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?

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

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.

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)

As always, different states have different laws.

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.


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:)

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

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.

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 regarding Texas....no concealed carry in a bar, school, sporting event, church, hospital or where the sign is posted that says no firearms allowed.

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

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......

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!

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.

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.

^^^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?