Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Kay Jewelers Town Square

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Saw this sign at Kay Jewelers Sunday when I was at Town Square. I thought it was kind of amusing. I don't shop there, but I'm posting this for those of you that might.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Post imported post

    They sure put up a nice sign. It carries no weight of law in Nv though.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    The Jared up here in Reno has that exact sign, ver batum. I CC most of the time, but have never walked in there unarmed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Vegassteve wrote:
    They sure put up a nice sign. It carries no weight of law in Nv though.
    I thought so too. I found it amusing that they obviously went through some effort to get the signs made and posted, but didn't do any research to find out that they're meaningless. My favorite part was about no "ordnance" allowed. I guess I need to leave my hand grenades in the car next time....

  5. #5
    Regular Member LvstudentDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    I know private store owners can set their own firearm policy, but legally you cant be held liable if you dont comply with the sign because their is no nrs covering such an event? How does this hold up for ccw because it said you could loose the ccw if you carry anywhere thats posts no guns. Of course i understand federal buildings and the like.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    LvstudentDoc wrote:
    How does this hold up for ccw because it said you could loose the ccw if you carry anywhere thats posts no guns.

    It's not 'anywhere' that posts no guns, it's public buildings. And the statute defines public buildings as buildings owned by the government. No worries, there is nothing in the statute that legally prohibits one from CCWing in ANY private establishment. Banks, casinos, bars or whatever, all carry no restriction by law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    however, if the owner/manager ask you to leave and you do not, that is now traspass

  8. #8
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    I love how Kay Jewelers believes they can restrict me from carrying my firearm beyond the boundaries of their store front.

    If they want me to leave, Fine! It's their store, they leased it, But they don't lease the parking lot or the streets and sidewalk. So, I guess we all know who doesn't want our money. To me Firearms owners represent a population that typically has some disposable income and lets face it, we need to buy our ladies jewelry too.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Most of my ladies jewelry comes in .45 cal? Is Kays a good source for ammo now?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    gunrunner1911 wrote:
    Most of my ladies jewelry comes in .45 cal? Is Kays a good source for ammo
    I'll take a box of ammo over diamonds anyday. I do prefer .40, however.

    I really hate the stupid Kay TV commercials anyway...wouldn't go there for that reason alone. The sign simply confirms that decision.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    jfrey123 wrote:
    The Jared up here in Reno has that exact sign, ver batum. I CC most of the time, but have never walked in there unarmed.
    Jared's has a national policy of no weapons.....

    I once bought a nice diamond necklace for the Wife, and when I went to pick it up I noticed their sign.....and promptly cancelled my sale and went elsewhere.

  12. #12
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    luv_jeeps wrote:
    Jared's has a national policy of no weapons.....

    I once bought a nice diamond necklace for the Wife, and when I went to pick it up I noticed their sign.....and promptly cancelled my sale and went elsewhere.
    Now, did you tell them WHY you cancelled the purchase?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    luv_jeeps wrote:
    Jared's has a national policy of no weapons.....

    I once bought a nice diamond necklace for the Wife, and when I went to pick it up I noticed their sign.....and promptly cancelled my sale and went elsewhere.
    Now, did you tell them WHY you cancelled the purchase?
    I most certainly did. While the sales person was disappointed in my decision to take my business elsewhere, the store manager didn't really seem to care.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    I believe most of us are just talking about our experiences, letting others know how we interact with these businesses (no guns = no money) and sharing locations that put up the signs. We all understand the property rights. I do believe that private property is just that....private. If an individual or business doesn't want me in/on their property with an open or concealed weapon I am fine with that.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Post imported post

    Mudjack wrote:
    I don't understand something...

    Why all the to-do about carrying on private property? If someone, a store owner, home owner -- whoever, on his own private property does not want someone in that store or property for whatever reason -- carrying a gun or not -- concealed or open carry -- does not want you there, to my mind he has every right in the world to tell you to leave.

    I don't see why law abiding citizens, like ourselves, should ever get into a fuss about that. Private property should be respected--to the hilt--at all times. This is part of our Constitutional Law and part of what we are fighting for in the Open Carry effort.

    If a person does not want guns on his private property--he should be able to have it his way, like it or not, yes?
    Should they also ask them to leave if they are black? The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Either a store allowsALL civil rights are they allow none. I dont see why law abiding citizens like Rosa Parks ever made a fuss either then.

    A home is another story.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Post imported post

    Mudjack wrote:
    If a person does not want guns on his private property--he should be able to have it his way, like it or not, yes?
    Absolutely!

    At the same time, his customers have the right to go elsewhere, and to explain why.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Post imported post

    Vegassteve wrote:
    Should they also ask them to leave if they are black? The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Either a store allowsALL civil rights are they allow none. I dont see why law abiding citizens like Rosa Parks ever made a fuss either then.

    A home is another story.
    You are confusing Public and Private. The Bill of Rights -- and the natural rights -- only apply to Public, not to Private.

    Private property is PRIVATE, and if the local Black Panthers want to keep me out of their clubhouse because my skin is the wrong color, then they have the right. If the KKK wants to keep me out of their clubhouse because I'm not a Democrat, that's their right. PRIVATE IS PRIVATE, whether it's a home, group or business.

    Rosa Parks was in PUBLIC, kept from her rights as a citizen by the GOVERNMENT.

    I can go to the lawn in front of the Capitol to condemn Harry Reid. I can't go to the pulpit of St Mark's to condemn the Pope.

  18. #18
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    Mudjack wrote:
    I don't understand something...

    Why all the to-do about carrying on private property? If someone, a store owner, home owner -- whoever, on his own private property does not want someone in that store or property for whatever reason -- carrying a gun or not -- concealed or open carry -- does not want you there, to my mind he has every right in the world to tell you to leave.

    I don't see why law abiding citizens, like ourselves, should ever get into a fuss about that. Private property should be respected--to the hilt--at all times. This is part of our Constitutional Law and part of what we are fighting for in the Open Carry effort.

    If a person does not want guns on his private property--he should be able to have it his way, like it or not, yes?
    Is what you are describing truly private? Is a corporation with stockholders a truly "private" business? Isa large chain store the same as a mom and pop shop in this regard?Secondly, Judge Napolotano, who I admire very much, says that a business is a public place as the owners invite the public in to do business and can't require you to leave your rights at the door. Is a business who invite the public in the same as one's home for example? Could Wal Mart enact a rule that says you can't come in their store with an anti Obama T shirt on? Could they in this regard limit your right to express yourself? Could they require you to fill out a questionnaire and sign it waving your 5th amendment right? Could they require you to submit to a strip search to do business in their store? Not so clear is it? There is a line here, but where do you draw it?

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Post imported post

    DVC wrote:
    Vegassteve wrote:
    Should they also ask them to leave if they are black? The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Either a store allowsALL civil rights are they allow none. I dont see why law abiding citizens like Rosa Parks ever made a fuss either then.

    A home is another story.
    You are confusing Public and Private. The Bill of Rights -- and the natural rights -- only apply to Public, not to Private.

    You are correct parks was a bad comaprison. You are correct the BOR is for public issues.

    If they put up a sign that said no blacks do you think it would cause a stink?

    Hell yes it would and people would be beating the door down to the joint demanding that they change. Somehow though when it comes to the 2nd we are to shut up and not make a stink. So why is that OK?



  20. #20
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    Mudjack wrote:
    And what about the sign at the door that says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"?

    Aren't they violating my right to go around shirtless and shoeless if I feel like it?
    Don't know of any constituional law, State or Federal where it mentions the wearing of shoes and shirts.Your previous points have merit but I think that this oneis a bad example.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  21. #21
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    Mudjack wrote:
    If there's no law for or against the wearing of shirts or shoes, this means I can walk into the ice cream shop and tell the owner to ram his no shirt no shoes no service sign and give me some ice cream?
    No, just the opposite. The wearing of shirts and shoes, or lack thereof, is not a protected right.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  22. #22
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    The whole argument revolves around how we treat property rights as a society. Unfortunately, legal precedents are widely varied on property rights depending upon the issue.

    As a private property owner you are NOT allowed to barr people based on certain "protected classes". Race, gender, religious views, and disability are universally protected under the law, some jurisdictions include sexual preference, marital status, etc. These rules are applied to both "open to the public" commercial properties as well as private property that is not open to the public (such as a home that I rent out).

    So if a Catholic family has a second home that they rent out, they can not lawfully prohibit a gay couple from renting it or they are in violation of the law (in jurisdictions with such statutes). Yet being gay isn't spelled out in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms on the other hand is!

    There needs to be a distinction drawn, in law, that private property "open to the public" for business purposes can not discriminate against persons who are acting lawfully. At the same time, the private property owner needs to have the ability, by NOT opening his property to the public, to exclude whomever they want.

    But that is not the way it is......YET
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  23. #23
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    The whole argument revolves around how we treat property rights as a society. Unfortunately, legal precedents are widely varied on property rights depending upon the issue.

    As a private property owner you are NOT allowed to barr people based on certain "protected classes". Race, gender, religious views, and disability are universally protected under the law, some jurisdictions include sexual preference, marital status, etc. These rules are applied to both "open to the public" commercial properties as well as private property that is not open to the public (such as a home that I rent out).

    So if a Catholic family has a second home that they rent out, they can not lawfully prohibit a gay couple from renting it or they are in violation of the law (in jurisdictions with such statutes). Yet being gay isn't spelled out in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms on the other hand is!

    There needs to be a distinction drawn, in law, that private property "open to the public" for business purposes can not discriminate against persons who are acting lawfully. At the same time, the private property owner needs to have the ability, by NOT opening his property to the public, to exclude whomever they want.

    But that is not the way it is......YET
    Very well said...

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Post imported post

    Mudjack wrote:
    Neither is walking onto someone else's private property with a gun without authorization from the owner(s) or the duly appointed representatives of the owner(s) of that property.
    Really? Cite to law please as per the rules of this board.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Post imported post

    Mudjack wrote:
    There is no law for or against. Same as the shirt shoes service discussion. That's my point.


    You made a statement as fact and law regarding getting permission to carry.

    Do you ask each store you enter for permission? I didnt bring up no shirt no shoes, but in NV there may very well be a law regarding that. I dont know and the one who brought up should cite it as well.

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
  •