Oregonian here. Is it true that you cannot carry concealed in a business (such as Starbucks) that has a no weapons policy? I was under the impression that their anti-gun policies were only legally applicable to open carrying weapons, not to CHL permit holders carrying concealed.
SHALL
>>30154939
NOT
>>30154934
Don't support them with your dollars if it's true. Here in MO they have to have a sign that meets specific, albeit simple, standards for it to be "enforceable". First offense is a fine up to $100... but that's if they catch and somehow detain you until the police show up.
>>30154934
In TX they have to display a legal sign in their window that has regulation text on it. If they do, you can't carry there. If they dont't, you can. If the sign is not regulation, you can carry regardless
In most cases private property rights trump the right to carry.
>>30154955
INFRINGED
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
>>30154934
handgunlaw.us
In some states, carrying in a business with signs is a misdemeanor. In other states, as long as you leave before cops show up (if the owner notices your gun AND asks you to leave before calling them) then no crime is considered to be committed, but even if the cops do show up, it's considered less than a misdemeanor and you only pay like a $60 fine or something stupid.
>>30154951
I'm still trying to figure out why people on /k/ believe this so strongly. The right to defend one's own life is inherent to all living humans. Just because you own some plot of land does not mean that my life is forfeit. Life trumps land.
Based Utah
>>30155371
It's interesting that we can carry a loaded weapon through an airport with the exception of the security areas, but we can't legally carry into a Starbucks, even if that is not enforced. Laws are weird.
>>30155228
As with most legal issues, that depends. Tell me how you think this will legally play out:
1. You enter my place of business. I have a sign asking you to please not carry inside.
2. You do not wish to leave your CCP in your car, so you carry anyway.
3. For whatever reason, I notice, and due to business requirements I have for my other customers, I ask you to please remove the pistol from the premise, or please take your business elsewhere.
4. You say no, that your right to your weapon trumps my property rights.
5. ?
>>30154934
What really hinders me is that you can't carry concealed on publicly funded school grounds in Oregon. I go to a community college and my girlfriend goes to Oregon State, and every time we go to either campus, even if we're not going inside a building, we have to disarm beforehand. Even just dropping my girlfriend off at school means I can't carry concealed, it's really bad.
Doesn't help things that the local university takes up like 40% of my local town, meaning driving through town legally while carrying concealed can be a real bitch.
>>30155228
You aren't required to be on someone else's property. You chose to be there, so abide by the owners rules or leave.
>>30155791
Can you legally carry it in your glovebox?
>>30155405
>4. You say no, that your right to your weapon trumps my property rights.
This is unrelated to you carrying there. This involves the owner of a location asking you to leave for reasons that are not federally protected and you refusing, which is trespassing. It's the same as if you walked in without a shirt or shoes and refused to leave.
>>30155405
It does.
Because I have a gun.
>>30155381
Property rights, senpai.
>>30155228
Its a very good case of "my rights at the only ones that matter" mentality.
Much like it isn't illegal to ban people from a forum, even if they whine about "free speech" or the 1st amendment.
>>30156445
semantics
>>30156545
Nothing semantic about it.
>>30154934
NC LEO here - Dunno about your state, but here, there's no law that specifically deals with it. Our courts have upheld that it could constitute trespassing, but:
A) If you're concealing, why would anyone know in the first place.
B) I don't know any cops who would actually charge for someone legally carrying a firearm, regardless of what sign some limp wristed faggot barista posts.
C) I highly doubt any DA would attempt to try that case, as that language is nowhere in the charging elements - only basis is in case law.
Point being, if your safety matters enough to you and you're legally carrying a firearm - carry it. I don't give a fuck that guns make some people uncomfortable, my safety, and the safety of others around me is my primary concern. If someone wants to be like a lamb led to the slaughter, that's their prerogative; it has nothing to do with me.
>>30154934
You can conceal carry any where if you do it good enough, anon.
>>30156605
>I don't know any cops who would actually charge for someone legally carrying a firearm, regardless of what sign some limp wristed faggot barista posts.
Not saying I agree with the idea driving them - CCing doesn't and shouldn't pose any problems - but isn't that an oxymoron?
How can you legally carry on property when the owner has made it clear that you are not welcome if CCing? Isn't it their right to deny service and access to anyone?
>>30156445
> That is unrelated [..]. That involves the owner of a location asking you to leave [because you are doing something he dislikes]
My asking anon to leave and it bearing legal weight (Criminal Trespass) is the crux of my argument about property rights. Boil away all the gun free zone b.s. and legal weight of prohibited carry signs, and you end up with two mutually exclusive rights.
A. The business owner's right to do with his property as he so wishes (in this case my right to provide shitty hot milk drinks with a splash of coffee to customers in a gun free environment)
B. >>30155228's right to defend himself on said property with a firearm
In this case, A trumps B. The Criminal Trespass is just legal bookkeeping to ensure that I can remove people who infringe on my property rights.
Ausfag here. Doesn't the phrase "shall not be infringed" make all firearm restrictions technically unconstitutional?
>>30156705
Yes. Doesn't matter though.
>>30156644
>How can you legally carry on property when the owner has made it clear that you are not welcome if CCing?
Because there's no state statutes (in NC, anyways) that make it a misdemeanor crime to carry concealed despite what signs are posted on that property.
It can't be illegal if there's no basis in common law, or statutory law which specifically enumerates those elements making it unlawful.
>Isn't it their right to deny service and access to anyone?
Sure, they can refuse you service and or access to their property. That's really a non-sequitur per this line of conversation though, since if they're unaware you're (lawfully carrying) why would they do so?
Now lets say the owner/agent/or other authorized party does see your weapon, and tells you to leave. Regardless of the fact why he asks you to leave, you are required to do so - failure to do so would be in violation of the statutory elements of trespass.
>>30156682
>>30156542
>>30156352
>>30155405
>O powerful state- please, please enforce my arbitrary gun bans inspired by gun-grabbing Democrats
>an individual's Constitutionally-protected rights mean nothing because muh feelins
Keep licking those boots.
>>30156896
So you don't support the State enforcing your right to remove unwanted people from your home or place of business?
Are you a full on Anarchist? Because even AnCaps are okay with the State protecting property rights before even free speech or right to bear arms. It's kind of a base tenant of Capitalism.
>>30154950
and honestly if you're concealed no one is going to know that you're carrying and you'd never get in any trouble
>>30156922
Nobody said you can't ask people to leave and then prosecute them for trespassing if they don't leave. What I'm saying is that you're a fucking gun-grabber.
>>30156922
>or place of business.
Lel you can't remove people based off of a protected class reason for like decades? Learn to Civil Rights Act. So no throwing gay muslim nignogs out for being all of the above.
You want to do business you follow federal, state and local businesses. Anons always confuse actual private property rights with business rights without realizing customers have rights too.
>>30156983
*federal, local, and state business ordinances.
>>30156948
Oh, well you bet your ass I think a business owner can ask you to leave because he doesn't like guns. Or if he doesn't like the particular brand of gun you carry. Or he just finds you annoying.
The alternative is we either ditch Capitalism, or we go back to the 1840's and see who's faster on the draw, and that's not good for business.
>>30157043
>Oh, well you bet your ass I think a business owner can ask you to leave because he doesn't like guns.
And that's why you're a bad person.
>>30156983
What year did we make gun-owners a protected class?
And you can still fire someone for being gay outside of NM and CA, maybe some more. Most states have not extend protected class to homosexuals at this point. You might have to deal with civil court, but it's not prevented at the State or Federal level.
>>30157088
1787.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
>>30157088
Good luck with that interpretation in court. Even based Scalia wouldn't have your back on that one.
Maybe you could found a religion based on weapons though. The Sikhs may have started the ball rolling on that one.
>>30157156 was meant for >>30157101
>>30157168
Sure it was.
>>30154955
KANGZ
>>30156896
>protecting individual property rights is boot licking.
You going to let Jamal into your house to take your TV then? Since his right to be in your living room at 3am trumps your property rights.
Jesus /k/, this board fucking sucks now.
>>30157262
>>30157291
At least one person on /k/ believes you cannot ask someone to leave your house because they are carrying a firearm.
But don't worry. Simply change your complaint to telling them they smell like toenails, and they will politely comply and exit your front door.
>>30157088
Since they had their own amendment lol.
But serious answer no they are not a protected class which is why people can be removed based off that answer.
Of course if the progunners in congress got clever and hijacked the civil rights act to add 'protected class' status to gun owners...then we'd win every single lawsuit and every gun control law would be fucked.
>>30157262
I didn't realize you were doing commercial foot traffic business out of your home.
Public access place on private property =/= the same as a home, since they are a place of business in, and won't get the same respect.
>>30156605
>A) If you're concealing, why would anyone know in the first place.
OP here. I appreciate your perspective, but sometimes in the summer when it's 100+ degrees out (like today) and I'm wearing light clothes (cargo shorts and T-shirt or polo) you can clearly see the bulge on my hip from my Glock 19 which is my carry pistol. Yes there are smaller weapons I could carry; yes I could carry in front of my torso rather than to the side, but I prefer the Glock 19 for carrying and I prefer to carry on my right hip. It's what I'm used to from my military experience. I prefer to stick to what feels comfortable for me.
In the winter it's not an issue because I'll have heavier clothing or a jacket over the weapon, but in the summer time it can be pretty obvious I'm carrying, and I actually don't really mind that it's visible, aside from this apparent law that prohibits me from carrying in private businesses.
The only times my pistol is truly concealed in the summer time is when I'm wearing my motorcycle jacket, which I usually take off when I enter a business. Otherwise in the summer it's "concealed" under my shirt on my hip.
>>30156755
>Now lets say the owner/agent/or other authorized party does see your weapon, and tells you to leave. Regardless of the fact why he asks you to leave, you are required to do so - failure to do so would be in violation of the statutory elements of trespass.
Is this also true for an employee at a location? For example if I walk into a convenience store and an employee demands I leave because I'm carrying BUT I know the off-duty manager is okay with carrying a weapon in their store, what happens then?
>>30157340
>>30157346
Don't care if it's a home or a business. My vote will continue to be that if you own it, you say what goes within those four walls, and people can get the hell out.
As for protected classes, I'm not a terribly big fan on those based on logical consistency alone. What's an objective metric for widespread enough discrimination that we must pass a law, for example? But at least you can check your firearm at the door.
>>30157438
Assuming the manager isn't there? A cop gets called and probably tells you all to stop wasting his time.
That, or you get arrested for trespassing, and the kid gets fired when his boss finds out what he did to you.
Sometimes I forget that certain people on here only fetishize firearms and don't give a shit about other freedoms and rights.
>>30157552
> Expecting a semblance of ideological consistency
> On cuatro-ita of all places
>>30157479
It aint a vote. Its the fucking law of the United States. Meaning you can get prosecuted and sued by whoever.
It doesn't matter if its something you agree with or not, because that's not my point. Good luck trying to repeal that shit though.
My point if you get me, is that if we HAVE to deal with all this sjw laws and whatnot, then why don't we use it for our benefit and win every fucking gun rights lawsuit forever? Long story short the courts worship protected class, and it really wouldn't be that hard to draft another bill that links the 2nd with the civil rights bill too.
>>30157552
You want full and complete rights and freedoms?
Go make your own country.
And that is NOT a rhetorical comment, because that's whats been driving folks to colonize, innovate, and explore the far reaches of the globe and fight for hundreds of thousands of years for their share of soverign soil, aka the most precious commodity in human civilization ever.
>>30157323
You don't have the legal authority to deny people their Constitutionally-protected, natural rights while they are on your property - just because you own and pay property taxes on your land doesn't mean that it's a different country - but if you're so scared of guns, you are free to ask people to leave for any reason, and then call the state to remove the people on your behalf if they refuse to leave.
With businesses, you likewise can't deny people their Constitutionally-protected, natural rights. Businesses aren't outside the jurisdiction of the United States either. Business owners do not have the same set of reasons to deny people the ability to be on their property from which to draw, though. Obviously, it varies by state, but the justifications for denying entry to people with guns are going to be things like "because it interferes with business," or "because it creates a safety hazard." If you're comfortable calling a responsible concealed-carrying citizen a safety hazard, then feel free to continue your ridiculous argument about how your feelings are so important. Otherwise, shut up.
>>30157479
>Don't care if it's a home or a business. My vote will continue to be that if you own it, you say what goes within those four walls, and people can get the hell out.
No offense, but that's because you have daddy issues. Seriously. It's so transparent that you're not telling us your own thoughts, but are just repeating what your father dictated to you while you were a minor and growing up in his house.
>muh objective metric
It's so obvious that you're just trying to sound smart when you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>30157676
Unfortunately we live in a day in age where every inch of the world is owned or influenced by someone. Even worse, most of these places are backed and defended by the worlds super powers.
Even if you could muster the force to annex one of the small island countries, you'd have to find one of the few that don't have defensive pacts or strong relations with larger countries.
>>30158126
Well, for one, the 1st and 2nd amendments do NOT limit the powers of private individuals, only the federal, and by the 14th, state governments.
Second, employers can literally tell you to stop exercising your 1st amendment rights and get to work, or face termination. I can absolutely tell you to leave my establishment if you are carrying a weapon, or you face criminal trespass.
Need actual proof of criminal trespass? http://www.houstontx.gov/police/open_carry/
- - - - -
Can I openly carry or concealed carry on private property?
[...]if the owner or manager asks you to remove the weapon or leave the property, you must comply. Failure to leave the property when requested to do so could result in you being charged with criminal trespass.
- - - - -
> It's so transparent that you're not telling us your own thoughts
Pic related is you, right now. And my father is far more progressive than I am. Now parroting Milton Friedman... Often guilty as charged.
> muh objective metric
God forbid we agree to a baseline to determine if Federally mandated legal protection is required for a group of people, rather than just voting on emotional reaction. I know it's difficult, but wouldn't you prefer legal action based on data?
>>30156682
A does not trump B. A exists mutually with B. He can defend himself on said property with a firearm, and you as the business owner can ask him to leave at any time for any reason that is not prohibited by law (e.g. "leave this store because you are black").
>>30154934
what's the enforcement on that, though?
>>30158297
Most people on /k/ believe that they have the right to shoot trespassers on sight, and if you ask them to justify their ridiculous opinion, they will just claim that if they ever did it, they coulduse the defense in court of thinking that their life was being threatened.
It's not surprising that they believe their property is ACTUALLY a different country with its own Constitution, or that private individuals ACTUALLY are exempt from following the Constitution.
>changing the goalposts to focus in on just employers now
That's totally different. A contract for employment can stipulate any arbitrary conditions for termination and be upheld in civil court. This has nothing to do with trespassing.
>Need actual proof of criminal trespass? http://www.houstontx.gov/police/open_carry/
I addressed this in the post that you replied to, but you probably only read the second part because you thought that the first part wasn't relevant. I'll wait as you go read the rest of my post.
>>30155228
Their rules or don't enter their property.
>>30158543
Oh, look. Another anon with daddy issues.
>>30158474
You can tell somebody not to say "nigger" in your house. You can tell somebody not to bring dogs into your house. You can tell somebody not to bring guns into your house. That person's constitutional rights aren't being violated.
If you call your mom a bitch, and she tells you to leave her house, she isn't violating your rights.
>>30158764
>still conflating personal residence with business property, and confusing trespassing laws with the belief that the Constitution doesn't apply to non-property owners
I'm done with you. Your posts are way too sloppy for me to keep thinking that you actually believe the shit you're typing.
>>30158297
>>30158474
> Most people on /k/ believe that they have the right to shoot trespassers on sight
I think most people on here are smarter than that. Any reasonable man, and all that jazz.
> They believe their property is ACTUALLY a different country with its own Constitution
I don't think anyone believes that. Well, maybe Antman does. Or did. Whichever.
> The justifications for denying entry to people with guns are going to be things like "because it interferes with business,"
Cool. If that means you remove the gun from the premise without having your 2nd amendment rights denied, then both you and the business owner will be happy, right? I fully support this option. I'm not interested in denying anyone's constitutional rights, as long as other people's property rights are being respected as well.
>>30158813
That was my first post of the thread, autismo. You are just spewing shit like somebody who got into the politics of guns 5 weeks ago. Take a deep breath, accept your ignorance, and correct it.
>>30158842
>That was my first post of the thread, autismo.
Then you should have read a few other people's posts before just repeating what has been said and rebutted repeatedly.
