WELL, SO MUCH FOR TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY FROM GUN OWNERS.Quote:
Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck
WELL, SO MUCH FOR TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY FROM GUN OWNERS.Quote:
Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck
HA! Olympus has fallen or something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
I am currently at a training facility where everyone is disarmed at the gate. It is one of the FLETC facilities and other than while training at a live fire range, the only people permitted to have a firearm or ammunition within the complex are the contract security personnel.
I find the irony of a base full of law enforcement personnel being disarmed, mildly humorous. It is sort of like taking weapons away from the military while on base. [Flower]
Be safe.
What happens if a gun is placed into an MRI machine?
It gets stuck to the side of the machine till they turn the power off.
I have heard the urban legend about an MRI causing a pistol to discharge. I have never been able to find a reliable source for the story. Maybe MythBusters should do the experiment for one of their shows.
Couldn't have been a Glock. All the important parts are plastic! [LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
the exception makes the rule:Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
http://www.supertrap.com/ST_Download...GUN_in_MRI.pdf
pretty interesting discussion of the mechanics of a Colt in an MRI.
It's my position that anytime you have been disarmed by firearm prohibition at any public facility, whomever made the decision to prohibit self defense is now liable or responsible for the people's safety at their facility.
If somebody that usually carries gets attacked going to and from a sports stadium, I would support litigation against that entity for taking away a permit holders ability to protect themselves. NFL, MLB and each facility be it Sports Authority or Coors Field has now assumed the responsibility for your protection by not allowing you to carry or providing a place to store your gun when at the game. CCW holders have been every bit as scrutinized and background checked as the average police officer that is carrying inside that same facility.
I have had to suspend carrying this entire year at the Rockies games, because of the metal detectors. Never felt a need to be armed during the game inside the stadium. I always feel completely vulnerable when walking to and from the game. Have bought ticket packages every year for over ten years. I thought would try it for this one year, this was the last year I will buy Rockies tickets.
Sort of a hot button issue with me, sorry for the mini rant. I just can't stand arbitrary Gun Spree Zones.
Bars and casinos. Intoxication and gambling just don't mix with firearms well.
Interesting. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentonite
So it is no longer an urban legend. Just very rare. [Coffee]
The reality is that this would never be successful, nor would you want it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
I agree with all of your rant except this part. The average police officer goes thru much more than a CCW permit holder. Poly, psych, home visits, family/friends/neighbors interviewed etc. With that said it's not really relevant, as I believe in constitutional carry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
Not to mention continuous performance reviews. But alas, I agree with Hurley.
The International Space Station...
Private property without the explicit consent of the property owner?
. Didn't have an issue in vegas or reno. Then again, the last thing i wanted was attention / scrutiny. OTOH: The girl trying to sell me meth was funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by zteknik
So because the likelihood of some drunk schmuck starting an incident is higher, I shouldn't be able to protect myself? That makes a lot of sense. Some people just can't leave NY thinking in NY.Quote:
Originally Posted by zteknik
ETA: I don't frequent bars or gamble, the closest thing I get to a bar is Old C's or Buffalo wild wings if I'm feeling wild, and obviously don't drink if carrying. Hell, I don't make it a habit to drink outside the house much anymore.
I was just trying to point out that CCW holders have been vetted and are not just any Joe Shmoe with a gun. I do realize that police are further evaluated that the average CCW, my point is that both are scrutinized.
I believe you should be allowed to carry most anywhere by just showing your permit. When was the last time any of us permit holder was asked to see proof that we have one? And when did showing that permit allow us to carry when others are prohibited. The general public doesn't seem to afford a permit holder any further privileges than the average gangbanger.
I don't see the downside of holding anyone that takes away our right to defend our selves being held liable when we are attacked after they've disarmed us. I believe that it sets precedence that anybody that operates an open to the public facility can disarm law bidding people by simply posting a sign. It wont take long before having a CCW will only be effective as long as you are in your car. I believe allowing any public facility to disarm CCW holders undermines the entire privilege of being permit holder. If we were a constitutional carry state I may have a different view on this but I believe the permit should afford special privilege. I believe that as long as a state has a permit process the privileges that permit affords should not be allowed to be removed by anybody other than the governing body involved in issuing said permit.
If a business does not want permit holders to carry they can operate in another state. I know that is a decision that most people here want every private business owner to make. I disagree, even as a business owner you don't have the right to disarm me as long as I have satisfied the requirements of this state to carry a gun. We already have carry laws pertaining to government buildings, alcohol, public transportation etc. I believe to prohibit anyone to carry in your business you need to show cause and acquire written approval from the governing body that issued the permit. Having a business comes with certain requirements and allowing permit holders to carry should be one of those requirements that you have to deal with.
This statement is ridiculous. Do you think you should be allowed to tresspass as well, since you have a CCW?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
Businesses do not have "the right to disarm me", you, or anyone... They do have certain controls over their private property, the same way that you can control who enters your home with a weapon. If you don't like their policy, then don't give them your business. A CCW permit is not some "God card" that somehow means you can trample the rights of other people.
NY thinking not applied here. Just going by personal experiences. I mean hell if you are responsible enough to carry then you shouldnt be drinking, but I shouldnt make a blanket assumption that if your in a bar your drinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
Yea, that would require a gay cardQuote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
Attachment 61147
Maybe I should be clear up front this is not about open carry and I'm not asking for any new rights to be granted. This all about concealed carry and patrons with carry permits having the right to do just that. We as gun owners need to very cautious about who can by fiat take away any right we have won in hard fought battles. And that includes private citizens trying to take those rights.
Having said that, talk about a ridiculous statement! Nowhere in anything I said, would I give anybody the right to trespass, nor would I take away your right to keep someone out of your home armed or not. And what is a "God Card"? A CCW is a means that we as a society have put in place to control who can carry a concealed gun. It does not give you any other right beyond enhancing your ability for self defense.
Obviously you can see the difference, your home is not a facility open to the public. Entering a business as a patron that's open to the public is not trespassing during business hours. You don't have the right to keep gays out of your business, but if I understand you, if I have a permit and carry a concealed gun you can keep me out for that reason alone? How is one right protected and one not? It is no more harmful to your business and the general public for someone licensed to have a gun in there pocket than it is being gay, concealed means concealed. You say it's ok for the business to take away your right to self defense, while society tells you that you can't be trusted with the decision to keep people out that you may not like. And how does my right to self defense harm your business, unless I brandish? We have many rules in place governing a private business, but we can't make rules that go against constitutional rights as they pertain to a business.
Owning a business does not grant unlimited private property rights. Business owners already subordinate there rights to fire dept, health dept, liquor licensing etc. This is about a business owner not being allowed to take away my licensed right to self defense. As long as I have complied with the rules we as a society have in place, by obtaining a permit, I should be allowed my legal choice to defend myself. I also believe these rights should not be something that the owner of the business can take away from his employees.
And this is not about if I believe society even has the right to make rules about how I defend myself. Who ever you choose to be in your home is not being challenged here nor should it be challenged.
Dude, it's not about taking away rights. If you voluntarily enter someone else's private property, you cannot just do whatever you want. A store is some private citizen's property. Nobody is taking your rights away if you enter their property and remain on their property voluntarily. If they ask you to leave their property (BUSINESS HOURS DON'T MATTER) and you refuse, then you are trespassing.
Also, your argument about businesses already submitting to laws for liquor licensing and other business regulation is a separate and unrelated issue. If you want the government to force another individual to do something that you cannot legally force them to do yourself, YOU are the tyrant.
Just to make things even more clear, because this might be the root of the problem: You do not have the right to force someone to do business with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
You've been gone a few. perhaps you missed the ruling against that cake maker.
Oh right - I forgot! Our rulers decided that the principles of liberty that our country was founded upon don't exist if it makes gay people mad or hurts somebody's feelings. [facepalm]Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
Most businesses open to the public are private property with some limitations on the owners of that property.
The classic example is the restaurant where the owner decides that they will not seat or serve old people. The private property owner would be sued for discrimination and the private property owner would most likely lose. Private property such as a residence, that is not open to the general public, except by invitation, would give the property owner greater latitude in restricting who and what was permitted on their property.
Regardless, if you are asked to leave another person's property, the proper thing to do is leave peaceably. If you believe you have been wrongfully asked to leave, consult with an attorney who specializes in civil rights litigation and make a decision how you would like to address the perceived wrong.
The cake maker did not refuse service, just refused certain specific types of service. The conflict is which personal rights have greater standing, the right to be treated equally or the right to religious expression.
HB, It appears you are reading some of what I posted, however, not sure why you bring up other issues. In the spirit of discussion I will respond to your other issues. I totally agree a person, with or without a gun, is committing trespass if they don't leave your business if asked. I also agree no one should be allowed to "do whatever they want" in your business. Good issues that may deserve further discussion but they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about a gun legally in the pocket of a patron that nobody knows even exists. And if, this patron uses that gun to thwart an attack without firing a shot. I say that just because you own the business you should have no right to a legal remedy against a patron simply because they legally have a gun and you find out and don't like it. Simply owning a business and having a gun free sign does not afford someone the right to take another person's second amendment right to self defense. I know some business owners can and do wield that kind power over the minions but I believe in this country they should have never been given that authority. I believe we should not allow any citizen to have that control over another just because they have a business. There are many advantages to owning a business just not disarming legally armed citizens.
It appears to be your position as the owner of a movie theater, with "no guns" posted at the door, you could have somebody with a gun arrested for trespass because they popped James Holmes in the head before anybody else died. I believe that attitude is exactly why these shootings happen in the first place. People believing they have the right to create a gun spree zone without any responsibility for the consequences.
You have said nothing that convinces me that you as a business owner have the authority to disarm me in your business unless I'm doing something illegal with the gun. Carrying it in my pocket is not illegal with a permit nor should it be in your business. I believe the only right a business owner has would be to see a copy of my permit if he suspects I'm armed and if I'm asked I must be truthful about possession.
Yes it does. It's called private property rights. The Second Amendment forbids the GOVERNMENT from keeping you weaponless (with some exceptions that I hope will eventually be overturned). Your right to carry/speak/worship/etc. does not outweigh MY right to control what's happening on MY property. You have every right to not patronize my store or services. Now, if your piece is properly concealed, the property owner will never know unless/until you have to use it. At that point, the property owner can thank you for your action, ask you to leave their premises, ignore your actions, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
I get it, like so many liberals, you want to dictate what the business can do with its property and how it can regulate its clientele. I suppose next you will say restaurants have no right to post signs saying "No shirt, No shoes, No business" or that the gun stores that posted signs saying Obama voters were unwelcome had to do business with those cretins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
I believe the "no guns" attitude is foul and attracts miscreants like Holmes but it is their right to post those rules at a private business. They can't charge you with trespass unless/until you refuse to leave when asked but they don't give up their private property rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
You seem to believe all businesses are public accommodations much like the ACLU and Obama do. Unfortunately for your point -- and fortunately for us -- most courts still seem to recognize most private property rights despite the infamous cake and photographer rulings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
Dude... NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT DISARMING ANYONE. [facepalm]Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
Ok, I'll give this one more try. It is my point that people regardless of how much money they have, should not be allowed to keep me from legally protecting myself. That has nothing to do with what our piece of shit president believes. And really you think "No shirt, No shoes, No business" is the equivalent to having something in your pocket that nobody can see. Having a gun in your pocket is like being gay, as long as no one knows, nobody is uncomfortable.
Having a legally carried gun is right that SHOULD not be revoked by any individual any more than being gay or black and walking into a public business can be revoked by an individual business owner. Being denied to CCW in a business is every bit as prejudice as preventing a gay from entering. While you here and we as a society don't currently want to allow CCW to be outside the purview of private property owners. So for the 35th time, I THINK IT'S WRONG. I know now you guys don't agree, but I don't think that my position makes me a liberal. This is all about my opinion, this not about me misunderstanding the existing law. I realize I'm going this position alone but it's what I believe.
Ed if it makes you feel any better, currently private property owners can't restrict your right really, just not allow you to exercise your right on their premesis. They can't disarm you, and even when they ask you to leave, they aren't disarming you. I see where your heart is at on this.
At the end of the day it comes down to, YOU HAVE A CHOICE RATHER OR NOT TO PATRONIZE A BUSINESS, nobody is forcing you to go to that movie theatre with the "no guns" sign. That's it, nothing more nothing less.
I've picked up a LOT of information in this thread- what a great question! I've been thinking and thinking, but much of what I've come up with has already been discussed. Many points that I hadn't considered were brought forth. Bonus!Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
If I follow this logic, the question relies on a juxtaposition of control: control over one's self and their perception of the environment, and control over another's perceived ability.
I've been to concert venues, discoteks, and bars enough to hope and pray that some of the more inebriated/drugged-to-the-gills individuals were not armed. In those cases, reliance of control over myself and my abilities would come into play (and the ideal situation would be of get the hell out of there soonest, if at all possible.) The retention issue covered thoughts that I've flirted with, but never really analyzed. Again, the concert venue springs to mind, because although this is no longer the 90s, mosh pits are alive and well and seem to be everywhere. Avoiding the moshers can be a full-time ordeal.
There is a lot to consider when it comes to remaining in control of yourself and your firearm; I don't live an exciting life, but I may be in situations that are riskier than others when adding a firearm. The concealing factor (and the need for it to remain concealed) can be tough. A beach scenario has different requirements than a daycare with children crawling all over you. Both situations need to be handled differently, but one should still be able to carry (and had better play the "what-if" game seriously, instead of simply relying on the fact that every factor in one's environment is completely under control.)
The other side is the control of others, which is a vicious cycle. Unless you're perfectly trained to recognize danger signs, understand exactly what they are going to do and when they are going to do it, control yourself and your firearm while being assured of not tripping or shaking at a vital moment...well, I can't do that so I'm not going to try to control anyone else. I just try to avoid situations where someone armed would easily lose their control. That way lies accidents.
To answer the question, I would say that ideally, the law has no business dictating to good citizens when and where they should carry. My caveat is that 'good citizens' implies a lick of common sense; that good citizens also know enough about themselves to understand how and when to retain control. Should they be going to a place or event where their control slips (4/20 rally, as a guest on the Jerry Springer show, crashing an ex's wedding, a pub crawl that lasts longer than six hours) I would hope they anticipate accordingly and bring along a DCD (designated carrier/driver) instead.
Unfortunately, people are people and as such, cannot be expected to act for the best interests of themselves (much less for others.) So there's my non-answer.
Oh, and maybe in a hot air balloon ride. Or a zeppelin factory.
I do to, and I appreciate the argument, but at the end of the day, other rights exist as well. There will always be the issue of my right trumps your right, and in some cases it does, but not always. I believe my right to be healthy and smoke free, trumps your right to enjoy that cig, some municipalities/establishments agree, some don't. It is what it is, and that's another topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Are you spying on me? I'm enjoying a cigar right now!
The question isn't "am I spying on you", it's do I work for the NSA or Google.......?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
[Shake]Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
Nobody is keeping you from legally protecting yourself. If you don't like somebody's rules about guns and you don't feel that you'll be able to adequately protect yourself if the nee arises, then stay off their property. YOU are making the choice to limit your legal protection by voluntarily entering their property. YOU are choosing to play ball in someone else's court with their rules. Don't like the rules? Go play somewhere else. Don't like the "no guns" sign at the movie theater? Go somewhere else. You ALWAYS have a choice.
You are trying to protect what is yours, and so are they. You may not agree with their methods. There may be piles of statistics and loads of studies that show that their methods aren't going to work. That's irrelevant because it's their property and if you want to be on their property, you need to follow their rules.
Side note - this is not at all related to discrimination for age, race, gender identity issues, etc. Those have been legally determined to be variables that an individual inherently has and cannot control. You can control whether or not you want to bring a gun (or any object) into a store.
ETA: Just a quick note here:
I understand the emotion of Ed's argument, and I think I understand your sentiment here, but by definition, the rights of one individual cannot trump the rights of another. I had a really long-winded explanation here, but it got a little incoherent so I'll just leave it at that. Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" as well as John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government" lay a good foundation here and our constitution was specifically written with Locke's works in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
Deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danimal