For those who do faze boog. Montana Open Carry

[MSG Laigaie]

I helped run a fazboog page when I lived in Washington State. Now that I am in Montana, I have started a new one called... Montana Open Carry. There is also a Open Carry Montana page but it seems to be dead. Listed on MOC will be information pertaining to Open Carry and anything else that seems pertinent. We expect to continue with the Annual Open Carry picnics. Stop by and share with your friends.

 

[color of law]

Then I hope you don't promote the idea that a business open to the public can arbitrarily ask a CUSTOMER to leave just because they are open carrying.

Section 45-6-201 in part: "(1) A person enters or remains unlawfully in or upon any vehicle, occupied structure, or premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so.  Privilege to enter or remain upon land is extended either by the explicit permission of the landowner or other authorized person or by the failure of the landowner or other authorized person to post notice denying entry onto private land.  The privilege may be revoked at any time by personal communication of notice by the landowner or other authorized person to the entering person."

"Explicit" means: "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."

When a business is open to the public and advertises such you have been invited or given explicit permission to be there. The only why (by statute) a business can deny you entry is when you are personally told not to enter when entering the store. Local law not withstanding.

 

[BB62]

Is there some reason why OCDO is inadequate for your desire to share information and conversation, MSG?

 

[MSG Laigaie]

Is there some reason why OCDO is inadequate for your desire to share information and conversation, MSG?

I am attempting to expand the field to better spread the Open Carry story. I have never considered OCDO as inadequate. Faze boog will garner an alternate method to reach people. Not a replacement, in addition to OCDO..

Then I hope you don't promote the idea that a business open to the public can arbitrarily ask a CUSTOMER to leave just because they are open carrying.

I don't quite know where you are going with this. I do not support any "bans" on firearms, nor do I support a business that restricts legal carry. What is your point?

 

[color of law]

I believe my opening sentence is clear: "Then I hope you don't promote the idea that a business open to the public can arbitrarily ask a CUSTOMER to leave just because they are open carrying."

Help me out, what part of that statement do you not understand?

 

[MSG Laigaie]

I believe my opening sentence is clear: "Then I hope you don't promote the idea that a business open to the public can arbitrarily ask a CUSTOMER to leave just because they are open carrying."
Help me out, what part of that statement do you not understand?

I have not and do not support any prohibitions against legal open carry. On the other hand I do support "private property" and the owners right to set the rules. I am also a big proponent of "no guns....no money. I get to determine who I support.
What was your point?

 

[color of law]

I have not and do not support any prohibitions against legal open carry. On the other hand I do support "private property" and the owners right to set the rules. I am also a big proponent of "no guns....no money. I get to determine who I support.
What was your point?

So, what you are saying is you believe a business can deny service to catholics, or indians, or for any prejudice the business owner holds even though that prejudice he holds is against something that is legal.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

again..... what is your point?

 

[color of law]

again..... what is your point?

My point is, in that you did not dispute my characterization of your belief, you don't understand that businesses open to the public do not have unfettered private property rights, in effect, having the ability to eject any invitee for no reason what soever. A business open to the public is not the same as your private home.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

My headache must be distracting me. What does your comment have to do with announcing a fb information page?
"A business open to the public is not the same as your private home."
Relevance?

 

[color of law]

My headache must be distracting me. What does your comment have to do with announcing a fb information page?
"A business open to the public is not the same as your private home."
Relevance?

I presume your FB page is going to provide information as to what people think the law requires. One of those myths is that a business open to the public can ask anybody to leave their business for no reason at all and if they don’t trespass would apply.

You indicated that you believe that a business open to the public has unfettered power to eject any invitee for no reason what so ever. And you would promote that myth. But that is not the law. In other words, promoting that myth will be a disservice to your readers.

Now, once pointing out the law as to trespass (as I posted above), suggesting that people asked to leave by a business owner would be prudent because the business doesn’t deserve their money would be reasonable.

Now do you understand my point?

 

[MSG Laigaie]

"I presume......................". So you are "presuming I would do that? Rather cheeky of you my friend.

If the sign (owners wishes) say "no shoes no shirt no service" I believe I would comply with that owners wishes. If the sign said "No firearms permitted" I would again, respect that owners wishes and take my money elsewhere. When "Law" comes into the conversation, a reference would be either provided or asked for. I do believe that a business has the right to serve whomever they choose and restrict anyone they see fit.

"Trespass" is law and a reference would be provided/required. Why are you being confrontational about this?

 

[color of law]

"I presume......................". So you are "presuming I would do that? Rather cheeky of you my friend.

If the sign (owners wishes) say "no shoes no shirt no service" I believe I would comply with that owners wishes. If the sign said "No firearms permitted" I would again, respect that owners wishes and take my money elsewhere. When "Law" comes into the conversation, a reference would be either provided or asked for. I do believe that a business has the right to serve whomever they choose and restrict anyone they see fit.

"Trespass" is law and a reference would be provided/required. Why are you being confrontational about this?

"Cheeky," Seriously? It took 4 posts for you to understand a simple subject. Your above answer proves you have no concept of law. If you are going to run a FB page dealing with gun rights in your state I would think you would have a good understanding of the law. Your answer clearly shows you don't have any understanding of law. I don't think you would like being accused of aiding and abetting because of bad information.

You say you would comply with a "no shoes no shirt no service" sign. I would think you would. After all, I would think you would comply because going into a business open to the public without shoes and/or shirt is a health department violation, it's a crime. It is not at an "owners wishes," it's a violation of law.

As to your personal preference in honoring a "no guns" sign is just that, a personal preference depending on location.

You make the statement: "I do believe that a business has the right to serve whomever they choose and restrict anyone they see fit." So, I do understand your position, you believe in discrimination. I don't think running a FB page based on prejudices is wise.

Am I misunderstanding your position? Or, are you not very good at clearly communicating your thoughts?

I'm just say'n.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

I suggest you avoid my "prejudiced page" if it is upsetting you. I made an announcement for an alternate page just because of people like you. You seem to have something very negative going on with this and you can keep it.

OCDO was a great site to share info, but I come here less and less because of commenters like yourself.

 

[color of law]

I suggest you avoid my "prejudiced page" if it is upsetting you. I made an announcement for an alternate page just because of people like you. You seem to have something very negative going on with this and you can keep it.

OCDO was a great site to share info, but I come here less and less because of commenters like yourself.

You are a funny guy. You don't upset me at all. I was trying to keep you from looking like a benighted host on your newly created FB page. My little experience with FB is most participants are unlettered cretins. I wish you well. Enjoy your new friends.

 

[Boomboy007]

Honestly, Color of Law, you have absolutely no idea of what you speak.

First, MSG was one of the MOST important 2A advocates in the entire state of Washington. Had you been even moderately active, you would have had many occasions to meet him. As a retired Master Sergeant, he has absolutely NO problem getting his point across. He was the heart of the Open Carry movement in Whatcom County, and beyond. We were gutted when he and his lovely wife, an accomplished advocate for freedom in her own right, decided to move east. You should be grateful that we have such an accomplished and persuasive individual educating and providing outreach.

Second, you should familiarize yourself a bit more with the law before you attempt to educate others on its import. As a private business owner, one actually CAN refuse service, and even trespass, for almost any or no reason. The ONLY reasons that would be actionable is if they were to cite a "protected class" reason for your removal. Thus, if they kick you out for your race, religion, national origin, age (over 40), pregnancy, disability, pregnancy, veteran status, gender (if that's still a thing), or familial status, they would be subject to legal action. Some states have additional protected groups. Thus, if they kick you out because you are white, black, asian, et al, they are breaking the law. However, if they kick you out because you stink, don't meet their dress code, use language that they don't like, or even because of the gun you wear, they are not breaking the law.

Personally, as a libertarian, I disagree with all laws of association. As a business owner you should be able to hire who you want, serve who you want, and even refuse who you want. Invariably there will be some racist, sexist, or other type of A-hole, and I will be happy to stand outside on the PUBLIC sidewalk with a sign and discourage people from patronizing their business. Ultimately, the market will make its corrections.

That said, if you really want to see how 2A outreach is done, you should be a little less abrasive and confrontational, and actually watch MSG work. We need to change some hearts and minds, because the lovers of liberty are starting to age out.

 

[solus]

Alas boomboy, you seem to have missed the opportunity to understand the conversation regarding following property owner mandates...oh wait, how did you state it in another recent WA thread where you advocate violating the business owner’s membership contract you had to sign to get permission to enter their premise...oh ya here is your statement, quote

...I conceal when I go into Costco, I always open carry at the gas pumps. unquote

so boomboi, how have your efforts to ’change the heart & minds’ fared with the WA firearm initiatives over the past several years...hummm?

MSG took his money as he practiced what he preached...he took his money, wife, and scoots and he moved out of the state...!

 

[OC for ME]

Inertia is a funny thing...

Personally, as a libertarian, I disagree with all laws of association. As a business owner you should be able to hire who you want, serve who you want, and even refuse who you want. Invariably there will be some racist, sexist, or other type of A-hole, and I will be happy to stand outside on the PUBLIC sidewalk with a sign and discourage people from patronizing their business. Ultimately, the market will make its corrections.

This is a clear indication that Boomboy007 understands individual liberty and how any individual liberty seeking citizen should peaceably interact with his fellow citizens in a free market society.

Unfortunately, many folks do not stand outside of Costco and discourage people from patronizing that business because of their anti-individual liberty positions.

 

[color of law]

"Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pidgeon. It'll just knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway."

 

[color of law]

Inertia is a funny thing...

This is a clear indication that Boomboy007 understands individual liberty and how any individual liberty seeking citizen should peaceably interact with his fellow citizens in a free market society.

Unfortunately, many folks do not stand outside of Costco and discourage people from patronizing that business because of their anti-individual liberty positions.

Unfortunately the laws on the books don't support his beliefs. Some refuse to accept that businesses exist at the pleasure of the state and the state makes the rules.