Prohibited places for licensed concealed carriers - Page 23
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > Prohibited places for licensed concealed carriers

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2013, 11:27 PM   #221
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dragunovsks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: West of Louisville KY,Indiana
Posts: 2,309
Liked 201 Times on 138 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55

actually there does seem to be. what a person want or doesn't want on their private property is their right.

some seem to think just because a business is open to the public, that it's public property. not true, it's still private property and someone owns it, meaning they can prohibit or allow whatever they so choose to.

now fully i don't agree with most reasons a propery owner may have for prohibiting a person from carrying, but i will myself abide and respect their wishes and rights. in simple blunt terms, it comes down to respecting others rights.

here's a link to a website that should explain a persons private property rights.

http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
Saying that, doesnt a business owner have the right to post signs saying a patrons 1st amendment rights are void in his establishment?
__________________

Century Arms AR-15A2, 5.56
1946 Mosin-Nagant M44, 7.62x54R
1978 YUGO SKS, 7.62x39
NEF Protector Pump, 12 gauge
Savage Model 64, .22LR
NEF Pardner Tracker II, 12 gauge
Rock Island Armory 1911A1, .45 ACP
Remington 870 'Express Magnum' 12 gauge
Bersa Thunder .380

dragunovsks is offline  
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:55 PM   #222
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Missouribound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 777
Liked 268 Times on 196 Posts
Likes Given: 51

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragunovsks View Post
Saying that, doesnt a business owner have the right to post signs saying a patrons 1st amendment rights are void in his establishment?
Why? That's not the case at all. Your rights to carry haven't been infringed or negated by his decision regarding his personal property. By your logic anyone wanting to rob your home or attack you can do so with a gun. Do you believe they have that right? The first amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Does that mean your rights are being taken away?
__________________
Missouribound is offline  
emo Likes This 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:55 PM   #223
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Axxe55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Deep East Texas Pineywoods!
Posts: 28,436
Liked 21199 Times on 12040 Posts
Likes Given: 52916

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragunovsks View Post
Saying that, doesnt a business owner have the right to post signs saying a patrons 1st amendment rights are void in his establishment?
though i am no lawyer and have no law degree, but i would think they could. many companies can restrict what you can say while on company property. again it comes down to choice IMO. if you don't like what an establishments policies are, then you have th choice to go elsewhere. this is strictly my opinion on this though.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:58 PM   #224
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 2,744
Liked 839 Times on 508 Posts
Likes Given: 180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrit56880 View Post
Federal Law (18 USC 930) prohibits the possession of firearms in a Federal Facility but has some exceptions. One exception is 3.) the lawful carrying of firearms incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Unless your Post Madter agreed first I wouldn't risk going to a federal prison. It has nothing to do with any state.
In a local forum (MI) several 2A attorney's debated this issue. The consensus was the parking lot (customer, not employee) was safe. The building might be off limits, but they wanted to know who would be the first to test it.

I asked a question that never got satisfactorily answered, is the post service a true federal agency?
__________________
partdeux is offline  
 
Old 03-14-2013, 12:27 AM   #225
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 9
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55 View Post

actually there does seem to be. what a person want or doesn't want on their private property is their right.

some seem to think just because a business is open to the public, that it's public property. not true, it's still private property and someone owns it, meaning they can prohibit or allow whatever they so choose to.

now fully i don't agree with most reasons a propery owner may have for prohibiting a person from carrying, but i will myself abide and respect their wishes and rights. in simple blunt terms, it comes down to respecting others rights.

here's a link to a website that should explain a persons private property rights.

http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
Axxe, that was exactly what I was looking for! Thank you very much and I'm not sure how the debate can continue without acknowledging someone is carrying on posted property simply because they do not care about the owners rights.
__________________
PapaRoush is offline  
emo Likes This 
Old 03-14-2013, 01:05 AM   #226
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cinderocka1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Laradise
Posts: 5,987
Liked 3180 Times on 1768 Posts
Likes Given: 133

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by partdeux View Post
In a local forum (MI) several 2A attorney's debated this issue. The consensus was the parking lot (customer, not employee) was safe. The building might be off limits, but they wanted to know who would be the first to test it.

I asked a question that never got satisfactorily answered, is the post service a true federal agency?
My understanding is it's Federal Property and Federal Law applies.
__________________

3 gallons of crazy in a 2 gallon bucket

Know your limits; exceed them often

That which does not kill me had better run pretty damn fast.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but hollow points expand on impact.

Cinderocka1989 is offline  
 
Old 03-14-2013, 01:11 AM   #227
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Axxe55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Deep East Texas Pineywoods!
Posts: 28,436
Liked 21199 Times on 12040 Posts
Likes Given: 52916

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PapaRoush View Post
Axxe, that was exactly what I was looking for! Thank you very much and I'm not sure how the debate can continue without acknowledging someone is carrying on posted property simply because they do not care about the owners rights.
i have always held to the belief that a property owners rights trump those who carry.

if a business has a no smoking sign, or a sign that says, no shoes, no shirt, no service, you have two very important choices, you either abide by the restrictions, or go elsewhere. there for, IMO, there is not any difference in the carrying of a firearm. either a person decides to abide by the restriction, or go elsewhere. seems very simple to me and has been for long time. either way, it is respecting another persons rights.

i can also put this into another viewpoint. if a school, or Post Office, or a courthouse says firearms are prohibited, and those say they would abide by those restrictions, but would ignore those of a private property owner, then why would they want to abide by one, but not the other? some would respect one but not the other? seems kind of contridictory to me.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
emo Likes This 
Old 03-14-2013, 01:41 AM   #228
emo
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
emo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: CT
Posts: 389
Liked 274 Times on 160 Posts
Likes Given: 100

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55


i can also put this into another viewpoint. if a school, or Post Office, or a courthouse says firearms are prohibited, and those say they would abide by those restrictions, but would ignore those of a private property owner, then why would they want to abide by one, but not the other? some would respect one but not the other? seems kind of contridictory to me.
That's a very interesting take on it. Seems they would be saying that the government's rights are more important than the individual's. if everyone stops and thinks about that for a minute, I doubt that anyone on this forum would knowingly say something like that, and thanks for the link about property rights.

I think maybe we've beat this horse enough and the two sides are not going to change the other's viewpoint. Maybe we should let this thread die and all skip over to the 1911 section and drool over some more photo's of Canebrake's toys.
__________________

Real dogs drool!

emo is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Old 03-14-2013, 02:10 AM   #229
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 2,744
Liked 839 Times on 508 Posts
Likes Given: 180

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderocka1989 View Post
My understanding is it's Federal Property and Federal Law applies.
Cinderocka,

But Postal Service is a pseudo federal / private entity that is created in the constitution. Are they federal or private? What impact does the constitution have on the entity?

In MI, the 2A attorney's I mentioned said the parking lot is ok, inside the building questionable... but as the employee found out, not allowed in the secure parking aka employee area.
__________________
partdeux is offline  
 
Old 03-14-2013, 02:10 AM   #230
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Missouribound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 777
Liked 268 Times on 196 Posts
Likes Given: 51

Default

It seems the rights are delegated to the owner...that is, private property is owned by an individual or company (business) and the post office, for all practical purposes is owned by the government. It's not a "government" thing in my mind but a property ownership thing....IMO, of course.

__________________
Missouribound is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
As Concealed Carriers could we? Wiebelhaus Politics, Religion and Controversy 24 10-04-2012 02:07 PM
Open carry prohibited in California havasu Legal and Activism 45 10-14-2011 06:51 AM
Superman a ‘prohibited person’ opaww Legal and Activism 16 05-10-2011 08:00 PM
Any Licensed Display Pyrotechnics on here? RJCXJ The Club House 3 06-28-2010 01:05 PM