Colorado Shootings [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Colorado Shootings


UneasyRider
07-20-2012, 15:53
First off my prayers are with all of the people in that movie theatre and their friends and family and I hope that any discussion of what we could do in their situation reflects the respect for human life that we all share here.

So other than a concealed carry weapon and a really good head shot, what do you do if you are in the movie theatre?

mac66
07-20-2012, 16:22
First off my prayers are with all of the people in that movie theatre and their friends and family and I hope that any discussion of what we could do in their situation reflects the respect for human life that we all share here.

So other than a concealed carry weapon and a really good head shot, what do you do if you are in the movie theatre?

Movement tends to draw fire. Hiding in close proximity may get you discovered and shot. Trying to stay concealed might be the answer, or playing possum. Of course if the active shooter is roaming around you might get shot anyway. I think I'd rather die fighting than shot in the back running away.

quake
07-20-2012, 19:03
First, get your family down. Then, get the shooter down.

To me, it's not only about not getting shot, although that's obviously right at the top of priorities. It's about two things; not getting killed, and stopping the killing. In an active-shooter situation, your odds of survival go way down if you have to wait for help, and in trying to stop the shooter you can't even take time to stop & help the injured; every few seconds the shooter goes unchecked is another victim, and that rate of carnage is intolerable if you have any say in the matter.

I have no illusions of being unstoppable, unbeatable or unkillable; but I personally feel a moral obligation to do what I can to protect innocent people. I know there's likely a lot of guys here who disagree - that it's all about survival, period - and more power to anyone who feels that way. I just feel differently.

RED64CJ5
07-20-2012, 19:47
every few seconds the shooter goes unchecked is another victim, and that rate of carnage is intolerable if you have any say in the matter.

This is exactly why I typically do not frequent places that carrying concealed is disallowed. You do not have a "say in the matter." You're forced into sheephood. I completely agree with your stance in this position..

1. Protect the family -- get them DOWN
2. Take the guy out (if possible and without harming others)

cowboy1964
07-20-2012, 20:11
Totally situation dependent, as it always is. If I'm on the other side of the theater I'm getting my family out (and just because they leave the immediate vicinity doesn't mean they are automatically safe - what if multiple shooters? What if he/they pursue? Etc. So I'm sticking with them). If I'm right behind the shooter and he doesn't even see me coming he's getting a head shot point blank. Everything in between those two situations is up for grabs, depending on what is happening.

racerford
07-20-2012, 20:58
There are 3 things you can do. You can run away, which might work as you are making distance that reduces his likelihood of hitting you.

You can stay where you are. This works only if the shooter runs out before he gets to your turn.

You can got to the shooter. You will likely get shot. However, it is not what they will expect. Remember it is not like the movies. Many people survive shootings or least survive for a while. Short of a CNS hit you will likely survive more than a few seconds, perhaps 30 or more. Of course if he hits a pelvic girdle or in some way incapacitates your ability to walk, you can likely close the distance and likely disrupt the shooting. Maybe enough of a distraction to allow others to escape of join in your failure to just die like a good victim.

The best option is to be armed. The hard part is how to make sure once you pull your gun that others don't think you are part of the bad guy crew. I hear this guy had a vest. That makes this tricky. I guess that is a good reason to train on the Mozambique drill.

Revvv
07-20-2012, 21:04
You have to remember that this idiot was in full riot gear and as bullet proof as he could get.

volsbear
07-20-2012, 21:41
Full riot gear. You have a lot of bad options. Everyone is confident enough to take the head shot until they're getting shot at by a guy in full gear.

Move. Gain distance and create angle. Use concealment. Don't freeze. Pray.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

9mm +p+
07-21-2012, 00:06
Ignore posted idiotic signs which i do, sit in the back near the door. Run like hell, it's simple fight if you really have to, but running is alot easier particuarly if you have loved ones with you. Better to run and live than to try and be mr hero and die, leaving the ones that you love at the mercy of this world.

RMTactical
07-21-2012, 01:21
sounds like he walked past aisles of people laying down and keeping low. Those people closest to him might have been the safest since it sounds like he was only shooting those running, ironically.

Could have easily taken cover and with any luck could have possibly gotten some good chances to take some good shots I am guessing.

Who really knows though? Every shooting is different. Sometimes they have it all planned out with all kinds of precautions like this guy. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes there are multiple attackers. Sometimes it is just one guy.

TangoFoxtrot
07-21-2012, 05:52
Unless you have actually been under fire its harder than you think to position yourself with little to no cover, than add in others moving about in front of you and also having to protect your friends or family.

UneasyRider
07-21-2012, 06:21
I have to say that I am with Quake on this. My beliefs don't allow me to stand by and do nothing while this carnage is going on therefore I would have to do something no matter what it is.

I know what you are thinking, this is easy to say but tougher to do. Yes that is true but I pray every day to do God's will and do believe that there is no greater good that a man can do than to give his life for his fellow man and I hope to do that some day. I hope that I would try to save someone else by being armed and a good shot and under Gods influence.

blkpag1
07-21-2012, 14:25
I tend to carry a Surefire flashlight with me at all times, I wonder if using a bright flashlight to distract or restrict night vision of the attacker would at least buy you or everyone else a little time to get out or get to some cover?

dissthis
07-21-2012, 14:26
I have to say that I am with Quake on this. My beliefs don't allow me to stand by and do nothing while this carnage is going on therefore I would have to do something no matter what it is.


agreed

Gotta do something...if your armed all the better...

Bolster
07-21-2012, 14:36
Discussions like this remind me of Lord of the Flies, when the marooned boys decide their best option is to "make a radio."

LongGun1
07-21-2012, 22:21
First, get your family down. Then, get the shooter down.

To me, it's not only about not getting shot, although that's obviously right at the top of priorities. It's about two things; not getting killed, and stopping the killing. In an active-shooter situation, your odds of survival go way down if you have to wait for help, and in trying to stop the shooter you can't even take time to stop & help the injured; every few seconds the shooter goes unchecked is another victim, and that rate of carnage is intolerable if you have any say in the matter.

I have no illusions of being unstoppable, unbeatable or unkillable; but I personally feel a moral obligation to do what I can to protect innocent people. I know there's likely a lot of guys here who disagree - that it's all about survival, period - and more power to anyone who feels that way. I just feel differently.

Basically....this..

..except going into it fully knowing I am at a great disadvantage..

..as I would likely have only a small CCW (laser sighted) & limited ammo..

..one or 2 Benchmade folders..

..& no body armor.


The little but powerful MTE C3-907 or more capable MTE (18650 powered) M2 would likely play into my response..

(normally EDC both)

..the strobe on both is very disorienting in the dark!


But I would do my best to make every shot count..

..or die trying..

JuneyBooney
07-22-2012, 01:07
First off my prayers are with all of the people in that movie theatre and their friends and family and I hope that any discussion of what we could do in their situation reflects the respect for human life that we all share here.

So other than a concealed carry weapon and a really good head shot, what do you do if you are in the movie theatre?


Shoot at the muzzle blast and shoot a little high and pray that you hit him with the first 14 rounds..then reload if he is not down and keep shooting. 357 or .40 minimum caliber. Those would be the basics.

RMTactical
07-22-2012, 16:52
Discussions like this remind me of Lord of the Flies, when the marooned boys decide their best option is to "make a radio."

If only they had the professor from Gilligan's Island.

dennis3dflyer
07-22-2012, 23:18
I Want This PISTOL! It would never leave my pocket:

I need a LCP size and weight pistol that shoots at least the 380 round or the 5.7 round w/ Armor Pierce Capability or 9mm.

It needs to be a good double to single action. Double Action to do a fast draw and close in shoot. Single Actionable/Hammer to if you have the time to cock and have lite crisp trigger to make a better distance head shot.

To do this in all conditions, outside/inside dark or lighted areas: It Must Have a Red Dot Sight about almost half the size of the current:

Trijicon RMR sight. and it Must have a Laser in GuideRod.

With this setup I think it would be the best small light carry Pocket do it all piece. and alot of head shot practice.

For In Waste Band Carry: Then a PPS or Glock 9 or 40 or FN 5.7 Pistol, with the current Trijicon RMR with Guide Rod Laser. and some small lite built into it.

This is what I wish a Company Would Make ( Pocket Gun ) with great durability and Reliability.

The Larger Guns already Exist with the RMR being installed in a custom situation. Or the New FN gun with RMR ready slide.

My Dream Gun.


Dennis

AK_Stick
07-23-2012, 01:41
sounds like he walked past aisles of people laying down and keeping low. Those people closest to him might have been the safest since it sounds like he was only shooting those running, ironically.


Tunnel vision.






IMO, something like this, you just have to fly by the seat of your pants. You can train all day long, but it never seems to be the same scenario you were training for.


Read the situation, make your decision, and when you act, it needs to be decisive, violent, and fast.

wjv
07-23-2012, 11:32
Also note he deployed two smoke (gas?) canisters and was wearing a gas mask. A smokey environment might provide you with some concealment, BUT, it would make it a LOT harder to locate and id the shooter. I'd hate to pull the trigger and then discover that it was my bullet that killed an innocent person.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 12:07
That is about as bad of a situation as one could find themself in.


Dark
Limited mobility
Few escape opportunities
numerous people moving in total chaos
perp has vastly superior firepower
perp has full body armor
OC gas introduced that immediately effects breathing and vision
perp is prepared to counter that for him with a gas mask

wjv
07-23-2012, 13:32
If only they had the professor from Gilligan's Island.

And
2 coconuts
an old bicycle
some copper wire
a penny, 1 zinc nail and a lemon

FireForged
07-23-2012, 20:04
If escape was impossible.. I would look for my best chance to close the distance on that sucker and cram a jframe some place he didnt have armor. He would probably get me as well but hopefully he wouldnt be able to get anyone else when we were done with our dance.

Ermytraining
07-24-2012, 19:10
Totally situation dependent, as it always is. If I'm on the other side of the theater I'm getting my family out (and just because they leave the immediate vicinity doesn't mean they are automatically safe - what if multiple shooters? What if he/they pursue? Etc. So I'm sticking with them). If I'm right behind the shooter and he doesn't even see me coming he's getting a head shot point blank. Everything in between those two situations is up for grabs, depending on what is happening.

+1 with that!

LongGun1
07-26-2012, 20:12
That is about as bad of a situation as one could find themself in.


Dark
Limited mobility
Few escape opportunities
numerous people moving in total chaos
perp has vastly superior firepower
perp has full body armor
OC gas introduced that immediately effects breathing and vision
perp is prepared to counter that for him with a gas mask



Listing negatives is good thinking..

..but keep in mind there are positives in that particular matrix....IMO



Dark


A lone nutcase shooter has maybe hundreds of potential targets to target in low light......the prepared citizen only one!


Limited mobility

.....and he is likely moving as he fires...where as the citizen can set up his or her surprise shot from concealment or cover.


Few escape opportunities

....maybe not if you have considered your exits in advance



numerous people moving in total chaos

I would think most would be cowering behind their seats...which means the shooter likely would have to move to them & the armed citizen


perp has vastly superior firepower

And obviously not an experienced shooter as he did not know how to clear a malfunction with his AR...& those precious seconds when he was distracted could have been gravy for an prepared armed citizen


perp has full body armor

Which limited his mobility & likely inspired overconfidence..



OC gas introduced that immediately effects breathing and vision

I would guess several in that audience have training on the effects of gas in military training...(I have)..

..and could have generated an effective response...

..had the theater not banned CHL holders from carrying.


perp is prepared to counter that for him with a gas mask

A gas mask greatly limits situational awareness..

..also the poly lenses tend to be at a great disadvantage when hit with the concentrated beam of a tactical flashlight


A good article on the incident...

http://sofrep.com/9657/navy-seal-lessons-learned-aurora-colorado-survive/

And a good book to put a prepared citizen in the right mindset...IMO

Amazon.com: Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected (9781594392139): Rory Miller, Barry Eisler: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/417oTh-iQfL.@@AMEPARAM@@417oTh-iQfL


BTW.....A reply I just made to members of my family...

BTW…when I am in a theater, I am EDC’ing at least 1 tactical flashlight & normally 2 (always an Eneloop powered 8-mode C3-907 and most times an lithium 18650 powered 5-mode M2) & a laser sighted CHL pistol (previously a Keltec P-32 & now the DB380EXO). Many times I have been asked why I feel the need for lasers mounted on small CCW or why I always carry a tactical flashlight even in daytime. Actually because of possible scenarios EXACTLY like the one that transpired in Aurora, one that I game plan a response for whenever I am at a theater (or restaurant, etc)
The powerful, long throw tactical flashlight on strobe combined with a laser sighted CCW in the hands of a skilled prepared citizen could have stopped the carnage at the very beginning with a headshot….end of story!

AK_Stick
07-26-2012, 21:06
Good post LG, and not to mention, it now looks that he was wearing a "tactical vest" and not body armor. Which removes one of the "advantages" he had.

LongGun1
07-26-2012, 21:53
Good post LG, and not to mention, it now looks that he was wearing a "tactical vest" and not body armor. Which removes one of the "advantages" he had.

Amazing how the Mass Media misreports critical details..

A day or so ago, I was listening to a clueless Mass Media Talking Head loudly arguing with a (rare...IMO) gun wise politician on how the shooter ordered '60,000 rounds of assault rifle ammo' on the internet..

..and got his 'automatic machine guns' without a FBI background check, etc, etc.....


Essentially everything the Talking Head stated was an absolute fabrication! :steamed:



More interesting comments..

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/07/21/special-front-sight-blog-gun-free-zones-are-killing-us/#vid

..this time from the better informed pro-gun crowd.


In the blog above....an excellent aggressive response by what appears to be senior citizen with a CCW to masked armed robbers in an Internet Cafe..

Internat Cafe Shooting - Armed Response - YouTube


Hey, Mr. Armed Robber....you forgot your lootie-bag! :rofl:


I don't expect it to get a minute fraction of the Aurora airplay..

..if any...

..though it happened this month.

TangoFoxtrot
07-27-2012, 04:08
What if ? What if?

wjv
07-27-2012, 11:45
Essentially everything the Talking Head stated was an absolute fabrication! :steamed:



Right before the Clinton AW ban the local media in Colorado was reporting that this ban would ONLY ban "machine guns".

I wrote the one of the TV stations and one of the local papers correcting them. telling them about the magazine size restrictions and that the also affected many semi-auto firearms.

Responses from both media sources CALLED ME A LIER!

The DAY that the ban passed, both of those same media sources reported that this new law would now ban many semi-auto firearms and included magazine size restrictions.

In my opinion they KNEW THE TRUTH from day one, but willfully lied to the public and misrepresented what was actually in the bill to help the bill pass. :steamed:

Aceman
07-27-2012, 11:52
Bad situation all around, as mentioned. Dude did his homework.

Bottom line:

You me, and you, right left down the middle. We won't all make it. One chance, deep breath and go!

FireForged
07-28-2012, 23:02
I'll never subscribe to the "we're doomed" mentality... This guy in Colorado committed a terrible crime but under all that garb he was just a goof ball. I dont believe he would have been much of a threat if even (1) armed citizen had been able to challenge him.

PettyOfficer
07-28-2012, 23:14
I'll never subscribe to the "we're doomed" mentality... This guy in Colorado committed a terrible crime but under all that garb he was just a goof ball. I dont believe he would have been much of a threat if even (1) armed citizen had been able to challenge him.

Goof ball is the most light hearted description I've yet heard.

TangoFoxtrot
07-29-2012, 04:20
Goof ball is the most light hearted description I've yet heard.

Oh there are a lot of things we would love to call this guy.:steamed:

But this site will not tollerate it....infractions.

redbrd
07-29-2012, 06:13
The potential carnage of an active shooter is so great that collateral damage becomes secondary to stopping the shooter. This is clearly a unique problem for law enforcement.
My opinion if anybody would have been armed and confronted the shooter, at the very least they could have drawn the shooters fire... Creating an opportunity for more to escape. Best case scenario they might have stopped the shooting early on.
More opinion...There is no good conclusion to these types of shootings, make people defenseless and bad becomes worse. The psychological scars are potentially worse when people are denied the ability to defend themselves, forced to wait for violent death. Gun free zones don't make places safer they hurt victims more.

FireForged
07-29-2012, 09:24
Goof ball is the most light hearted description I've yet heard.

Goofball as in bumbling.. yes he was able to do terrible things unopposed but I really think he would have folded if he had met resistance. I do not fault the citizens at all as they were not allowed to arm themselves.

Warp
07-29-2012, 15:20
Goofball as in bumbling.. yes he was able to do terrible things unopposed but I really think he would have folded if he had met resistance. I do not fault the citizens at all as they were not allowed to arm themselves.

Prohibited by whom?

LongGun1
07-29-2012, 19:30
Prohibited by whom?


This is a Cinemark movie theater in Ft Collins, Colorado

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y235/LG1/FortCollins-20120721-00306.jpg


And here is the "firearms prohibited" sign at that theater..

..which allows psychopathic nutcases a "free fire carnage zone"!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y235/LG1/FortCollins-20120721-00307.jpg




Anyone think it is past time to start a letter writing campaign to Cinemark...

..or maybe a lawsuit like this one...

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/07/27/front-sights-answer-to-aurora-co-massacre/

Warp
07-29-2012, 19:51
Ah, one of those signs. I just carried past one to see Dark Knight Rises yesterday.

Whenever possible I avoid giving my money to these places.

Gotta hand it to them...that sign sure did work! :upeyes:

LongGun1
07-29-2012, 20:56
Gotta hand it to them...that sign sure did work! :upeyes:


+1

I believe this nutjob would fully agree it worked for him.... :whistling:

http://sayanythingblog.com/files/2012/07/james-holmes-court-pictures-300x248.jpg

TangoFoxtrot
07-30-2012, 03:16
Yeah well he still is being lime lighted by the press! Hey I'm just say'in :whistling:

quake
07-30-2012, 07:35
Ah, one of those signs. I just carried past one to see Dark Knight Rises yesterday.
Not saying I wouldn't do the exact same thing, but the problem with that is if you were to get 'made' carrying in there - even if you stopped a goblin like that idiot - it could mean permanently losing not only your chl, but potentially your ability to legally even OWN a firearm, depending on how the chl law is written in your state.

Again, not saying you're wrong; just saying it's a potentially horrible price to pay for being a responsible good guy.


Whenever possible I avoid giving my money to these places.

Gotta hand it to them...that sign sure did work! :upeyes:
Major +1 on both of those. A couple family members have asked me why I carry even in church (it's legal for me), one of them going so far as to say that my doing so demonstrates a "lack of faith" on my part; that I obviously didn't trust God to protect me.

My response is that I don't think god's any less capable at home or at a ball game than he is at church, so how is carrying in one place different from carrying at another? :dunno:

Notice you never see these active-shooter incidents happen at a gun show, Knob Creek, etc. They happen at schools, churches, post offices, etc; always in the "gun-free" zones. :upeyes:

{I know... preaching to the choir here. Sorry.}

Bilbo Bagins
07-30-2012, 08:33
So other than a concealed carry weapon and a really good head shot, what do you do if you are in the movie theatre?

I have the similar procedure for a movie theater that I have for when I get on an airplane.

1) Always have a flashlight

2) Always take note on where the exits are and in your mind know how to get to that exit door even if you can't see.

So I board a plane I usually have a small but bright flashlight in my pocket. When I sit down in a movie theater or a plane I look for all the possible exits, and count seats and other feature to those exit doors.

The good news is "for now" I can carry my CCW and pocket knife into a movie theater. I would not attempt to take out the shooter unless he is close and I got a decent chance. My top priority is to get my family out first.

UneasyRider
07-30-2012, 12:10
Personally I usually carry a G19 concealed with a couple of extra magazines.

My thoughts are that I would start shooting and not stop until the shooter is down. This is my standard thinking for confronting an armed man shooting at me. If I never damaged him with a shot he would still be getting pounded and I would be buying people time, or, conventional police thinking on these type of people is that when someone starts shooting at them they shoot themselves. I don't think this idiot would have shot himself but you never know.

Without a concealed carry I would be at a loss unless I could go in for a behind the guy take down, unlikely but someone would have the chance and I hope they would take it.

Warp
07-30-2012, 13:21
Not saying I wouldn't do the exact same thing, but the problem with that is if you were to get 'made' carrying in there - even if you stopped a goblin like that idiot - it could mean permanently losing not only your chl, but potentially your ability to legally even OWN a firearm, depending on how the chl law is written in your state.

100% legal in my state.

And when you buy the tickets the way I generally do, and did for that day, you don't even have a chance to see the sign. I am talking about the IMAX theater in the Mall of Georgia. I regularly open carry in the mall. I was, once, contacted by a LEO while carrying openly, but when I showed him my carry license (he asked nicely, did not demand) I was on my way in about 1-2 minutes...and he never called anything in, either.

quake
07-30-2012, 15:04
100% legal in my state...
Even if they have that kind of "firearms prohibited" sign there? Could very well be right; I don't know your area at all.

Here in Arkansas, if they put up a sign that says 'carrying a handgun is prohibited', then carrying there - even with a valid CHL - is anything from a class 'A' misdemeanor (with up to a year in jail even for first offense), to a class 'D' felony (up to six years) or even 'B' felony (minium 5 to maximum 20 years), depending on any previous record.

Warp
07-30-2012, 16:41
Even if they have that kind of "firearms prohibited" sign there?

Yes.


Could very well be right; I don't know your area at all.

Here in Arkansas, if they put up a sign that says 'carrying a handgun is prohibited', then carrying there - even with a valid CHL - is anything from a class 'A' misdemeanor (with up to a year in jail even for first offense), to a class 'D' felony (up to six years) or even 'B' felony (minium 5 to maximum 20 years), depending on any previous record.

Every state is different. In the states where I have lived while being licensed (IN and GA), the signs had no legal weight whatsoever.


www.handgunlaw.us is the best single resource available, for free, that I am aware of.

Stevekozak
07-31-2012, 18:54
A couple family members have asked me why I carry even in church (it's legal for me), one of them going so far as to say that my doing so demonstrates a "lack of faith" on my part; that I obviously didn't trust God to protect me.

My response is that I don't think god's any less capable at home or at a ball game than he is at church, so how is carrying in one place different from carrying at another? :dunno:

Notice you never see these active-shooter incidents happen at a gun show, Knob Creek, etc. They happen at schools, churches, post offices, etc; always in the "gun-free" zones. :upeyes:

{I know... preaching to the choir here. Sorry.}
Hey, Quake, I totally agree with your reasons for carrying in church. I too feel that God gave me means so protect myself, and would like me to do so. I am curious about why it is legal for you to carry in church. If there is a loophole I would like to know about it!! :wavey:

UneasyRider
07-31-2012, 19:40
Hey, Quake, I totally agree with your reasons for carrying in church. I too feel that God gave me means so protect myself, and would like me to do so. I am curious about why it is legal for you to carry in church. If there is a loophole I would like to know about it!! :wavey:

I carry in church too. It's legal here in Florida and I believe that God wants me to look after his sheep so I do.

Stevekozak
07-31-2012, 19:54
I carry in church too. It's legal here in Florida and I believe that God wants me to look after his sheep so I do.
Unfortunately, it is not in Arkansas. I am wondering if Quake's ex-LEO ( I think) status is the reason he can.

quake
08-01-2012, 08:23
...I am curious about why it is legal for you to carry in church. If there is a loophole I would like to know about it!! :wavey:

Unfortunately, it is not in Arkansas. I am wondering if Quake's ex-LEO ( I think) status is the reason he can.
Current LEO technically; still on the books with county SO as 'part-time'.

I've recommend for years now checking with your local PD or SO to see if they have a part-time, reserve, or auxiliary program, and if they do, get on board with them. There's a fair amount of work, a good deal of cost (uniforms, training costs, body armor, etc), and time commitments to doing so, but it gets you "on the grid" so to speak as a known good guy in your area (usually doesn't hurt to be on friendly terms with your chief or sheriff); plus once you get fully certified it lets you ccw a lot of places you otherwise couldn't. Church, sporting events, places with "no handguns" signs, etc; illegal under threat of imprisonment for a chl holder, but totally legal for leo's. Basically, anywhere other than federal jurisdictions (military bases, federal buildings, etc), I can legally carry by virtue of being certified LEO in good standing with the dept.

Even if you were to get on with a dept as a chaplain (a lady friend of mine did this just this year), if you go to the trouble to get certified, you've technically got leo credentials & leo privileges. Not saying it's right or fair, and not saying it makes you a better or more responsible person; so please nobody jump on me with the ever-predictable cop resentment or bashing. I'm just saying it's undeniably the world we live in; and seems like a good idea to make the best of what we've got to work with. And for that matter, I also believe that if we had more decent, honorable people volunteering to help in more depts, we'd have better - and less expensive - police services in our areas.

Win-win all around, albeit admittedly short of being a truly 'perfect' solution. It's just what the world is at this stage.

TBO
08-04-2012, 14:11
Ignoring a property owners wishes (under the guise "it's legal to ignore their wishes") really isn't good form.
Finding a theater that doesn't prohibit carry is a better choice.
Once can always let the other theater know about the loss of your business.

jmho

UneasyRider
08-04-2012, 14:34
Ignoring a property owners wishes (under the guise "it's legal to ignore their wishes") really isn't good form.
Finding a theater that doesn't prohibit carry is a better choice.
Once can always let the other theater know about the loss of your business.

jmho

You make a good point and I agree if it a persons home but when you open a business you get into the relm of "Public Accomodations" and I am a believer in them. Here in Florida you have to have a public restroom but that does not stop stores from saying no even if it is illegal, and the smart ones just say it's broken.

What if it became common to put up signs that said no bibles allowed or no children allowed? I think of it as a public accomodation.

I support it if concealed carry is the law because what do you expect people to do with their guns? You can either carry or not. Of course that's just my opinion and doesn't make it right... that's just how I see it.

TBO
08-04-2012, 16:19
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No service"
"No Smoking"

What else does one feel comfortable ignoring of a private property owner's wishes?

Again, ymmv.

jmho

quake
08-04-2012, 19:13
[double tap]

quake
08-04-2012, 19:58
You make a good point and I agree if it a persons home but when you open a business you get into the relm of "Public Accomodations" and I am a believer in them. Here in Florida you have to have a public restroom but that does not stop stores from saying no even if it is illegal, and the smart ones just say it's broken.

What if it became common to put up signs that said no bibles allowed or no children allowed? I think of it as a public accomodation.

I support it if concealed carry is the law because what do you expect people to do with their guns? You can either carry or not. Of course that's just my opinion and doesn't make it right... that's just how I see it.

I have to disagree with you on this. We own our own business and imo, my place of business is as much my private property as is my house. It's my name on the property deed & mortgage paperwork, and it's me personally that goes to jail if the taxes aren't paid; just as with my home.

Not all businesses are public accomodations, just as not all businesses are required to maintain public restrooms, at least in my state. I'm completely certain of this, as the fire alarm requirements are hugely different for public restrooms vs. employee restrooms; and fire alarms are a big part of what we do.

The reason I should respect a property owner's 'no smoking' rule (and I should), isn't anything to do with smoking; it's because it's his property to do with as he wishes, and he should have the right to set the rules on his own property. If he wants a "no bibles" or "no children" policy, that should be his right to do so. It may be stupid or even self-defeating of him to have such policies, but it should still be his decision, not some outsider's.

On the "no firearms" rule on private property I may come across as hypocritical since I do carry with LE credentials where it's illegal for a lot of folks; but that's both department policy and state law. Dept policy requires that I carry everywhere legal, and state law requires that I intervene "as best possible", putting myself intentionally in harm's way when an incident occurs in front of me. Same reason I personally can't demand that cops don't carry on my private property, and same reason a convenience store can't demand that a cop leave his gun in the car when they come in.

On the 'no bibles' example, let's look at it and "shoe the other foot" so to speak. Should a christian church have the right to have a "no muslims on staff" policy? I think they should. We have to remember that if we claim that right, we have to allow them that same right; the right of a muslim mosque to have a "no christians on staff" policy. It's just fair, honest, and reasonable.

Say I want to have a "no korans" policy in my place of business. I should be allowed to. And if I want to retain that right, doesn't intellectual honesty require that I allow Fayid Patel to have a "no bibles" policy in his motel if he desires? I personally think it does; and I'm a Gideon.


All that said, a "no children" policy might actually attract me TO a business sometimes. Picture a sears, walmart, or movie theater that had no screaming curtain-crawlers in it; I could be very easily talked into patronizing that kind of place. :cool:

Warp
08-04-2012, 23:04
As usual, quake, I like the way you think.

racerford
08-05-2012, 08:26
Quake, a well presented point of view. I feel pretty strongly about personal property rights. However, there many other points to consider. Can you refuse service/entrance to people because of there race? gender? national origin? religion? You cannot if you are open to the "public". You may be able to if you are a private "club". So a church might be considered a private organization and could discriminate.

If you open to the public could you require all entrants take off their clothes? Post a sign that says all entrants by there entry consent to having sex with you, then forcibly have sex with them when they enter and point to your sign and say "but you consented by entering"? Of course not. So there are many limits to behavior and policies and practices in a place that is open to the public.

Do you have a business license? That business license restricts or compels certain behaviors usage of your private property to maintain it. Should it be that way? Did your building have to be built to a certain code?

Is your business incorporated? If so all bets are off. Usage of all assets belonging to that corporation are subject to the whims of the government that allowed the creation of that entity/person. They can set whatever rules they would like for you to maintain that entity with all it privileges. The property rights of a corporation are set by the state.

Do you agree that a business open to the public that denies a person there constitutional right to protect themselves effectively takes on an affirmative obligation to protect them? Shouldn't that obligation be stronger than an establishment that does allow them to protect themselves.


The private property rights of a business that is open to the public is very complicated. It is more so when owned by a state established entity (a corporation).

Which restrictions are OK? And why them and not the others?

UneasyRider
08-05-2012, 11:46
I have to disagree with you on this. We own our own business and imo, my place of business is as much my private property as is my house. It's my name on the property deed & mortgage paperwork, and it's me personally that goes to jail if the taxes aren't paid; just as with my home.

Not all businesses are public accomodations, just as not all businesses are required to maintain public restrooms, at least in my state. I'm completely certain of this, as the fire alarm requirements are hugely different for public restrooms vs. employee restrooms; and fire alarms are a big part of what we do.

The reason I should respect a property owner's 'no smoking' rule (and I should), isn't anything to do with smoking; it's because it's his property to do with as he wishes, and he should have the right to set the rules on his own property. If he wants a "no bibles" or "no children" policy, that should be his right to do so. It may be stupid or even self-defeating of him to have such policies, but it should still be his decision, not some outsider's.

On the "no firearms" rule on private property I may come across as hypocritical since I do carry with LE credentials where it's illegal for a lot of folks; but that's both department policy and state law. Dept policy requires that I carry everywhere legal, and state law requires that I intervene "as best possible", putting myself intentionally in harm's way when an incident occurs in front of me. Same reason I personally can't demand that cops don't carry on my private property, and same reason a convenience store can't demand that a cop leave his gun in the car when they come in.

On the 'no bibles' example, let's look at it and "shoe the other foot" so to speak. Should a christian church have the right to have a "no muslims on staff" policy? I think they should. We have to remember that if we claim that right, we have to allow them that same right; the right of a muslim mosque to have a "no christians on staff" policy. It's just fair, honest, and reasonable.

Say I want to have a "no korans" policy in my place of business. I should be allowed to. And if I want to retain that right, doesn't intellectual honesty require that I allow Fayid Patel to have a "no bibles" policy in his motel if he desires? I personally think it does; and I'm a Gideon.


All that said, a "no children" policy might actually attract me TO a business sometimes. Picture a sears, walmart, or movie theater that had no screaming curtain-crawlers in it; I could be very easily talked into patronizing that kind of place. :cool:

You make good valid arguements for private property rights Quake and I am hard pressed to say that I am a libertarian in thought and at the same time even recognize that public accomodations exist, but I do.

My reason for thinking this way is that if a portion of the businesses in a mall don't let me concealed carry, at what point have I lost my right to concealed carry when I am out with another couple and have no idea what stores in the mall we will be entering so I leave my weapon in the truck.

It's easy to say "just stay out of those stores" but at some point in time I am going to find myself unarmed in a movie theater when a shooter comes in and goes feral like Colorado. I bet that at least one guy left there weapon in the car or at home who was in that movie theater because of that law and that "No Fire Arms" sign. To me, that is freedom lost. In an increasingly corperate world we either have the right to carry or we do not.

quake
08-05-2012, 12:12
...I feel pretty strongly about personal property rights. However, there many other points to consider. Can you refuse service/entrance to people because of there race? gender? national origin? religion?
Whether or not I legally can, is a very different question than whether or not I should be able to. I believe that I should be able to do those things if I so choose; just as I can do those things at my home. Much like the question of ccw in public places. IMO, the constitution says I 'should' be able to; but it's obviously not legal to do so under current law. Also remember, private property is not public property. "Public property" in its real form actually means government-owned. Roads, courthouses, military bases, parks, schools, etc; that's "public property". The govt owns it and maintains it. It may be federal, state, county or city, but it's owned by some level of government.

As far as 'open to the public' (ie, people walking in off the street), we do have a storefront-type building with a lady up front where people can come in & pay their bill & such, but we're not open to the public the way a retail store or restaurant is. We don't have to maintain public restrooms, etc, the way a restaurant or store does; and our building doesn't have to meet the same fire and emergency-egress codes as they do. Another example of a similar business would be your local electrical utility. People can walk in off the street, but the same type of occupancy as a retail (store), educational, or assembly (theater/church, etc) business.

...Is your business incorporated? If so all bets are off.
Not necessarily. A whole lot of incorporated businesses openly discriminate based on some of your examples; sometimes applying to customers, sometimes to employees, and sometimes to both employess and customers alike. The first one that comes to mind is gender - from corporations like Curves (a women-only fitness center) to Hooters & others, happens all the time. At places like Curves you have to be female to either work there OR be a member there. Don't you believe they should have the right to make that their policy if they so choose? Legally speaking, they obviously do have that right, because they openly do it every day.

Fwiw, yes we're incorporated, but the building, vehicles, etc itself are in my personal name, not the corporation's. Not ideal from a tax perspective, but as you point out, if they're the corporation's, they're not technically "mine".

...If you open to the public could you require all entrants take off their clothes? Post a sign that says all entrants by there entry consent to having sex with you, then forcibly have sex with them when they enter and point to your sign and say "but you consented by entering"? Of course not.
In my mind, there's a huge difference between prohibiting certain items and behaviors on my own property, and forcing someone to do something repugnant to them, simply because they happened to enter my property. I have the right to prohibit and/or remove them from my property; that's the extent of my recourse if they refuse to abide by my rules.

Allowing an item or behavior is not anywhere near the same as mandating it. That's the danger of overbearing governments - it's not their ability to allow, it's the power to mandate that makes them tyrannical. If I have guests in my house, there's a huge difference between allowing them to have sex, and forcing them to have sex. To me at least, there's a huge difference. :dunno:


...Do you agree that a business open to the public that denies a person there constitutional right to protect themselves effectively takes on an affirmative obligation to protect them? Shouldn't that obligation be stronger than an establishment that does allow them to protect themselves.
I don't actually. I don't believe anyone has an obligation to protect me. Not even the police have a legal obligation to protect people on an individual basis, at least according to the supreme court.

I believe I have an obligation to protect me and mine, and a big (and simple) part of that is to just avoid places that are unduly risky when possible. And avoiding (refusing to patronize) places whose policies make it in my mind "unduly risky" is so simple that anyone can do it if it's genuinely that important to them. There's always another theater showing the same movie, and for that matter even if there's not, then I can simply make the grown-up decision that it's not worth going to the movies today if I genuinely believe it to be an unacceptably dangerous place or policy. And if I do then choose to patronize the establishment - knowing and abiding by their policy - then I don't know how I can say that they're they at fault for the consequences of the choice that I personally, consciously made.

All that said, I disagree that they're denying anyone "their constitutional rights". The constitution gurantees the right to peaceably assemble and to freely speak my mind; but it absolutely does NOT give me the right to do that in someone's restaurant or movie theater. If a policy against firearms in a theater violates the constutional right to bear arms, then to be consistent, we'd have to say that forcing someone to pay to enter a theater would be violating their constitutional right of assembly. And refusing to let some guy with a megaphone stage a political rally inside my place of business would be denying his constitutional right of free speech. Doesn't make sense, does it?

...The private property rights of a business that is open to the public is very complicated. It is more so when owned by a state established entity (a corporation).

Which restrictions are OK? And why them and not the others?
It's not overly complicated. There will be rules and policies in every location and situation where there are people; there's just no way around it and never has been in the history of the world. The question is simply "who should be the one to set those policies?" It can be the owner, the government, or the mob; those are the only three options, period. Of those options, the most moral, fair, and freedom-oriented choice (to me) is "the owner".

quake
08-05-2012, 12:57
...It's easy to say "just stay out of those stores" but at some point in time I am going to find myself unarmed in a movie theater when a shooter comes in and goes feral like Colorado.
No offense meant, but no; you absolutely won't. Not if you stay out. Not to be glib or flippant; I do get the inconvenience of it. But as I said above, there's always another theater; and if we let the management know of our beliefs and preferences and then stick by them, many of them will come around. Look at chik-fil-a for one example, the recent phenomenon of AR-15's for sale at walmart for another. Five years ago, who thought we'd be able to walk into a walmart and buy an AR-15 and bulk ammunition packed in an ammo can? Nobody that I know of; but it came about due to customer requests and preferences.

People who own businesses (and yes, even people that run corporations) do listen to their customers and respond accordingly; simply because they want our business.


...I bet that at least one guy left there weapon in the car or at home who was in that movie theater because of that law and that "No Fire Arms" sign.
I agree that you're very probably right about that. Thing is, if he did so, he consciously, intentionally, and frankly, stupidly, decided that seeing Batman was more important than carrying his gun. We can debate & argue the right & wrong of it, but that's undeniably the objective reality of it.

I did a quick lookup of Aurora, CO. It's about 70% larger than Little Rock is, and I know that in little rock I can find a half-dozen theaters within a fifteen-minute drive. So that tells me that Aurora probably has 70% more than that; so probably ten theaters within ten or fifteen minutes. How can it NOT be worth a ten-minute drive to us, to get to a gun-friendly venue instead of a target-rich one?

Again, don't mean to sound confrontational, but think about some of the things, groups, and organizatinos that we so often complain about on these boards. I won't name any, just think of some. What makes us so mad at them? Often it's that they get either the govt or a business to do something that we consider sleazy or detrimental to us as a society. And how do they do that? They become the squeaky wheel, pestering, lobbying, cajoling, or flat-out bribing until they get what they want. Simply put, they make themselves heard above everyone else; and why do they do that? Because it works.

We who consider ourselves "the good guys" tend to have an attitude of "I'm right, I know I'm right, and it's not my job to convince others that I'm right". Well guess what guys, if we don't convince businesses, the govt, and the masses that our way is right, then somebody else will; and that 'somebody else' doing the convincing is often a scumbag.

...To me, that is freedom lost. In an increasingly corperate world we either have the right to carry or we do not.
Only way I can answer that is to reverse the question. Does everybody have the right to carry a gun in your house? Everybody?

Because if we cling to this thought of "carrying on everyone's property is my constitutional right", then we inherently give up the right to say who carries on OUR property. I personally don't want to give up that right, and I don't think it's right for someone to try to take it from me. And if I don't want someone to take it from me, it would simply be dishonest of me to want to take it from them.

racerford
08-05-2012, 14:18
Whether or not I legally can, is a very different question than whether or not I should be able to. I believe that I should be able to do those things if I so choose; just as I can do those things at my home. Much like the question of ccw in public places. IMO, the constitution says I 'should' be able to; but it's obviously not legal to do so under current law. Also remember, private property is not public property. "Public property" in its real form actually means government-owned. Roads, courthouses, military bases, parks, schools, etc; that's "public property". The govt owns it and maintains it. It may be federal, state, county or city, but it's owned by some level of government.

As far as 'open to the public' (ie, people walking in off the street), we do have a storefront-type building with a lady up front where people can come in & pay their bill & such, but we're not open to the public the way a retail store or restaurant is. We don't have to maintain public restrooms, etc, the way a restaurant or store does; and our building doesn't have to meet the same fire and emergency-egress codes as they do. Another example of a similar business would be your local electrical utility. People can walk in off the street, but the same type of occupancy as a retail (store), educational, or assembly (theater/church, etc) business.


Not necessarily. A whole lot of incorporated businesses openly discriminate based on some of your examples; sometimes applying to customers, sometimes to employees, and sometimes to both employees and customers alike. The first one that comes to mind is gender - from corporations like Curves (a women-only fitness center) to Hooters & others, happens all the time. At places like Curves you have to be female to either work there OR be a member there. Don't you believe they should have the right to make that their policy if they so choose? Legally speaking, they obviously do have that right, because they openly do it every day.

Fwiw, yes we're incorporated, but the building, vehicles, etc itself are in my personal name, not the corporation's. Not ideal from a tax perspective, but as you point out, if they're the corporation's, they're not technically "mine".


In my mind, there's a huge difference between prohibiting certain items and behaviors on my own property, and forcing someone to do something repugnant to them, simply because they happened to enter my property. I have the right to prohibit and/or remove them from my property; that's the extent of my recourse if they refuse to abide by my rules.

Allowing an item or behavior is not anywhere near the same as mandating it. That's the danger of overbearing governments - it's not their ability to allow, it's the power to mandate that makes them tyrannical. If I have guests in my house, there's a huge difference between allowing them to have sex, and forcing them to have sex. To me at least, there's a huge difference. :dunno:



I don't actually. I don't believe anyone has an obligation to protect me. Not even the police have a legal obligation to protect people on an individual basis, at least according to the supreme court.

I believe I have an obligation to protect me and mine, and a big (and simple) part of that is to just avoid places that are unduly risky when possible. And avoiding (refusing to patronize) places whose policies make it in my mind "unduly risky" is so simple that anyone can do it if it's genuinely that important to them. There's always another theater showing the same movie, and for that matter even if there's not, then I can simply make the grown-up decision that it's not worth going to the movies today if I genuinely believe it to be an unacceptably dangerous place or policy. And if I do then choose to patronize the establishment - knowing and abiding by their policy - then I don't know how I can say that they're they at fault for the consequences of the choice that I personally, consciously made.

All that said, I disagree that they're denying anyone "their constitutional rights". The constitution gurantees the right to peaceably assemble and to freely speak my mind; but it absolutely does NOT give me the right to do that in someone's restaurant or movie theater. If a policy against firearms in a theater violates the constutional right to bear arms, then to be consistent, we'd have to say that forcing someone to pay to enter a theater would be violating their constitutional right of assembly. And refusing to let some guy with a megaphone stage a political rally inside my place of business would be denying his constitutional right of free speech. Doesn't make sense, does it?


It's not overly complicated. There will be rules and policies in every location and situation where there are people; there's just no way around it and never has been in the history of the world. The question is simply "who should be the one to set those policies?" It can be the owner, the government, or the mob; those are the only three options, period. Of those options, the most moral, fair, and freedom-oriented choice (to me) is "the owner".

I actually believe that private owners of property should be free to do with it as they will, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people's enjoyment of their privately held property.

That means if you don't want to serve people over 6 feet tall you should have that right. However, if you are going to have that restriction it should be clearly and plainly visible to all who would enter your otherwise open to the public location. If you don't want people carrying pencils into your pen store, should you be able to exclude them? Of course, but limit of your recourse should be if you determine that they are in fact carrying a pencil that you can ask them to leave and then call for police assistance to officially notice them for trespass. I don't think you should be able to search them or keep them from leaving should they refuse a search. I would not deny people service for anything they cannot control, or their choice of religion. I would deny them for their actions or due to lack of accommodation. So I would deny them if they are a jerk, but not because they are tall. If they are too big to fit through the door, I will try to serve them outside, but I will not bust down a wall to serve them.

I will respect their rights to the extent they respect mine.

If a business is incorporated then they have no such right to discriminate. The Corporation is an entity authorized by the state and they get to set rules under which you function. To some extent a business license does the same thing. I am not necessarily a big fan of business licenses. However, I am a big fan of being open with employees and customers. If you are not going to OSHA standards of safety or health department standards of hygiene it should be clearly and plainly posted, so that clients and employees can make informed decisions. Don't want the government in your business, don't ask for the special privileges and protections a corporation allows.

You are legally responsible for injuries that occur on your property. Generally that does extend to injuries that occur due to criminal actions of a third party (not you or your agents), if reasonable precautions are taken. If I were injured on a property that was posted, no guns, and the property holders or their lessees did not have adequate protection on hand (they are armed and trained) then I would sue them from every angle I could muster. If they allowed me to be protect myself, then I would not. From my perspective a business that says no guns has made themselves an attractive nuisance.

As soon as you introduce people into an equation it gets complicated. Quake you have a wife, you know this is true. They tell you to clean the kitchen. If you do not do it, or do it well enough; you are in trouble. If you clean it but put things in the "wrong" place. you are in trouble. There is nothing simple about the request to clean the kitchen.

JuneyBooney
08-05-2012, 16:07
I actually believe that private owners of property should be free to do with it as they will, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people's enjoyment of their privately held property.

That means if you don't want to serve people over 6 feet tall you should have that right. However, if you are going to have that restriction it should be clearly and plainly visible to all who would enter your otherwise open to the public location. If you don't want people carrying pencils into your pen store, should you be able to exclude them? Of course, but limit of your recourse should be if you determine that they are in fact carrying a pencil that you can ask them to leave and then call for police assistance to officially notice them for trespass. I don't think you should be able to search them or keep them from leaving should they refuse a search. I would not deny people service for anything they cannot control, or their choice of religion. I would deny them for their actions or due to lack of accommodation. So I would deny them if they are a jerk, but not because they are tall. If they are too big to fit through the door, I will try to serve them outside, but I will not bust down a wall to serve them.

I will respect their rights to the extent they respect mine.

If a business is incorporated then they have no such right to discriminate. The Corporation is an entity authorized by the state and they get to set rules under which you function. To some extent a business license does the same thing. I am not necessarily a big fan of business licenses. However, I am a big fan of being open with employees and customers. If you are not going to OSHA standards of safety or health department standards of hygiene it should be clearly and plainly posted, so that clients and employees can make informed decisions. Don't want the government in your business, don't ask for the special privileges and protections a corporation allows.

You are legally responsible for injuries that occur on your property. Generally that does extend to injuries that occur due to criminal actions of a third party (not you or your agents), if reasonable precautions are taken. If I were injured on a property that was posted, no guns, and the property holders or their lessees did not have adequate protection on hand (they are armed and trained) then I would sue them from every angle I could muster. If they allowed me to be protect myself, then I would not. From my perspective a business that says no guns has made themselves an attractive nuisance.

As soon as you introduce people into an equation it gets complicated. Quake you have a wife, you know this is true. They tell you to clean the kitchen. If you do not do it, or do it well enough; you are in trouble. If you clean it but put things in the "wrong" place. you are in trouble. There is nothing simple about the request to clean the kitchen.

You make valid points in your post. What has happened over the past thirty years is that society has become so lawsuit happy and "civil rights" for any group including deviants that it is hard for private businesses to protect their interests and also make a profitable business. You make solid points.

Warp
08-05-2012, 17:01
Quake: You are one patient fellow.


If I were injured on a property that was posted, no guns, and the property holders or their lessees did not have adequate protection on hand (they are armed and trained) then I would sue them from every angle I could muster.

You are the one who made the decision to disarm and enter. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

Your decisions have consequences. And that's just what this is...your decision.

UneasyRider
08-05-2012, 17:21
No offense meant, but no; you absolutely won't. Not if you stay out. Not to be glib or flippant; I do get the inconvenience of it. But as I said above, there's always another theater; and if we let the management know of our beliefs and preferences and then stick by them, many of them will come around. Look at chik-fil-a for one example, the recent phenomenon of AR-15's for sale at walmart for another. Five years ago, who thought we'd be able to walk into a walmart and buy an AR-15 and bulk ammunition packed in an ammo can? Nobody that I know of; but it came about due to customer requests and preferences.

People who own businesses (and yes, even people that run corporations) do listen to their customers and respond accordingly; simply because they want our business.



I agree that you're very probably right about that. Thing is, if he did so, he consciously, intentionally, and frankly, stupidly, decided that seeing Batman was more important than carrying his gun. We can debate & argue the right & wrong of it, but that's undeniably the objective reality of it.

I did a quick lookup of Aurora, CO. It's about 70% larger than Little Rock is, and I know that in little rock I can find a half-dozen theaters within a fifteen-minute drive. So that tells me that Aurora probably has 70% more than that; so probably ten theaters within ten or fifteen minutes. How can it NOT be worth a ten-minute drive to us, to get to a gun-friendly venue instead of a target-rich one?

Again, don't mean to sound confrontational, but think about some of the things, groups, and organizatinos that we so often complain about on these boards. I won't name any, just think of some. What makes us so mad at them? Often it's that they get either the govt or a business to do something that we consider sleazy or detrimental to us as a society. And how do they do that? They become the squeaky wheel, pestering, lobbying, cajoling, or flat-out bribing until they get what they want. Simply put, they make themselves heard above everyone else; and why do they do that? Because it works.

We who consider ourselves "the good guys" tend to have an attitude of "I'm right, I know I'm right, and it's not my job to convince others that I'm right". Well guess what guys, if we don't convince businesses, the govt, and the masses that our way is right, then somebody else will; and that 'somebody else' doing the convincing is often a scumbag.


Only way I can answer that is to reverse the question. Does everybody have the right to carry a gun in your house? Everybody?

Because if we cling to this thought of "carrying on everyone's property is my constitutional right", then we inherently give up the right to say who carries on OUR property. I personally don't want to give up that right, and I don't think it's right for someone to try to take it from me. And if I don't want someone to take it from me, it would simply be dishonest of me to want to take it from them.

I am talking strictly about places that qualify as a public accomodation like a mall, a Walmart or a movie theater. In those venues I would like to carry in the same way as I would like wheelchair access. Not your home or mine.

LongGun1
08-05-2012, 17:28
Shooting at Sikh temple in Wisconsin leaves at least 7 dead, including gunman

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/05/possible-injuries-after-shooting-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin/#ixzz22iXShimv

TBO
08-05-2012, 18:06
Still privately owned property, and still can restrict/limit behavior/access on said property.I am talking strictly about places that qualify as a public accomodation like a mall, a Walmart or a movie theater. In those venues I would like to carry in the same way as I would like wheelchair access. Not your home or mine.

Warp
08-05-2012, 18:09
Still privately owned property, and still can restrict/limit behavior/access on said property.

Yes .

emt1581
08-05-2012, 18:14
First off my prayers are with all of the people in that movie theatre and their friends and family and I hope that any discussion of what we could do in their situation reflects the respect for human life that we all share here.

So other than a concealed carry weapon and a really good head shot, what do you do if you are in the movie theatre?

I've thought about this for years even before this tragedy. What would my reaction be if someone just up and starts shooting in an otherwise calm/peaceful environment?

I'd like to think I'd stay calm, draw, take aim, and pull the trigger. Personally, I freak out over little things and get cool as a cucumber the more pressure that is put on me. I see this at home, at work, and on the ambulance. None of those involve people shooting at me though so who knows what I'd actually do??

This guy was wearing armor though. Not sure if it was soft or hard plate so firing at him with a pistol may have been moot. Even an AR to the chest could have potentially just made you a bigger target.

It kind of forces you to go against the normal target area (center mass) and either go for the head (but what if he had a helmet?) or the groin/legs. But if we react how we train, one would think you would just keep shooting center mass until he fired a few into you.

Maybe play dead, wait for him to pass you and use a blade from behind. Hind sight is always 20/20.

The one huge difficulty in a movie theater or any crowded place is that it most likely wouldn't be a clear shot at the BG. You have tons of people scattering so it's not like you can just start shooting back. THAT is one of the biggest challenges as I see it.

What about when nutjobs decide to use small bombs instead of guns? Then there's nothing you can shoot at.

A sucky situation any way you slice it.

-Emt1581

emt1581
08-05-2012, 18:18
Shooting at Sikh temple in Wisconsin leaves at least 7 dead, including gunman

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/05/possible-injuries-after-shooting-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin/#ixzz22iXShimv

That's terrible! At least they plugged the POS this time!!

As I see it there's gonna be one of 2 reactions to these mass shootings in the near future...

1. Take personal responsibility (carry).

2. Blame guns and pass bans/regulations/etc.

I think number one isn't even remotely thought of by the majority. Only leaves number two IMO...

-Emt1581

quake
08-05-2012, 18:19
I actually believe that private owners of property should be free to do with it as they will, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people's enjoyment of their privately held property.

That means if you don't want to serve people over 6 feet tall you should have that right. However, if you are going to have that restriction it should be clearly and plainly visible to all who would enter your otherwise open to the public location. If you don't want people carrying pencils into your pen store, should you be able to exclude them? Of course, but limit of your recourse should be if you determine that they are in fact carrying a pencil that you can ask them to leave and then call for police assistance to officially notice them for trespass.
+1 completely. That's what I've been attempting to say myself.

...If a business is incorporated then they have no such right to discriminate.
I have to go back to my "Curves" example. They are a nationwide corporation, and they specifically, intentionally and openly discriminate against me because I have a pecker.

Thing is, I believe they should have that right; and apparently the courts and secretaries of state (the issuers of corporate papers) of all those states do also.

There are also male-only gyms, and there are countless male-only or female-only organizations & job positions. Hooters girls come to mind, as does the PGA and the LPGA.

There was a lawsuit several years ago, filed by a guy who wanted a job as a Hooters server. He lost. The court specifically upheld the corporation's right to discriminate based on sex.

I don't know how to say it more nicely - you're incorrect on the "corporations can't discriminate" belief. It happens all the time, all over the place. If you're correct, you can file a multi-million dollar lawsuit with a guaranteed win against Curves tomorrow; or against any of hundreds of others that do what you claim they're not allowed to do.

Corporation or not, I think if a group wants to gather together with those like themselves, as long as they don't hurt or infringe on anyone else, they should be allowed to. So if I want the right to have a hetero-only club, I have to allow homo-only groups the same right. If I want to have a gun club, I have to allow non-gun people to have their own club. Or their own store, or their own movie theater.

...You are legally responsible for injuries that occur on your property. Generally that does extend to injuries that occur due to criminal actions of a third party (not you or your agents), if reasonable precautions are taken. If I were injured on a property that was posted, no guns, and the property holders or their lessees did not have adequate protection on hand (they are armed and trained) then I would sue them from every angle I could muster. If they allowed me to be protect myself, then I would not.
I can be held civilly responsible & sued, but not legally responsible, as long as we're talking about things "not the result of criminal actions" as you say. Thing on that is, anyone can sue me, you, or anyone; for anything. Happens every day; there is no legal threshold to be met for launching a civil suit.

...As soon as you introduce people into an equation it gets complicated.
Agreed.

...From my perspective a business that says no guns has made themselves an attractive nuisance.
Agreed again. You and I have the same opinion on this. I just don't think my opinion should trump their property rights.

...Quake you have a wife, you know this is true. They tell you to clean the kitchen. If you do not do it, or do it well enough; you are in trouble. If you clean it but put things in the "wrong" place. you are in trouble. There is nothing simple about the request to clean the kitchen.
I sometimes joke about my wife being scary - she is Irish, German & Cherokee after all - but the fact is, nobody other than a government entity can "tell" me to do anything. I do things for her and for us not because I'm told to, but because that's what adults who love each other do.


Short version is this - we can debate "corporation vs. sole proprietorship", or "legal vs. civil" all day. But I have to simply go back to this:
There will be rules and policies in every location and situation where there are people; there's just no way around it and never has been in the history of the world. The question is simply "who should be the one to set those policies?" It can be the owner, the government, or the mob; those are the only three options, period. Of those options, the most moral, fair, and freedom-oriented choice (to me) is "the owner".

If you disagree with that simple statement of principle, please explain to me specifically why and maybe I'll learn something. I've got no problem with learning new things or considering new perspectives.

Warp
08-05-2012, 18:25
There was a lawsuit several years ago, filed by a guy who wanted a job as a Hooters server. He lost. The court specifically upheld the corporation's right to discriminate based on sex.

In cases where it's a BFOQ - bona fide occupational qualification

UneasyRider
08-05-2012, 19:04
What about the owner of an apartment complex who has a no fire arms policy?

quake
08-05-2012, 19:18
I am talking strictly about places that qualify as a public accomodation like a mall, a Walmart or a movie theater. In those venues I would like to carry in the same way as I would like wheelchair access. Not your home or mine.
We may just have to agree to disagree, because those examples are still - completely, absolutely, undeniably - private property; owned by a single person or group of persons.

Wheelchair access is a good analogy imo. It's a good thing to have, both from a business perspective and a "niceness" perspective. But objectively speaking, what business is it of the people in DC whether I have a wheelchair ramp or not.

This is a pic of one of our rehearsals, for an easter program several years ago:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f360/quake316/choirpic2.jpg
Note the guy in the motorized wheelchair. His name is John and I sing with him fairly regularly; sang in a quartet with him today in fact. (Me being as super-smooth and ninja-like as I am, I managed to knock over his boom-stand mic when the preacher was praying; knocking it not only 'over', but down the first two steps at the front of the platform. Mic was still on, and it woke some folks up in the early service, I'm sure.) He's a stunning tenor; his parents got him into singing when very young since that's about the only exercise a quadruplegic can get. {LongGun1 can confirm that I'm in that pic; that it's not some image I just found online.}

The point of this is simply that I've got no problem with wheelchair access. John's a friend of mine, he's an inspiration to a lot of people, and we do go out of our way to make things accessible for him. We used to have a ramp for him, but a couple years ago we put an elevator for him. I think handicap-access is a good thing, a nice thing, a neighborly thing, and just good thing in general. But I don't think somebody who chooses to not put a wheelchair ramp in their private property should be put in jail over it.

I think public (government-owned, ie, public-owned)buildings should have it, since people in wheelchairs are owners of those buildings as well, their tax money was used to build those buildings, and so they should have access as much as the other owners.

But on private property, I don't think I should throw a guy in jail for refusing to put in a wheelchair ramp at some place that a person in a wheelchair has no ownership of. That's what wheelchair-ramp mandates mean, after all - do it or eventually (after fines & other penalties); it means go to jail.

Once again, it all goes back to "your property, your policy", "my property, my policy". We on these boards love to scream "keep the government out of my business"; that's exactly what I'm saying here.

quake
08-05-2012, 19:31
What about the owner of an apartment complex who has a no fire arms policy?
Let me start (again) from a slightly different angle. Let's say the apartmen complex has a completely-visible, no-grey-area, fully-disclosed policy of "no outside parties after 10pm". Does that policy violate a tenant's constitutionally-guaranteed right of assembly?

Does a "quiet in the library" policy violate a person's constitutionally-protected right of free speech?

The signs in theaters, stores, etc, that say "all bags subject to search"; do they violate the search & seizure rules of the fourth amendment?

Two questions:
A - If the answers to those questions are all "no", then how does a "no guns" policy violate their 2nd amendment rights?

B - If the answers to those questions are yes, please explain.

Warp
08-05-2012, 20:18
I'm with Quake. It's nice, I don't have to articulate anything, just agree. :)

LongGun1
08-05-2012, 20:28
{LongGun1 can confirm that I'm in that pic; that it's not some image I just found online.}




Yep.....Quake is the scary dude hiding the scar on his head! :tongueout: :supergrin:



My take on this is...

..what is legally carried inside my clothing to protect my life & the lives of innocents is no ones business but my own.

Essentially....their rights stop where my clothing starts! :cool:

Can someone regulate the color & type of underwear I wear just because I am on their property? :rofl:

Well, some of my underwear happens to be gunmetal grey! ;)


And the right of self defense is a fundamentally basic & possibly the most important human right..



Unless on an pressurized airplane or in an environment where a single ND by a CCW could cause a catastrophe..(like a nitro-methane plant, etc) there should be little to no restrictions on a citizen (not just a warm body) toting a CCW.....anywhere in the USA!!

I only have one life...& I detest the "non-right" of anybody (gov or private) allowing some nutjob or thug to take my right to life, liberty or property with impunity! :steamed:

YMMV

Warp
08-05-2012, 20:29
I only have one life...& I detest the "non-right" of anybody (gov or private) allowing some nutjob or thug to take my right to life, liberty or property with impunity! :steamed:

YMMV

Then don't go there?

quake
08-05-2012, 21:12
Yep.....Quake is the scary dude hiding the scar on his head! :tongueout: :supergrin:
Most of my scars are just emotional ones... :embarassed:


....Essentially....their rights stop where my clothing starts!
Gotta disagree. Your rights to decide what to allow on your property are yours, period. What I wear or don't wear, doesn't change the fact that your property should be yours to control.

There are absolutely people I don't want carrying firearms on my property, and if I reserve the right to disallow (whether selectively or unversally) on my property, then intellectual honesty demands that I accord other people that same right on their property.

BR549
08-06-2012, 06:51
My take on this is...

..what is legally carried inside my clothing to protect my life & the lives of innocents is no ones business but my own.

:thumbsup:



Essentially....their rights stop where my clothing starts! :cool:

Can someone regulate the color & type of underwear I wear just because I am on their property?

Well, some of my underwear happens to be gunmetal grey! ;)


Nonsense, strawman.


And the right of self defense is a fundamentally basic & possibly the most important human right..


:thumbsup: => "possibly"



Unless on an pressurized airplane or in an environment where a single ND by a CCW could cause a catastrophe..(like a nitro-methane plant, etc)


Serious problems with your argument here. A single ND can cause a catastrophe at a sports stadium, a schoolyard, a classroom, an office, a store, a church, a home, a range, a backyard, a city street, a highway, a country road, a restaurant, etc., etc., etc.

I do not advocate restrictions with the above notes, just that your argument is not sound.

there should be little to no restrictions on a citizen (not just a warm body) toting a CCW.....anywhere in the USA!!

I only have one life...& I detest the "non-right" of anybody (gov or private) allowing some nutjob or thug to take my right to life, liberty or property with impunity! :steamed:

YMMV

:thumbsup:, except that many would consider you the "nutjob" or "thug", and many believe that any warm body has the right to protect themself. What is your definition of citizen?

Stevekozak
08-06-2012, 09:47
There are absolutely people I don't want carrying firearms on my property, and if I reserve the right to disallow (whether selectively or unversally) on my property, then intellectual honesty demands that I accord other people that same right on their property.
I agree with the principle of your property is your property and you have the right to control what happens there. My solution, in my own case, in regards to my land and home, is that anyone that I am allowing on my property are people that I don't mind carrying firearms there. If I mind someone carrying on my property or home, then they are someone that I don't want on my property or home period. It is kind of the reverse of the "if you don't like the no carry sign stores, then don't frequent them" arguement. FWIW :wavey:

UneasyRider
08-06-2012, 15:13
My take on this is...

..what is legally carried inside my clothing to protect my life & the lives of innocents is no ones business but my own.

Essentially....their rights stop where my clothing starts! :cool:

Can someone regulate the color & type of underwear I wear just because I am on their property? :rofl:

Well, some of my underwear happens to be gunmetal grey! ;)


And the right of self defense is a fundamentally basic & possibly the most important human right..



Unless on an pressurized airplane or in an environment where a single ND by a CCW could cause a catastrophe..(like a nitro-methane plant, etc) there should be little to no restrictions on a citizen (not just a warm body) toting a CCW.....anywhere in the USA!!

I only have one life...& I detest the "non-right" of anybody (gov or private) allowing some nutjob or thug to take my right to life, liberty or property with impunity! :steamed:

YMMV

I thought that I would be alone on this one, glad I'm not, I agree with all of what you are saying including the aeroplanes not because they are pressurized because that isn't a problem but because there are secure areas in life and airports qualify in my book, but schools, hospitals and sporting events should be free to carry IMHO.

LongGun1
08-06-2012, 19:13
I agree with the principle of your property is your property and you have the right to control what happens there. My solution, in my own case, in regards to my land and home, is that anyone that I am allowing on my property are people that I don't mind carrying firearms there. If I mind someone carrying on my property or home, then they are someone that I don't want on my property or home period. It is kind of the reverse of the "if you don't like the no carry sign stores, then don't frequent them" arguement. FWIW :wavey:


This is my position as well!

Restricting access to those people you do not trust is the smart move..(IMO)

..unless you want to wand everyone coming inside your home.


Quake & I are on the same page on a whole lot of things..

..but we obviously disagree on this point.


I am strongly in the "arm every citizen" camp!

For example....I feel everyone would be much safer on a (currently weapons restricted) commercial airliner..

..if every citizen was handed a steak knife upon boarding & most of the passenger manifest was now armed..

..rather than the possibility there may be an armed air marshal or 2 on the flight!

Look at the in-flight terrorist attempts that have stopped by "citizens" on & since 9-11

..& think of what had happened if this policy had been in place during 9-11.


(hint....there very likely would have not even been a 9/11...

..at the least not nearly as severe...

BTW....I always carried a 3.85" AFCK while flying commercial before 9-11 and last carried inflight when my wife & I flew out of Logan on the evening of 9-09-2001)


IIRC....one 9-11 "Let's Roll" Hero was on record wishing for a steak knife just before rushing the terrorist controlled cockpit.

Warp
08-06-2012, 19:53
What do commercial airport/airlines weapon restrictions/laws have to do with exercising private property rights, or with choosing not to disarm and enter private property that is posted?

racerford
08-06-2012, 22:43
What do commercial airport/airlines weapon restrictions/laws have to do with exercising private property rights, or with choosing not to disarm and enter private property that is posted?

Sometimes the airports are private property and the airplanes are private property.

Since sometimes the airports are government property does that mean we should get to carry their?

Warp
08-06-2012, 22:57
Sometimes the airports are private property and the airplanes are private property.

Since sometimes the airports are government property does that mean we should get to carry their?

I do not know why you are trying to change the topic.

We are (or should be) talking about private property here.

The only time I mentioned aircraft or airports, after it was already brought up, I made sure to specify "commercial" airports and aircraft.

So how about the topic of private property rights?

racerford
08-06-2012, 23:27
I do not know why you are trying to change the topic.

We are (or should be) talking about private property here.

The only time I mentioned aircraft or airports, after it was already brought up, I made sure to specify "commercial" airports and aircraft.

So how about the topic of private property rights?

I don't mean to be obtuse, but commercial aircraft are private property. I wasn't trying to change the topic, I was answering your question.

Airplanes are no less private property than any other business location where the public comes to get products or services.

If it is a business that is open to the public, I will carry as the law allows. If I am carrying (concealed) and the business finds out and they don't want me there, they are free to ask me to leave. Given that I follow the law, and concealed means concealed, that has never happened. If the posting language does not meet the legal require to exclude concealed carry, I assume that it was intentional and they are OK with people that have been vetted as being "good' enough to get a CHL. Otherwise they would have posted a sign that is in compliance with the law.

Private clubs are different. Curves is a good example. You have to be a member to attend. So they have some ability to discriminate on who they let in.

Private residences are different still. If I know someone does not want me to carry in their home, I will respect their wishes. I may no go there again, it depends on who it is. I have never had that happen. Concealed means concealed. I don't announce to my friends and acquaintances that I am armed (when I am or otherwise). I have NEVER seen a private residence posted, properly or otherwise. I don't ask permission to bring my pocket knife, wallet, titanium pen, medicine or anything else I might carry, why would I ask about a gun? When I visit someone's home, if I always have something with me, that might scare or offend if they were to see it. Should they have a right to tell me I have to leave it at home? The long answer is it is none of their business if I bring my ***** with me, as long as I don't show it to them.

Warp
08-06-2012, 23:50
Yes, commercial aircraft are private party. You are correct there, not sure what I was thinking or why there.

However, they certainly are not open to the public and the control over who enters is, of course, something the government has a great deal of power over. Not in the same category as a business that is open to the public, such as a mall, store, movie theater, whatever.

emt1581
08-07-2012, 05:12
Wow, you guys are STILL debating this??

For all of you who think airports are a "controlled" or "secure" zone, think again!! ...at least from the crew's perspective. Passengers are screened, searched, sniffed, etc.... crew members get none of the above or sometimes a random search once in a blue moon. Another EMT is ground crew at the local airport. You ever want to hear some horror stories....talk to one of them!

As for the whole carrying on private property debate, I think both sides have valid points. But being a VERY-Pro-gunner, I wouldn't ask someone not to carry on my property unless I felt they were not responsible enough to handle a gun in the first place. If that's the case, they most likely aren't going to be on my property.

Just as with stores and other places, if I or the owner ask them to leave they have to or it's defiant trespass and if they really screw it up it'll be criminal trespass (felony here) at best.

I think carrying is an individual responsibility. Unfortunately I didn't snap out of the "guns are bad and so are citizens who carry them" funk until I was in undergrad. That's also the year Columbine took place. Again, I saw their utility and was instantly hooked.

Again, both sides seem to have a good argument but from an individual responsibility standpoint, I feel my family and myself take priority over everyone else including their "rules, policies, and wishes". Everyone else is free to do the same when they come to my business or home. They just can't expect to stay real long at either if they behave poorly.

-Emt1581

quake
08-07-2012, 09:47
...If it is a business that is open to the public, I will carry as the law allows.
That was one of my early points. Here in Arkansas at least, if they post a sign that says "carrying of a handgun is prohibited", then a person is no longer carrying "as the law allows"; they're commiting a crime.

quake
08-07-2012, 10:11
I agree with the principle of your property is your property and you have the right to control what happens there...

This is my position as well!...

Fantastic; we all seem to agree, since this is my position/belief also; a position that I've reiterated probably a half-dozen times in this thread.

But how does one reconcile "your property is your property and you have the right to control what happens there" with "I ignore the rules set by property owners"? Because no offense guys, but that's specifically what you're saying you'd do. You say you believe the property-owner has the right to control his property & what happens there, and you'll abide by his rules, unless it's a situation where you don't want to. How is that not just horribly inconsistent? :dunno:

This isn't some emergency situation demanding you break the rules; running into a building to get away from some crazy man outside, rushing an injured child into an emergency room, etc, while you have your ccw gun still on you; we're talking about picking a movie theater in a city full of movie theaters. And it's not some incident of trickery or entrapment on the property-owner's part; where you break some unknown rule and are the object of a "gotcha" on their part.

You say the property owner has the right to set the rules for their property; great. But then, after they've gone to the trouble of posting a sign explaining the rules of the property for all to see before entering the property, you say you'll ignore the rules.

I wish I knew how to word this non-confrontationally, but I don't. The simple fact is, "claiming belief in a doctrine or principle, while acting in opposition to that doctrine or principle", is the definition of a word in the english language. That word is "hypocrisy". I hate to put it so confrontationally, and I wish I could come up with a less obnoxious phrasing, but I can't; that really is the word that describes what I'm reading here.

Help me understand where I'm wrong, because so far what I'm reading disturbs me. I'd expect it from a lot of people in a lot of places (most often politicians & puritannical hypocrites); but I thought we were the good guys here; and the good guys are supposed to be consistent in their beliefs & actions.

UneasyRider
08-07-2012, 10:38
I wish I knew how to word this non-confrontationally, but I don't. The simple fact is, "claiming belief in a doctrine or principle, while acting in opposition to that doctrine or principle", is the definition of a word in the english language. That word is "hypocrisy". I hate to put it so confrontationally, and I wish I could come up with a less obnoxious phrasing, but I can't; that really is the word that describes what I'm reading here.

Help me understand where I'm wrong, because so far what I'm reading disturbs me. I'd expect it from a lot of people in a lot of places (most often politicians & puritannical hypocrites); but I thought we were the good guys here; and the good guys are supposed to be consistent in their beliefs & actions.

I think that I am in the group that you are thinking of here Quake. The best that I can do is to say that in your busieness that falls under a public accommodation you are subject to a set of laws that govern your rights as a property and business owner that differ by state. Let's say that you must not refuse service based on race, you must have a bathroom available for the public, you must be wheelchair accessable, etc. I simply want one simple right to be added to that list, the right to concealed carry. Nobody is going to know so I wont be limiting anothers rights while I enjoy mine.

You may be thinking that the business owners rights are being ignored if he does not want a person to concealed carry in his business and that's true in the same way that you may not want someone using your bathroom because you are responsible for keeping it clean and have to use it too. The big difference with concealed carry vs. open carry is that you don't even know that it is happening so how much right have you really lost?

TBO
08-07-2012, 11:01
quake,

What I see so often is a person first forming a conclusion (such as, 'I want to/can carry everywhere') then go of in search of arguments to support that conclusion.
This obviously results in skewed "logic".

The "I want what I want crowd" exhibits this often. It's a form of exercise of bias.

Instead, the better process to objectively examine a subject/debate/argument and apply deductive reasoning, critical thinking, and blunt honesty.

Everybody is human, and we all have our likes/dislikes (bias), but there's a difference between "leaning" and outright exercise of it (bias).

jmho

racerford
08-07-2012, 11:18
That was one of my early points. Here in Arkansas at least, if they post a sign that says "carrying of a handgun is prohibited", then a person is no longer carrying "as the law allows"; they're commiting a crime.

In my state it requires a rather lengthy statement in one inch high letters in English and Spanish at ALL entrances. The commercial places that exhibit compliant signage are few and far between. I assume that is on purpose. I assume that they only want non-CHL holders to not carry guns, otherwise they would post compliant signs. I try really not to enter those places, as they do not want my business. When I do, I am compliant with the law.

michael_b
08-07-2012, 12:59
No offense meant, but no; you absolutely won't. Not if you stay out. Not to be glib or flippant; I do get the inconvenience of it. But as I said above, there's always another theater; and if we let the management know of our beliefs and preferences and then stick by them, many of them will come around. Look at chik-fil-a for one example, the recent phenomenon of AR-15's for sale at walmart for another. Five years ago, who thought we'd be able to walk into a walmart and buy an AR-15 and bulk ammunition packed in an ammo can?

Actually, I still have yet to see an AR15 or bulk ammo for sale at my local Walmarts (far eastern Kansas). They do not carry any firearms.

This is not a universal thing for Walmart.

Warp
08-07-2012, 14:11
Wow, you guys are STILL debating this??

For all of you who think airports are a "controlled" or "secure" zone, think again!! ...at least from the crew's perspective. Passengers are screened, searched, sniffed, etc.... crew members get none of the above or sometimes a random search once in a blue moon.

And these people are not members of the public, they have gone through their own screening/vetting process before being in that position.

Analogous to and open-to-the-public location, commercial airports (secure areas) and airlines are not.

Actually, I still have yet to see an AR15 or bulk ammo for sale at my local Walmarts (far eastern Kansas). They do not carry any firearms.

This is not a universal thing for Walmart.

None of mine have firearms either. Maybe in the future.

LongGun1
08-07-2012, 14:48
In my state it requires a rather lengthy statement in one inch high letters in English and Spanish at ALL entrances. The commercial places that exhibit compliant signage are few and far between. I assume that is on purpose. I assume that they only want non-CHL holders to not carry guns, otherwise they would post compliant signs. I try really not to enter those places, as they do not want my business. When I do, I am compliant with the law.



Same here!

The law in Arkansas & Louisiana is very specific about placement of "no CCW allowed" signs, etc (for example...posted at every entrance, has to be able to be read at 10 foot distance, etc).

I know the law & abide by it. If a property owner is not abiding by legal posting requirements...I assume there is a "wink, wink" reason relating to their insurance carrier, etc! :whistling:


I also always announce when carrying & entering a new friend's, old friend's or relative's home for the 1st time..

..and nearly always get the..

.. "you never have to do that again & you are always welcome to carry....speech"! :supergrin:


If I am in any doubt that I am welcome to CCW...

..then I will either stash the CCW in my vehicle..

..or talk outside.

quake
08-07-2012, 15:09
Actually, I still have yet to see an AR15 or bulk ammo for sale at my local Walmarts (far eastern Kansas). They do not carry any firearms...

...None of mine have firearms either. Maybe in the future.
Not universal (yet...?), but a step in the right direction. We have four walmarts within probably 40-50 miles of us and only two of them have AR's & bulk ammo in cans.

This is a pic I snapped with my cellphone in one of them. A camo remington R-15, and a black M4/CAR-15 style; not sure of the maker. They also had 30-cal ammo cans with 420 or 440 rounds of federal xm-193 for something like $119-$129 or so iirc.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f360/quake316/LE/Photo0825.jpg

May not be everywhere, but I see it as a very big step in a positive direction.

Warp
08-07-2012, 15:11
It is outstanding that some Walmarts have ARs. Some even have the Colt 6920!

UneasyRider
08-07-2012, 15:16
It is outstanding that some Walmarts have ARs. Some even have the Colt 6920!

Mine does, and in a couple of brands.

Stevekozak
08-10-2012, 17:35
Fantastic; we all seem to agree, since this is my position/belief also; a position that I've reiterated probably a half-dozen times in this thread.

But how does one reconcile "your property is your property and you have the right to control what happens there" with "I ignore the rules set by property owners"? Because no offense guys, but that's specifically what you're saying you'd do. You say you believe the property-owner has the right to control his property & what happens there, and you'll abide by his rules, unless it's a situation where you don't want to. How is that not just horribly inconsistent? :dunno:

This isn't some emergency situation demanding you break the rules; running into a building to get away from some crazy man outside, rushing an injured child into an emergency room, etc, while you have your ccw gun still on you; we're talking about picking a movie theater in a city full of movie theaters. And it's not some incident of trickery or entrapment on the property-owner's part; where you break some unknown rule and are the object of a "gotcha" on their part.

You say the property owner has the right to set the rules for their property; great. But then, after they've gone to the trouble of posting a sign explaining the rules of the property for all to see before entering the property, you say you'll ignore the rules.

I wish I knew how to word this non-confrontationally, but I don't. The simple fact is, "claiming belief in a doctrine or principle, while acting in opposition to that doctrine or principle", is the definition of a word in the english language. That word is "hypocrisy". I hate to put it so confrontationally, and I wish I could come up with a less obnoxious phrasing, but I can't; that really is the word that describes what I'm reading here.

Help me understand where I'm wrong, because so far what I'm reading disturbs me. I'd expect it from a lot of people in a lot of places (most often politicians & puritannical hypocrites); but I thought we were the good guys here; and the good guys are supposed to be consistent in their beliefs & actions.
Quake,
I think you mixed me up with someone, pardner. You quoted me in your post, and then said the things I made bigger in your post above. I am pretty sure I didn't say anything about not obeying the commands of the law or ignoring the rules of carry in my state. I just gave my own take on how I see armed or unarmed persons being on my property or in my home. To my knowledge I have never carried into a place that was posted, except for one time at a hospital when I had to help my sister into the emergency room, at which time I wasn't thinking about signs or much of any thing else. All that to say that I do remain pretty consistant in my beliefs and actions.

BTW, I don't think you come off confrontational in your posts. I enjoy reading what you have to say and usually agree with you. When I have a different thought, I usually post it. :)

BRabbit
08-16-2012, 07:39
Tough situation, but I think the best choices for me if I were close to him and protecting my family, would be to tell them to stay low and run out with me guiding/herding them from behind as a human shield, or I try to rush the shooter and take him down while the family flees.

In the 2nd choice, it would be hard for him to continue shooting if a 200+ lb man hit him in a full tackle and then began slamming him into the floor and/or stabbing him, looking for an opening. He might kill me when I rushed him, but at least I would have tried to save my family and died fighting.

quake
08-16-2012, 12:45
Quake,
I think you mixed me up with someone, pardner. You quoted me in your post, and then said the things I made bigger in your post above. I am pretty sure I didn't say anything about not obeying the commands of the law or ignoring the rules of carry in my state. I just gave my own take on how I see armed or unarmed persons being on my property or in my home. To my knowledge I have never carried into a place that was posted, except for one time at a hospital when I had to help my sister into the emergency room, at which time I wasn't thinking about signs or much of any thing else. All that to say that I do remain pretty consistant in my beliefs and actions.

BTW, I don't think you come off confrontational in your posts. I enjoy reading what you have to say and usually agree with you. When I have a different thought, I usually post it. :)

You're right. Sorry about that; I multi-quoted you & LG1 both, not sure who I meant to quote but it was one of the posts saying essentially what LG1 & I disagree on in this.

Sorry again, I shouldn't have included your post in that quote. Just an example of my limitations publicly coming to the fore... :homer: