For one thing, the ship has sailed on the claim that owners of private property have free reign to do anything they want on their property. The Supreme Court has repeatedly, for instance, told business owners that they cannot discriminate against patrons based on their sex, race, creed et al. The law states that a mere store owner cannot hamper people’s civil and Constitutional rights just because they have private property rights. One right, in other words, does not trump all–or any single–other rights. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to state that if a store cannot refuse to serve a gay or a person of a particular race or religion because this refusal violates their Constitutional rights, then a store owner cannot act to prevent a patron from observing their Second Amendment rights, either.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here:
If one right does not trump all other rights, then why would the right to carry trump the right to the owner saying no?
Do we want to continue that precedent of not being able to say we allow on our property? Do we want to violate someone else’s Constitutional rights when we don’t want ours violated?
(Again, I’m playing devils advocate so that we look at this from numerous different viewpoints.)
Lets also take into account that rights refer to the government. For instance, my participating in this forum/community, we are agreeing to abide by the rules set forth and enforced by the owners. That comes down to choice. By participating in this forum, we agree to follow their rules. Same goes for carrying. Dont like it, dont spend money there. Simple. And there is another thread discussing the legal ramifications of not following the company police, which in most states is that they can ask you to leave, but there is usually no legal jeopardy.
But that is not really your point is it? Your point is that if a baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding that he has a moral objection to, then a store has to respect our right to carry regardless of how many signs they put up. There are a couple issues with that. First, all rights are not treated equally. Thank god we have a 2A, cause could you imagine if we didnt? Ok, going off topic. Second, the right to concealed carry is not specific to the 2A. In fact, there is no clear guidance nor nationwide constitutional carry. This is also why different states have different laws, some constitutional carry, some require darn near impossible to obtain permits. And then we get into reciprocity. So, while I get your point, its not as simple as that. Also, by posting no firearms, they are not infringing on your ability to own a gun, just saying you cant bring it inside their establishment. One day, I hope that the SCOTUS will provide clear guidance to nationwide constitutional carry, but I doubt that will ever happen.
The term concealment , no one knows…in simple terms. If an establishment says no guns, that means no patronize. No guns in my house? Get off my property. No solicitors? Go away, leave. Rule number 1 in our house and property, “always carry.”
We were at a no gun restaurant, which we hate, but was a guest, and had to enjoy. No guns were allowed. I asked the waiter what would happen if I was carrying? He politely said he didn’t know. I then asked the waiter to ask the manager, the manager said he didn’t know either. Was the no gun sign there for some, stupid, liability reason? Nobody knows. We politely departed, after an awful meal.
I had to edit this…after 45ipac…“we will also go out of our way to patronize business that WANT our business.”
The problem, lies in the perception. A group, say LGBTQ for instance, can not be denied service because the courts consider it a violation of civil liberties. Gun owners, as a group, are not considered in the same light. As @Brian139 said, we have the choice to take our money elsewhere. So, do we want to “make a statement” by going in that business? Where some groups will go out of there way to cause problems for a business, I will go out of my way to just help out the businesses that WANT my business.
@SKIdaho, you bring up an interesting point. Maybe one of the resident lawyers can chime in, but I have heard that there is a liability associated with that sign. It goes that if a business posts no firearms, then they are by default accepting responsibility for your safety and that if a situation were to occur that resulted in your injury (open to definition, physical or mental) or death, you or your family can sue the business for not living up to its implied responsibility.
Some states have that as law. If they have the no gun sign, they are legally liable for your safety while in their establishment.
I told our pest control dude the other day, that in order to come onto our property, he must carry a firearm. He was a tall dude, and almost hugged me like a long lost son. In his pickup was his tool. We then had a great conversation about firearms and training!
I need to switch to your company. My pest control dude is a very millenial millenial.
Whenever we get a solicitor, I switch the conversation to firearms and carry. Then I always offer to trade firearms training for whatever they are selling. We have a good time, and sometimes the solicitor learns, and leaves with some sort of a happy smile, as I wave back. Disclaimer…I don’t wave with the “hi” sign.
Then lets look at the 1st amendment, freedom of speech, can the property owner can tell you what you can and can’t say. It is a constitutional right to bear arms. When they open a business and is open to the public it falls under public laws. They pay taxes to be a business open to the public. To avoid an issue just carry cancealed, same as talking in a low voice so someone won’t be offended by the subject you are talking about.
yes…concealed is concealed!
@Kenneth114, a fascinating scenario you bring up. Well done, perfect for a forum such as this.
Unfortunately we live in an ambiguous world, where there is seldom a clear-cut answer to every question. We have a right to free speech, but we don’t have the right to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. My employer does not allow me to carry in my place of work. Like it? Nope. But I always try to do the right thing.
It’s easy to get your underwear wrapped around the axle on issues like this, but I’m a simple guy, so I have do dumb it down for what works for me. I try not to shop in “gun-free” businesses. When I do have to do so, I try to abide by their rules. When that isn’t possible, I conceal-carry responsibly. If they notice my weapon, in my state the very most they can do is ask me to leave. When I comply, there are zero legal ramifications. Only if I refuse to leave can I be charged with trespassing.
I like your line of thought, I just don’t think it’s a clear-cut issue. I vote with my wallet.
Actually, yes they can. The Bill of Rights is to limit the government. A privately owned business, can ask you to leave, as long as it isn’t because of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It’s the same reason you can store a gun in a vehicle, even if your employer has a no gun policy. Your vehicle, is your private property. So, if a private business says no guns, that’s their business. It’s our decision, not to patronize their business. “I’ll rake my money elsewhere” speaks volumes, especially this day and age.
And as I mentioned in a similar topic, if you choose to take your money elsewhere, write a letter to the business as to why they lost you as a customer.
I’m new to the forum so I thought I’d start up some discussion. Thanks for everyone’s input. A lot of good point to keep in mind. Have a great day everyone.
This is pretty much how I understand it.
I do believe there is a differentiation between a “Private Business” vs “Private (meaning personal land) Property”. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can deny you access to my property completely, meaning you wont be carrying. A place of business falls under a whole different category of rules and licensing conditions.
The one that always warps my head is the prohibition of carrying concealed into Federal Buildings. Of all places where you would thing the 2nd amendment would hold weight, would be in a Federal Facility.
I wouldn’t think so. It is still privately owned. Public property is paid for with taxpayer money. Essentially, every taxpayer owns a small portion of it.
I understand the federal building thing. Not agreeing, just saying I get it. Both my mom and stepmom worked for the state or federal government at one time. After the Oklahoma City bombing, gated parking, metal detectors, and signed in ID became the norm. I feel, since I’ve passed numerous background checks to carry a firearm, I should be able to carry in those places, but, I do understand why it isn’t allowed.