Let's push back

[R a Z o R]

imported post

"As a disabled black lesbian veteran my civil rights are directly linked to my 2A RKBA and my inalienable ancient right of self protection at all times . My children support my choice to OC ."

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

RMD wrote:

I agree the gay thing is open for debate but religion would be another topic. While some countries may require you to be a certain religion we are talking the about the U.S.A. where there is a freedom of religion so yo uare not required to be any of them and it is a choice.

Not trying to bootstrap it to the civil rights movement. Just showing the correlation between the two. A certain group of people (in this case OC'rs) want to be able to be treated fairly as any other citizen (in this country).

You exercise your right to deny service in your business. That is one of the reasons the trespassing laws are there. Carrying a gun is also a right our founding fathers believed in from the beginning (2A doesn't give the right, itimplies the right exists and "shall not be infringed").

Would it be a better comparison to say you wanted to deny service to Obama supporters or Bush supporters (I don't see that one going very far either). It is a right under the First Amendment, but by what you are saying it would not apply? It is discrimination any way you look at it.

OMG.. are you kidding me?

You have no real world experience do you?!! There are countries that have such a strong hold over people that it does not matter what free world they live in... They WILL practice the religion of their culture. And their people here will turn their backs on them if they do not continue.

Did you not see what I posted? The government has LAWS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION OF SOMEONES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!! That was not something I made up. So this is not really open for debate.

You have the right to a gun. But you CANNOT walk on my land with your gun if I do not want you there!! I too have rights and you shall not infringe upon them either.

Yes.. there is a trespassing charge. And that same charge is used when I post a sign telling you to keep your guns off my property.

If you want to bear arms... do it some place else

OK, here we go again....

Who you vote for is your own business. But if you happen to tell me in my place of business I might just kick you out!! The whole idea of a secret ballot with the curtain and all is so people do not go after you for who you voted for.

But I certantly can kick your butt out if you voted for the other guy!! What are you going to do about it? There are no civil rights in who you voted for. You have the RIGHT to vote but it affords you no protection if I kick you out of my business. :lol:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

R a Z o R wrote:

"As a disabled black lesbian veteran my civil rights are directly linked to my 2A RKBA and my inalienable ancient right of self protection at all times . My children support my choice to OC ."

This whole civil rights and black segregation connection is not doing anything for the open carry movement.... I actually find it a little insulting.

So many of you are trying to bootstrap OC to rights that do not apply.

Nice try... It will not fly... :?

You have the right to keep and bear arms. You are free to do it in your home 24/7. Do not try doing it in my home or other property I control. I may get upset and kick you out. Only room for one gun on my property.. MINE!

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP You have the right to keep and bear arms. You are free to do it in your home 24/7. Do not try doing it in my home or other property I control. I may get upset and kick you out. Only room for one gun on my property.. MINE!

QFT

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

R a Z o R wrote:

"As a disabled black lesbian veteran my civil rights are directly linked to my 2A RKBA and my inalienable ancient right of self protection at all times . My children support my choice to OC ."

This whole civil rights and black segregation connection is not doing anything for the open carry movement.... I actually find it a little insulting.

So many of you are trying to bootstrap OC to rights that do not apply.

Nice try... It will not fly... :?

You have the right to keep and bear arms. You are free to do it in your home 24/7. Do not try doing it in my home or other property I control. I may get upset and kick you out. Only room for one gun on my property.. MINE!

... LEO ...

May I CCW on your property as a law abiding disabled Vet ?

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

There is a simple remedy for businesses that are "defense-unfreindly" and that is to withold your custom. VCDL has a great sticker to surreptiously post to the doors of these places : "ATTENTION CRIMINALS!! This is a DEFENSE FREE CRIME ZONE! All Law-abiding patrons of this establishment have been disarmed for your convenience, Enjoy! -- The Management"

In addition an anti-defense establishment will get trashed by me to tourists and others who ask my opinion of it. And believe me if you own a restaurant the LAST thing you want to do is p*&s off a cabbie.

And really, if I feel I need to carry a weapon I don't care WHAT some timoorous wait-staffer thinks. He/she/it doesn't need to know I am armed aand unless they are employing metal detectors at the door or patting folks down as they enter, they will onlu find out if a BG comes in and starts blasting. Which in all probability won't happen, but my concern is the walk back to the vehicle or down the street to the house.

There are two "OC freindly restaurants in my neighborhood, Le Gauloise and the Hard Times Cafe'; although I did get a condescending school-marmish lecture about why I couldn't have a beer with my chili while armed from an Ubamanista witress there last year. At Le Gauloise, I had a very nice meal and no trouble at all this summer even though I had a Walther P38 on my hip.

There are two establishments where violence has in the past erupted, and they of course do not allow firearms (to prevent violence!). I do not patronize these places. Instead, I am (along with a loot of other folks in the neighborhood) asking the City to close them down. There are you see multiple ways to handle intoleraance.

 

[Dispatcher]

imported post

The overall trick is finding a balance between property rights and gun rights. Property rights are also granted by the constitution. I don't think that one right wipes out another right or has more power than the other. As such, you should not just be able to carry on all private property regardless of what the owner wants. Then again, I believe the owner should not be able to completely assert control over everything.

The question is... where does one right begin and the other end? Even I don't have the answer to this.

My personal stance is, as far as a person's HOME goes.... the owner should have complete control of who comes and goes with what. Homes are the ultimate private domain.

As far as public businesses go... I think that people have the right to carry. Now be aware I'm not stating law, but personal beliefs of what should be. I think if something is a public venue, such as anyone if anyone of good intent can go in and out, like a restaraunt, you should be able to carry and no one should deny you that right.

I don't support total property control, even by the owner of a business. I believe an owner should be able to say if you can drink and carry, per say, but not that you can't carry altogether. It's just what I believe. I don't like the absolute rule interpretation.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

SNIP The overall trick is finding a balance between property rights and gun rights. Property rights are also granted by the constitution.

The proper thing is to not go trying to find a balance. By that I mean, do not involve government.

The problem starts once one tries to use government to enforce one's preferences on rights. The result is more government intrusion, and that opens the door tofar more damage than a mall or restaurant that refuses to recognize rights.

 

[spiritof76]

imported post

I think the issue of personal responsibility and civil liability is an interesting one when it comes to gun rights on private property.

We have all heard the stories about burglars who have been injured while robbing someone's home, and then successfully sued the homeowner. That's obviously ridiculous.

But what if a customer of a private store is injured on the premises due to specific negligence of the owner? Say there was something obviously wrong in the construction, such as a loose lighting fixture falling on the customer's head. Generally speaking, in most jurisdictions the owner would be civilly liable for the injury due to negligence. He may not have been breaking a specific law as such, but he was responsible for the injury.

Here is an idea I am mulling over: a similar case can be made for someone who is injured due to violence in a private business that prohibits its customers from carrying firearms. If another patron was armed and reasonably may have been able to stop a criminal act of violence, then the owner should be held liable to the extent that their "no firearms" policy contributed to making the criminal act possible in the first place.

On the other hand, strict personal responsibility would hold that each person can choose which business to visit in the first place, so they are the only ones liable for their safety. I can see the merit in both points of view.

However, in today's world where soulless international corporations, banks, mega-casinos have all the "rights" of private individuals, there is also a problem. Since corporations exist merely by the sanction of the state, I think that maybe they should NOT have the same "rights" to control the private behavior of their citizens. In just about all jurisdictions, it is already illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc. That's certainly a good thing in most cases, especially for major corporate businesses -- to force them to be ethical.

(Aside: on this subject, I highly recommend that everyone watch the excellent documentary The Corporation.)

Shouldn't it also be the case that they are not allowed to enact senseless "no gun" policies? Perhaps small privately-owned businesses should have all of their rights to do as they please, but larger state-sanctioned corporate "persons" definitely should be subject to policies that protect the people as a whole.

Just some thoughts I typed out as they crossed my mind. Any comments are welcome.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Dispatcher wrote:

SNIP The overall trick is finding a balance between property rights and gun rights. Property rights are also granted by the constitution.

The proper thing is to not go trying to find a balance. By that I mean, do not involve government.

The problem starts once one tries to use government to enforce one's preferences on rights. The result is more government intrusion, and that opens the door tofar more damage than a mall or restaurant that refuses to recognize rights.

QFT

He does not want a balance for both sides.

It appears he wants gun owners to have more rights than property owners and ultimately take the law into their own hands do get their way..

What he does not realize is that law enforcement was created a long time ago to get involved and make decisions on the law and not emotion.

Once you are involved personally you are not as likely to make proper decisions. You decide what is best for you and what you want. Even if it is wrong.

You need someone impartial to decide who is not going to automatically side with you because you are his friend.

So the LEO steps in and decides on what is best for both parties.

There is no "government intrusion" here. That is complete BS. You call, they come, they listen, they explain.. both parties make a decision ... DONE!! What intrusion is there?? NONE!!

Get over yourself Citizen....

The Dispatcher is correct.... there always needs to be a balance. But my property rights trump your being on my property when I do not want you there.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP You have the right to keep and bear arms. You are free to do it in your home 24/7. Do not try doing it in my home or other property I control. I may get upset and kick you out. Only room for one gun on my property.. MINE!

QFT

And??

Are you indicating there is some problem with me having the right to control my property?

Get over yourself.....

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

R a Z o R wrote:

... LEO ...

May I CCW on your property as a law abiding disabled Vet ?

How can I refuse that look....


Come on over!! :lol:

 

[LaVere]

imported post

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP You have the right to keep and bear arms. You are free to do it in your home 24/7. Do not try doing it in my home or other property I control. I may get upset and kick you out. Only room for one gun on my property.. MINE!

QFT

And??

Are you indicating there is some problem with me having the right to control my property?

Get over yourself.....

QFT = Quoted For Truth

He was agreeing with you. As do I. Property rights are just as important as gun rights.

Now, I don't agree with business owners that choose to turn their establishment into a Criminal Enterprise Zone, but I also don't believe getting the government to force them to do it my way is the solution- actually, government is really NEVER the solution... for anything.

The way to deal with those uninformed business owners is to not patronize their business, and to spread the word to as many other gun owners as you can to do the same. It can also be helpful to explain to that business owner how his sign is ineffective: i.e., the law abiding folks that might respect the sign don't commit crimes with their guns, and criminals will simply ignore the sign. Posting your store as a "gun free zone" doesn't make it so- it just gives you a warm fuzzy feeling because you think you've done something.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

I just ccw anyway. I mean, if it's concealed then who is the wiser? And should the occasion arise, better I go to jail for a year and lose my CC rights for the next five than have the BGs win. Otherwise why frighten the sheeple? Wanna put in metaql detectors and frisk oeople?? DO IT. All that means is I am not coming in. If I figure mI need to arm myself I will, and it really is just that simple.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP You have the right to keep and bear arms. You are free to do it in your home 24/7. Do not try doing it in my home or other property I control. I may get upset and kick you out. Only room for one gun on my property.. MINE!

QFT

And??

Are you indicating there is some problem with me having the right to control my property?

Get over yourself.....

QFT = Quoted For Truth

He was agreeing with you. As do I. Property rights are just as important as gun rights.

Now, I don't agree with business owners that choose to turn their establishment into a Criminal Enterprise Zone, but I also don't believe getting the government to force them to do it my way is the solution- actually, government is really NEVER the solution... for anything.

The way to deal with those uninformed business owners is to not patronize their business, and to spread the word to as many other gun owners as you can to do the same. It can also be helpful to explain to that business owner how his sign is ineffective: i.e., the law abiding folks that might respect the sign don't commit crimes with their guns, and criminals will simply ignore the sign. Posting your store as a "gun free zone" doesn't make it so- it just gives you a warm fuzzy feeling because you think you've done something.

Are you saying Citizen was agreeing with me?

He does his petty QFT because he thinks I will change my post to hide it and he wants to have it on record. It really is a waste of a post. He cannot prove one case where I have ever altered my post to hide something.

Anyway........ As I posted already.. I own a business and gun owners are welcome. I have no signs. I know that a person openly armed is no threat. It is the guy that walks in wearing a mark holding a gun in his hand I need to worry about.

And I can only hope that one of those armed guys will save lives if the time comes.

But that is just me.

Now I am concerned about some people being armed. Even more-so after being on this board for the past two years. There are some people that simply have no clue and would be a danger to everyone. They do not know what is appropriate.

But I believe in property rights. If some place does not want me there with a gun.. I shop elsewhwere. No business for him. But in the bigger picture.... one OCer does not make that big a difference that day.

Acceptable loss for the owner. The loss is minor and there was no disruption to his business. No cops, no ban letter, no time calling cops. Just ringing up customers.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

LEO229, you know that I respect you, 10-4?? But if someone objects to you packing heat, all you need to do is show them your commission card and they are going to back right off and kiss your shiny copper ass.

I have a peacenik freind who used to own an Arlington bar and who is a nationally famous "singer/songwriter". She does not want arms in her home and I respect that. But she did not want arms in her club, so I deep-conceled when I went there. What I do is a cost-benefit analysis. Should I be discovered to have a weapon where the owners of a oublic house prohibit it I wil in all likelihoosd simply be asked to leave and not return. Big deal. Should a situation arise that calls for the application of lethal force then, as long as everything else is Kosher I face one year in jail and a $2'500 fine (in Virginia) and THAT is supposing that the vaious defenses aginst such a charge fail.

No matter if I am openly carrying or carrying concealed, the weapon is not coming out of the holster unless there is no other reasonable option but to fire. And if there is one ironclad rule about having a roscoe on you, that is it.

By the way what is with the Halloween avatar? Mine is a representation of the badge I carrried and wore with the USAF Security Police. I wish alk present and former LEOs would get avatars that reflect our LE backgrounds.I am not ashamed of being a former LEO and those of us who are past or active LEOs should show it IMHO.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

LEO229, you know that I respect you, 10-4?? But if someone objects to you packing heat, all you need to do is show them your commission card and they are going to back right off and kiss your shiny copper ass.

I have a peacenik freind who used to own an Arlington bar and who is a nationally famous "singer/songwriter". She does not want arms in her home and I respect that. But she did not want arms in her club, so I deep-conceled when I went there. What I do is a cost-benefit analysis. Should I be discovered to have a weapon where the owners of a oublic house prohibit it I wil in all likelihoosd simply be asked to leave and not return. Big deal. Should a situation arise that calls for the application of lethal force then, as long as everything else is Kosher I face one year in jail and a $2'500 fine (in Virginia) and THAT is supposing that the vaious defenses aginst such a charge fail.

No matter if I am openly carrying or carrying concealed, the weapon is not coming out of the holster unless there is no other reasonable option but to fire. And if there is one ironclad rule about having a roscoe on you, that is it.

By the way what is with the Halloween avatar? Mine is a representation of the badge I carrried and wore with the USAF Security Police. I wish alk present and former LEOs would get avatars that reflect our LE backgrounds.I am not ashamed of being a former LEO and those of us who are past or active LEOs should show it IMHO.

If I get what you are saying... It is true that if someone did object to me being armed I could identify that I am a cop and most likely.. they would say "Oh, OK?" and move on.

Now that is still their decision and not everyone will say that. But they can decide if they want to make an exception. People should not hate cops because a business might not kick them out. Many people trust the police. This is based on their own personal experiences. They know that "for the most part" cops are not going to do something stupid. Cops carry all day and "normally" deploy only when needed.

We have all read posts here by other members. I have been shocked to find the decisions made and the people backing them up saying they would do it too when it comes to taking certain actions. Simply said... there are a number of people here I DO NOT trust with a gun. They scare me! They have no training or lack the maturity to know when.

So... again... it is up to the business to decide. Cops can be kicked out too. I had a lady at the Military Exchange kick me out while in my cop uniform!!! But I negotiated my way to the register first with her permission. :lol:

In regards to my avatar... I did have a cute little badge once and like me... it was NOT well received. It was a sign of "authority" and I was using it to push my weight around in here. This was according to a few members.

You, on the other hand, can get away with it. Sheriff can even post a picture of a cop in uniform. But if I post a badge.. all hell would break loose. They would DEMAND it be taken down. :lol:

So I post something funny in hopes people will be more at ease and not take me so seriously. I even posted a man with a bad over his head once.

People here do take me way too serious and should realize by not that I am a joker. I like having fun and am far from serious. I can be if needed... and I do it very well. But normally.. I am easy going. Everyone I meet in person likes me. Especially... the ladies!!

Maybe it is time for a change. Maybe I will replace my avatar with Obama. :shock: :lol:

 

[Aran]

imported post

ftp.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Aran wrote:

ftp.

Fuc_ the Police?