CCW/OCW and Private businesses?

[Sarcogito]

I have two positions that are not typical of a liberal progressive and I am trying to reconcile them.

1. I believe in a citizen's right to carry a firearm, be it concealed or open. This is a fairly new position for me.
2. I believe in a private business's right to to deny entry or service to anyone for any stupid reason they want (I'm not as forgiving for publicly traded corporations).

So, for those of you who hold similar views, how do you reconcile them? If you believe it is your Constitutional right to bear arms, should, say, a restaurant be able to forbid you from bringing one in? If enough places forbid it then it becomes less a freedom and more of a hassel.

What say you?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I don't think this is very hard to reconcile. A private business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason. If their rules are "no cursing" and they refuse to serve you if you curse, are they attacking your 1st Amendment Rights? No. A private business can say, "no guns allowed".

 

[Sarcogito]

I don't think this is very hard to reconcile. A private business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason. If their rules are "no cursing" and they refuse to serve you if you curse, are they attacking your 1st Amendment Rights? No. A private business can say, "no guns allowed".

Should it be illegal to carry a concealed weapon into a place that posts such a sign? Or should the proprietor simply be able to kick you out if he discovers you are secretly carrying?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Should it be illegal to carry a concealed weapon into a place that posts such a sign? Or should the proprietor simply be able to kick you out if he discovers you are secretly carrying?

The latter. I think the former could violate the 2nd Amendment, but the latter falls under property rights.

 

[Surtr]

So, for those of you who hold similar views, how do you reconcile them?

Property rights. The owner has the ultimate say in what you can bring into his property. Most places here only prevent unlicensed/illegal carry, though, so it's never been an issue for me. If someone forbids the carry of guns, but I really want to go it, I'll leave it in my truck. It's not that big a deal to me.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have two positions that are not typical of a liberal progressive and I am trying to reconcile them.

1. I believe in a citizen's right to carry a firearm, be it concealed or open. This is a fairly new position for me.
2. I believe in a private business's right to to deny entry or service to anyone for any stupid reason they want (I'm not as forgiving for publicly traded corporations).

So, for those of you who hold similar views, how do you reconcile them? If you believe it is your Constitutional right to bear arms, should, say, a restaurant be able to forbid you from bringing one in? If enough places forbid it then it becomes less a freedom and more of a hassel [sic].

What say you?

In general, I agree with both of the above points. I believe that every free American has the right to carry a firearm if he so chooses, but I also believe that every owner of any property or any business has a right to choose who or what he will or will not allow on his property or in his business.

Now in our society, we have established rules that businesses may not discriminate against people on the basis of such things as race, religion, sex, and so on. I do not agree that anyone's right not to be discriminated against should trump a property owner's right to decide who or what he will allow on his property, or a business owner's right to decide with whom he will or will not do business. Accepting, however, that certain forms of discrimination are prohibited, I would have to say that it is no more legitimate to discriminate against someone for exercising any Constitutionally-protected right, including the right to bear arms, than it is to discriminate against someone because of his race, religion, or whatever.

I don't think this is very hard to reconcile. A private business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason. If their rules are "no cursing" and they refuse to serve you if you curse, are they attacking your 1st Amendment Rights? No. A private business can say, "no guns allowed".

Certainly, a property or business owner has a right to prohibit any activity on his property that is disruptive. A business certainly would have the right to prohibit cursing on their premises, if that behavior is in any way disruptive to the business. This doesn't mean that a business owner would have a right to discriminate against someone because of anything that person says at another time and place, where it doesn't affect the business. Similarly, a business owner would certainly have the right to prohibit someone from brandishing a gun in a threatening manner. This doesn't mean he has the right to discriminate against someone for having a gun discretely holstered.

 

[cpgrad08]

I open carry my handgun all the time. If a private business doesn't allow guns. I respect there right to do so and I take my business else were. If I do have to go to them I will leave my weapon in the car.

 

[lpast]

Im all for gun ownership and self protection and always have been...the business owner can bar anyone for whatever reason...I could have a problem with....If someone is openly breaking their rules absolutely...
Id like to add this...in all my life in NY, NJ, FLa and my stops and vacations in many other states...I have never ever seen a sign, NO GUNS ALLOWED

 

[molten_dragon]

I think the owner of any private property, be it a business or a home, should have the right to control whether they want people bringing guns onto that property. If a business doesn't want you bringing guns onto their property, and you do anyway, they should have the right to kick you out. I don't think it should be illegal. Although if you refuse to leave when asked, or keep coming back, then it would be trespassing, but I don't see a need to make it illegal to take a gun into a business with a 'no guns' sign.

 

[sharon]

I don't know the concealed carry laws in all states, but in some states you must NEVER allow anyone to even suspect that you are carrying.

Brandishing would send you to jail.

Display your gun, go to jail.

You should expect to be arrested by police at gunpoint, and be charged with a crime anytime your concealed handgun is seen by another citizen in public, regardless of how unintentional or innocent or justified the situation might seem. Choose a method of carry that keeps your gun reliably hidden from public view at all times.

You have no control over how a stranger will react to seeing (or learning about) your concealed handgun. He or she might become alarmed and report you to police as a "man or woman with a gun." Depending on his or her feelings about firearms, this person might be willing to maliciously embellish his or her story in attempt to have your gun seized by police or to get you arrested. An alarmed citizen who reports a "man with a gun" is going to be more credible to police than you when you're stopped because you match the suspect's description, and you're found to have a concealed handgun in your possession.



FirearmsTactical.com - Home

In general, I agree with both of the above points. I believe that every free American has the right to carry a firearm if he so chooses, but I also believe that every owner of any property or any business has a right to choose who or what he will or will not allow on his property or in his business.

Now in our society, we have established rules that businesses may not discriminate against people on the basis of such things as race, religion, sex, and so on. I do not agree that anyone's right not to be discriminated against should trump a property owner's right to decide who or what he will allow on his property, or a business owner's right to decide with whom he will or will not do business. Accepting, however, that certain forms of discrimination are prohibited, I would have to say that it is no more legitimate to discriminate against someone for exercising any Constitutionally-protected right, including the right to bear arms, than it is to discriminate against someone because of his race, religion, or whatever.




Certainly, a property or business owner has a right to prohibit any activity on his property that is disruptive. A business certainly would have the right to prohibit cursing on their premises, if that behavior is in any way disruptive to the business. This doesn't mean that a business owner would have a right to discriminate against someone because of anything that person says at another time and place, where it doesn't affect the business. Similarly, a business owner would certainly have the right to prohibit someone from brandishing a gun in a threatening manner. This doesn't mean he has the right to discriminate against someone for having a gun discretely holstered.

FirearmsTactical.com - Home

 

[cpgrad08]

I don't know the concealed carry laws in all states, but in some states you must NEVER allow anyone to even suspect that you are carrying.

Brandishing would send you to jail.

Display your gun, go to jail.

You should expect to be arrested by police at gunpoint, and be charged with a crime anytime your concealed handgun is seen by another citizen in public, regardless of how unintentional or innocent or justified the situation might seem. Choose a method of carry that keeps your gun reliably hidden from public view at all times.

You have no control over how a stranger will react to seeing (or learning about) your concealed handgun. He or she might become alarmed and report you to police as a "man or woman with a gun." Depending on his or her feelings about firearms, this person might be willing to maliciously embellish his or her story in attempt to have your gun seized by police or to get you arrested. An alarmed citizen who reports a "man with a gun" is going to be more credible to police than you when you're stopped because you match the suspect's description, and you're found to have a concealed handgun in your possession.



FirearmsTactical.com - Home



FirearmsTactical.com - Home

That's when you show the police your CPL ( at least in Washington) and they let you go for you have done nothing wrong. Unless it's Seattle PD but that's a different story.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Certainly, a property or business owner has a right to prohibit any activity on his property that is disruptive. A business certainly would have the right to prohibit cursing on their premises, if that behavior is in any way disruptive to the business. This doesn't mean that a business owner would have a right to discriminate against someone because of anything that person says at another time and place, where it doesn't affect the business. Similarly, a business owner would certainly have the right to prohibit someone from brandishing a gun in a threatening manner. This doesn't mean he has the right to discriminate against someone for having a gun discretely holstered.

Disagree with the last part. If a property owner says, "no guns allowed on premises" then that includes someone who has a gun discretely holstered.

 

[Surtr]

Disagree with the last part. If a property owner says, "no guns allowed on premises" then that includes someone who has a gun discretely holstered.

Exactly. I don't believe it's any different than walking into a persons house with a gun, when they don't permit it. Their property, their rules.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Disagree with the last part. If a property owner says, "no guns allowed on premises" then that includes someone who has a gun discretely holstered.

What if the business owner says “No negros allowed”?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Exactly. I don't believe it's any different than walking into a persons house with a gun, when they don't permit it. Their property, their rules.

Yup. This is the larger point of what I was saying. Since we are not talking about governmental discrimination or the legal issue around guns, property rights win out.

 

[Surtr]

What if the business owner says “No negros allowed”?

Then that person would lose their business.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What if the business owner says “No negros allowed”?

Unless it was a private club... where it would be allowed, this would be covered by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act does not cover "discrimination" around barring persons from carrying firearms into a business.

 

[Ikari]

I have two positions that are not typical of a liberal progressive and I am trying to reconcile them.

1. I believe in a citizen's right to carry a firearm, be it concealed or open. This is a fairly new position for me.
2. I believe in a private business's right to to deny entry or service to anyone for any stupid reason they want (I'm not as forgiving for publicly traded corporations).

So, for those of you who hold similar views, how do you reconcile them? If you believe it is your Constitutional right to bear arms, should, say, a restaurant be able to forbid you from bringing one in? If enough places forbid it then it becomes less a freedom and more of a hassel.

What say you?

Open and concealed carry should be considered standard and there should be no permits associated with them. Any private business/property owner may deny entry or service to anyone carrying a gun; though they must post it.

 

[Tigger]

I have no problem with a private business telling me I can't carry a firearm into their establishment, so long as they are willing to provide me with a secure location to store my firearm while I am doing business with them. If they do not, then I simply choose not to do business with them.

 

[Thunder]

its very simple: if the owner of any private property asks you to leave because you are carrying a gun, walking a dog, or are shirtless..and you refuse to leave, you are now trespassing. And that is a crime.

 

[Tigger]

its very simple: if the owner of any private property asks you to leave because you are carrying a gun, walking a dog, or are shirtless..and you refuse to leave, you are now trespassing. And that is a crime.

Yep. My problem is when these things are not well-noted on the outside of the property, so I don't waste my time going inside. I had an issue a couple weeks ago where I got all the way inside a location before the "No Weapons Allowed" sign was vsible. My girlfriend took the gift and card in and gave it to the birthday girl before we left.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

its very simple: if the owner of any private property asks you to leave because you are carrying a gun, walking a dog, or are shirtless..and you refuse to leave, you are now trespassing. And that is a crime.

What if they ask you to leave because you are Jewish?

 

[Thunder]

What if the business owner says “No negros allowed”?

What if they ask you to leave because you are Jewish?

Gun-owners are a protected racial/ethnic group?

why are you again bringing up my religion?

what's your point Bob?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gun-owners are a protected racial/ethnic group?

why are you again bringing up my religion?

what's your point Bob?

My point is that it is inconsistent and unethical to disallow discrimination only against arbitrary “protected racial/ethnic group”, while allowing it against other groups not deemed “protected”.

I think I most lean toward the idea that a private property or business owner should have an absolute right to bar anyone or anything from his property or his business, for any reason, no matter how asinine or unfair anyone else might think his reason to be.

But as a society, we have determined that certain forms of discrimination are not allowed. If one is not allowed to discriminate against someone because of his race or religion, then I don't think it makes any sense to allow discrimination against anyone for exercising an explicitly-affirmed Constitutional right.

 

[Thunder]

My point is that it is inconsistent and unethical to disallow discrimination only against arbitrary “protected racial/ethnic group”, while allowing it against other groups not deemed “protected”....

gun-owners, dog-walkers, shirtless-men, folks wearing hoodies, ladies showing their thongs, are NOT a protected class and can be asked to GTFO by a business-owner.