Heh, heh, heh.,,

[Ehtereon11B]

I have been to several venues where individuals were "looking for contraband" in purses and whatnot. Never any signs posting against it. Most of the time the weapon checkpoints are knee jerk reactions to say the Aurora movie theater shooting. One time at a concert in Maine I carried 2 handguns and a fixed blade knife in after going through a pat down. Didn't have a badge then but I've had more thorough hand shakes than that pat down.

Luckily I live in a state where even if I didn't have a badge opposite my CCW I am under no obligation to surrender a weapon that I am legally allowed to carry. Minus federal buildings and other government structures. All they can do is ask a person to leave and charge trespassing if they don't. Those kinds of laws respect the rights of the property owner and the armed citizen.

 

[Sam1911]

When peoples' rights conflict, it is part of the legitimate role of the State to decide whose rights take precedence. The state of Florida has decided, as a matter of law, that the OP's RKBA does, in point of fact, trump the arena owner's property rights. This is not a matter of courtesy. It is a matter of law.

This is very well said. I could (and have ) written pages on the matter, but this sums it up so succinctly that I really don't need to do so again.

When rights come into conflict, some rights trump others. It is nice when the state actually takes the trouble to decide clearly who get the right of way, so to speak. In FL, it's the gun-carrier. (Until and unless the property owner makes the effort to establish an actual physical prohibition like thorough searches and/or metal detectors, etc., but then the issue shifts to one of trespass which is a different matter.)

It is also nice when one right can prevail without doing any damage whatsoever to the party claiming the conflicting right. In other words, you may lawfully carry concealed, and this does no harm at all to the property owner so it becomes a net loss for neither party.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

When peoples' rights conflict, it is part of the legitimate role of the State to decide whose rights take precedence. The state of Florida has decided, as a matter of law, that the OP's RKBA does, in point of fact, trump the arena owner's property rights. This is not a matter of courtesy. It is a matter of law.

YES!

It is also nice when one right can prevail without doing any damage whatsoever to the party claiming the conflicting right. In other words, you may lawfully carry concealed, and this does no harm at all to the property owner so it becomes a net loss for neither party.

and YES again.

 

[1911Tuner]

Posted by silicosys4:

Do you think that if the "dozen" policeman and how many security couldn't stop a problem, your deep concealment piece would have been the hammer of Thor?
Did you feel threatened to the point that you needed protection outside of the heavy police presence...?

First, neither the police nor the private security present have any duty to protect any individual. Neither do they really have a dog in the fight. If you happen to be killed or crippled, they'll still go home to their families at the end of the night, and your children will be fatherless...motherless...or both. I can't speak for you or anyone else here, but I've never felt comfortable with relying on anyone else to protect me...most especially someone who has no stake in the outcome. Remember...They don't carry guns to protect you. They carry guns to protect themselves.

So, a question pops up.

"Will Officer Friendly risk his life and his family's future in order to save yours?

We can hope so...assuming that he's even in close enough proximity to do so...but it's not wise to count on it. His job is to enforce the law and maintain public order.

And why would you voluntarily walk into an area that you would feel such danger in even with so much LE presence?

While I generally heed my father's advice: "If you feel that you have to carry a gun in order to go there...don't go there." Any time you attend an event of this type at night, there will always be a fairly wide expanse of parking lot to cross before you reach your car, and the "dozens" of police officers can only see and cover so much territory and they can only "protect" so many people.

And...as noted...none of them have any real stake in your survival or demise, and most experienced street thugs are so skilled at what they do...by the time the "security" at the even realize that there's a problem, he's usually finished with you and is well on his way.

So, I'm faced with a couple of hard questions.

Do I trust someone else with my life more than myself? Someone who may be a hundred yards away as opposed to someone...me...being right there with the means to end the threat?

Which is preferable...Dying on your feet, fighting for your life, or on your knees, begging for your life?

For me, the answers to both those questions are crystal clear.

 

[Sam1911]

Why, in a place called "The High Road,"...

... And moderators support it! ...

Is this really a place where we think...

Mercy sakes! Into what sort of pit are we descending?

I think it is a great testament to what The High Road really is. There is no party line (beyond an abiding adherence to the right to bear arms). We do not all have to agree, even on even sensitive, dearly held issues that touch on our own innate senses of right and wrong, our moral compasses, or what we were raised to believe. All we must do is discuss and debate in good faith, politely, as gentlemen (and ladies) and that's the High Road.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

The chest thumping and bragging about ones (OP's) adventure is simply bad for all of us. Its easy for the other side to take these words and use them against us. The very fact that searches were being carried out indicates no weapons were allowed on the premises. Yet the OP was successful in carrying a weapon onto the property of another who didnt want weapons on site. So my suggestion is to simply not brag about such things. Also if you expect your Rights to be respected you must respect the Rights of others. Dont be the spark that endangers the Rights for the rest of us. A little respect and common courtesy goes a long way with people of opposing views. That said its the weekend and I'm heading to the range. Have a fun and safe weekend folks.

 

[Sam1911]

I actually agree, to the extent that such a thread might be taken as "chest thumping" about how someone "got away with something."

I don't gather that was exactly Yoda's real purpose (though the thread title surely doesn't help).

Perhaps Yoda would like to clarify the lessons or messages he intended to share by starting this thread?

 

[RX-178]

It gets even murkier than this when you start trying to assume what the property owner's intent is.

I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.

Back when I lived in Texas, there were only two legally binding signs that would prohibit concealed carry. One is the 30.06 sign, and the other is the 51% sign.

Well, the local bank branch that I did all my withdrawals and deposits at had a non-binding 'gunbuster' sign in the door. You would think that would mean the establishment does not want guns on the premises. You would be wrong.

You see, the branch manager was a member at the same country club my father is a member at, and when I asked him, he said he specifically put a non-binding sign on the door, under the assumption that an actual CHL holder, having gone through the class and passed the written test, would recognize that the sign is non-binding, and carry anyways. A non CHL holder would see the sign, think they're in a gun-free environment and feel all the comforts of security theatre.

 

[Certaindeaf]

If you think all those cops and security guards will always be there to help you, there's the story of the 2011 Bryan Stow incident. At least he was able to attend game two(?) of this years world series.. after a fashion.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_18041430

 

[wgaynor]

Good post RX

 

[Yoda]

My intent?

As the original poster, I had several goals:

1. Celebrate my Florida residency. I shudder when I think that I was born in California, which seems to equate all concealed carry with crime.

2. Demonstrate the advantages of deep concealment vice "purse carry" or simply covering a holstered gun with a vest. There are good carry techniques that will survive everything short of a patdown or wand sweep.

3. Emphasize that piss-poor security techniques might provide comfort to the uninitiated, but they will not stop a well-prepared good guy OR A BAD GUY. Why should people with evil intent be the only ones who get to carry?

4. Stress how an honest citizen, carrying in accordance with the law, can and should simply walk past uniformed police officers and civilian security guards, as if nothing is wrong, which is true. I once stopped at an accident in the middle of the night on I-10. I gave my eyewitness statement to an officer and then, during the cleanup, talked with her about life and such for about 30minutes, all the time carrying a 1911 under a vest and a J-frame in a pocket. The officer never asked, and I never told. All legal. Now, if I was the subject of that officer's inquiries, I'd certainly have told her, even though the law in Florida doesn't require that I volunteer the information. (It does, however, mandate that I answer truthfully, if asked.)

5. As the series of posts on this forum progressed, I also wanted to point out that no matter how many policemen and apparently (but not necessarily) unarmed security guards there were at the venue, i still needed to get to the show and then get home again. One poster wondered what I was so paranoid about in the auditorium. My threat perceptions were way down inside the auditorium, as I suspect they were in that theater in Colorado. My threat perceptions enroute? Higher.

There is a lot of random violence out there. An old fart like me and his wife are prime targets for certain folks, and these predators are so uncivilized that they don't bother to set up an appointment for a mugging and check to see if it fits into my schedule. So, I figure i should just be ready, just in case. I can't recall one instance in which I had to remind myself in the morning, "Be sure to dress for success today. You need to be ready for that physical assault that's supposed to come off at 3:27."

I also wonder about those who maintain that their private property rights trump my RTKBA. While they say they would be offended if someone else was carrying on their property, I suspect that THEY carry. So, do they want the only people carrying on their property to be themselves and bad guys who ignore their druthers?

- - - Yoda

 

[wgaynor]

I find it funny how so many people misread your post because of their own immediate bias. I also find it funny that others value their opinions with more weight than that of the law.

 

[Al Thompson]

that searches were being carried out indicates no weapons were allowed on the premises.

Disagree completely. Sounds to me more like they were looking for snacks and soda.

If they wanted to look for weapons, wands are quite easy to come by.

If they wanted no weapons, signs are easy to post.

 

[KTXdm9]

I find it funny how so many people misread your post because of their own immediate bias. I also find it funny that others value their opinions with more weight than that of the law.

+1000. Unfortunately, all too often people see, hear, read, etc what they want to, instead of looking at things objectively.

 

[Onward Allusion]

What the OP did was completely within FL law. Keep in mind - there are laws and there are its loop-holes. People use legal loopholes every day to their advantage. Why should it be any different with gun owners? The BG's don't even use loopholes. The just ignore and violate. . .

A few of you who immediately got on their high-horse after reading the first post, all y'all need to take a breath and take a look at your own lives and stop being so dang judgmental and sanctimonious. Trust me, you probably violated dozen laws intentionally or unintentionally this past week.

 

[musicman10_1]

It gets even murkier than this when you start trying to assume what the property owner's intent is.

I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.

Back when I lived in Texas, there were only two legally binding signs that would prohibit concealed carry. One is the 30.06 sign, and the other is the 51% sign.

Well, the local bank branch that I did all my withdrawals and deposits at had a non-binding 'gunbuster' sign in the door. You would think that would mean the establishment does not want guns on the premises. You would be wrong.

You see, the branch manager was a member at the same country club my father is a member at, and when I asked him, he said he specifically put a non-binding sign on the door, under the assumption that an actual CHL holder, having gone through the class and passed the written test, would recognize that the sign is non-binding, and carry anyways. A non CHL holder would see the sign, think they're in a gun-free environment and feel all the comforts of security theatre.

So bizarre and convoluted.

 

[wgaynor]

This world and discussion would be so much better if we just allowed and assumed that everyone was armed.

 

[7thCavScout]

They don't carry guns to protect you. They carry guns to protect themselves.

I was a Sheriff's Deputy and Police Officer for a number of years before switching to the Fire Service, and trust me this is a true statement. WE alone are are responsible for our own safety, and the safety of our families.

 

[hardheart]

So, do they want the only people carrying on their property to be themselves and bad guys who ignore their druthers?

If I hear gunshots on my property as some active shooter scenario, I will probably shoot at anyone I see with a gun and no uniform. If you don't know that I specifically am the owner, you will probably shoot at me. Maybe the BG will get lucky and get to walk away while the 'good guys' are trying to kill each other.

 

[k_dawg]

Something is seriously wrong with the idea that it is okay for one citizen [ a cop ] but not for another citizen.

 

[beatledog7]

The chest thumping and bragging about ones (OP's) adventure is simply bad for all of us. Its easy for the other side to take these words and use them against us. The very fact that searches were being carried out indicates no weapons were allowed on the premises. Yet the OP was successful in carrying a weapon onto the property of another who didnt want weapons on site. So my suggestion is to simply not brag about such things. Also if you expect your Rights to be respected you must respect the Rights of others. Dont be the spark that endangers the Rights for the rest of us. [emphasis added]

Queen has it right.

No minds are going to be changed here, so can we at least heed Queen of Thunder's sage advice?

 

[hardheart]

Something is seriously wrong with the idea that it is okay for one citizen [ a cop ] but not for another citizen.

So you would shot at a uniformed officer? Or you would not shot at someone in civilian clothes with a weapon? This is after shots are fired on your property.

 

[buck460XVR]

Disagree completely. Sounds to me more like they were looking for snacks and soda.

If they wanted to look for weapons, wands are quite easy to come by.

If they wanted no weapons, signs are easy to post.

My thoughts too. Most large venues are more concerned with glass bottles being thrown or losing revenue at the concession counter than they are about legally carried guns. That said, I too took the OP as a chest thumping "I got away with one". The title "Heh, heh, heh.,,"

......and the statements
"She anticipated this, and didn't bring any of her "little friends" along. Instead, she depended on me for "escort services."

And me? Oh, the pleasures of deep concealment. I "obviously" wasn't carrying anything in my hands, like a purse, and I wasn't wearing a jacket or vest. Since I clearly had nothing to hide, they just waved me through."
shows to me, the intent of the thread was to show others how stealthy he is at CWC and that he thought he got away with one. His post also shows that he assumed the intent of the searches were indeed for forearms, altho as has been stated, there was no legitimate reason for that, as CWC was perfectly legal there. While we all can be proud of our 2nd Amendment rights and the right we have to exercise and defend them, we need to always do it in a positive manner. Gun owners and Antis walk a thin line with those that are neutral to either side. Bragging about getting away carrying a gun where it's not wanted or promoting such actions, even when legal, do not impress those that are neutral to our cause. While posting such statements in a gun forum will get a standing ovation, to the general public it may sound "Bubbaish" and be taken with disdain. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

 

[GCBurner]

In Florida, when security does a check of bags and big purses at the entrance to a concert or sporting event, what they're mainly checking for is people bringing in bottles of booze or baggies of drugs.

 

[wgaynor]

That mindset could lead to a lawsuit. Shooting at anybody with a gun means you are going to engage them with the intent to kill without regard to if they are a threat.

I hope it's not an undercover cop with a drawn firearm that you are shooting.