[sat5555]

I want to draw attention to the very important topic of discrimination law-abiding citizens with a license to carry concealed weapons for self-defense in any open to public business, cafe, restaurant, shop, mall, Movie Theater, dealership. Law-abiding, not only pose no threat to these enterprises, but also generate revenue spending their money there. Law-abiding citizens have a license and weapons contribute to greater security for business against the attacks of criminals or terrorists.
But very often when entering the business open to the public hanging sign with weapons forbidden entrance. It is not for criminals and terrorists sign. Offenders on prohibiting signs do not pay attention. This discrimination law-abiding citizens who have under the US Constitution the right to bear arms and to defend itself. No harm to the business concealed carry law-abiding citizens does not bring.
Concealed carry does not scare anyone, and no one is of interest because it cannot see anything. It turns out that the ban on concealed carry law-abiding citizens is politically motivated views of the owner business or management. That is racism and discrimination against a group of people who do not want to be victims of the actions of criminals or terrorists.
And install metal detector or same sort of search do not eliminate Constitutional Right for self-defense or guaranty personal security protection.
Sign prohibiting access to the public open business for colored or transgender, it's just unacceptable.
Law-abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons are decent, honest, responsible people and prohibition sign at the entrance to the public open business and deny of service completely unacceptable.
With respect to Constitutional Right To Bear Arm, second amendment, could only be a sign of the open carrying of weapons in this business is not welcome. Just a polite request not to scare business management or other visitors or do not because the interest of other customers, if management believe their patrons could not tolerate open weapons view.
We folks allow to create a second class of people who can be deny the service and even the entrance to the public open business on political grounds and political agenda is unacceptable.

 

[Steve912]

Concealed carry does not scare anyone, and no one is of interest because it cannot see anything. It turns out that the ban on concealed carry law-abiding citizens is politically motivated views of the owner business or management. That is racism and discrimination against a group of people who do not want to be victims of the actions of criminals or terrorists.

Phooeeeeeeeee...where to start?

Aside from grammar, a business owner that doesn't want CCW in his
business is entitled to that, and that is not "racism", unless he puts up
a sign with a racial aspect to it (e.g. "No White People with Concealed
Weapons Allowed").

You, as the customer, are entitled to acknowledge the businesses' restriction,
and take your business elsewhere.

Businesses are privately owned, for the most part, in our capitalist society. IMO that's a much better alternative to socialism/communism, where 'businesses' (or what passes for "means of productivity") are owned by The State. While we have private business ownership, there is plenty of federal, state, and local involvement in how businesses conduct...business. Right now we have government saying "if you don't like the concept of gay marriage, and decline to make a cake for a gay wedding, the couple can sue you and your business into oblivion, due to your adherence to your religious beliefs."

If you think that is a good thing, then by all means agitate and push for the government to impose additional restrictions on how businesses do their thing...

 

[Pinstriper]

Yeah, a couple thoughts spring to mind.

1) OP has a point about criminals disregarding signs and will happily commit their violence in a gun free zone. These are as stupid as the "Carnival Personnel Only" sign in The Jerk stopping the homicidal maniac.

That said....

2) Gun ownership is not a "protected class" such as race, sex, etc. So to portray this as discrimination, racist or otherwise, just makes us look silly. Let's NOT do that, OK ?

3) I'm not carrying to play cop and protect some dang business. It's a measure of last resort if my life (not my fake throw-away wallet) is in danger. Let's not portray ourselves as some kind of law enforcement auxiliary.

4) Know your local laws around such signs. In some places they have the force of law and serious consequences. Many places they have no force. In some, they have no force until you are specifically asked to leave and then refuse (becomes trespassing). So under many circumstances you can just ignore the sign without consequence. KNOW THE LAW before making such a decision.

Off Topic but related to surviving a robbery without shooting anyone or being shot:

Get a fake wallet to hand over. It should have a reasonable facsimile of a photo ID in it (mine is Vincent Vega's CA DL what I bought over the internet), maybe $40 in cash (5's and 1's), and a bunch of business cards and coupons, none related to you. You just want it to be enough that they don't want to take the time to paw through it right then and there. In the best case, they grab the cash and don't even count it. This is not the wallet you produce if stopped by the Po-Po. Your real wallet has 1 bank card, 1 credit card, your DL and your CHL/CCW permit, your insurance card and pretty much nothing else. Carry in something like thunderwear or similar pouch. You might also consider carrying a non-functioning throw-away cell phone to turn over. Smaller is better.

 

[haertig]

Ditto Steve912 and Pinstriper.

I don't want government telling ANY business how to it should be run. I'm all for letting "the invisible hand" control privately owned businesses. In other words, stay out of it government, it's not something you should be involved in, and let customers and employees be the invisible hand that controls things.

So if a business posts a sign, "No guns allowed", I simply won't go there. If a gay bakery refuses to back a cake for me because I'm straight, I simply won't go there. If a business won't serve me lunch because the color of my skin is a shade or two different from theirs, I simply won't go there. Many others would probably make the same decision that I did. And the business would have to make a decision on what they should do to maximize their number of customers. More power to 'em!

See? Everything is taken care of. No need for ANY government involvement. Government intrusion in private businesses is detrimental, not helpful. It is BECAUSE of government intrusion that gay couples can sue bakeries out of business these days, while gun owners are relegated to standing outside, looking at a sign, and complaining to themselves.

Now, government offices themselves must not discriminate. That cannot be tolerated. But privately owned businesses certainly should be able to, if they want to, and are willing to endure the consequences of the invisible hand.

 

[CJP32]

I think some people even have business cards made that basically say I won't be supporting your business due to your no gun policy. Then leave them in comment boxes or elsewhere where the employees or owners will find them. That way they will get the message too.

The three above replies were spot on so there isn't much I could add other than the card idea.

 

[BlakeHanson]

I want to draw attention to the very important topic of discrimination law-abiding citizens with a license to carry concealed weapons for self-defense in any open to public business, cafe, restaurant, shop, mall, Movie Theater, dealership.
We folks allow to create a second class of people who can be deny the service and even the entrance to the public open business on political grounds and political agenda is unacceptable.

It's their property, they have the right to control what comes in there.
I guess we should be happy we don't have to duck under a sign like this every time we go into a resturant.

 

[BJK]

In Maine a sign like that has no force of law. But the entire idea of a sign like that has always seemed a bit foolish to me. If one is carrying concealed correctly how would they know? If a BG comes in to shoot the place up, after I protect me and mine, they can tell me to leave.

Maybe those signs are posted to deter open carry so as not to upset the snowflakes.

 

[Electroshot]

I have been told by numerous lawyers that discrimination against all sorts of people is perfectly legal and has been court tested in many circumstances.

The case presented to me was for a landlord that didn't want to rent to lawyers. The landlord won as the court found it reasonable to bar lawyers from renting as they are more likely to file law suits that the landlord wanted to avoid. Same thing for renting to doctors for different reasons.

Bottom line is if someone wanted to discriminate against CCW people, they are perfectly within in their right to do so and due to previous court cases of sufficiently similar nature, it would stand up to constitutional challenges.

They anti crowd has way too many arguments that make us roll our eyes with the lack of foundation; we shouldn't offer correspondingly similar arguments from our side that also lack foundation, as much as your argument feels like it should be wrong to discriminate against people who carry.

 

[haertig]

Funny. I'm sure everyone posting in this thread is a gun owner. The anti's would probably call us "gun nuts" even. My bet is that each of us own more guns than we know what to do with. And I dare say, I'll also bet most, if not all, of the folks posting here carry concealed (legally).

And ... here we are arguing FOR business owners to be able to ban us from their premises if they want to! Obviously, we don't like it, but we still acknowledge, accept and support it. I couldn't be any prouder than I am right now of my fellow KTOGer/gun owners. So much for the horrible "gun agenda" label the anti's would love to pin on us. We are more for the "respect and tolerance and freedom agenda", and we happen to own guns as well.

Can you top that behavior, anti's? Does your behavior even come close to it?

 

[Pinstriper]

Funny. I'm sure everyone posting in this thread is a gun owner. The anti's would probably call us "gun nuts" even. My bet is that each of us own more guns than we know what to do with. And I dare say, I'll also bet most, if not all, of the folks posting here carry concealed (legally).

And ... here we are arguing FOR business owners to be able to ban us from their premises if they want to! Obviously, we don't like it, but we still acknowledge, accept and support it. I couldn't be any prouder than I am right now of my fellow KTOGer/gun owners. So much for the horrible "gun agenda" label the anti's would love to pin on us. We are more for the "respect and tolerance and freedom agenda", and we happen to own guns as well.

Can you top that behavior, anti's? Does your behavior even come close to it?

This is ridiculous.

Of COURSE i know what to do with each and every gun I own. I'm just not sure I could list them all out from memory...

Anybody else ever come home with a gun that "you always wanted one of those", only to clean it and put it in the safe...right next to the one you already had ?

 

[haugrdr]

Anybody else ever come home with a gun that "you always wanted one of those", only to clean it and put it in the safe...right next to the one you already had ?

I do that with books I thought I hadn't read yet...all the time. Get it home and find the same thing on the shelf. Duh.

 

[BJK]

I have never done that with a firearm. But I've done it with other things that escape my memory at the moment. So I could wind up with triples of those unremembered items.

It sux to get older.

 

[haertig]

Anybody else ever come home with a gun that "you always wanted one of those", only to clean it and put it in the safe...right next to the one you already had ?

Yeah, been there, done that!

 

[haertig]

Yeah, been there, done that!

OK, just joking. Actually I bought the first, then inherited its identical twin a few years later.

At least it's a great gun to own TWO of !

 

[sat5555]

In summary of forum members view, legally CCW person should respect someone’s (usually a large companies hand wringing executives) request of property rights is at the same level as the anti-gun crowd’s respect of firearms rights. Both are equally important? If a person does not want your firearm on their property, leave and go someplace else.
But it’s actually quite different.
I propose to breaking a social code, they’re breaking the constitution.

 

[Electroshot]

The fundamental right being discussed here is personal property. Be that a residence, a business, ... or a firearm. There should be both civil and legal respect for the person's property. Even the property of a large corporation; it is still owned collectively by the individual shareholders (they have the right to force a change of the corporation's rules if they really want to).

The areas that are different are the public ones. We should be very careful in what we designate as public. The areas that are clearly owned by some branch of the government (city, county, state, federal, etc.) are obvious. The ones where people get confused a bit on are large open areas that are technically owned by a corporation or individuals (such as malls and some airports, etc.) but are used by the public as an extension of public sidewalks or other spaces. It gets even more confused when there is a public-private partnership in some entities.

The bottom line is that if the government has the ability to order a particular behavior of an individual's personal property (and we have already crossed that line in so many ways) it also then has the ability to order the behavior of your own personal property. There is no difference (either morally, constitutionally, or legally) between the property held by an individual for business versus the property held by an individual for personal use. If the government orders a business that they must accept CCW holders, then they also have the power to order you in ways that you feel are fundamentally or morally wrong. It is a very dangerous slope to be on.

As much as firearms owners would like the freedom to go anywhere and do almost anything with our firearms attached, if it is due to the government forcing it on all others, all it takes is a regime change to order all firearms taken from us. I prefer the freedom of letting everyone make their own choices, whether they be well educated or ignorant.

 

[haertig]

they’re breaking the constitution.

Not really. Would I be "breaking the constitution" if I told a group of unknown/unwanted people to leave my back yard, thereby challenging their right to "peaceably assemble"?

Private property is quite different than public property.

 

[lklawson]

In summary of forum members view, legally CCW person should respect someone’s (usually a large companies hand wringing executives) request of property rights is at the same level as the anti-gun crowd’s respect of firearms rights. Both are equally important? If a person does not want your firearm on their property, leave and go someplace else.
But it’s actually quite different.

No. Actually, it's not.

I propose to breaking a social code, they’re breaking the constitution.

It's been tried. It failed.

Remember when Crossgates Mall asked Stephen Downs to either remove his anti-war T-Shirt or leave and he refused? He was arrested for trespass but claimed that his 1st Amendment rights were violated. Remember what happened? He lost.

Seems like even New York State apparently believes that the Bill of Rights is intended to restrict Government (including the State) but not necessarily private actors.

So, while I personally find it offensive that private businesses apparently have the right to ask me to leave because they don't like my Civil Liberties, either the 1st or the 2nd, apparently I just kinda have to suck it up.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[sat5555]

With all my respect, I'm talking only and only PUBLIC OPEN Business providers, mall, cafeteria, restaurant, cinema, department store, supermarket. They must accept all law
abiding customers, limited only appearance 'no bare foot'; 'no t-shirt' by the nature of business; also I understand 'no Open Carry, please' for not to aggravate anti-guns. But prohibit CCW should be illegal.

 

[sat5555]

No. Actually, it's not.

It's been tried. It failed.

Seems like even New York State apparently believes that the Bill of Rights is intended to restrict Government (including the State) but not necessarily private actor.

I completely agree with that, but
Public Open Enterprise have to get Business Licence To Operate from Local Government and always included clause to stay with all Federal, State, Local Law and Regulations, it is something mean. Only visual appearance could lead to prohibition of service. Like too dirty, or offence some way.