How do I find out...

[NDguido]

Why do I get the feeling that you're hiding behind the "Devil's advocate" moniker that you have attached to yourself?

I don't know. If I were a business owner, not only would I allow open carrying, I would encourage you to do it with some sort of signage on my building.

Don't be so suspicious.

 

[NDguido]

Sure they have a right to be afraid. No one is saying they can't be afraid. However being afraid doesn't trump my right to carry.

Nope...that's true. It does, though, trump your right to carry on their private property.....open or otherwise. The only reason i'm playing devil's advocate here is because I think things like organized open carry rallies at restaurants or businesses that prohibit it never serve the purpose open carriers intend it to. On the contrary, I believe it characterizes gun owners as people that will force their own agendas on you, and do it while carrying firearms which makes outsiders view them as threatening.

I would no more stop frequenting an establishment for exercising their rights anymore than I would expect to be treated badly for exercising mine.

Open carry has a lot to do with the fear people have of guns. If more people did it more people would be less afraid of it

I have no idea how you logically arrived at this conclusion.






I really wish the more militant open carry crowd could see this.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Nope...that's true. It does, though, trump your right to carry on their private.....open or otherwise. The only reason i'm playing devil's advocate here is because I think things like organized open carry rallies at restaurants or businesses that prohibit it never serve the purpose open carriers intend it to. On the contrary, I believe it characterizes gun owners as people that will force their own agendas on you, and do it while carrying firearms which makes outsiders view them as threatening.

I really wish the more militant open carry crowd could see this.

You are living in a dream world. Militant Open Carry crowd? OC rallies where guns are banned? Name one instance where OCers held a rally at a prohibited place. The only OC rallies I know about are on public property or friendly private property.

 

[NDguido]

You are living in a dream world. Militant Open Carry crowd? OC rallies where guns are banned? Name one instance where OCers held a rally at a prohibited place. The only OC rallies I know about are on public property or friendly private property.

I've seen videos posted right here on INGO where open carriers have rallied outside of restaurants where open carry is prohibited.

I've seen people right here on INGO call for open carry rallies at pizza huts where drivers were prohibited from carrying because restaurant policy prohibits it. https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._self_defense/85401-so_i_was_fired_today.html

I'll let you do the rest of the leg work.

 

[Double T]

You are not understanding. A person with a legal right to carry, should not be prohibited from carrying in a "public" business. If a place is open to the public, it should be allowed. It is no different than if a police officer walks in...except we can't shoot as the BGs are running away.

I guess the issue is the fact that I can carry concealed, which is legal, without incident. But let the grip hang out and its a MWAG or what not. I have been asked to leave two places, which I have not returned. Its very disconcerting to know that those places depend on police investigations, and cameras to help solve crime, rather than to prevent it.

The issue is this: why should I have to cover up a gun to make other people more comfortable? I don't ask the guy with the offensive shirt to cover it up so my kids don't see it? Or the kid with the F bombs blaring to turn it don't so my kids don't say "f you" to a stranger? Nor do I ask anyone to do anything that would be anything similar. Why are we singled out? It is perfectly legal, and perfectly norma; to openly carry a firearm. Telling me to cover it up, or to disarm me is pretty much an infringement on my personal rights, regardless of my location.

It is a license to CARRY a handgun. I take that to mean I don't even need a holster, just good trigger discipline. Its not really carrying if its riding in a holster. More like a fashion accessory. Its not a License to Wear handgun

Needless to say, I choose to not frequent victim enrichment zones, and I would suggest everyone else to do the same. Its not worth it to even support a company that does not wish to help protect its employees. Whether by the employee, a customer, or a contracted individual.

 

[NDguido]

You are not understanding. A person with a legal right to carry, should not be prohibited from carrying in a "public" business. If a place is open to the public, it should be allowed. It is no different than if a police officer walks in...except we can't shoot as the BGs are running away.

A place open to the public does not negate their right to create and enforce policy. You no more have a "right" to go against that policy than you do to yell fire in a theater.

I guess the issue is the fact that I can carry concealed, which is legal, without incident. But let the grip hang out and its a MWAG or what not. I have been asked to leave two places, which I have not returned. Its very disconcerting to know that those places depend on police investigations, and cameras to help solve crime, rather than to prevent it.

I am in total agreement that the fear of a visible weapon is irrational. I am also in total agreement with the theory that a visible weapon would serve as a deterrent to criminal activity. This is, I'm certain, a huge frustration to the open carry cause.


Hmm...I sympathize with the frustration that open carriers deal with. I also sympathize with those that have enough of a fear (irrational as it is) of guns to create policy prohibiting them on their own property.

I know this isn't a really popular position I'm taking, but I stand by it. I'd rather live in a world where people were not adversely affected by the sight of a firearm. This just isn't the case, and I'm not yet convinced that "retraining" these people is the right action. It seems.....quite honestly, a bit arrogant to me.

 

[rgrimm01]

Cmon guys, do you know how often little gas stations and convenient stores are robbed? They only keep one employee usually, and it is one of the most dangerous jobs in this country. You're coming directly from your car, not from a crowded public area, with a gun on your hip. They have no idea if you're going to rob and kill them when you walk in the door.

I would say, depending on the attendant's personal phsychological scarring/makeup, that you could use the same argument to ban people who do not pump gas prior to entering the store. If the person pulls up without first going to the pumps, even sans open carry, you cannot be positive of the intentions.

I wonder if P66 has any corp policy on entering the store with an axe on your shoulder? Concealed pocketknife? Gasp, lock blade in shealth on your hip?

As GFGT posted, "Their property, their prerogative...your money, your prerogative"...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You are not understanding. A person with a legal right to carry, should not be prohibited from carrying in a "public" business. If a place is open to the public, it should be allowed. It is no different than if a police officer walks in...except we can't shoot as the BGs are running away.

I agree it shouldn't be. But it is their right to prohibit it. Same as they have a right to prohibit LEO from being on their property (with some exceptions). There is a coffee shop in WA(I think) that kicked out an officer.

I guess the issue is the fact that I can carry concealed, which is legal, without incident. But let the grip hang out and its a MWAG or what not. I have been asked to leave two places, which I have not returned. Its very disconcerting to know that those places depend on police investigations, and cameras to help solve crime, rather than to prevent it.

I've been asked to cover it up or leave one place. I did cover it up. I also emailed corporate, and had several emails and a phone call with the CEO. He even came on here and discussed it.

I still haven't been back, and won't unless they change their no open carry policy.

The issue is this: why should I have to cover up a gun to make other people more comfortable? I don't ask the guy with the offensive shirt to cover it up so my kids don't see it? Or the kid with the F bombs blaring to turn it don't so my kids don't say "f you" to a stranger? Nor do I ask anyone to do anything that would be anything similar. Why are we singled out? It is perfectly legal, and perfectly norma; to openly carry a firearm. Telling me to cover it up, or to disarm me is pretty much an infringement on my personal rights, regardless of my location.

Because it is up to the owner of the property to decide if you should or not on his/her property. Same as a business owner has the right to have a dress code, ban swearing, having a boom box playing loudly, eat food brought in from elsewhere or just about anything else they feel like. Personally I think it should be for anything else they feel like but there are some protected classes.

It is a license to CARRY a handgun. I take that to mean I don't even need a holster, just good trigger discipline. Its not really carrying if its riding in a holster. More like a fashion accessory. Its not a License to Wear handgun

Why in purple? It is perfectly legal for you to do so. Or do you think that it's not a good idea? Like some people think OC is not a good idea? Personally that is how I always carry, anyone who doesn't is an idiot. It shaves 1/4 off the time it takes to use the firearm. It is definitely a greater deterrent than simply being in a holster. After all what crook is going to go after someone that wants to shoot someone so bad that he already has it in his hand.

My responses in blue.

Sure they have a right to be afraid. No one is saying they can't be afraid. However being afraid doesn't trump my right to carry.

Open carry has a lot to do with the fear people have of guns. If more people did it more people would be less afraid of it.

No it doesn't trump your right to carry. It does trump your permission
(I say permission because rarely do you have a right to be on someone else property) to be on their property.

That is part of the reason I do OC.

A chemical response to an external stimulus is not a right, it's a naturally occurring thing. Thinking homosexuality is wrong has nothing to do with this topic, nor does the example bring anything to the examples.

Property owners rights are fine and dandy, but if you ask me to leave or to disarm, to hell with you. There are loads of other places hurting for money, and I'll gladly take it to them

Self defense is a naturally occurring thing. Whether through fight or flight or both. And heck carrying a weapon around is even natural.
Here is one that is packing 2 pieces. So just because it is a naturally occurring response it is not a right?

http://www.mauioceancenter.com/marinepdf/hermit_crab.pdf

And yep that is your property owners right to do what you want with your money. You shouldn't be forced to spend your property in some place that doesn't want you in there with a gun should you?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I've seen videos posted right here on INGO where open carriers have rallied outside of restaurants where open carry is prohibited.

I've seen people right here on INGO call for open carry rallies at pizza huts where drivers were prohibited from carrying because restaurant policy prohibits it. https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._self_defense/85401-so_i_was_fired_today.html

I'll let you do the rest of the leg work.

AFAIK Pizza Hut does not ban firearms in its stores for customers only employees so I do not see the correlation here.

I have done plenty of legwork during my time here at INGO and I have never seen what you are claiming. Unless you can show me better proof than your link, and from the time stamps I'd say you have been looking pretty hard, then I dare to say that your point is moot on the 'militant OCers' holding rallies where it is banned.

I find it interesting that even in the gun community itself there is such a divide that we view someone with different views than our own in a negative way.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Timjoebilliybob, I really like your point that it doesn't trump your Right to carry, it trumps your permission to be there. But it isn't fear that trumps it, fear is only an emotion. It is their communication to you that you are no longer welcome.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Timjoebilliybob, I really like your point that it doesn't trump your Right to carry, it trumps your permission to be there. But it isn't fear that trumps it, fear is only an emotion. It is their communication to you that you are no longer welcome.

Then the gun must be the killer not the person. The person didn't kill them the gun did.

Look at it this way, your out late one night for some reason. Maybe wifey wanted some ice cream. And when you get out of your car you noticed your being approached by two scruffy looking gentlemen with large knives in their hands pointed at you in an aggressive manner. You tell them to stop while pulling your sidearm. They continue advancing so you draw and double tap both to the chest and they fall down DRT.

What killed them? Your fear of serious bodily injury/death, or your gun? What are you going to tell the LEOs who show up? I was in fear for my life? Or my gun killed them?

The fear made them ask you to leave, just like your fear caused you to draw and shoot. Slightly different, but I think you will understand the comparison.

 

[CarmelHP]

Cmon guys, do you know how often little gas stations and convenient stores are robbed? They only keep one employee usually, and it is one of the most dangerous jobs in this country. You're coming directly from your car, not from a crowded public area, with a gun on your hip. They have no idea if you're going to rob and kill them when you walk in the door.

If he was intent on robbery, how was "you can bring a gun in" going to keep the clerk from getting perforated?

 

[NDguido]

AFAIK Pizza Hut does not ban firearms in its stores for customers only employees so I do not see the correlation here.

I have done plenty of legwork during my time here at INGO and I have never seen what you are claiming. Unless you can show me better proof than your link, and from the time stamps I'd say you have been looking pretty hard, then I dare to say that your point is moot on the 'militant OCers' holding rallies where it is banned.

I'll do some looking for the videos I was talking about. We're doing a drama at our church the next two days so I won't be around much. No, it didn't take any time at all to dig up the pizza hut thread. If you look at my posting history, you'll notice a large gap.....I had stopped coming around for quite some time, and the pizza hut topic was actually pretty fresh in my head as one of the last threads I had read here.

I find it interesting that even in the gun community itself there is such a divide that we view someone with different views than our own in a negative way.

I don't really know what you mean here.......explain.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I don't really know what you mean here.......explain.

I think it was pretty self explainatory...

Gun owners have very narrow views of what they agree on or consider right or correct. They tend to attack those of different persuasions then themselves.

Case in point is the whole OC/CC issue.

 

[finity]

A chemical response to an external stimulus is not a right, it's a naturally occurring thing.

Then, in that case, we as humans have no natural Rights at all because EVERYTHING, every..single..thing , that we do as a living thing is simply a chemical response to an external stimulus.

Even the concept of "rights" is a chemical response since it is an IDEA that was conceived in the chemical soup of someone's brain. An IDEA that eventually made it's way to the colonies & was manifested into the physical through more chemical reactions in the brain telling the Founders muscles to write them down in the Constitution.

To negate only emotions as the ONLY "just chemical responses" is simply ridiculous.

To try to say that emotions are not a Right (& can thus be banned) is to remove the very thing that makes us humans as opposed to simply machines.

Thinking homosexuality is wrong has nothing to do with this topic, nor does the example bring anything to the examples.

Maybe nothing specifically to do with this topic but it did serve to highlight the hypocrisy of blaming liberals as the only emotionally reactionary ideology.

I find it funny (in a kind of way) the number of people, including on this site, who complain so loudly about people supposedly violating their Rights but have no problem at all violating those of others with whom THEY don't agree.

Anyways, does anyone know where I can find specifically if they are anti-guns or not?

I'm not the one who brought this Off Topic.

Mine was post 32.

There is only 1 post that has been on topic since the second reply to your OP. YOU yourself have contributed to the thread drift, so try not to get your undies in a wad when others do it too.

Since you knew the answer to you OP in post #2 maybe you should have had the thread closed if you didn't want to hear any OT comments. Or is that you don't want to hear comments from only those you disagree with?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

NDguido, I have to regretfully offer an apology. I saw in a current thread a longtime INGO poster suggest an OC event where a man was told he could not carry his gun. I hang my head in shame that even the suggestion was brought forth.

The rest still stands though

 

[Double T]

Seriously, panties in a bunch. I have tried on several occasions to bring it back.

About violating others' rights, at what point did ANYONE suggest that? I will never step foot in that store again, even if I am out of gas and have to push the car across the highway.

The cashier told me to conceal next time to avoid issues. THAT is stupid. I never suggested it, nor would I.

I am simply stating that anywhere I can get charged for disorderly conduct, or public intox, or indecent exposure...or whatever, IMO is a public place, and as such; property owners rights are secondary to individual rights in as much.

 

[finity]

The issue is this: why should I have to cover up a gun to make other people more comfortable? I don't ask the guy with the offensive shirt to cover it up so my kids don't see it? Or the kid with the F bombs blaring to turn it don't so my kids don't say "f you" to a stranger? Nor do I ask anyone to do anything that would be anything similar.

You could if you were the owner of the business or if they came onto your private non-business property. I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate at all to ask them those things if they were in your house. I know I wouldn't if it bothered me that much.

Why are we singled out? It is perfectly legal, and perfectly norma; to openly carry a firearm.

To you, me & many others that may be true but not to everybody. Some people just don't like guns for whatever reason. Others are fine with guns but just don't like OC. Maybe it has nothing to do with fear at all. Maybe they've reasoned it all out in their minds (incorrectly, of course ) & that is what they have determined makes the most sense to them.

How many hunters and/or long gun owners think that no one needs to own or carry a handgun. How many gunowners agreed with the GCA's that restricted sale of machine guns & banned new ones being made available to the public.

Are those appropriately PC examples of people who don't want THEIR Rights violated but have no issues at all with violating others?

Telling me to cover it up, or to disarm me is pretty much an infringement on my personal rights, regardless of my location.

It sounds like you are having an emotional response to being "singled out" which you are using to justify your desire to infringe on someone elses personal property Rights.

Be careful. Rights can be fragile things.

 

[finity]

A place open to the public does not negate their right to create and enforce policy. You no more have a "right" to go against that policy than you do to yell fire in a theater.

Sorry guido, I just gotta:

Actually you DO have a Right to yell "fire" in a theater.

If there really is a fire then some might say you actually have an OBLIGATION to yell "fire".

If there is no fire and your actions cause injury then you would be held liable criminally & financially for those injuries.

If, OTOH, you yell "fire" & no one moves or even notices then there will be no police coming to arrest you for it as there is no law against yelling "fire" in a theater. To have one would be prior restraint that abridges the freedom to say whatever you want as long as your words cause no direct or inciteful (?) injuries to others & as such would be a violation of the 1A. IOW, your Rights would have been violated.


...as long as it is not a policy of the property owner that you can't yell "fire". If it is then they can simply ask you to leave or call the police on you for trespassing, not for yelling "fire".

 

[finity]

I am simply stating that anywhere I can get charged for disorderly conduct, or public intox, or indecent exposure...or whatever, IMO is a public place, and as such; property owners rights are secondary to individual rights in as much.

You can be charged with all of those things standing in your front yard.

Are you suggesting your front yard is a public place in which your Rights as a property owner are secondary to some yahoo's who wants to do whatever he wants there?[