease and not residing there as a co-occupant does not meet the standard. They are a visitor or guest. This is generally determined by the aforementioned documents and/or by the length in days (overnight) of their stay. This most frequently has been determined to be a week or longer continuously.

Bear in mind that I have not and am not quoting or citing either statute or case law, but rather drawing on what is considered common knowledge in the property management industry.

That said - I seriously doubt that there is any case law in Va. pertaining specifically to CCing in someone else's private residence with their permission.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I wonder if this means your children sign a rental agreement? Maybe they should, but the government has no right or realm to determine someones place as a residence. If my girl sleeps sometimes at my house and sometimes we sleep at her house what says that I don't have two residences? Is it the presence of laundry, a toothbrush, eating dinner, sleeping, farting, what?

Besides, how will someone determine what I allow my guests to do? What would cause them to challenge that I let my guest CC in my house or curtilage thereof? It might be an uphill battle but I think it is a battle that will never take place.

Click to expand...

I can't say about the residency requirements, but the second part of your post is fairly easy. Concealed carry is a criminal activity. The government views their ability to say your guest cannot carry concealed just as much as they would assert their ability to prohibit any other criminal activity that your guest might want to engage in. Nobody is allowed to engage in criminal activity in your house just because you give them permission to.

ETA: Of course, your next reaction will be that concealed carry in your home with your permission should not be criminal activity, but we all know that "shall not be infringed" is trampled all over, and is very much infringed, with little relief in sight.

TFred

imported post

...

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

nuc65 wrote:

snip......
In my home the words make yourself at home carry the intimate association of my home is your home... this is a crux of a the right to privacy in my home who can say I don't consider a guest a resident at that time? So while in my home you are a resident of my home and therefore currently in your place of abode or maybe curtilage thereof.

Click to expand...

Might seem logical at first blush, but I don't think ones own determination of who is a resident will carry any weight.

Someone not on the deed or lease and not residing there as a co-occupant does not meet the standard. They are a visitor or guest. This is generally determined by the aforementioned documents and/or by the length in days (overnight) of their stay. This most frequently has been determined to be a week or longer continuously.

Bear in mind that I have not and am not quoting or citing either statute or case law, but rather drawing on what is considered common knowledge in the property management industry.

That said - I seriously doubt that there is any case law in Va. pertaining specifically to CCing in someone else's private residence with their permission.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Couldn't this also lead to a catch 22 for the owner in aiding and abbeding or accessory? Granted that the guest might not be a criminal, but giving them permission to do something that is against the law, you are condoning them and giving them reason to do it.

I really wish they would widen private property rights. If someone can do something legal, in and about in their own home, they should be able to grant permission of the same to their guests.

imported post

kennys wrote:

(cropped)
How many when the law is repealed for concealed carry in restaurants would continue to OC? How many would continue to give a restaurant business if they told you no OC, but CC ok? How many would have the thought it really don’t matter as long as I can carry? Just a thought, its one thing to have the choice, but when choice becomes mandatory leaning in one direction it can cause divide.

Click to expand...

My stance is, if the law changes I will continue to opencarry most of the time when I eat out.

Here is why, I vote with my money and I dont vote for someone that hinders my rights and safety. ...or the rights of my fellow citizens.


If they say no opencarry, they are not getting my money. Sure I could conceal carry if the law changes, but some of my fellow citizens cant. Also, what if one day I dont have a permit? If a restaurant's pollicy hinders or has the potential to hinder my rights and those of my fellow citizens, I will eat at another place. Cases in point, if you turn away the 20 year old because he is armed and can only opencarry, you turned me away as well. If you turn away the guy that wont ask permission for a CHP and can only opencarry, you turned me away as well.

If they say only no conceal carry, they are not getting my money. I prefer opencarry and I don't support that kind of stupid.

If they outright accept carry, lets eat!

If they outright ban, pxxx on them...

Some would say, if a restaurant says sorry you cant opencarry but you can go ahead and conceal if you want and still come in in and eat, go ahead and eat. I say and what of those that cant conceal??? If a restaurant tries to tell me how I can carry or if I can carry....piss on them. Someone else will want to serve dinner and respect our rights.

imported post

My question to everyone is: Assume for a second that the law changes as we hope and you have a CHP, your armed and your in line to get a table some place. Ahead of you in line a young guy or gal, military....lets say 20 years old. You watch this citizen, get turned away from the restaurant because for him/her conceal is not a legal option. Would any of us, after watching that sickening sight still want to be seated?

IMHO, a restaurant allows legal carrying of firearms or they infringe/insult our rights. I don't see a middle ground in this for me. I see it no different than a place saying well if your white I will serve you and them expecting me to say, well ok I am white so I am down with that. PXXX ON THAT!

....am I missing something? Do some of us think it would be ok to eating in a place that only let some carry, ie only CHP holders?

My response to the scenario above would be, "Sorry lady but I just lost my appetite to eat here.....EVER."