Property Rights vs 2A Rights....

[CaptainHaplo]

I am likely going to get booted from a different forum over this issue, but its one that has long been one that "get's my goat".

I know some of you, my fellow subsim.com'ers, own firearms.
I know some of you, like me, partake in constitutional (open) carry. :yeah:
I know some of you choose to utilize legal concealed carry.:up:

So here is my question to you responsible firearm owners who carry - especially for those that do so concealed....

Assume a posted sign does NOT carry the weight of law in this case, if you are about to enter a private place of business and see a "no weapons, concealed or otherwise" sign - would you disregard the sign and enter to do your business, knowing that such an act was legal?

Please feel free to provide your reasoning on why you voted as you did.

[gimpy117]

I'd check my gun at the door if i needed to, It's their property, and as far as i know their right

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I chose No. Here's why. Though the sign itself, according to the scenario, cannot deny me the legal right to carry my weapon, if I am to assume the laws are indeed laid this way, it can be inferred that the local jurisdiction and zeitgeist places a very high priority on individual rights to include the right of self-defense. I just don't see this place denying the Castle Defense or Stand Your Ground.

So, let's say I conceal carry but get discovered. The proprietor won't be able to call the police because carrying per se is not illegal in this case. However, if he simply deploys his own gun and blows me away, he'll likely have an excellent case by the morals of the state. Even though the sign has no legal force, nevertheless his wishes have been made clear and I went into his property defying them. This makes me an intruder with less than innocent intent, and if he says he felt threatened by my concealed (or even open-carry) gun and blows me away well somehow I think he'll get away with it.

[Skybird]

No vote.

Haplo,

why haven't you included an option "I would practice my rights where they are valid, but give up my gun when entering that company's property if they do not allow guns?"

Suggestive polling? :)

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird,

Your right to carry (in the US) would, under the given scenario, be entirely legal to exercise. To say you would practice them "where valid" means you would carry even if the company disallowed them, as the company policy has no force of law.

Not sure what option you wanted there.....

[Skybird]

Skybird,

Your right to carry (in the US) would, under the given scenario, be entirely legal to exercise. To say you would practice them "where valid" means you would carry even if the company disallowed them, as the company policy has no force of law.

Not sure what option you wanted there.....
Without knowing the specific paragraphs in the US laws, I am certain of one thing: that private owners of property have the right to rule that private persons with arms are not allowed to enter that private property.

Private property is guaranteed in the US not one bit less than in Germany. If you come and pay a visit to me, and you were armed, and I do not want you running around on my property with a weapon on your belt, I have the right to deny you access. Like I also have the right to refuse you entrance through my door if you do not put off your shoes, assuming I were a pedantic cleaner. :)

Your gun does not give you a right to enforce your freedom onto me, in my privatesphere, on my property. ;) At the gate, at the fence is where your right ends. The law you claim may be valid in the public sphere, when we meet on neutral, open ground. Private property owners as well as business and institutions have the right to rule that they do not want an armed audience. Of course! For the same reason schools and unioversity, museum and public libraries may rule that weapons are not allowed inside. If you are armed and demand entrance to my property, and I do not like it, and you enforce it, it is an attack by you, against me. When I get attacked, I have the right of self-defence.

[razark]

There's no option for "Yes, I would respect the owner's wishes and not carry on his property"?

[Tribesman]

Without knowing the specific paragraphs in the US laws, I am certain of one thing: that private owners of property have the right to rule that private persons with arms are not allowed to enter that private property.

How can someone say they are certain like that:doh:
Terms and conditions apply just like thay always do, in this case the "private property" is open to the public so it introduces a whole library of "yes but" and "no unless" conditions.

Private property is guaranteed in the US not one bit less than in Germany. If you come and pay a visit to me, and you were armed, and I do not want you running around on my property with a weapon on your belt, I have the right to deny you access.
You sound like that hotel owner who got sued because he refused to have a couple of poofs on his property:rotfl2:

[Osmium Steele]

So, let's say I conceal carry but get discovered. The proprietor won't be able to call the police because carrying per se is not illegal in this case. However, if he simply deploys his own gun and blows me away, he'll likely have an excellent case by the morals of the state. Even though the sign has no legal force, nevertheless his wishes have been made clear and I went into his property defying them. This makes me an intruder with less than innocent intent, and if he says he felt threatened by my concealed (or even open-carry) gun and blows me away well somehow I think he'll get away with it.

We need an eyeroll emoticon.

Sorry, not even close here. Hanging a sign does not supercede one's 2nd ammendment rights. The owner, if he/she is a responsible gun owner, would know that. In the straw man scenario above, the proprietor would be charged with some form of murder, depending on the state involved.

The rule of thumb is the definition of self defense, defined as "That force necessary to defend yourself or another person from the threat of death or serious bodily harm." There is no state in the union which would categorize simply noticing a concealed firearm on someone as such a threat.

BTW, I am an NRA, and formerly DoD, certified firearms instructor and rangemaster at my club and for my company.

I have more than a passing knowledge of firearm regulations and laws in the US.

Oh, as to the poll...

If practicable, I would find another establishment in which to spend my money, but if it could not be avoided, I would certainly respect the wishes of the proprietor and lock my weapon in the gunsafe in my vehicle for the duration of my visit.

[Osmium Steele]

Your gun does not give you a right to enforce your freedom onto me, in my privatesphere, on my property. ;)

In your own home/apartment/flat etc. you are correct. In the US, the law changes if we are talking about a place of business open to the public.

In such cases, the 2nd Amendment and various state laws protect the individual's right to carry a firearm in public places just as the 14th Amendment and various civil rights laws protect the individual's right to go about in public without regard to race or other defined categories.

In short, if a person chooses to open a business to the public, they forego certain property and freedom of assembly rights.

[nikimcbee]

There's no option for "Yes, I would respect the owner's wishes and not carry on his property"?

This.

Interesting topic. The last lab I worked in, 3/4 of my co-workers had concealed carry permits:o (don't mess w/ our lab:haha:). Technically, the rule was no guns at work, so I don't know what they did.
At Oregon St U, they were trying to arrest people who carried, but legally they can't do that, because OR law says you can carry and they have no legal right to make up their own law. There was a big fight about this last year.

[Onkel Neal]

There's no option for "Yes, I would respect the owner's wishes and not carry on his property"?

That's my vote, if I carried. I don't see a routine crime problem so I do not carry.

[nikimcbee]

I've thought about getting a permit, but it seems like to much of a legal hassel IMO. I almost got one when I lived in Eugene (ore-gone), because our neighbors had been broken into twice:o:shifty:. And they have a crime problem with meth-heads.

[mookiemookie]

Ok so educate me here....

Let's say I have a CHP and I'm carrying it, concealed, of course. Now I walk into my office building here, where there's a big "NO WEAPONS BEYOND THIS POINT" sign right on the door. Are you saying that sign is full of BS? I thought if it was private property they could do as they pleased?

[Herr-Berbunch]

I've thought about getting a permit, but it seems like to much of a legal hassel IMO. I almost got one when I lived in Eugene (ore-gone), because our neighbors had been broken into twice:o:shifty:. And they have a crime problem with meth-heads.

But they've been fine since you've moved away... :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

But they've been fine since you've moved away... :hmmm:

They are all in jail:D.

[Morts]

If its private property, wouldnt the owner(s) be able to dictate whether or not you can carry a weapon there ?

[August]

If its private property, wouldnt the owner(s) be able to dictate whether or not you can carry a weapon there ?

I would have thought so as well but apparently not although i'll bet the laws on this vary quite a bit from state to state.

[geetrue]

What about all of those signs that say; "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

even though feet are legal they must be constrained by at least a pair of flip flops.

Respect the law or pay the fine is what I would choose.

Arizona has a right to carry law for everyone in the state ...

Left over from the old west days, unloaded is the preferred method,
but you can even carry one resting in the front seat as long as it is out in the open.

Same with on your hip as long as it is out in the open.

[Herr-Berbunch]

We need an eyeroll emoticon.

:roll:

[Tribesman]

Ok so educate me here....

Let's say I have a CHP and I'm carrying it, concealed, of course. Now I walk into my office building here, where there's a big "NO WEAPONS BEYOND THIS POINT" sign right on the door. Are you saying that sign is full of BS? I thought if it was private property they could do as they pleased?
Two things.
Is that part of the office building open to the public at will and are the employees there bound by the terms of their contract regarding company policy?

What about all of those signs that say; "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

Hygiene, safety and public decency can be used to cover those.

[Osmium Steele]

Are you saying that sign is full of BS? I thought if it was private property they could do as they pleased?

Since when can anyone "do as they please" on private property? Private property use is regulated through the nose in this country. Especially commercial property.

In the scenario above, the sign is a company directive and usually does not hold the force of law. Now you are talking about employer/employee contract law regarding the 2nd Amendment, which is an issue still being bandied about in the courts today.

Very different than Joe Six-pack walking into Bob's Ace Hardware to buy a new drill, and Bob whipping out his gat and busting a cap in Joe's butt.

In your scenario, it would depend on quite a few factors. Some states allow the restriction of concealed carry, by employees, in the workplace. Some do not. Federal government contractors, and some others, can set up firearm free zones under federal regulation. In such cases, it is a violation of federal law.

In any case, the company has a right to develop the policy, post the sign, and fire your butt for violating it.

Most court battles regarding this subject today concern employee rights to have a weapon locked away in their private vehicle in the company parking lots. It is looking like the precedents being set are in favor of the employee while outside the doors of the facility, while, correctly in my opinion, preserving the right of the employer to terminate employment if the weapon is brought inside in violation of company policy.

[Platapus]

In Virginia (both North and South), you are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, even with a permit, into or onto private property where the owner has posted that weapons are not allowed.

Code of Virginia 18.2-308 (O)

The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property.

As always, different states have different laws.

[Penguin]

[...]like that hotel owner who got sued because he refused to have a couple of poofs on his property

Are you referring to the case in Germany, where the hotel owner got sued because he refused to accomidate members of a Nazi party? This guy won the lawsuit against the NPD as he didn't discriminate them on gender, race, religion, etc., but refered to his right to do business with anyone he wants and vice versa.


In Virginia (both North and South), you are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, even with a permit, into or onto private property where the owner has posted that weapons are not allowed.

Code of Virginia 18.2-308 (O)


I took the time to check out the text (I hate "Law English"!:dead:) and noticed that it seems to include businesses open to the public, it states it excepts the business owner (B.1), however nothing is said that customers are an exception.
This would also be my argument why stores can refuse to serve people with CCWs: the rights of the business owner. In the US you sometimes can see signs stating: "We chose the right to refuse service", afaik they are still legal as long as the stores don't refuse the service because of the reasons stated in the 14th Amendment, which are clearly defined.
So in reverse, discrimination based on clothes ("no shirt no service", tie rules in restaurants, "appropriate" clothes in clubs) or guns seems to be legal. Everything else would go against the freedom of enterprise the store owner has, the freedom to do business with who they want.

Some odd observations about § 18.2-308:
- you still are allowed to carry a crossbow ;)
- The Harbormaster of the City of Hopewell seems to have special privileges in comparision to his fellow Harbor Masters (C.6) :DL - maybe he made a generous donation (or I don't get his special role, in this case the laugh's on me :haha:)

[andy_311]

Your not allowed to carry a firearm period in the UK.

[Ducimus]

There's no option for "Yes, I would respect the owner's wishes and not carry on his property"?

This.

While we have our constitutional rights, we are not empowered to do as we damn well please where we dam well please. In reality, and typically, an individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin.

[mookiemookie]

Since when can anyone "do as they please" on private property? Private property use is regulated through the nose in this country. Especially commercial property.

Allow me to rephrase - "I thought if it was private property they could do as they pleased in regards to allowing or banning firearms?"

And I found this (http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/texas.pdf)regarding Texas....no concealed carry in a bar, school, sporting event, church, hospital or where the sign is posted (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlssign.htm)that says no firearms allowed.

[Tribesman]

Are you referring to the case in Germany, where the hotel owner got sued because he refused to accomidate members of a Nazi party? This guy won the lawsuit against the NPD as he didn't discriminate them on gender, race, religion, etc., but refered to his right to do business with anyone he wants and vice versa.

No it was a case where the hotel owner lost because he did discriminate on those mentioned grounds.

And I found this (http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/texas.pdf)regarding Texas....
Thats quite a few terms and conditions, I suppose they should be repeated from every state of the union plus all the federal ones then you can add in all the multitudes from every town, city, county......

[CaptainHaplo]

Again, please assume for the sake of the question that a sign, while posted - does not make you carrying on the premises an illegal act...

I am very heartened by the results so far - its quite a bit different from the attitude of a pro 2A board.

I will give it another day, then chime in with my own thoughts about this question. Thank you all for answering so far!

[Osmium Steele]

And I found this (http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/texas.pdf)regarding Texas....no concealed carry in a bar, school, sporting event, church, hospital or where the sign is posted (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlssign.htm)that says no firearms allowed.

And most concealed carry states have similar codes, protected sites, etc.

As Ducimus stated above, the flashpoint seems to be where one person's rights come up against another's, with the inevitable question, "Why do his rights supercede my own?" The courts will continue to answer that question for eternity.

[CaptainHaplo]

My reasoning for posting this question - and leaving off what I saw as an obvious option - was that this has been a rather disturbing conversation at DefensiveCarry.com - disturbing because MANY of the CC folks there seem to be under the impression that as long as its hidden, no harm=no foul.

As a 2A supporter - this really, really gets to me. NC is an open carry state - and I am glad of it. If someone wants to get the permit to conceal, fine. And while 2A rights should be curtailed (by government) in only the most specific ways (federal property, etc) - private property rights of an owner should always trump the 2A rights of a VISITOR who can choose not to visit your home/business...

Yet the "concealed is concealed" mentality seems to exist there is droves. I am pleasantly suprised that common sense and the respect for the rights of others is shown here with the results.

I took the same position that Kazuaki took - literally pointed out the same scenario - and the result was "well if its concealed..". Like these people never realize that "printing" happens! Not to mention - lets say no one gets shot - but the owner notices. He requires the carrier to leave. Legally he can - and if the person carrying refuses - its a trespassing charge at the least. Still - its more about the harm done to the cause. If the store owner was ever amendable to being convinced that legal gun owners are responsible - it just got blown.

Finally - private property rights are the basis for people even being able to own anything - including a firearm. Such rights are denoted in the constitution itself - it was that important to the Framers. James Madison once wrote:

"as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may equally be said to have a property in his rights"

To somehow claim that 2A rights supercede the right of a private property owner - and then claim to be a "constitutionalist" (which most 2A'ers do) just shows an ignorance that baffles and saddens me.

Thankfully, you all have shown that common sense within the community of owners and carriers is not dead. Its good to see....

*Mods - couldn't figure how to close the poll - feel free to do so.

[Tribesman]

^^^good post.
Though I must say in relation to ther "disturbing conversation" angle, were you surprised?
If you went to a Brady bunch forum wouldn't you equally expect the same "disturbing" push in the opposite direction?