Anyone happen to know whether I, as a private citizen, have the right to bar people with concealed carry permits from entering my private property while they are carrying? Or even if they would be legally required to answer truthfully if asked if they were carrying? I know private businesses have that right and governments but does your average citizen? Would I be required to post signage?

Nevermind, I found the appropriate code, poorly written as it is:

I believe as private property, should they be unwelcome (if they have a gun or whatever) they would be trespassing.

Yep Kula, laws vary by state.

In Florida, businesses lost the right to ban concealed weapons from being left in cars this year.

Scary. I'm not sure why or how the private citizen should lose the right to ban guns. Are gun-toters now a protected class?

It is scary. Why should a business owner be denied the same rights at work that he or she enjoys at home?

They decided that gun rights trump property rights. It's lunacy... but so is much that comes out of Tallahassee.

The answer is clear. If you don't allow people with concealed weapons in your place of business, the only people in that building with guns will be the outlaws!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

A racist has the right to deny blacks the right to enter their home (as a guest, one loses the right of invitation upon various writs of the court, such as a search warrant). If they own the local diner, they can't bar blacks from eating there. Insert any other group people might dislike personally.

See the difference?

_________________

Tarot, I don't find that analogy very compelling. There is a difference in discriminating against a race, sex, religious affiliation, or sexual preference and barring weapons. A more appropriate analogy would be that businesses have the right to require shoes and/or shirts of their customers before they recieve service, or requiring cell phones to be turned off.

Tarot: I anticipated that response and agree with you that there are some differences, but don't think that barring entry based on race is a fair comparison to barring entry based on whether or not you carry a weapon. There's a more direct threat involved.

Good point point Kul, I agree.

Regardless, as private property you have the right to choose who you allow in your home. Gun totin' or otherwise.

The point was why a person isn't allowed the same 'rights' at a business that they are allowed in a home, since the broad statement was made.

Let's use the cell phone example. Business can ask patrons to turn off ring tones (people can use VIBRATE), and if a cell phone goes off, or patrons are talking at length at the table, they can be asked to leave. Not unreasonable.

It is not legal for a business to use devices to blackout cell phone service. They don't tell people they must leave a cell phone in their car or they can't come in.

There are many legitimate reasons a person carries a cell phone. There are people on transplant lists that need to be available to contact 24/7 (for example). Not everyone uses them to just yammer with friends. A business certainly doesn't have the right to block legitimate use, nor do they. A person with need to use a phone can answer a vibrating phone and talk as they exit.

Most places that prohibit cell phones are places where silence is part of what they're selling, and they would eject any customer who was being loud (it's NOT specific to cell phones) and they can argue it on the basis of customer service, such as movie theaters.

Someone who is legally allowed to conceal carry may be someone who carries a weapon for reasons other than 'woot I can has gun!'. And I'd love to see examples where permitting legal concealed carry weapons has resulted in serious problems. I've seen instances where people argue (IMO realistically) that had a patron been allowed to take in their weapon fewer people would have died....but such cases are ALWAYS easier in hindsight when someone starts executing person after person after person, yeah fighting back looks to be the smart thing to do.

As far as 'hero complex' goes, people are often stupid without weapons. I've seen more than a few instances of people chasing robbers who stole less than $20 worth of goods, who paid for it with being shot. $20 of the store's items and they weren't owners! Some people will fight back with what's at hand, they don't need a weapon to be brave. And at least in CA, concealed carry requires classes which involve 'don't be a fucking moron 101'.

_________________

I apologize. I should have left off the "s" in "rights."

I still don't think you're using a fair example.

Again, with cell phones (unless you're one of those people who claim to suffer radiation damage from them), there's no implied threat.

And with the cell phone argument, you're talking about people carrying phones with them, not leaving them in the car.

Furthermore, with the cell phone argument, you're talking about people using cell phones in businesses.

And lastly, you're talking about customers.

It's a different beast when we're talking about guns owned by employees being kept at your business and not being watched.

You don't need some stupid comparison, this is easy.

If they've got their permits and aren't allowed to carry inside their work place or where they're shopping, they have to leave it somewhere. It stays in the vehicle, that's more then a good enough reason.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I missed the employees part. I thought we were talking about customers, especially given all the examples given.

Legally, liability lies with the business owner, so absolutely they should have the right to prevent their employees from carrying a concealed weapon. I'm not unsympathetic though to certain types of work which are highly dangerous, such as being a night clerk and a Stop and Rob. That's a job where carrying a weapon isn't (IMO) unreasonable, but I think they'd save more lives putting the cashier behind bullet proof glass, and take the stop loss on grab and run theft. It is difficult though for employees to demand a safer environment when they're easily replaceable, and such systems are inordinately expensive for the owners (who often don't install them even for themselves).

_________________

This is a non-issue. Business owners have never been allowed to tell anyone other than an employee that they could not have weapons in their cars while parked in their parking lot. Now, that right has been (correctly, imo) extended to employees as well.

Is there a good argument that businesses should be able to tell employees that they cannot have weapons in their vehicles but not customers? Or are you a proponent of businesses being able to say that no one at all is allowed to have a weapon in their vehicle while on their property?

*Edit* Tarot, the drama isn't about concealed weapons on your person, it's about storing a weapon in your vehicle at work.

Actually I don't think that's true, regarding not allowing customers, etc. I'm basing it off Penn and Teller's Bullshit! episode regarding gun control, specifically a woman who's parents were murdered in a horrific massacre which occurred at a diner.

Now, it may not have been the business, but the law which required those with permits leave the gun in the car when entering such places...I'm not sure, which is why I said I don't think it's true. But both her parents used guns, and at least one of her parents had a gun they left in the car. Jist of the case was a psycho went in and essentially started executing people, and her father tried to stop him and was killed, and her mother tried to help her father, and was killed. She believed (and I don't think wrongly in this instance) that had either of her parents had a gun, they could have stopped the guy. It's probably true...but it's always a hindsight case. Anyway I mention it simply because it was an instance of a gun owner not being allowed to bring in a legal gun. And the daughter had campaigned to make legal changes to prevent such situations in the future.

But I might be incorrect in my recollection and it may have simply been not the business owner's choice, but rather the law in that area. I'm not 100%, but I was going off my recollection of that in assuming we were talking about business owners being allowed to prevent customers, etc.

As far as preventing employees, given that the owners are liable for their employees actions, it's not unreasonable to then dictate what they can and cannot do. A business can make you wear a uniform for fuck's sake of COURSE they can tell you that you cannot carry a gun.

Oh, another example of places which (afaik) legally prevent legal weapons? College campuses. Even if you have a concealed carry permit you can be expelled. Again, AFAIK, police officers are exempt even while off duty as long as they're specific peace officers (not all peace officers have an issued weapon or the right to carry, in CA they have specific numbers, and they have specific training. My spouse can as he's that type of peace officer, and they're also required to have gone through a police academy among other things). IIRC, in example, EDD investigators are 'peace officers' with some legal abilities that peace officers have...but are another section and cannot carry a firearm (but can carry non lethals if trained).

_________________

Man maybe I should stop posting today, normally on painkillers I don't miss so much. But today my reading comphrension is complete shit...I missed that too. LOL

_________________

As long as you don't base your next argument on an episode of Mind of Mencia that you watched, we'll be ok.

If the show actually had information that pertained and was accurate, I would. Though didn't you refer once to the guy who was fucked to death by that horse up in Washington...something also mentioned on that show. Or maybe you just made a comment on the thread it was mentioned...probably more likely.

_________________

That happened several years before that show existed, the horse fucking.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Yeah. That's a good story around here in Mesa. We're one of the largest Boeing plants, apparently -- so everybody knows about the guy from Boeing in Washington who died fucking a horse. Ha.

The thing that concerns me in Georgia is that it's too damn easy to get a carry conceal license. Got $40? Clear a background check? You're gtg.

Who cares if you can actually USE the gun?

_________________

It's not like it's all that hard... but at minimum an 8 hour class is nice. But I've been around guns my entire life.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I know this is probably a stupid question - are you allowed to have weapon that is not concealed without a permit? I mean, can you wear it all wild west style?

What about with a permit? I never see people with guns unless they are cops or security guards.

It depends.

If you have just purchased a firearm, then you can transport it without a special license.

In Texas, from what I understand, you have to have a CCL to have a handgun unless you are in transport. Also, the CCL requires a full day class and range qualify. Rifles and Shotguns you can pretty much carry around if they are unloaded and not get into legal trouble -- as long as you purchased the weapon legally and have all the required documentations. There was a protest not too long ago where they brought legal unloaded shotguns and rifles and they could not do anything to them because of the weapons.

It varies from state to state obviously, but a lot of places do not allow you to openly carry a firearm whether or not you have a CCL.

Depends on the state, you can open carry rifles and shotguns without any issues, not sure about pistols.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Yeah, some states allow open carry; but most place it under a criminal charge called 'menacing' I think.

Sarissa Candyangel

Even in those states that allow open carry or concealed carry. You could be harassed by the police. In Seattle the mayor there is trying to ban legal handguns from city parks. In response to an attack from a criminal with a pistol at an event.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366336_guns10.html

It bothers me that you interpret the mere presence of a weapon as an implicit threat.

I own, and regularly practice with, several handguns and a shotgun. I always have. I also own several real swords and a small collection of well-balanced throwing knives. My home is bristling with weapons, and none of them have ever touched human blood except mine, when I was learning to throw the knives and held them wrong. I've only ever intentionally pointed a weapon at a human once, to convince someone cutting open a window screen in my home that my stuff wasn't worth his life. It's insulting to everyone like me when you view the bare potential that I could draw a weapon and attack you, and interpret it automatically to mean I ever will.

It's not nearly that personal. If we had a way to know who the violent people in society were before they committed violence (ala Minority Report) there would be no need for this discussion and people such as yourself could have weapons. Since that is not a reality, we need to impose limits on the entire population in order to safeguard against the small criminal percentage. Usually policing the majority to curtail the minority is a bad and unfair system, but the minority (criminals) can do so much damage with the weapons in this case, that it is necessary.

Without getting myself back into the full debate, I just wanted to emphasize that because someone wants gun control doesn’t mean they think you are going to shoot someone.

edit to fix quote.

You're right and that's not at all what I meant. Perhaps the word danger would work better than threat. Drajeck already covered that. It's not personal. It's not about you. It's about the presence of a dangerous weapon in the hands of someone unknown.

Growing up, my parents owned guns and they were never a problem. My father's rifles were always out of reach and I was taught not to touch them. I wouldn't assume or even attempt to imply that just because he owned guns that he would ever shoot me with them, nor would I want to point that implication toward someone else.

If you're cleared to purchase a gun and licensed to carry concealed, it's probably not you I'm worried about. But you're not carrying it. It's in your car. Portable GPS devices and iPods have lately made attractive prospects for criminals breaking into cars. I don't want to add guns to that list. I don't want to open the security newsletter I get each month at work and see that someone's gun was stolen from their car while parked in the garage I park in. But we actually have decent security watching our cars. There are a lot of businesses, small businesses in particular, that don't have the money to spend on that.

If you're worried about your safety moving between your vehicle and your office, this law won't help you because the gun stays in your car. If you're worried about your safety moving between your vehicle and your home, there have got to be better ways to improve that than increasing your danger getting into your car at work.

If you only go from home to work and then right back home again, and never go anywhere else, then maybe that might be reasonable. But who the fuck is going to have a CC and leave it in open sight in the car? Who the hell leaves GPS and ipods in open sight? You're asking to get your shit stolen.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I'm not saying someone is going to leave it in plain sight, but there are a lot of car break-ins, at least in South Florida. The random criminal is one issue, but the more serious one, the one I have to assume you're worried about if you're licensed to carry a concealed firearm, is the one targeting you.