Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: A nice OC Experienced

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    67

    A nice OC Experience

    Hello, all:

    I just returned home from taking a friend to the Greyhound bus station on Main St, by the Freemont Street Experience.

    I must confess that they do have a sign prohibiting firearms on site, but I did not see it due to the glass being tinted and the sun was reflecting on it. Also, the sign is small.
    I was there for almost an hour. I stepped outside for a smoke, and as I was going to re-enter the building, I saw the security guard motion to me. Here's what was said, verbatim. I remember, because it was short and sweet. As he was talking to me, 6 police officers arrived from the security guard's call about a MWAG.

    Security Guard: "Are you a LEO?"
    Me: "No."
    Security Guard: Do you have a CCW?"
    Me: "No. I don't need one"
    (The police arrive)
    Security Guard: "There he is!" (Steps back, to let the cops arrest me)

    The police takes one look at me, at says: "He's cool. No problem here"

    I thanked the officers for their knowledge of the OC laws and professionalism.

    The security guard was shocked! It was then mentioned that the no firearm sign was posted on the window, but they could see that it was not possible to see it thru the tinted glass. I promised not to re-enter the building.

    I wish all officers were that great!

    PS: I took a picture of the sign, but don't know how to post it.... Uh, help?
    Last edited by Cisco; 08-23-2011 at 04:06 AM. Reason: Mispelled title

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sabotage70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fabulous Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    844
    Nice to see that the cops didn't take you to the ground like security was hoping.

    As far as pics go. You can either attach through this websight by clicking the paperclip when posting. Or you can get photobucket dot com. It's free and easy to use. Once you get your pic uploaded to photobucket, use the IMG code. Just copy and paste the image code.




    Then preview your post and make sure it works.
    EDC=XDm40 16+1+16+16

    RED DRAGONS!!!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    67
    I found the attachment link. Thanks! I will get Photo Bucket also.
    The sign is pretty visible in the picture. It was taken at night. But to the naked eye, it still was hard to see. Go figure.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	gun sign.jpg 
Views:	167 
Size:	92.4 KB 
ID:	6724  

  4. #4
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    More than likely he is a police acadamy drop out and is upset he can't have a job that allows him to carry a gun. Thus he thinks nobody should have one....lol

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, ,
    Posts
    120
    Even if the sign was visible it is meaningless. In NV, it carries no weight. You can legally carry right past that sign and go about your business, unless and until you are asked to leave.

  6. #6
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    The sign means zero. It has no force in law. In order to trespass you someone in authority has to tell you to leave. Then if you don't, they can have you arressted. Assuming I understand you correctly, you were still outside when confronted so the sign means even less and security can pound sand. Being outside there is nothing the police can do either. One wonders what the security idiot told the cops to get them there in the first place.

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

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I agree with the fact that the sign has no force of law. But to say it is "meaningless" or means "zero" is wrong. The property owner is within his rights to say who can and can't come in. Of course, he is an ignoramus at best, but if we see the sign and CHOOSE to disregard it because we know it has no force of law, we are still being disrespectful of him and his property, even if it is because we think he deserves no respect (which may or may not be the case.)

    I'm not saying don't do it. I'm not saying do it. I'm just saying the sign has meaning. An owner who gets letters from lost customers is more apt to change than one who sees we just come in anyway. This is beside the point of patronizing an anti's establishment, and with recognition that a place like Greyhound is too big to care and has no real alternative if we needed their services.

    If I own a brick-and-mortar business and put up a sign that says "no shirt = no entrance," I would expect someone to obey and stay out. I would not be swayed to the shirtless rights crowd by being forced to trespass them when they willfully disobey.
    Last edited by MAC702; 08-23-2011 at 03:30 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I agree with the fact that the sign has no force of law. But to say it is "meaningless" or means "zero" is wrong. The property owner is within his rights to say who can and can't come in. Of course, he is an ignoramus at best, but if we see the sign and CHOOSE to disregard it because we know it has no force of law, we are still being disrespectful of him and his property, even if it is because we think he deserves no respect (which may or may not be the case.)

    I'm not saying don't do it. I'm not saying do it. I'm just saying the sign has meaning. An owner who gets letters from lost customers is more apt to change than one who sees we just come in anyway. This is beside the point of patronizing an anti's establishment, and with recognition that a place like Greyhound is too big to care and has no real alternative if we needed their services.

    If I own a brick-and-mortar business and put up a sign that says "no shirt = no entrance," I would expect someone to obey and stay out. I would not be swayed to the shirtless rights crowd by being forced to trespass them when they willfully disobey.
    There is a big difference between clothing style (or lack of it) and a constitutionally protected right.

    Secondly, if they are running a business that invites the general public in and is publically traded then they in my opinion don't have the right to force me to leave my rights at the door. In this case "the owner" is the general population that owns stock in the corporation. It is not the same thing as a Mom & Pop shop.

    The "value" of the sign was based on law and not personal belief and feelings.

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

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    if we see the sign and CHOOSE to disregard it because we know it has no force of law, we are still being disrespectful of him and his property
    A lot of the time, signs are too small to notice and put in obscure locations.

    Also, sometimes even when there is a sign it does not reflect store policy. For instance I've been to a couple places (especially sporting goods stores and gun stores) with signs saying no guns or no loaded guns, yet when I've asked the management, they say my loaded gun is fine as long as it stays in the holster and the sign is there for liability purposes.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 08-23-2011 at 05:16 PM.

  10. #10
    28kfps
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    A lot of the time, signs are too small to notice and put in obscure locations.

    Also, sometimes even when there is a sign it does not reflect store policy. For instance I've been to a couple places (especially sporting goods stores and gun stores) with signs saying no guns or no loaded guns, yet when I've asked the management, they say my loaded gun is fine as long as it stays in the holster and the sign is there for liability purposes.
    BassPro is one. Has a sign saying something about no loaded firearms however does not stop anyone from OCing in their store

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    There is a big difference between clothing style (or lack of it) and a constitutionally protected right.

    Secondly, if they are running a business that invites the general public in and is publically traded then they in my opinion don't have the right to force me to leave my rights at the door. In this case "the owner" is the general population that owns stock in the corporation. It is not the same thing as a Mom & Pop shop.

    The "value" of the sign was based on law and not personal belief and feelings.

    TBG
    On someone else's private property, to what Constitutionally-protected right are you referring?

    If you have a sign on the front door of your business detailing who is not welcome in your store, can you really be said to be inviting the general public? You are actually making me wonder though if one could argue discrimination in this case. You can't have a sign on the door of a barber shop saying "no colored people" and they are protected in their rights by the Constitution. So, could one say that a business which infringes beyond state law a Constitutionally-protected right that shall not be infringed, is guilty of illegal discrimination?

    If a duly-authorized agent of the shareholders of a corporation makes policy, it should have the same weight as a sole-prop making policy for his company. Where would you draw the line otherwise. If I form an LLC to protect my assets aside from my company, how many officers can my legal corporation have before I lose the respect of my corporation's policies, regardless of how idiotic they may be?

    I agree with your more-specific statement of the sign's value.

    I'm on your side, but as far as I am for gun-owner's rights, I'm more for private property rights, and I apologize for the hijack.
    Last edited by MAC702; 08-24-2011 at 01:35 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post

    I'm on your side, but as far as I am for gun-owner's rights, I'm more for private property rights, and I apologize for the hijack.
    Don't apologize. All these posts and debates help us learn!
    Personally, if I see a sign prohibiting firearms, I'll take my business elsewhere.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    On someone else's private property, to what Constitutionally-protected right are you referring?

    If you have a sign on the front door of your business detailing who is not welcome in your store, can you really be said to be inviting the general public? You are actually making me wonder though if one could argue discrimination in this case. You can't have a sign on the door of a barber shop saying "no colored people" and they are protected in their rights by the Constitution. So, could one say that a business which infringes beyond state law a Constitutionally-protected right that shall not be infringed, is guilty of illegal discrimination?

    If a duly-authorized agent of the shareholders of a corporation makes policy, it should have the same weight as a sole-prop making policy for his company. Where would you draw the line otherwise. If I form an LLC to protect my assets aside from my company, how many officers can my legal corporation have before I lose the respect of my corporation's policies, regardless of how idiotic they may be?

    I agree with your more-specific statement of the sign's value.

    I'm on your side, but as far as I am for gun-owner's rights, I'm more for private property rights, and I apologize for the hijack.
    If ANY public business (by that, a business that is "open to the public") posts a sign dictating some restriction such as "no shirts, no entry," or "No shoes, no way," or "firearms strictly prohibited," it carries NO WEIGHT of law. All it conveys is the feelings of the management, and unless given notice to leave such business, no law is broken.

    At such time as legal notice of trespass is given, a person must leave without regard for reason behind the notice. In other words, the property owner can simply come up to ANY customer, and give them "notice of trespass," and that is it. It doesn't matter if it is for attire or firearm, it simply "is."


    The sign has no effect upon that, except to give a person entering the business an advance warning to expect such notice if entry is chosen.

    As for any discrimination? So far, 2nd amendment isn't recognized as a civil right that could override property owner's rights as is the case with racial discrimination.
    Last edited by wrightme; 08-24-2011 at 02:41 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    If ANY public business (by that, a business that is "open to the public") posts a sign dictating some restriction such as "no shirts, no entry," or "No shoes, no way," or "firearms strictly prohibited," it carries NO WEIGHT of law. All it conveys is the feelings of the management, and unless given notice to leave such business, no law is broken.

    At such time as legal notice of trespass is given, a person must leave without regard for reason behind the notice. In other words, the property owner can simply come up to ANY customer, and give them "notice of trespass," and that is it. It doesn't matter if it is for attire or firearm, it simply "is."


    The sign has no effect upon that, except to give a person entering the business an advance warning to expect such notice if entry is chosen.

    As for any discrimination? So far, 2nd amendment isn't recognized as a civil right that could override property owner's rights as is the case with racial discrimination.
    Does that mean "Guns Strickly Forbided" = "Criminal Friendly Buisness" or "We Support Crime"
    Last edited by DocWalker; 08-24-2011 at 04:49 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    If ANY public business (by that, a business that is "open to the public") posts a sign dictating some restriction such as "no shirts, no entry," or "No shoes, no way," or "firearms strictly prohibited," it carries NO WEIGHT of law. All it conveys is the feelings of the management, and unless given notice to leave such business, no law is broken.

    At such time as legal notice of trespass is given, a person must leave without regard for reason behind the notice. In other words, the property owner can simply come up to ANY customer, and give them "notice of trespass," and that is it. It doesn't matter if it is for attire or firearm, it simply "is."


    The sign has no effect upon that, except to give a person entering the business an advance warning to expect such notice if entry is chosen.

    As for any discrimination? So far, 2nd amendment isn't recognized as a civil right that could override property owner's rights as is the case with racial discrimination.

    I would have to disagree with the last part of your post.
    We do have an "Unalienable" right to self-defense. The 2-A is a reaffirmation of that right.
    An "Unalienable Right" is a God given right, not one granted by civil law governments of any kind.
    A black man was made with darker skin color, and that also is God given, there was not put into the
    Bill of Rights,about skin color.
    And some people thought it was evil people. Just because they are different looking.
    Hummm ! Interesting that this is the thinking of many here in Kalifornia today
    from our OC-ing around. MWAG calls. ETC !
    So yes ! Both ARE Political, and Mental Discrimination.
    Next it could be Indians, or Germans next.
    Its a sad world we are living in today. Robin47

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    I would have to disagree with the last part of your post.
    If you disagree with the last part of my post, you are disagreeing with several centuries of history.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47
    We do have an "Unalienable" right to self-defense. The 2-A is a reaffirmation of that right.
    An "Unalienable Right" is a God given right, not one granted by civil law governments of any kind.
    Yet it isn't a civil Right that the government protects, like that of racial inequality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47
    A black man was made with darker skin color, and that also is God given, there was not put into the
    Bill of Rights,about skin color.
    And some people thought it was evil people. Just because they are different looking.
    Hummm ! Interesting that this is the thinking of many here in Kalifornia today
    from our OC-ing around. MWAG calls. ETC !
    So yes ! Both ARE Political, and Mental Discrimination.
    Next it could be Indians, or Germans next.
    Its a sad world we are living in today. Robin47
    It isn't that you disagree with ME, but that you disagree with how our country treats it. If you would review my actual statement, you should find that you DO agree with the actual statement I made.
    For review:
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    So far, 2nd amendment isn't recognized as a civil right that could override property owner's rights as is the case with racial discrimination.
    Can you disagree with the actual statement? Or do you only disagree with the concept the statement addresses?

    The statement I made is a true statement about how the 2nd amendment is viewed, NOT a statement about what I think it should be viewed as.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    The easiest way (I have found) to explain the No guns on private businesses signs, and the weight they carry. Is to treat them like a no soliciters sign. It is a simple request.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    The 2A of the Constitution has nothing to do with a property owner vis. a customer

    The 2A contemplates government authority vs. individual rights, not private property owners vs. customers.

    It's not among the rights contemplated by civil rights laws that protect against unlawful discrimination.

    Business owners DO have the right to prohibit firearms, bare feet, bare chests, green shirts, purple socks...anything they want - as long as it is not unlawful discrimination as described in civil rights laws - and the 2A of the Constitution is NOT even remotely implicated.

    Your 2A rights are only implicated if it's a government entity infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. Businesses are not government entities (yet) in America, so by definition any firearm prohibition is not an infringement on 2A rights

Posting Permissions

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