Kel-Tec Forum banner

21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,692 Posts
I think I did qualify my statement about the right to refuse service within the law

As long as the government continues to rob American citizens of their rights, including property rights, I will stand up for any property owner that wants to exercise his right to manage his/her property in what ever manner they choose. If I don't agree with their rules, or find one so offensive to me (no firearms, formal attire only, 45 minute wait for service...) that I just will not abide by it, there's another one down the road. If not, then it must not be a necessity and I'll find a replacement for the activity. The only necessities in my life that ARE posted ... guaranteed to be posted... are government mandated, and I'll guarantee you that I will NOT cross that line. I would rather be told "the house rules" by an individual property owner that has his own grub stake in his property than the government telling me what I can do on property that I do have a vested interest in through my 1/300,000,000th share as a citizen (more if you consider 50% of those 3mil never pay taxes).

Now, all that being said, we currently have two bills coming before our state legislature in this session that I am in full support of. One being legal concealed carry at state supported universities, and the other actually concerning carry on private property - which seems diametrically opposed to my stance on private property rights. This proposed legislation would allow employees of "no firearms allowed" businesses to legally leave their carry guns in their personal vehicles parked in the company owned parking lots, which currently is in violation of state law if the confines of the parking lot are properly posted. In most firearms legislation, particularly that concerning the CHL legislation, the term "premises" refers to "within a building or structure" - such as inside the school building. The sidewalks, grounds, parking lots of a school do not fall under the definition of premises, unless the school kids are participating in an activity in the vicinity. I personally see the "Parking Lot Bill" as a multi-issue consideration. First, I see the outside area parking lot, used primarily out of necessity by the employees, as being outside the premises of the actual workplace. Second, I consider the personal vehicle to be a "mobile dwelling extension" (a little insurance lingo thrown in for you :) ) and the same legal authority should be given the vehicle owner as does the Castle Doctrine. A whole lot of people spend 12-15% of their waking hours (or more) innside their personal vehicles. In 2007, our state legislature passed a bill (Motorist Protection Act) that allows any citizen that can legally posses a firearm to carry a firearm concealed in their personal vehicle. Supposedly that was all put in place to clear up our old, never codified, "travel law" - a loose interpretation of what the term "traveling" meant, and whether a traveler needed self protection. I really believe it was influenced more by the legislators that frimly believed in the concept of the Castle Doctrine and the right of every citizen to defend themselves. So, to make a long story a bit longer concerning the Parking Lot Bill (allowing individual personal rights to trump individual property rights) - I'm fer it.

I can't help myself. I just feel like personal property rights, and one's ability to control the activities on his property (yeah, I know.... is HE gonna stop bad things from happening?), is one of the last true qualities we still can cling to (when the Mother Sow allows us) in the USA.


sorry... I get long winded when trying to express myself sometimes (most times) :oops:


surv
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,292 Posts
I get what you are saying, and for the most part agree. I don't care if some clueless douchenozzle business owner posts stupid signs, be it "no firearms allowed" or even something so crass as "no ******* allowed" - I just won't do business there. What I object to is the idea that the idiot's sign carries force of law if it is printed correctly (in Texas and apparently elsewhere). I don't have a problem with trespassing laws being enforced on those who refuse to leave.

I also think the situation is dramatically altered when you bring employees into the equation. As a customer, it is indeed quite easy to pack up and leave if a stupid sign appears one day. But is a whole different matter when someone's livelihood must be balanced against their safety, particularly when nothing is being done to ensure it in the sudden absence of self-defense weapons. Pensions, tenure, and a lack of comparable jobs in the area make it difficult for many employees to simply leave. Lets not forget, govt bodies currently regulate workplace safety to a very tight degree in many industries, and I see nothing good coming of a disarmed workplace.

The parking lot issue is a total joke, as it forces an employee to be disarmed to/from work as well as at the workplace. I don't think any employer has the right to request a search of a vehicle, whether he paid to pave the parking lot or not. I sure as hell wouldn't allow mine to search my vehicle, and I don't have anything in there they would even care about! It is just the principle of it. Many are far more desperate to keep their jobs, however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
In Texas companies currently have alot of freedom as far as company policy, both in good as well as bad ways. One thing very few people are aware of is that concealed carry on company property wether licenced or unlicenced is up to the company in most cases, a company can allow employees to carry a firearm regardless of wether they are licenced or not, the only main exception is if the employees main job description is securing persons or property in which case the employee working security must be a comissioned officer to carry a firearm. The main opponent of the parkinglot bill is the oil companies, who lobbied heavily against the parking lot bill which would require the company to either allow the employee to keep their firearm in their vehicle in the parking lot, or provide a second secure parkinglot for those employees who carry a firearm. I believe that there was also an option where the employee would check their firearm in with security but im not sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,692 Posts
Re:

bigreb83 said:
In Texas companies currently have alot of freedom as far as company policy, both in good as well as bad ways. One thing very few people are aware of is that concealed carry on company property wether licenced or unlicenced is up to the company in most cases, a company can allow employees to carry a firearm regardless of wether they are licenced or not, the only main exception is if the employees main job description is securing persons or property in which case the employee working security must be a comissioned officer to carry a firearm. The main opponent of the parkinglot bill is the oil companies, who lobbied heavily against the parking lot bill which would require the company to either allow the employee to keep their firearm in their vehicle in the parking lot, or provide a second secure parkinglot for those employees who carry a firearm. I believe that there was also an option where the employee would check their firearm in with security but im not sure.

I think you might want to study the law a bit closer on that particular issue. An employer can not grant permission for an employee to circumvent the law. UCW is UCW, regardless of a property owner's opinion on the matter. For instance, it's similar to the open carry issues we currently face. It is entirely legal for a property owner to open carry on his own property with certain restrictions applied ... usually by city code. But, a property owner (whether business or home owner) can NOT grant another person "permission" to open carry on the property of the former. I open carry in my office, home, and yard in full view of anyone that walks or drives by, but I live outside the jurisdiction of city code (particularly the type that equates carrying of visible firearms as creating a public disturbance). There are certain instances where even open carry can be permitted by a person other than the owner, IF that person is in responsible charge of the property and in the absence of the actual owner. Yes, we occassionally see liquor store "night managers" open carry, pawn shop and particularly gun shop employees open carry, which I think is technically a violation of the statute, but LEO generally have no problem with the practice, and if the County DA doesn't have an anti-gun attitude the practice is ignored. As for concealed carry, I can't grant you the right to carry on my property beyond the law of the state.

Yes, we have some silly restrictions PLACED on property owners ... not just the fact that we recognize property owners still have some rights to control certain activities on their property.

A lot of what I say is based on my opinions of the laws we have (not my interpretations)... I suppose it would be best to actually post the actual statutes as they are referred to so others can make their own assessments as to whether the law is good or bad.


surv
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Just read Magmans letter, Very well put together.
Have you recieved a response?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
Here in Missouri the law states that possession of a firearm, in a vehicle on the premises of places posted, is not prohibited so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. That includes the following full list of places you can't legaly carry in Missouri;

In accordance with Section 571.107 RSMo.

. any police, sheriff, or Highway Patrol office or station without consent
. within 25 feet of any polling place on election day
. adult or juvenile jail or institution
. courthouse or facilities
. any meeting of a government body ( except by a member with a concealed carry endorsement )
. bar without consent ( I was told this just changed to you can carry in a bar )
. airport
. where prohibited by federal law
. schools
. child care facility ( without consent of the manager )
. amusement parks
. any church or place of worship without the permission of the Minister or person representing religious orginazation
. any sports arena or stadium with seating for more than 5,000
. hospitals
. private and public property where posted

I guess that legaly that would include workers too. I'm not sure if a boss could legaly keep you from storing your weapon in your car or not. The trouble with the way laws are written is that all too often they are open to the interpretation of the person reading them and while a person might interpret it one way a judge might see things differant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Actually a private property owner CAN allow someone else to carry open or concealed on their property. I do not know anyone who will go out into the woods without carrying a side arm, regardless of carrying a long gun or not. Also when I go to a friends property to do a bit of horseback riding or help him work his cattle he gives me a .44mag to carry since I currently dont have a handgun that is accurate or powerful enough to drop a hog, which he has a bit of a problem with, as well as wolves, cyotes and various snakes. I also carry my 12ga, and one of his 7mags. He carries his twins, 2 12inch custom .44mags, and his grandpas 8ga. Both of us have had to kill predators while riding around, due to the threat to his horses, a few cattle, chickens, geese, ducks, pigs, goats, dogs and a few other forms of livestock, also since his property is well fenced he makes efforts to protect the few deer that are around there as well. Game wardens, and the local sheriff have been out there a few times after we called them to notify when we had to kill a wolf, cyote or other predator, especially since a few of the predators killed were suspected in killing livestock of multiple people in the area, and even some dogs. Neither branch of law enforcement have said anything about me carrying a side arm, wether I used it or not. I even asked the game warden wether my carrying a side arm and my concealed gun was legal on his property, responded its his property, if he gave you permission to carry its legal as long as you arent legally disquallified from owning a gun. I even asked him about carrying a place of employment, and was told the same thing except he stated a few restrictions where regardless carrying is either banned or would require a commision licence and bonding.

You have to remember that some laws are obscure and there are a number of da's and judges not to mention leo's in more urban areas who ignore the laws in order to press their own agendas, and many leo's know less about many types of laws than well informed citizens.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,692 Posts
I'll go back and try to find the specific statutes and some of the statements made by Mr. Charles Cotton on the TexasCHL forum. Mr. C was one of the leaders back in the 80's pushing for legal concealed carry in Texas, and one of the main players after Luby's to get the legislation passed. He is still one of the main proponents of RKBA in Texas that devotes a lot of his legal services to various aspects of defending SD shooters, offering training in various aspects of Self Defense legal concerns, etc. There is a ton of discussion on that website concerning open carry, and a lot of really good information posted by Mr Cotton and a few other truly knowledgeable legal scholors, but you have to weed through multitudes of redundant blathering about "constitutional carry" and "national open carry". Somewhere in all that information are a lot of answers to open carry issues as currently covered by state law. I'll try to find the answers that I base my opinions on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
Seeing as how laws differ from state to state and county to county, from city to city, township to township, ect. ect., a person dang near needs to be an attorney just to safely stay legal! You can't rely on the authorities for straight answers either. For instance, I contacted the BATFE asking the legality of a shoot through wallet holster I own. They are sold everywhere. Letters are produced, from the BATFE, saying they have been tested and found to be legal, yet many still insist they are not and that they fall into the Any Other Weapon category. Call or write the BATFE and you'll get everything from, "I don't know" to "Yes they're legal.", "No they're not.", "Let me connect you with someone else." and, "Ask your local police or sheriff's dept." If the very people making the laws, and who's job it is to enforce the laws, can't give you a straight answer then who can? The BATFE's final decision on the question? They now just ignore me and say nothing! I've been asking the same simple question, for well over a year, and have yet to get a straight answer from them. Heck, even their own agents couldn't get a straight answer! Butttt, make a mistake and they'll be on you like white on rice!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,555 Posts
Re:

argo said:
Just read Magmans letter, Very well put together.
Have you recieved a response?
Thank you for the compliment.

I have not as yet received a response. I have sent similar letters to other establishments with the same results. I never get a response, and they don't take down the sign.

Much like drug or alcohol addiction, ignorance can only be remedied when the afflicted admit that they have a problem and are willing to take the steps necessary to correct it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
Re:

magman454 said:
argo said:
Just read Magmans letter, Very well put together.
Have you recieved a response?
Thank you for the compliment.

I have not as yet received a response. I have sent similar letters to other establishments with the same results. I never get a response, and they don't take down the sign.

Much like drug or alcohol addiction, ignorance can only be remedied when the afflicted admit that they have a problem and are willing to take the steps necessary to correct it.
At least you tried. :) Like my Gandma use to say," It's the squeaky wheel that get's the grease!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
According to a Missouri Firearms Attorney, buisenesses put up No firearms Allowed signs mainly because their insurance companies demand they do. However, just as when a parking lot that takes your keys then becomes responsible for your vehicle, any place that puts up a No Firearms Allowed sign then becomes responsible for your safety by taking that ability away from you. The insurance companies don't worry because they will only pay on accidents, not if you get robbed or worse. Any damages payed would have to come from the buiseness itself. Good info to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,292 Posts
spirithawk, I don't think that is necessarily true. Businesses carry liability insurance for negligence, and taking someone's ability to protect themselves away and then failing to provide a substitute might be ruled negligence in a court someday.

Of all the General Liability policies I have written for businesses, I have never seen them ask about or demand a "no firearms" sign. I think it is the business owner trying to pawn off the responsibility by falsely claiming the old "insurance is the bad guy here" excuse.

If an insurance company ever gets stuck with a million dollar judgment for a policy holder's negligence involving a "no firearms" sign, then I think they will start asking about them in the application and probably declining coverage or surcharging for it if they have them. And that will put a big dent in the number of signs posted - its all fun and games until it starts costing extra money.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,692 Posts
has there ever been a suit/settlement involving a disarmed "victim"? Fortunately, at least for the time being, the odds of any of us being in a deadly force situation are fairly small, then couple that with the odds of an event happening in a business that is "posted" (at least in Texas where very, very few businesses actually prevent licensed carry) increase substantially. With licensed carry expanding nation wide in recent years I would have thought there would be a test case by now.


surv
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
As said, the info was from an attorney specializing in firearms laws but who really knows? Few laws are written that can't be twisted by those reading them. It is no doubt a true wonder that the issue hasn't come up in court but who knows what the future might bring. The attorney did state that the laws are inturpreted differantly by differant judges which basicly makes no real sense. I think the truest words he said was that you can't count on anything and must be prepared for everything. I don't consider it a big issue but it is an interesting one. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,692 Posts
"you can't count on anything and must be prepared for everything"


truer words were never spoken!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
Re:

mr surveyor said:
"you can't count on anything and must be prepared for everything"


truer words were never spoken!

I guess that probably since Branson is a tourist town that's the reason we run into the signs here more so than other places. In my opinion though that's all the more reason folks should carry. Where there are tourists there's always an abundance of predators. I wonder what would happen if you asked a store owner that since he won't allow you to carry the weapon, that you are licensed to carry, into his store.... will he personally garauntee that you won't get mugged walking to and from your vehicle? Pointedly reminding him that that is when people often get mugged! Will he admit responsibility if you are mugged or, if he won't garauntee your safety, will he provide an armed guard to walk you or a family member to and from their vehicle if he want's your, your families, and your friends, your friends families and their friends buiseness? Might be interesting just to hear what they would say. I might give it a try just to see their response. It would be particularly interesting if the conversation took place in front of other customers. ;)
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top