Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: Property Rights Supposedly Trumping Other Rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276

    Property Rights Supposedly Trumping Other Rights

    Carried over from Open carry thread in NOVA.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-Carry-in-NoVA
    This is the SUMMARY POST.


    Started here:

    Why are you folks disregarding the legal right of a property owner to determine that they do not want firearms on their property? Or claiming that in spite of having been told by someone whose word you apparently trust (at least regarding other matters), you declare that you refuse to look and verify the existence of the "no firearms" posting they have told you about?

    Do you think you somehow are earning bonus points of some sort by violating the property owner's posted rule?

    Do you think that by sneaking in with your firearm concealed you are advancing the cause for open carry?

    I am well aware of the extremely limited number of movie theaters that are not posted against the carry of firearms, and that the situation limits your and my entertainment possibilities. I am also aware of the fact that many movie theaters are located in places where bad things have already happened to other people.

    I am in no way suggesting that you do not have a right to protect yourself. I am in no way suggesting that you should not be upset that a private property owner is so short-sighted that they will restrict your right to self-protection because of irrational and unfounded fears and biases.

    I am telling you flat out that boasting of your sneaking around and violating the rights of private propery owners to control their property is not doing any good for the acceptance of open carry.

    We have, through grace and good fortune, not had to fight the government for recognition of the right to open carry to the extent that those in other states are continuing to need to do. Nor, to a great extent, is the battle with the public at large. We do not have the panicked MWAG calls that are reported in other states. Our battle is down to the few shopkeepers and restaurants (locally owned or national chains) who still are unwilling to open their eyes and see that law-abiding citizens legally carrying firearms openly are not a threat to their person, property or to their bottom line.

    But boasting of sneaking around violating their policies is not going to make them suddenly decide that open carriers ought to be welcomed onto their property. If anything, it seems to me that such behavior only strengthens their resolve to prohibit us from entering their propertry.

    If you honestly cannot wait until it comes out on DVD/Blue Ray to see the movie but, for whatever reason, refuse to go to the movie theater unarmed, then you have a problem. That, by itself, does not bother me. But if your problem causes behavior that makes the private property owner less likely to change their mind about the issue, then your problem has created a problem for me.

    Please stop creating and perpetuating that problem.

    Thank you for reading my rant. You are now welcome to go on being dishonest and decietful if you so choose.

    stay safe.

    --skidmark
    Your 1A rights do not go out when you walk onto property that accepts public traffic (such as a store or restaurant, NOT a home or similar). The owner cannot say "You can come in here, but leave your kippah in the car." If the owner tells someone that, they get sued in civil court. I have been told the courts have ruled on this, but I have no citations at this time (research project!).

    Same goes for your gun rights. Open carry is a legal activity that is an expression of the right to keep and bear arms under Section 13 of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Even under McDonald v Chicago, they said OC is acceptable.

    The problem is one of attitude. People have been raised to believe guns are a problem and that there is only the privilege subject to government approval.

    We really should be suing these people every time they ask us to leave for peaceably engaging in our right to bear arms.

    --230therapy
    Au contraire!

    A private property owner or manager may most assuredly "discriminate" except for violation of one of the protected classes without fear of prosecution.

    Your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights are left at the door and subject to his control or your arrest for violation of the appropriate ordinance.

    Refuse to leave when carrying in on any private property in Va. and you shall at the least be subject to trespass charges.

    First Amendment rights in Lowes, Wal-Mart or Food Lion? Get up on your soap box and start giving a speech or carry a political sign/banner around the store, refuse to stop and let me know how that works out for you.

    A store may ban red shirts if they so desire. McDonald v Chicago says nothing to change private property owner's rights. Even the Va. Constitution does not compel me as a business owner to allow you to do most things against my wishes on my property.

    You indicated that you wanted to research the material, so I will await the cites that show I am wrong.........I am very patient, take your time.

    In fact I recommend that you start a new thread for this project as this one needs to be returned to the regular OP programing.

    --grapeshot
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  2. #2
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    What grapeshot and skidmark are actually arguing is that property is more important than life.

    My contention is this: life was mentioned first in the Declaration of Independence because without life, there is neither liberty nor property. Part of life is defending it. One law of nature is the law of self-defense, for without it, anyone may be deprived of life. Therefore, anyone who deprives someone of the tools of self-defense is quite possibly depriving them of life, even if he or she is not the primary actor in that homicide.

    My rights are not influenced by someone's feelings. Just because someone doesn't like guns does not mean I lose that right. Look at the recent case in Wisconsin: five people were OC'ing in a restaurant in a lawful manner. An idijit calls the cops and says "she'd feel guilty for not calling the cops if something were to happen"...as if OC'ers would just start shooting up the place. Eight cops showed up, took their guns, demanded ID, and charged them with disorderly conduct (As if expressing a right in a lawful way can ever be disorderly conduct...it cannot and the courts have ruled on this). If our rights are modified any time someone has a "feeling", then we truly have nothing: no life, no liberty and certainly no pursuit of happiness. This is exactly what the police did to these men lawfully carrying their guns in the restaurant.

    I differentiate between property such as a store or office and property that does not accept just anyone (such as a home or a country club that chooses its membership). An office also qualifies because, while they do interview, they cannot discriminate on basis of certain characteristics. This really should include expression of rights. The perversions of our system by the judicial branch have allowed mere contracts to override rights (search unlimited right to contract. Check the Badnarik video).

    Are we going to allow the judicial system to change how our rights operate? You may scoff at this, but Stephen Breyer believes that our political speech should be limited to only speech that promotes community and globalist values. He backed up on this and did a song and dance...but he was being candid and got caught.
    Last edited by 230therapy; 09-29-2010 at 10:51 AM.
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Walt_Kowalski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    355
    I have a simple solution. Don't go there and spend your hard earned dollars at an establishment that does not support your rights.

    Your right to defend yourself is not violated, and the property owners rights are not violated. If enough of us just simply did not keep opening our wallets to anti 2A establishments then maybe the property owners would start to feel the pinch. If you go to a competitor that is 2a friendly, send the Anti establishment your receipt and let them know their policy was what sent you to their competitor.

    In this economy if I was running a business, I'd want to make money, not political statements.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    You have misinterpreted my words by saying that I am/was arguing that property is more important than life. That is not the case at all.

    I am too tired to go look up the technical term for the kind of false argument that you are using, but there is a much more complicated term than BS. However, BS does an adequate job of describing it.

    Under the laws of this land, property owners have certain rights. Under the laws of this land, persons have certain rights. At times the rights of one group are poised to restrict the exercise of the rights of the other group at that time, in that place.

    Your rights to "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness" are guaranteed from infringement by elements of the government. What you can or cannot do on my property is solely up to me - with the exception of certain limitations that the courts have imposed as social engineering. (Not that I object to all of the restrictions imposed by the courts - one example being eliminating racial segregation.)

    If I put up a sign saying "No firearms, no knives, no skateboards, no red underwear" you have two choices: abide by the rules or go elsewhere to do what you wanted to do on my property. That includes buying property elsewhere, building stores, and offering the same goods and services as at my place but without the restriction on the color of your underwear or whatever else it was that bothered you.

    If enough of you patronize another place that does not have rules against whatever it is you do not like being told you cannot do at my place there are two things that might happen. I could go out of business. I could decide to avoid going out of business and try to attract you back by changing my rules. (That's rather smplified, but a fair representation of market economics for this discussion.)

    What we really have here is a competition between two petty tyrants. On the one hand we have the property owner who wants to impose his rules on the folks that come onto his property, but (in this discussion) does nothing about imposing his rules elsewhere. On the other hand we have 230therapy who wants to impose his feeling of entitlement to wear red underwear anywhere and everywhere he wants to, regardless of what anybody else might think/feel. In this battle of petty tyrants, The property owner allows 230therapy to go anywhere else and wear red underwear as much as he wants to, so long as 230therapy doesn't do it on the property owner's property. 230therapy says the property owner must allow 230therapy to wear red underwear wherever he wants to, including on property that 230therapy does not own.

    I can aviod the petty tyrant property owner by going elsewhere and finding alternate sources for the goods and services he provides. I can express my disagreement with the rules set by the property owner and attempt by various means to change his mind. I can get my own property and invite folks who want to wear red underwear to come to my property where they will be welcome.

    But 230therapy remains a petty tyrant who insists that the property owner change his rules because 230therapy wants to wear red underwear on that property owner's property. In other words, 23otherapy does not want to avoid the petty tyrant property owner, he wants to be the petty tyrant who overpowered the other petty tyrant.

    That's why I do not agree with 230therapy.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 09-29-2010 at 10:48 AM. Reason: fixed tense of verb, took out excess words

  5. #5
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    skidmarks's post confirms that he holds property above life. His example diverts away from the right to life and natural right of self-defense into a side discussion about free speech. Let's keep it on the topic of life and the right of self-defense.

    Furthermore, the person expressing the right is not a tyrant; the property owner making the demand is the tyrant. The owner is restricting my right (not talking about privileges) without the power to do so. I am simply demanding that my right be upheld and such a demand is not tyranny. If such a demand were tyranny, then the Founders would have had nothing to justify their rebellion.

    (I am emailing someone regarding the court case. Hopefully they will get back soon).
    Last edited by 230therapy; 09-29-2010 at 11:14 AM.
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  6. #6
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Just sayin

    I may disagree with the rules a property or business owner has, but that being said it is his property and I don’t have to give him my business. If I give an anti gun business my time and money could I die there? Yes. Would I die by not giving them my business? No. Granted if I put my money there, I would be contributing to their policies along with taking the chance of something bad to happening and not being prepared, but with that said it is their business and their rules an their rights. To me this is why I disagree with the smoking ban. It should be enough for them to post a smoking sign and it would end with the decision of the individual that entered the establishment.

    What can also be confusing at times that while some places may be posted; they seem to add to the P4P. I have heard on a few instances where the management has noted that while they were posted, if it wasn’t seen it wasn’t an issue. Not only can this be confusing, but as well send out mixed signals. Thought is either you are pro 2a, or you aren’t. State law should prevail; if you are legal you are legal. Than again this is personal choice.

    Now a question would have, if a franchise were against gun carry, but the owner and managers were for it, whose rules should you go by?

    What about department stores on malls with a no carry policy, but separate entrances that are not posted?

    If you have a day time manager that allows, and a night time that don’t same question.

    Just in breezing through other gun sites in the past in search of information, I have noticed more cc people only, seem to be the ones to disregard no gun signs the most. Not saying that some oc’rs don’t, but just in what I have come across, it gives me that impression.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy View Post
    skidmarks's post confirms that he holds property above life. His example diverts away from the right to life and natural right of self-defense into a side discussion about free speech. Let's keep it on the topic of life and the right of self-defense.

    Furthermore, the person expressing the right is not a tyrant; the property owner making the demand is the tyrant. The owner is restricting my right (not talking about privileges) without the power to do so. I am simply demanding that my right be upheld and such a demand is not tyranny. If such a demand were tyranny, then the Founders would have had nothing to justify their rebellion.

    (I am emailing someone regarding the court case. Hopefully they will get back soon).
    Geeze....I can't believe this is still going on.

    If property owner says no guns, he's not restricting your rights. He's telling you not to come there. You can walk around public property until the cows come home with a gun, just not on his property.

    Just where did you get the idea you can come on someone else s property and do what you please ?


    Do what I do. Spend your money elsewhere but let him exercise HIS rights.

    Just in breezing through other gun sites in the past in search of information, I have noticed more cc people only, seem to be the ones to disregard no gun signs the most. Not saying that some oc’rs don’t, but just in what I have come across, it gives me that impression.
    Kenny, you see CC'ers do it for the same reason you see priests molest children. They think they have a special license from God!
    Last edited by peter nap; 09-29-2010 at 11:35 AM.

  8. #8
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Charlotte, NC, USA
    Posts
    9
    Where's a Libertarian when you need one!

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by deaconmaster View Post
    Where's a Libertarian when you need one!
    A few should show up if you leave some food out...Hey, where's my stick your tongue out, smiley? Darn board changes

  10. #10
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    If property owner says no guns, he's not restricting your rights. He's telling you not to come there.
    Wow...that's a position a Pelosi democrat would take.
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy View Post
    Wow...that's a position a Pelosi democrat would take.
    How did you come up with that?

    You set the rules at your house I assume. Suppose you don't want the neighbor throwing dead skunks over the fence. It's certainly a form of expression so he has a right to do it.

    Contrary to all the jaillhouse philosophy that I've heard on the subject, there is no difference between your house rights and the rights of a mom and pop grocery or the rights of Walmart.

    It's all private property.

  12. #12
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    *PAUSE*

    Just remember, this is a philosophical debate. I do what everyone else here does: I go elsewhere when I see a "No Guns" sign...or it's DC, Maryland, NY, NJ....

    I'm just getting sick of this crap. "No Guns" signs everywhere, cops pointing guns at law abiding citizens and citing them on PoP (******* off police) charges, etc.
    I find it VERY annoying to have to get on OC.org and look around to see if a particular restaurant is pro-OC or not.

    *OKAY, back to the fun *

    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post

    If property owner says no guns, he's not restricting your rights. He's telling you not to come there.

    How did you come up with that?
    1) Denial that life is more important than property.
    2) Converts an inalienable right to a mere privilege solely based upon a "feeling".

    Again, I fail to see how property is more important than life. I cannot own anything if I'm dead. If I get killed because I was disarmed by the property owner, then I believe that owner acted in an immoral way. Furthermore, I place blame upon the owner.

    Perhaps the best way to get rid of "No Guns" signs is to sue them in civil court using this argument. While they may not care about rights, they certainly care about money.
    Last edited by 230therapy; 09-29-2010 at 12:13 PM.
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy View Post
    *PAUSE*

    Just remember, this is a philosophical debate. I do what everyone else here does: I go elsewhere when I see a "No Guns" sign...or it's DC, Maryland, NY, NJ....

    I'm just getting sick of this crap. "No Guns" signs everywhere, cops pointing guns at law abiding citizens and citing them on PoP (******* off police) charges, etc.


    *OKAY, back to the fun *



    1) Denial that life is more important than property.
    2) Converts an inalienable right to a mere privilege solely based upon a "feeling".

    Again, I fail to see how property is more important than life. I cannot own anything if I'm dead.
    That argument might be popular at the debating society but when you force your wishes on a property owner it won't get much praise.

    No one is putting your life in jeopardy except you. If you are so concerned about being disarmed...don't go there. You have a choice.

    Again, I fail to see how property is more important than life.
    To be brutally honest...it depends on whose life. Family or close friends, of course not.
    Strangers who just want to cause trouble, who cares!

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I'm just getting sick of this crap. "No Guns" signs everywhere, cops pointing guns at law abiding citizens and citing them on PoP (******* off police) charges, etc.
    Do you think I'm any less sick of it. You must have missed some of my rantings. To give you a hint, when Skidmark, Grapeshot and I go somewhere and we have the no guns issue pop up, they both blush after I finish the discussion.

    That doesn't matter though. When we give up the right to govern our own piece of the world, we lose all rights including the right to own a gun, because we are then, Public Property.

  15. #15
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    1) Denial that life is more important than property.

    It could be argued that the gun owner is making his own decision of property over life.
    What I mean is if something is that important that they are willing to loose their life over, going in and buying goods or services, that is the gun owners choice. The buisness owner is not holding you at gun point making you do it, it is this their choice no matter how bad it might seem to enact the rules they do.

    That being said, I do believe it is that property owners responsibility to keep in mind the safety of his patrons. ( I will leave this description Open) Insert worms here.......
    Last edited by kennys; 09-29-2010 at 12:29 PM.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    That being said, I do believe it is that property owners responsibility to keep in mind the safety of his patrons. ( I will leave this description Open) Insert worms here.......
    No, I don't think it inserts any worms Kenny, you're 100% correct. They do have that obligation even though we all know it;s an impossible task.

    That's why I don't go somewhere I can't defend myself. If one Mall says no guns, I just go to another.

  17. #17
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    do you think i'm any less sick of it. You must have missed some of my rantings. To give you a hint, when skidmark, grapeshot and i go somewhere and we have the no guns issue pop up, they both blush after i finish the discussion.
    woot!
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  18. #18
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    No, I don't think it inserts any worms Kenny, you're 100% correct. They do have that obligation even though we all know it;s an impossible task.

    That's why I don't go somewhere I can't defend myself. If one Mall says no guns, I just go to another.

    The reason I added the worm’s part is given the smoking ban in restaurant’s the way it is. One could argue that being with out a gun could be more detrimental, in which I could agree to be true. Allowing the state to step in and make all business owners allow legal gun carry per state and local laws however would be just as wrong as the smoking ban. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know there are many that have their views on this

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    The reason I added the worm’s part is given the smoking ban in restaurant’s the way it is. One could argue that being with out a gun could be more detrimental, in which I could agree to be true. Allowing the state to step in and make all business owners allow legal gun carry per state and local laws however would be just as wrong as the smoking ban. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know there are many that have their views on this
    That's a pretty good analogy!

  20. #20
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Constitutional Carry fixes this problem

    With Constitutional Carry, the problem evaporates.

    Breaking the rule of a private enterprise is not a violation of the law.

    If you CC where a shopowner posts gunbuster signs, all you have done is breal his rule, not the law.

    Constitutional Carry allows for open or concealed as the firearms owner chooses.

    I usually go elsewhere when I see gunbuster signs, but this is not always the case.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  21. #21
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    That's why I don't go somewhere I can't defend myself. If one Mall says no guns, I just go to another.
    ^^^THIS^^^

    If property owner says no guns, he's not restricting your rights. He's telling you not to come there.
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy
    Wow...that's a position a Pelosi democrat would take.
    Say what? How in the world did you come to THAT brilliant conclusion? What gives you to invade what is mine and act any way you want there? So it would be just fine with you if we all just showed up at your place and threw a party in your living room? Same difference. We aren't taking your life or money. We are just exercising our right to be free and pursue happiness. If you can't understand something this simple there is no reason to attempt to discuss this with you at all. It would be more productive to talk to a dung heap as at least it wouldn't fling gems like that out.
    Last edited by HeroHog; 09-29-2010 at 01:54 PM.
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  22. #22
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    With Constitutional Carry, the problem evaporates.

    Breaking the rule of a private enterprise is not a violation of the law.

    If you CC where a shopowner posts gunbuster signs, all you have done is breal his rule, not the law.

    Constitutional Carry allows for open or concealed as the firearms owner chooses.

    I usually go elsewhere when I see gunbuster signs, but this is not always the case.
    True BUT, as the owner, I could simply order you to leave and if you refuse, have you arrested for trespass. Again, if you don't like the rightful owner's rules, don't go there. Protest and organize a boycott if you like, THAT is perfectly fine.

    Understand I am all about 2A rights and CC/OC BUT there ARE reasonable/legal and moral limits on rights. You don't lose ANY rights at all in the above case. You can still carry, where it is public or private property that allows such. You still have your right to your life, no one has taken it and they have not disarmed you. You still have and can use your guns... just not on THEIR property. You are still free. No one is MAKING you stay on their property much less holding you there defenseless. Understand?
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  23. #23
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroHog View Post
    True BUT, as the owner, I could simply order you to leave and if you refuse, have you arrested for trespass. Again, if you don't like the rightful owner's rules, don't go there. Protest and organize a boycott if you like, THAT is perfectly fine.
    Concealed means concealed. If they know you are concealing, then you aren't really concealing.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  24. #24
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    Quote Originally Posted by 230therapy View Post
    What grapeshot and skidmark are actually arguing is that property is more important than life.

    No, I think what they are advocating is that they (and the vast majority of the rest of us) follow the law. We respect the property owner's wishes because A) for concealed carry, the law requires it, and B) its the right thing to do. Wouldn't you want someone to follow your rules on your private property? We respect the property owner's wishes so much that we'll spend our money elsewhere. When they go out of business, a la Richbrau Brewery for example, we'll sit back and say "told ya so".

    Its like the people who preach that they hate guns. I disagree with the statement, but I'll respect your right to say it.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,605
    Quote Originally Posted by ProShooter View Post
    No, I think what they are advocating is that they (and the vast majority of the rest of us) follow the law. We respect the property owner's wishes because A) for concealed carry, the law requires it, and B) its the right thing to do. Wouldn't you want someone to follow your rules on your private property? We respect the property owner's wishes so much that we'll spend our money elsewhere. When they go out of business, a la Richbrau Brewery for example, we'll sit back and say "told ya so".

    Its like the people who preach that they hate guns. I disagree with the statement, but I'll respect your right to say it.
    The temper and tone of OCDO and the majority of posters here is to obey the law, and to work to change those laws (or the application thereof) with which we do not agree. The more radical/extreme approaches have not been accepted favorably.

    Personally, I have long been a proponent of "quasi-public" defined properties - that is private property that openly invites the public to enter i.e. These properties so classified would be subject to the limitations/restrictions of public property and would include most retail establishments. I understand the problems with this and the arguments/reasoning of those not in favor so flames are not necessary. Nevertheless, I am not that far off from the goals espoused by the OP, but shouting only to hear the echo of one's own voice has little merit.

    The primary difference in us is that I see no need to approach insulting others, to rant and bray at the lack of perfection in our laws. If one really wants to be effective, there are venues/organizations such as VCDL that will gladly accept the volunteer services of anyone willing to work within their framework.

    If the OP has not accepted the cloak of an agent provocateur, he will recognize that he is but one voice (at least a minority) and that to insist that he is the unqualified authority on the thoughts and deeds of others here is an attempt at the application of tyranny itself.

    This is hardly a new subject on OCDO nor has there anything new been added to the intellectual discourse on the matter. Therefore it is likely I will have little else to contribute to this thread - it's all been said before. There is a huge difference between real world solutions and those of our day dreams, no matter how noble.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

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

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •