Concealed is Concealed

[poor_richard]

I’ve noticed a trend that I just don’t know about. “Concealed is concealed”.

People talk about how CCW holders are “law abiding”, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. They make it sound as if by passing through all the screening, and jumping through the hoops, we should be trusted. Yet, when they are faced with a situation in which they are supposedly not supposed to carry into an establishment who has posted as such per law, many respond in such a cavalier manner. “concealed is concealed”. IOW, I’ll carry in their establishment in spite of the fact that they have lawfully posted restrictions of such a practice.

Personally, I firmly believe that a companies private property rights do not exceed someone’s right to life. The reason for carrying a handgun for protection is directly tied to defense of one’s life, and I think nobody should be able to restrict someone’s right to life in public places, or places open to the public. I’m fine with an individual requesting that his friends not carry in his own home (just don’t expect me to enter your home), but by banning firearms from public places (work, malls, etc…), they place one‘s right to life in jeopardy.

If these companies (this can also extend to government buildings) are going to remove my right to protect my life, shouldn’t they also be held responsible for it? If a company banns it’s employee’s from carrying, then they should be responsible if that person is killed or maimed during the period that they have disarmed that person. I understand that there is a choice to work there, but that is a lame excuse. People have to earn a living to survive. If a company is going to remove there right to life, then the company should assume responsibility for their employee’s safety. Individuals can then choose whether they want to leave their safety to someone else or not.

I guess it’s easier to just ignore the rules, and carry (sometimes even in violation of the law). I’m not criticizing this practice, as I’ve said, “I just don’t know about it”, but I do wonder how it makes the RKBA movement look. Personally, if I told someone to not carry in my house, and they just did so anyway, they wouldn’t be welcome back, and I probably wouldn’t associate with them in the future (this is merely a hypothetical). Does anyone think that maybe this attitude makes us look like a bunch of renegades who are proving that we cannot be trusted?

 

[pax]

Yet, when they are faced with a situation in which they are supposedly not supposed to carry into an establishment who has posted as such per law, many respond in such a cavalier manner. “concealed is concealed”. IOW, I’ll carry in their establishment in spite of the fact that they have lawfully posted restrictions of such a practice.

Keep in mind that laws about such signs really vary quite a bit between the states.

In some states, those signs have no meaning whatsoever. Nada. Zero. Zip.

In other states, the signs have the immediate force of law: get caught carrying there, and you're going to jail.

In other states, the signs basically signal a "don't ask, don't tell" type policy -- if the shop owner finds out you are carrying, and then asks you to leave, and you don't leave when asked, you can be charged with trespassing. But the violation you'd be charged with would be refusing to leave when confronted, not with carrying the gun per se.

In yet other states, the signs have the full force of law only when they meet some very specific size & location requirements, but are meaningless otherwise. (Further complicated because some shop owners in such states deliberately post non-compliant "no firearms" signs, knowing that legally well-informed gun owners will ignore the non-compliant signs, while ignorant gun owners won't carry onto the premises and non-gun owners will be soothed by the sign's presence.)

So the laws vary a lot from state to state. The important thing to remember online is that people who post in such threads are often discussing very different legal situations. Where one person says, "Concealed is concealed," they may be talking about ignoring a tiny little small-print line item on a long list of rules at the local mall in a state where such rules have no legal force. The next poster might say the exact same thing, but be talking about a 2-foot by 2-foot sign in brightly contrasting colors in a state where ignoring the sign is clearly illegal.

pax

 

[distortion9]

If these companies (this can also extend to government buildings) are going to remove my right to protect my life, shouldn’t they also be held responsible for it? If a company banns it’s employee’s from carrying, then they should be responsible if that person is killed or maimed during the period that they have disarmed that person. I understand that there is a choice to work there, but that is a lame excuse. People have to earn a living to survive. If a company is going to remove there right to life, then the company should assume responsibility for their employee’s safety. Individuals can then choose whether they want to leave their safety to someone else or not.

Let's take it a step further...what about States? This has been my argument for years. SOMEONE has to be responsible for a persons safety, let's not pretend violent crime doesn't exist.

So, if the Police can't be held liable for failing to protect an individual from a violent crime and you won't allow me to legally carry the tools I need to protect myself...who is protecting me?

 

[GaryL]

In other states, the signs basically signal a "don't ask, don't tell" type policy -- if the shop owner finds out you are carrying, and then asks you to leave, and you don't leave when asked, you can be charged with trespassing. But the violation you'd be charged with would be refusing to leave when confronted, not with carrying the gun per se.

This is somewhat close to the MN law. We are expected to comply to any posted sign, but if caught not complying, the owner has the right to ask us to leave. If we don't that will create problems for the license holder.

Also, MN is an open carry state, the license grants the right to carry a loaded firearm. So if someone spots a firearm, the license holder doesn't get into trouble for brandishing a firearm.

 

[jqbagley]

I can't protect my family if I'm in jail. I don't carry concealed into places where it's illegal, but do everywhere else even if it's posted since it's not illegal (I'm in Washington state).

 

[dhoomonyou]

GUN FREE ZONES, save lives

B.S.

criminals cant read.

 

[ZeSpectre]

People talk about how CCW holders are “law abiding”, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. They make it sound as if by passing through all the screening, and jumping through the hoops, we should be trusted. Yet, when they are faced with a situation in which they are supposedly not supposed to carry into an establishment who has posted as such per law, many respond in such a cavalier manner. “concealed is concealed”. IOW, I’ll carry in their establishment in spite of the fact that they have lawfully posted restrictions of such a practice.

I've wrestled with this one a bit myself and will confess to a bit of "waffling". What I mean is that I'm unwilling to give up aspects of self protection, so my choice is to either boycott a posted business or go "stealth" and plan to ask forgiveness if I'm ever caught. The vast majority of the time I boycott but there have been rare times where circumstances have pressured me into "stealth" mode even though I'm very unhappy with doing that (a drug store I no longer use springs to mind...had to get in for anitibiotics for the wife, I'd walked there so there was no place to disarm).

What I hate the worst though is thinking I'm fine and then seeing some itty-bitty little sign posted at toe-level behind a potted plant as I'm leaving.

 

[simpleguy]

I am blessed to live in Oregon, where if you have a permit you can carry everywhere but courthouses and police stations legally. True, private property owners can restrict the carrying of firearms, but the most they can do is ask you to leave......so truly with this it's "concealed means concealed". I feel for those of you that live in states where you can't carrying schools, stores or restaurants that carry alcohol, etc. I would probably carry and pray.

 

[fletcher]

They make it sound as if by passing through all the screening, and jumping through the hoops, we should be trusted.

As we should be. However, carrying into an "off-limits" area is nothing more than a personal decision. It's a victimless crime, and usually only a misdemeanor (at least around here).

I would probably carry and pray.

A very large number of CCW holders do just that, which is kind of funny in a way. Places such as parks and alcohol-serving restaurants have people less-than-legally CCW'ing in them all the time, and nothing happens, despite the reasons given to make such places off limits in the first place.

 

[sacp81170a]

Remember, "don't ask, don't tell" extends to the internet and public forums. If you truly plan to violate the laws in your jurisdiction, posting that you intend to do so in a place where your statements can come back to haunt you isn't the wisest thing to do.

 

[Vector]

This is an interesting subject, and we are touching on it in the "Disney" thread regarding Disney's right to prohibit firearms in their theme parks.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=322573&page=6

There are those who feel Disney cannot enforce a concealed firearm ban as it is not within their right to do so. I don't feel that way, but the way the law is set up in Florida, I am not sure that disregarding a sign carries any legal weight, as it apparently does in Texas (see thread).

I am not even sure I believe any and all private property should be able to prohibit firearms, but then again I do think places like Disney should. So in this instance, I am torn and undecided.

 

[fletcher]

I do think that an individual should have the right to completely prohibit weapons, or anything else for that matter, on his or her own private property/residence.

However, for businesses, I feel a bit differently. Considering the fact that most businesses by nature must be open to the public in order to profit, and have thus voluntarily made themselves "public" to an extent, I'm going to side with CCW on that one. The opposite side would be business offices where clients/customers do not typically step foot - while I disagree (such as where I work now), I think that it's important for them to be able to prohibit what they wish.

Essentially, any place that is "open to the public" should be required to allow CCW IMO.

 

[GaryL]

Remember, "don't ask, don't tell" extends to the internet and public forums. If you truly plan to violate the laws in your jurisdiction, posting that you intend to do so in a place where your statements can come back to haunt you isn't the wisest thing to do.

Very good point.

I make a point of avoiding places that feel they need a sign. One small shop I stop in from time to time had one, and I knew the owner was a hunter so I talked to him about it. Asked the usual 'expect that to stop an armed robber question' and told him I may feel inclined to shop elsewhere, and knew of others who already were. Turns out the sign wasn't his idea - his wife insisted on it. Went back several months later and the sign was gone, but I don't think it had helped the business because they had to cut their hours back a little last summer.

 

[Seminole]

Vector I

There are those who feel Disney cannot enforce a concealed firearm ban as it is not within their right to do so. I don't feel that way, but the way the law is set up in Florida, I am not sure that disregarding a sign carries any legal weight, as it apparently does in Texas (see thread).

Oh, for Pete's sake! How many times do you have to be told? Read the relevant statute. If a place is not listed there (e.g. Disney World or any other theme park), it is perfectly legal to carry in that location. Statements like the one above, that indicate both a lack of knowledge of Florida law as well as an unwillingness to do basic homework, are among the reasons some members on the other thread regard you as a troll.


FS 790.06(12):

(12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any career center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

 

[Eric F]

Some one once said you can either have Freedom or you can have Security. But when you try to have both at the same time you dont have a lot of either.

Forign countries make you go through metal detectors run through your belongings and in some cases have the right to strip search you. Is this what you want so you can be secure?

Come on folks malls do not need a police station. This is a typical knee jerk reaction thread. As far as the No ccw in malls well "freedom" here is choose not to shop there. There are several malls in my area most have the "no weapons" signs all over the doors ect so I either leave in in the car or I dont shop there. There is 1 mall that does not have the signs. I do not ask as I do not have to the law is plain if it is not posted then you can CCW.

So Exercise your Freedom and dont shop where you cant CCW and quit crying about it. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it!

Some folks take this CCW stuff to fanitic levels. They get all worked up because some body legaly says no. Well, When its your time, you will go and a gun wont stop it. So take a deep breath and go on with your life you might find it more enjoyable instead of worrying who might be out to get you.

I posted that in another thread but if you read it the same message aplies here too.

 

[Vector]

Seminole wrote;

Oh, for Pete's sake! How many times do you have to be told? Read the relevant statute. If a place is not listed there (e.g. Disney World or any other theme park), it is perfectly legal to carry in that location. Statements like the one above, that indicate both a lack of knowledge of Florida law as well as an unwillingness to do basic homework, are among the reasons some members on the other thread regard you as a troll.

Nice, I see you are being friendly as usual.

My point as it relates to this subject is that Disney has the right to prohibit firearms on their property EVEN THOUGH it is not specifically prohibited by Florida law. When you want to argue that you can legally carry in Disney, you are ignoring the fact that Disney says you are not to bring firearms into their parks. So while you are not specifically violating the law, you are violating their ENFORCEABLE right to prohibit you from doing so. You cannot argue that point with any logical reasoning unless you want to play semantics. :banghead:

 

[Seminole]

Nice, I see you are being friendly as usual.

I'm sorry, do I know you? Have we ever had any dealings? If so, have I ever been rude to you? I believe the answer to all of those questions is negative.

My point as it relates to this subject is that Disney has the right to prohibit firearms on their property EVEN THOUGH it is not specifically prohibited by Florida law. When you want to argue that you can legally carry in Disney, you are ignoring the fact that Disney says you are not to bring firearms into their parks. So while you are not specifically violating the law, you are violating their ENFORCEABLE right to prohibit you from doing so. You cannot argue that point with any logical reasoning unless you want to play semantics.

The word "semantics" refers to meaning. Meaning is important when it comes to laws--hardly something to "play" at. Nonetheless, this last post has finally convinced me that your detractors are correct--you are a troll, and as such should be ignored. Goodbye.

 

[poor_richard]

Some one once said you can either have Freedom or you can have Security. But when you try to have both at the same time you dont have a lot of either.

Forign countries make you go through metal detectors run through your belongings and in some cases have the right to strip search you. Is this what you want so you can be secure?

That really doesn’t apply to the topic of this thread.

Come on folks malls do not need a police station. This is a typical knee jerk reaction thread.

No, it’s an ethics thread.

There are several malls in my area most have the "no weapons" signs all over the doors ect so I either leave in in the car or I dont shop there.

Precisely, that is why I pose the question to those who chose to ignore the signs, and carry in spite of the property owners rights.

I agree that people should provide feedback by “voting with their feet”. This topic is akin to hunters using someone else’s private property to take game without the lawful owner’s permission. Both can be construed as unethical, and both can place certain groups in a negative light. Also, in both cases, some just chose to take the negative image as an acceptable risk.


BTW: I haven't read the "Disney" thread, nor do I care to. I think that if Disney wants to prohibit peoples right to life on their premises, then that is their business. OTOH, if they do so, then they should be held accountable for the welfare of those they chose to disarm.

 

[Vector]

Seminole wrote;

I'm sorry, do I know you? Have we ever had any dealings? If so, have I ever been rude to you? I believe the answer to all of those questions is negative.

Incorrect

You were one of the less than friendly respondents in the Disney thread that spoke in a condescending manner. While I am not going to take the time to quote your posts to me, you did in fact act unfriendly, just like the tone you stuck in this thread.
I guess you get frustrated when someone will not accept your opinion on something and lash out as a result. Maybe you can get away with that with your kids, but you wont with me. If you walk into Disney's theme park with a firearm and they discover it, you will be told to leave. If you refuse you will be escorted out and/or arrested. They are therefore enforcing their right to prohibit firearms on their property and that is an irrefutable fact. END OF STORY!

Nonetheless, this last post has finally convinced me that your detractors are correct--you are a troll, and as such should be ignored. Goodbye.

I am not sure of the word that best describes your behavior as it relates to me, but it is clear you like mouthing off with an attitude to others with whom you do not agree with. So I am glad you will avoid interacting with me any longer as I was about to suggest the same.

 

[Eric F]

I Knew that most of my quote did not apply here but some of it did it was just easier to cut and paste the whole thing instead of peicing it together Sorry.

 

[poor_richard]

Eric F,

No harm no foul.


Seminole and Vector I,

Please stay OT, and take the personal stuff to PM or email. Thnx.

 

[Vector]

No problem.

I hope to discuss this property rights issue further in that I was not aware of states like Texas that give such wide firearm exclusion rights to private property. While I think places like Disney should have them, it everyone that owns private property excluded firearms, it would logistically be difficult to carry and remain a law abiding citizen.

Does anyone know how many states are like Texas in that regard?

 

[Eric F]

if everyone that owns private property excluded firearms, it would logistically be difficult to carry and remain a law abiding citizen.

This is the way it is......We all must respect property rights and rules it is a fundamental part of our society. Your senerio in not very realistic as there are too many business owners in the country that have ccw and encourage others to do so. However rules are rules and the day that comes and says you have no control on your own property is a day that we all forever loose all of our rights.

 

[keeleon]

I am first going to go on the record and defend that Vector is being much more reasonable in this thread and is speaking like someone with a different point of view, rather than sounding like a troll.

On topic, this sounds to me to be very similar to speed laws. Can anyone in here honestly say they obey ALL the speed limits ALL the time? I know it is a much different story in outcome and effect, but it is very similar. Driving 10 miles over the speed limit is not really considered "unethical" or immoral" by anyone, and yet it is just as illegal. Don't really have a point, just thought I'd bring it up.

 

[Mainsail]

I view it thusly: If the property owner has made provisions to guarantee my security, both inside the establishment and at least until I get back in my car, I would elect to go there unarmed or not go at all. Since property owners cannot make that guarantee, their right to post is vastly inferior to my right to self protection.