[axxe55]

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

Bad analogy. If a customer pulls out his gun and starts target practice in your store then it is like a smoker ignoring "no smoking" signs. He can still have cigarettes and matches in his pocket, or even out in the open where they can be seen.

A concealed carry prohibition is like banning diapers. You should never know if the person has them on or not, but if they need it you by God better hope they are wearing them!

Rather than a sign that says "Gun Free Zone" perhaps they should have signs that say "Illegal possession or illegal discharge of firearms is strictly prohibited on these premises".

But that would just be sensible, which is why they don't do it that way.

simply put, my position is that in this matter, everything else put aside, i will side with the property owner. because i want my rights as property upheld so that i can make decisions as to how business is conducted on my property and have the right to refuse access to whomever i choose, because it is my property. even if a disagree with their decision, i will by God abide by it simply because i wnat my rights to be respected as well.

[primer1]

I'm with axxe on this, its a matter of respect. Concealed license holders are supposed to be law abiding citizens, so let's be that way. If they have the crime zone sign posted, go elsewhere. The local mall posted signs a year ago, I haven't been there since, and I still got all my Christmas shopping done.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by primer1

I'm with axxe on this, its a matter of respect. Concealed license holders are supposed to be law abiding citizens, so let's be that way. If they have the crime zone sign posted, go elsewhere. The local mall posted signs a year ago, I haven't been there since, and I still got all my Christmas shopping done.

thank you Primer. it is about respect and appearances. as gun owners and those with CC permits, we need to be above reproach and not give theliberal gun haters cause to show that we are anyhing but law abiding citizens. anything less will and can be used against us, by the media and the gun haters.

if we want our rights as gun owners respected by others, then we can't trample the rights of property owners just because we disagree with them. want to make them change, then vote with your wallet. tell them in a polite and calm manner that because of their policy to not allow LAC who CC, that you will do your business with one of their competitors. at some point they will realize that profits are not walking into their business anymore because of their policies. i may not agree with their policy, (and i don't) but i will abide by it and respect it.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by cswann1

If "private" property owners are serious about keeping guns off their property they need to spend a little more money than the cost of a sign and install security entrances with metal detectors and security guards. If anyone can walk in with a gun in their waistband so will I.

and you are exactly the type to give those who CC a bad reputation because of your attitude. when you get caught, let us know how it works out for you!

[Vikingdad]

So what about a public place? For example we have an amusement park here that is on leased public land http://www.cagreatamerica.com/ . Does the lease holder make the determination? Or the City of Santa Clara?

Or how about this, I lease public land for the purpose of growing Christmas trees that the customers come onto the property and cut down themselves. Can the public agency prohibit me from carrying on the property I lease? (Note that it is legal under State law for a business owner to concealed carry in their place of business here in CA.) Or can they force me to post signs saying the property is a "GFZ" even though I am not supportive of that stance?

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

So what about a public place? For example we have an amusement park here that is on leased public land http://www.cagreatamerica.com/ . Does the lease holder make the determination? Or the City of Santa Clara?

Or how about this, I lease public land for the purpose of growing Christmas trees that the customers come onto the property and cut down themselves. Can the public agency prohibit me from carrying on the property I lease? (Note that it is legal under State law for a business owner to concealed carry in their place of business here in CA.) Or can they force me to post signs saying the property is a "GFZ" even though I am not supportive of that stance?

i''l be honest, i really don't have a clear answer on those situations. the amusement park IMO, is too confusing for me to have an opinion on.

if you lease property to use for your purposes of business, and have a valid lease agreement, and unless there is a prior stipulation in the agreement, for the most part the leasee (you, VikingDad) are afforded the same rights as the property owner. but i am not an attorney and different states have different laws and regulations. and leasing public land may have a whole different set of regulations than leasing land from a private individual or a leasing company. in Texas, when you rent a house, you are afforded many of the same rights as the property owner.

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by axxe55

i''l be honest, i really don't have a clear answer on those situations. the amusement park IMO, is too confusing for me to have an opinion on.

if you lease property to use for your purposes of business, and have a valid lease agreement, and unless there is a prior stipulation in the agreement, for the most part the leasee (you, VikingDad) are afforded the same rights as the property owner. but i am not an attorney and different states have different laws and regulations. and leasing public land may have a whole different set of regulations than leasing land from a private individual or a leasing company. in Texas, when you rent a house, you are afforded many of the same rights as the property owner.

Just for the record I do agree with you insofar as the simple definition of private property is concerned, but what concerns me are these not so well defined areas. The mall in particular.

Also for clarification I am in CA, so much of this does not apply here, but it does interest me as to what things are like out in the rest of the country. Here in CA as far as I know we do not have GFZ's because CCWs are so difficult to obtain, but since I do not have a CCW, and I do not go to malls or theaters, I guess it is a moot point for me so I do not pay attention to signs anyhow.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

Just for the record I do agree with you insofar as the simple definition of private property is concerned, but what concerns me are these not so well defined areas. The mall in particular.

Also for clarification I am in CA, so much of this does not apply here, but it does interest me as to what things are like out in the rest of the country. Here in CA as far as I know we do not have GFZ's because CCWs are so difficult to obtain, but since I do not have a CCW, and I do not go to malls or theaters, I guess it is a moot point for me so I do not pay attention to signs anyhow.

now this is strictly my opinion and not legal advice of any sort, but IMO, the mall should be a Non-GFZ to begin with, unless they implement security measures to ensure the safety of the people who shop there. now if said mall is a non-GFZ, then the individual business' should have the right to decide if they want to prohibit CC or not. now if that mall has several shoe stores and half of them are prohibiting CC, then i would do business with those who didn't prohibit CC. i feel those who want to prohibit CC have that right, whether i agree or disagree. this strictly my opinion and the way i feel about it.

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by axxe55

now this is strictly my opinion and not legal advice of any sort, but IMO, the mall should be a Non-GFZ to begin with, unless they implement security measures to ensure the safety of the people who shop there. now if said mall is a non-GFZ, then the individual business' should have the right to decide if they want to prohibit CC or not. now if that mall has several shoe stores and half of them are prohibiting CC, then i would do business with those who didn't prohibit CC. i feel those who want to prohibit CC have that right, whether i agree or disagree. this strictly my opinion and the way i feel about it.

Fair enough, and I agree.

[Tackleberry1]

I think reasonable people could agree that there is a huge difference between the Private Property we live in and the Private Property we conduct business in.

As a home owner, anyone entering my home by invitation has a reasonable expectation of safety...especially is they know me well...

That same expectation does not exist in any place of business with public access.

Courts have ruled more than once that no property owner or government can be held liable for failing to protect us from criminal attack. These rulings make it very clear that I have no moral obligation to observe the "no gun" wishes of any property owner who is inviting the public through there doors.

Period...

Tack