Locals Pressure Wisconsin Store Owner Over Decision to Disallow CCW [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Locals Pressure Wisconsin Store Owner Over Decision to Disallow CCW


LoadToadBoss
06-25-2011, 10:13
Locals Pressure Wisconsin Store Owner Over Decision to Disallow Concealed Carry

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/25/locals-pressure-wisconsin-store-owner-over-decision-to-disallow-concealed-carry/#ixzz1QIxktG9d


Eulberg told Fox6Now.com. “We're not against gun rights. My contention is if a bad guy is in my store and you're a good Samaritan in my store and you see the bad guy whipping out the gun, we already have security procedures in place to protect ourselves."


Excuse me if I don't entrust my life to your store security procedures.

Dragoon44
06-25-2011, 10:20
ahhh the usual "rights" activists who get so infuriated when someone else exercises their rights.

cowboywannabe
06-25-2011, 10:30
dont like the store's policy? dont spend your money there and give them the bad press if you can amoungst other ccw'ers.

Sheepdog Scout
06-25-2011, 15:09
It's simple if you don't like a stores policies, don't shop there. But leaving an angry message is the wrong thing to do. It's makes us all look bad. Tell them with your pocket book.

pipedreams
06-25-2011, 15:38
So if you are conceal carrying who is to know. Don't know how the new Wisconsin law is written but in many states the most that can happen is they ask you to leave. If you don't they can call police and you could have problems. We have some local stores that have signs on their doors stating "No knives, guns or other weapons. You will ask to leave immediately". Interesting thing is one store sells all of the above. It is quite common to see men with folding knives in cases on their belts all the time and have never seen anyone ask to leave.

cfec2008
06-25-2011, 15:47
I hope no one will give this store any business at all. Hopefully he will be bankrupt in a while and will close his doors and move to a communist country.

HexHead
06-25-2011, 15:53
It's simple if you don't like a stores policies, don't shop there. But leaving an angry message is the wrong thing to do. It's makes us all look bad. Tell them with your pocket book.

Oh, here we go with that "make us look bad" crap. The bedwetters already consider us the enemy.

Tommy Hanrahan
06-25-2011, 17:13
Oh, here we go with that "make us look bad" crap. The bedwetters already consider us the enemy.

Sure, but there's a lot of people who do not have a strong opinion one way or the other and it does "make us look bad". Why push them to the other side? Keep the weapon concealed, you retain your protection and nobody knows.

Brian Lee
06-25-2011, 17:22
If "store procedure" amounted to something better than "cooperate fully with the man who's about to shoot you while waiting your turn to be shot", then maybe I'd be happy to abide by their store procedure.

My store procedure, is to only go to stores that allow people to do whatever they want for their own self defense.

cowboy1964
06-25-2011, 17:56
So he's considering OC for HALF OF HIS BUSINESS HOURS as an alternative? That makes no sense.

CitizenOfDreams
06-25-2011, 18:20
ahhh the usual "rights" activists who get so infuriated when someone else exercises their rights.
:goodpost:
His store, his rules. No matter how much I like my rights, they do not trump his.

RenegadeGlocker
06-25-2011, 18:43
:goodpost:
His store, his rules. No matter how much I like my rights, they do not trump his.

My money, my rules and I am free to tell him and anyone else.

Shinesintx
06-25-2011, 18:59
:goodpost:
His store, his rules. No matter how much I like my rights, they do not trump his.

My money, my rules and I am free to tell him and anyone else.

Renegade wins!

geoemery
06-25-2011, 19:33
If he does want concealed carry, that is his problem. If guns are band in a store in Wisconsin, the store assumes all liability. If guns are allowed, then they are not liable. The addition liability insurance will kill him.

vista461
06-25-2011, 19:35
I've been in there. The have quite the security guard, looks straight off the swat team complete with Uncle Mike thigh rig:whistling:
I also think its funny he's already bringing this attn on himself, when as far as I know the bill hasn't been signed yet and won't go into effect until oct or nov.

Misty02
06-25-2011, 20:20
If he does want concealed carry, that is his problem. If guns are band in a store in Wisconsin, the store assumes all liability. If guns are allowed, then they are not liable. The addition liability insurance will kill him.

Are you certain of that? I haven’t read a law yet where the owner will assume any additional liability by forbidding weapons in their location.

.

geoemery
06-25-2011, 21:17
It was not more liable per say but a loss of liability protrection. It was in an article interview with some legal aid group in Milwaukee, I think it was in the Milwaukee paper. I certain it is correct because they had posted no guns allowed signs and were considering due to the liability. I thought it was humorous because they posted a sign to prevent guns when concealed carry is illegal and were thinking of taking them down when it was legal. The person interview was the former governor's sister.

Misty02
06-25-2011, 21:36
It was not more liable per say but a loss of liability protrection. It was in an article interview with some legal aid group in Milwaukee, I think it was in the Milwaukee paper. I certain it is correct because they had posted no guns allowed signs and were considering due to the liability. I thought it was humorous because they posted a sign to prevent guns when concealed carry is illegal and were thinking of taking them down when it was legal. The person interview was the former governor's sister.

As I understand it, no store (or employer for that matter) can be held liable for things that are beyond their control. Poor lighting, improper maintenance, not addressing known problems/risks and other things may come into play but I doubt that would include forbidding weapons.

While an attorney may attempt to make a case that a business increased the risk of customers being injured by criminals due to their no weapons policy, I’m not so sure that alone would work to place liability for his client’s injury on said owner. Maybe there is some case law out there where it has worked? It would definitely make some interesting reading. :)

.

NecoDude
06-25-2011, 22:10
Okay - say I'm Mr. Dirtbag intending on robbing the store and harming employees and customers. I pattern the store and know exactly when OC is allowed, I learn I won't go in there during that time... say WHAT??? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... well next to him not allowing CCW. Expressing your opinion with the wallet has changed a lot of silly store policies. If not, there's always someplace down the road.

Toorop
06-25-2011, 22:50
ahhh the usual "rights" activists who get so infuriated when someone else exercises their rights.

They were all over a thread in GNG about Texas destroying property owners rights by forcing them to allow people to keep guns in their cars. It is a sad state of affairs when people don't think property rights are real because they are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Toorop
06-25-2011, 22:51
Oh, here we go with that "make us look bad" crap. The bedwetters already consider us the enemy.

Disobeying a property owners rights makes us look worse in my opinion.

Toorop
06-25-2011, 22:52
If he does want concealed carry, that is his problem. If guns are band in a store in Wisconsin, the store assumes all liability. If guns are allowed, then they are not liable. The addition liability insurance will kill him.
How does the store assume liability for what customers and non-employees do with their guns?

OctoberRust
06-25-2011, 23:07
My money, my rules and I am free to tell him and anyone else.


Just nailed it. Looks like you saved me some typing.

aeroengr
06-26-2011, 03:22
They were all over a thread in GNG about Texas destroying property owners rights by forcing them to allow people to keep guns in their cars. It is a sad state of affairs when people don't think property rights are real because they are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

And whose property are those cars? If you're going to fight for "property rights", you have to also include the rights of citizens and their property -- e.g. their vehicles.

Toorop
06-26-2011, 03:26
And whose property are those cars? If you're going to fight for "property rights", you have to also include the rights of citizens and their property -- e.g. their vehicles.

And whose property are those cars parked on? If you're going to fight for "property rights", you have to also include the rights of the citizens and their property -- e.g. their parking lots. :supergrin:

aeroengr
06-26-2011, 06:36
And whose property are those cars parked on? If you're going to fight for "property rights", you have to also include the rights of the citizens and their property -- e.g. their parking lots. :supergrin:

I wasn't fighting for "property rights", you were. Go ahead and mimic statements like a child though.

Regardless, your statement is pointless. For example, when you rent an apartment, whose land is that apartment on? Not yours. In many states, your car is considered an extension of your home, regardless of what privately owned chunk of land it is on.

HexHead
06-26-2011, 06:48
If he does want concealed carry, that is his problem. If guns are band in a store in Wisconsin, the store assumes all liability. If guns are allowed, then they are not liable. The addition liability insurance will kill him.

Bull****. Insurance applications don't even ask about being posted or not. I don't know how this nonsense that insurance will cost more if you don't post got started.

HexHead
06-26-2011, 06:50
Sure, but there's a lot of people who do not have a strong opinion one way or the other and it does "make us look bad". Why push them to the other side? Keep the weapon concealed, you retain your protection and nobody knows.

Who said anything about open carry? I was responding to not leaving a negative comment.

kensteele
06-26-2011, 12:21
Bull****. Insurance applications don't even ask about being posted or not. I don't know how this nonsense that insurance will cost more if you don't post got started.

The Brady bunch told him to change his answer to "a loss of liability protection" instead of raised rates. Still, more nonsense. LOL

eracer
06-26-2011, 12:32
Not this again...

Go ahead, Mr. Store owner, tell me I can't carry a concealed weapon in your store. Then trespass me if you find out. Otherwise, count your money.

Either that, or open a private club and keep me out that way.

HexHead
06-26-2011, 12:36
The Brady bunch told him to change his answer to "a loss of liability protection" instead of raised rates. Still, more nonsense. LOL

Exactly, there are no questions on an insurance app regarding posting. It's not an issue in the real world. Only in the fantasy world of bedwetters.

cfec2008
06-26-2011, 13:15
My money, my rules and I am free to tell him and anyone else.


Right on brother. Customer is always right..lol Ill spend my money somewhere else.

eracer
06-26-2011, 13:24
Bull****. Insurance applications don't even ask about being posted or not. I don't know how this nonsense that insurance will cost more if you don't post got started.Wishful thinking. Grasping at straws. Illogical thought processes. All this talk of businesses infringing on lawful individual rights makes me think I've wandered into liberal la-la land.

LoadToadBoss
06-26-2011, 14:00
And whose property are those cars? If you're going to fight for "property rights", you have to also include the rights of citizens and their property -- e.g. their vehicles.
Not so fast. There are two types of rights--Natural rights and given rights. Natural rights arise for natural persons--human beings. Those rights flow from the Creator and are to be protected by the government. Businesses are not "natural" citizen of a state, but are legislatively created by the state and are given certain rights and privileges needed for fair and equitable trade. Businesses are incorporated or otherwise licensed by the state and their behaviors are controlled more directly than that of private citizens. A business's "private property" rights are defined by the state. For example, a business cannot claim private property rights and exclude certain classes of people from the property (discrimination). That right is not absolute. It can certainly be within the power of a government to tell a business that they cannot exclude lawful concealed carry because that business owes is existence to the power of the state, not the entrepreneurial prowess of the owner. The state has taken the power to tell certain businesses (bars, hospitals, churches, theater, etc.) that they cannot allow handguns on the premises regardless of whether the business owner wants to allow handguns. Thus, the private property rights of businesses are not absolute but limited at the discretion of the legislature. And I would say subservient to the natural rights of people.

Toorop
06-26-2011, 15:23
Not so fast. There are two types of rights--Natural rights and given rights. Natural rights arise for natural persons--human beings. Those rights flow from the Creator and are to be protected by the government. Businesses are not "natural" citizen of a state, but are legislatively created by the state and are given certain rights and privileges needed for fair and equitable trade. Businesses are incorporated or otherwise licensed by the state and their behaviors are controlled more directly than that of private citizens. A business's "private property" rights are defined by the state. For example, a business cannot claim private property rights and exclude certain classes of people from the property (discrimination). That right is not absolute. It can certainly be within the power of a government to tell a business that they cannot exclude lawful concealed carry because that business owes is existence to the power of the state, not the entrepreneurial prowess of the owner. The state has taken the power to tell certain businesses (bars, hospitals, churches, theater, etc.) that they cannot allow handguns on the premises regardless of whether the business owner wants to allow handguns. Thus, the private property rights of businesses are not absolute but limited at the discretion of the legislature. And I would say subservient to the natural rights of people.

So using your logic I could open carry an M4 with a SBS attachment and a Desert Eagle into my local mall and Best Buy store because it is my natural right and those supersede the rights granted to businesses? (Assuming it is legal to carry those items.)

Toorop
06-26-2011, 15:25
I wasn't fighting for "property rights", you were. Go ahead and mimic statements like a child though.

Regardless, your statement is pointless. For example, when you rent an apartment, whose land is that apartment on? Not yours. In many states, your car is considered an extension of your home, regardless of what privately owned chunk of land it is on.
The difference with an apartment and a business that you have a contractual agreement with the landlord. If you go to McDonalds do you have a legally binding contractual agreement before you enter the premises and get your food?

RenegadeGlocker
06-26-2011, 15:26
Not so fast. There are two types of rights--Natural rights and given rights.

No there is only one - the kind you vigorously fight to have/keep.

IndyGunFreak
06-26-2011, 15:35
Not this again...

Go ahead, Mr. Store owner, tell me I can't carry a concealed weapon in your store. Then trespass me if you find out. Otherwise, count your money.

Either that, or open a private club and keep me out that way.

That's how it is in Indiana... I couldn't care less about their signs.

It looks like the WI law, if you carry in a properly posted establishment, will be a civil penalty...

I guess it's up to the carrier if that's a risk they are willing to take.

LoadToadBoss
06-26-2011, 16:18
So using your logic I could open carry an M4 with a SBS attachment and a Desert Eagle into my local mall and Best Buy store because it is my natural right and those supersede the rights granted to businesses? (Assuming it is legal to carry those items.)
Let's not extrapolate beyond the original issue of whether it is was a violation of business property rights for the legislature to force them to allow weapons in vehicles in parking lots. Legislatures define the limits of business property rights because business are legislative entities created through acts of incorporation and further controlled through various licensure processes.

A legislature could tell businesses that they could not prohibit the private carrying of an M4 or other legally held firearms by patrons. Of course doing so would create a public outcry that would no doubt result in a new legislature. However, with respect to the issue of vehicle carry in business parking lots, legislatures have a legitimate role in defining and delimiting a business's property rights.

If a legislature could tell a business that they cannot allow weapons on their property, they could also tell business that they cannot forbid weapons on their property (and do so with respect to peace officers in the performance of their duties). In the absence of any legislative action, a business owner can exercise any right not otherwise disallowed by law.

kensteele
06-26-2011, 16:59
So using your logic I could open carry an M4 with a SBS attachment and a Desert Eagle into my local mall and Best Buy store because it is my natural right and those supersede the rights granted to businesses? (Assuming it is legal to carry those items.)

You sound like the Brady bunch. "So it's ok to carry an AK-47...."

C'mon man, you don't own any property do you? :)

kensteele
06-26-2011, 17:05
The difference with an apartment and a business that you have a contractual agreement with the landlord. If you go to McDonalds do you have a legally binding contractual agreement before you enter the premises and get your food?

You're making up stuff to fit your scenario.

Ok, so if I pay $20 to eat at the restaurant as I enter the door, THEN I have the right not to be kicked out because the owner discovered I had a concealed weapon after I sat down and started eating?

It's called a lease and the terms of the lease will be quite clear when both of you sign and agree to the terms of the lease. If there is a dispute, the situation will have to be settled in court, not by kicking you out or calling the police.

There is no legally binding contractual agreement with McD when you visit that business. You just made that up to try to pretend like without such an "agreement", you have no rights. Well, I do have rights. And you'll quickly find out what those rights are if you own a McD and you violate my rights thinking you can because you don't have some sort of stupid binding agreement with me.

McD is operating in my state because they got a license and got permission from the state to open their doors and serve the public. They also agreed to follow state law or else they can take their business somewhere else if they don't like it.

hockeyrcks9901
06-26-2011, 17:14
I just gotta say... LoadToadBoss put my thoughts on business and the prohibition of weapons in cars in such better words than I ever could.

EAJuggalo
06-30-2011, 06:28
Carrying past the signs which will have weight of law in WI will be a fine of up to $1000.
The liability issue is written so that business owners who do not post can not be found liable for anything done by permit holders. It's basically just to prevent frivolous lawsuits when the criminals start falling.

medusaoblongata
07-08-2011, 00:16
If a legislature could tell a business that they cannot allow weapons on their property, they could also tell business that they cannot forbid weapons on their property (and do so with respect to peace officers in the performance of their duties). In the absence of any legislative action, a business owner can exercise any right not otherwise disallowed by law.

Where I am, the state had to tell the city that the city cannot forbid weapons on their (the city's) property.