The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Stop talking about carrying a gun like it is a historically persecuted minority status. It's bullshit. In particular, when you're carrying, you are not the vulnerable party. Act like a grown up and take responsibility for your actions. If you can't take your gun someplace, don't go. If you would like to take your gun there but are prohibited, perhaps express that to the owner of the establishment and they may see it your way. If you whine that you have rights and should universally be allowed to do what you want on someone else's property, then you're just a brat living in a fantasy land.

+1 in general, however I would refrain from stating that in general beyond gun rights. Some property should not be owned period by an individual or individuals.

Basically, Adastra, it's your home, forbid whatever the hell you want to in it.

Fukshot wrote: That's damn right! If I want to have a business that has a certain kind of environment (welcome to my new pants-less hardware store, serving the carpentry needs of my fellow no-pants enthusiasts) I can do that. It is my choice to run my business that way. I can't make it only for white people without pants, but I can refuse to allow pants in my hardware store.

A no-pants hardware store? With nails and saws and chisels and shit? NOPE! Already been circumcised once, than you very much!

ErikO wrote:Ok, how about this. Public transportation that runs through some of the most dangerous parts of your city but it's a felony offense for nonLEO or non security folks to carry concealed even if they have a state permit?

That is the current situation here in St Louis. Its worse to be armed on the bus than to try and bring a gun or knife into a federal courtroom.

I think there is a very good argument for allowing CC on public transit and some fairly good arguments for not allowing it. I don't think there is legal recourse besides attempting to change the policy. I could be wrong about that, but it gets in to details of whether the transportation authority is an arm of local government and, if so, does the government interest in what happens on transport trump the self-defense rights of those who must use transit? That's a pretty complex legal decision and is not anywhere as clearly settled as my no-pants hardware store.

Fukshot wrote:

ErikO wrote:Ok, how about this. Public transportation that runs through some of the most dangerous parts of your city but it's a felony offense for nonLEO or non security folks to carry concealed even if they have a state permit?

That is the current situation here in St Louis. Its worse to be armed on the bus than to try and bring a gun or knife into a federal courtroom.

I think there is a very good argument for allowing CC on public transit and some fairly good arguments for not allowing it. I don't think there is legal recourse besides attempting to change the policy. I could be wrong about that, but it gets in to details of whether the transportation authority is an arm of local government and, if so, does the government interest in what happens on transport trump the self-defense rights of those who must use transit? That's a pretty complex legal decision and is not anywhere as clearly settled as my no-pants hardware store.

I do agree, privately-managed public transit is a much different animal than needing to shop with a tool belt.

To make it even worse, the transit in question goes between a gun friendly state and the last 'disarmed' states in the Union. Transit security have 9mm Barettas and Tasers but don't carry CS spray, so at least there's that.

It is funny how many folks are far more afraid of the legal gun carriers than the illegal gun carriers on our mass transit here. Personally, I'd feel better if I were able to carry a self-defense tool that had a range greater than 6" past my hand when I leave the relative safety of the bus for my neighborhood; so far so good, I just hope it continues along those lines.

ErikO wrote:It is funny how many folks are far more afraid of the legal gun carriers than the illegal gun carriers on our mass transit here. Personally, I'd feel better if I were able to carry a self-defense tool that had a range greater than 6" past my hand when I leave the relative safety of the bus for my neighborhood; so far so good, I just hope it continues along those lines.

I'm one of those folks. Cops make me nervous. 16 year old kid with a .25 tucked in his jeans? No worries. The kid is probably just trying to make a living in the only viable economy available to him. The cop is an enforcer for the powers that be and considers a good number of my neighbors to be "the problem". That's the world I live in.

ErikO wrote:It is funny how many folks are far more afraid of the legal gun carriers than the illegal gun carriers on our mass transit here. Personally, I'd feel better if I were able to carry a self-defense tool that had a range greater than 6" past my hand when I leave the relative safety of the bus for my neighborhood; so far so good, I just hope it continues along those lines.

In that case, you're supposed to do what Crocodile Dundee did.

Fukshot wrote:

ErikO wrote:It is funny how many folks are far more afraid of the legal gun carriers than the illegal gun carriers on our mass transit here. Personally, I'd feel better if I were able to carry a self-defense tool that had a range greater than 6" past my hand when I leave the relative safety of the bus for my neighborhood; so far so good, I just hope it continues along those lines.

I'm one of those folks. Cops make me nervous. 16 year old kid with a .25 tucked in his jeans? No worries. The kid is probably just trying to make a living in the only viable economy available to him. The cop is an enforcer for the powers that be and considers a good number of my neighbors to be "the problem". That's the world I live in.

True. I am sure that your experience in Oakland is similar to my experience in LA. Most of the homeboys were okay, just trying to make it home alive. As long as you didn't "mad dog" them or claim the wrong place, they were chill. The police were the ones that stopped me all the time when I was driving my beater Mazda 626 and put me on the curb before telling me "watch yourself out there" and letting me get along on my way.

We need to remember that discrimination is for the most part legal and accepted. You can discriminate from people coming to your business with no money and no clothes. Or against people who are behaving in a way that you as a proprietor, do not like. You cannot discriminate solely on the basis of gender, race, or other protected class. The "no women in pants" thing would fail unless you made it a blanket, "no pants" thing as fukshot said. Gun ownership and carry is not a protected class.

rolandson wrote:I am not sure I accept that a swiss army knife or a leatherman is actually armed anymore than one bringing a hammer would be considered armed.

I haven't any issues other than the normal precautions that come with having one's life and lives of his family threatened.

Simply put, if I don't know you, you aren't coming into my home...if you know me, then I know that you would respect me such that you would not bring a weapon into my home...or I yours...after all, what need would I have for a weapon in the home of a friend, or they in mine?

I have a concealed carry permit but I very, very rarely carry; therefore, your rather interesting house rules would be no problem for me. I am curious though, if traveling by foot, aren't you leaving your friends somewhat vulnerable while in transit to and from your home?

I do not go where I am not wanted. I won't carry someplace that has a "no guns" sign (unless I don't see it, which is an accident). I also don't broadcast my carry.

I used to fix computers on customer premises. This included houses, businesses, and the like. If there was a "no gun" sign, I wouldn't fix their shit. If they didn't have a "no gun" sign and didn't tell me "no guns" then I carried in their homes. I will not go out of my way to tell people I'm armed unless I'm open carrying, which is not something I do very often (going to the range or traipsing through the woods).

a gun irony for me is being given a warning on a different gunboard for 'circumventing swear words,' in other words, typing out 'sh*t.'

hey everyone, let's scream and fight like hell for 2A rights and to hell with anyone's 1A rights. Team America, fuck yeah!

Wow, lots of emotions flying around here, I think, and some interesting takes on the law.. If I carry I carry wherever I am allowed to, period. Your business, your home if i am invited, your funeral. If you post a sign that says no guns, I will probably not do business with you, both within our rights. If I am invited into your home but you tell me I cannot carry, and we are merely acquaintances. I will most likely decline. I carry for the eventuality. I carry in my own home or have a gun somewhere really close. Just for the eventuality. Neighbors have had visits, not invited, nothing serious yet, but I decided to get my CCW just for the eventuality. Seems to me that could happen in your home so I would surely like to make sure we came out ahead in that eventuality. But while i would not disarm to visit you, I respect your right to make the rules for your home.

paul

AdAstra wrote:

JayFromPA wrote:I ask you to shift away from that stance, because it uses a default of "You will have to make me stop discriminating against X be putting it in the law". That default allows you to make the effort to invite the general public to your ice cream stand and then turn away all women that wear pants. Silly? Yes. Legal? Well, pants aren't protected by the letter of the law so to use the exact same legal mechanism that you use:
Until a law comes up that states the right to wear pants extends to privately owned places, against the owners' wishes, and supersedes the owners' right to keep pants away from his property, then you just keep the hell out of places where you and your pants are not welcome.

This is the world you create when you require the law to prohibit discrimination against every little possible elemental facet of the general public, that same general public that you have specifically invited onto your place of business. Do we really need to have a growing list of protected classes of people? Gender, orientation, race, creed, religion, disability... Where does it end? By your mechanism, it is possible to discriminate against men who wear kilts simply because discrimination against men in skirt-like clothing isn't listed by the law.

Again, you are still thinking about it in terms of criminal discrimination. Women with pants is sexual discrimination.

Quick interjection, the internet ate an edit of that when I reworded into a blanket ban on pants. Women with pants, men with pants, funny circus bears on unicycles wearing pants. No sexual component, just an abhorrence of pants. Evil evil pants that aren't specifically listed as protected by law, therefore a ban on pants is all wonderfully legal! Woohoo! Let's ban skirts next! Make everyone wear a tunic in order to abide by both the pants and skirt ban! And before you say anyone that does so ensures their business failure, what if it were put in place by walmart, where in some places they are the only biz in town that sells food? Abide by a ban on pants and skirts in order to eat? WAHOO THAT'S LEGAL and all fine by you, as you endorse the idea of if it isn't listed as protected than it's fine to be a method of discrimination. Yay you. You going to open a tunic store if that happens?

AdAstra wrote:My point is that in fact, there is only a very small set of unlawful discrimination that people don't already practice. Hence these are already acceptable by standard societal norms. Let's think of another example to your ice cream stand analogy, say people who wear hats. Say my ice cream stand refuses to serve people wearing hats. That is perfectly OK, because that same lawful discrimination allows me to refuse service to people who are unbathed and physically filthy with flies buzzing around them; those who are prolific swearers or obnoxious; those whom I have personal grudges against. If you're going to get people to give up the option of such personal, "lawful" discrimination, you're really getting them to give up their personal right of choice on lawful actions. So yes, the law needs to set out in detail what is and isn't appropriate, fair discrimination, to make sure it benefits the right people in the right way. What we call "moral" actions are subject to interpretation - who or what arbitrates on such actions being judged "right"?

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

I prefer to have the law read something like "An it harm none, do what you will"

It seems you prefer to have the law read something like
"Thou shalt not discriminate on grounds of
gender
disability
race
creed
nationality
sexual orientation
religion"

And since we're making a list, be prepared to have it expanded to as many traits as can be imagined:

"Genetic proclivity to an unhealthy physical condition (heart disease)
Genetic proclivity to a debilitating physical condition requiring medication (diabetes)
Acquired mental disorder (post traumatic stress disorder)
Genetic proclivity to an acute mental disorder"
And on
And On
And on, and on
Oh, and on.
Because where you start a list, someone else can add on to it. And where someone can add to it, others can remove lines from the list of "protected classes of people".

I'm really NOT all that kosher with the mechanism of a list of protected classes of people, specifically because I don't want me or my loved ones falling afoul of the list. You endorse the use of the list as a legal mechanism, what makes you so sure you aren't endorsing a machine that may at some time grind up your loved ones?

It's simple - if you don't protect all people, then you open up the population to being treated unfairly and with indignity.

Caliman73 wrote:

Fukshot wrote:

ErikO wrote:It is funny how many folks are far more afraid of the legal gun carriers than the illegal gun carriers on our mass transit here. Personally, I'd feel better if I were able to carry a self-defense tool that had a range greater than 6" past my hand when I leave the relative safety of the bus for my neighborhood; so far so good, I just hope it continues along those lines.

I'm one of those folks. Cops make me nervous. 16 year old kid with a .25 tucked in his jeans? No worries. The kid is probably just trying to make a living in the only viable economy available to him. The cop is an enforcer for the powers that be and considers a good number of my neighbors to be "the problem". That's the world I live in.

True. I am sure that your experience in Oakland is similar to my experience in LA. Most of the homeboys were okay, just trying to make it home alive. As long as you didn't "mad dog" them or claim the wrong place, they were chill. The police were the ones that stopped me all the time when I was driving my beater Mazda 626 and put me on the curb before telling me "watch yourself out there" and letting me get along on my way.

We need to remember that discrimination is for the most part legal and accepted. You can discriminate from people coming to your business with no money and no clothes. Or against people who are behaving in a way that you as a proprietor, do not like. You cannot discriminate solely on the basis of gender, race, or other protected class. The "no women in pants" thing would fail unless you made it a blanket, "no pants" thing as fukshot said. Gun ownership and carry is not a protected class.

It is here in MO. /facepalm

It's funny how people forbid firearms in their businesses when the only people it really applies to are "law-abiding" respectful citizens who wish no harm. Do you really think that criminals who are carrying illegally would abide by these rules?

When I see a sign posted at a business saying that firearms are prohibited they tend to lose my business since it's a perfect place for some psycho to shoot up, knowing that there are probably no armed citizens inside.

axel wrote:It's funny how people forbid firearms in their businesses when the only people it really applies to are "law-abiding" respectful citizens who wish no harm. Do you really think that criminals who are carrying illegally would abide by these rules?

When I see a sign posted at a business saying that firearms are prohibited they tend to lose my business since it's a perfect place for some psycho to shoot up, knowing that there are probably no armed citizens inside.

This. I'm down in Milwaukee at the moment and I almost went into a mall in Glendale BUT it says "no guns on these premises." These people are morons. The people who listen to the sign are the people you shouldn't be worrying about!

Knowing the lack of training and relative inexperience required to obtain a CHL in Oregon is all the incentive that I need to forbid persons other than myself from being armed in my home or business.

Oddly, I am not alone...most if not all gun shops around here prohibit carrying and every range I have visited in the area requires that all guns to be transported through the front door unloaded, in a case and absolutely no holstered weapons.

The simple truth is that I do not trust the judgment of most gun owners. And, as most of the gun owners I know of also happen to be republican, it seems to me that such an assessment is well founded.

KVoimakas wrote: This. I'm down in Milwaukee at the moment and I almost went into a mall in Glendale BUT it says "no guns on these premises." These people are morons. The people who listen to the sign are the people you shouldn't be worrying about!

Bullshit. I worry about criminals and those who don't know how to use their guns properly, and/or are not aware of when and where they can lawfully use their guns, who don't have the temperament and mental aptitude for carry, and those who have had no training in marksmanship whatsoever. If you can guarantee that all legal gun carriers are proficient with their weapons, marksmanship, and the law, sure your statement stands. However, the reality is far, far from it.

Sure, criminals will carry anywhere they want. That's why they are criminals. But do you really expect malls to publicly endorse everyone who can carry, to do so, and open the place up for the possibility of gunfights? Lawyers have as much say in "no guns" edicts as the owners.

AdAstra wrote:

KVoimakas wrote: This. I'm down in Milwaukee at the moment and I almost went into a mall in Glendale BUT it says "no guns on these premises." These people are morons. The people who listen to the sign are the people you shouldn't be worrying about!

Bullshit. I worry about criminals and those who don't know how to use their guns properly, and/or are not aware of when and where they can lawfully use their guns, who don't have the temperament and mental aptitude for carry, and those who have had no training in marksmanship whatsoever. If you can guarantee that all legal gun carriers are proficient with their weapons, marksmanship, and the law, sure your statement stands. However, the reality is far, far from it.

Sure, criminals will carry anywhere they want. That's why they are criminals. But do you really expect malls to publicly endorse everyone who can carry, to do so, and open the place up for the possibility of gunfights? Lawyers have as much say in "no guns" edicts as the owners.

Actually, I expect these places in Wisconsin to fall by the wayside, just like they did in other shall issue states. In all of the malls I've been in, I've not seen ANY 'no firearms' signs at the entrance to the mall. It's been up to each individual store. (The exception, of course, is the Glendale mall I'm talking about in the section you quoted.)

To get back to your comment: do you think people who don't have the temperament and mental aptitude to carry are going to say "Oh, no guns? Guess I'll just leave it in the car then..." Seriously? I know I won't go there (shop there, whatever) but how many people do you think will do just what that guy in Aldies did? Carry illegally "just in case" something happens. It's concealed; no one's going to know it's there unless you actually use it.

I really expect malls to publicly endorse a gunfight over another massacre in a 'gun free zone' that turns out not to have been gun free due to some criminal.

JayFromPA wrote: It seems you prefer to have the law read something like
"Thou shalt not discriminate on grounds of
gender
disability
race
creed
nationality
sexual orientation
religion"

The law already does read like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... ted_States

JayFromPA wrote: And since we're making a list, be prepared to have it expanded to as many traits as can be imagined:

Funny, that ad absurdum event hasn't happened yet in this country's history....

JayFromPA wrote: "Genetic proclivity to an unhealthy physical condition (heart disease)
Genetic proclivity to a debilitating physical condition requiring medication (diabetes)
Acquired mental disorder (post traumatic stress disorder)
Genetic proclivity to an acute mental disorder"
And on
And On
And on, and on
Oh, and on.
Because where you start a list, someone else can add on to it. And where someone can add to it, others can remove lines from the list of "protected classes of people".

... because making something into law is subjected to a process, which involves scrutiny and votes. So no, someone else can't just "add to it", or just "remove from it" with exaggerated arguments and nonsensical items.

JayFromPA wrote: I'm really NOT all that kosher with the mechanism of a list of protected classes of people, specifically because I don't want me or my loved ones falling afoul of the list.

You're already living in that system, and have been all your life so far.

JayFromPA wrote: You endorse the use of the list as a legal mechanism, what makes you so sure you aren't endorsing a machine that may at some time grind up your loved ones?

You mean for example, if some of my loved ones become criminals and become exempt from gun ownership rights? I have no problems with that.

Your issue seems to be, people can't be trusted to decide what's right and wrong by defining what unfair discrimination is, so your solution is let's not decide, and just assume that any kind of discrimination is unfair. This is not reality, this is the state of perfection that religions urge their followers to attain. If you, personally, can say that you don't discriminate with anyone, and that you can invite anyone/everyone in your house, be they obnoxious, vile, racists, pedophiles, wife beaters, rapists, then you won't be hypocritical in advocating for such a Nirvana state of affairs. But if you can't do that, then you've just highlighted reality as fact. So blanket coverage of protection from discrimination is nonsensical. However, there are many universally accepted definitions and classifications of discrimination that most of the population can agree with.

JayFromPA wrote: It's simple - if you don't protect all people, then you open up the population to being treated unfairly and with indignity.

That's not the argument you were promoting. Your argument was not about protecting all people. Your argument was about taking away the rights of others to choose and pick whom they want to do business with, in their own premises, to a certain legal extent. Put very simply: if you have a restaurant, will you serve neo-Nazis, convicted pedophiles, or the ex-con who went to prison for raping your wife, just like everybody else? That is really what you are arguing "YES" for. Why do you want to take away the right of others to refuse service to people they do not want to serve, provided it does not break universally accepted laws that define limits of discrimination?

KVoimakas wrote: To get back to your comment: do you think people who don't have the temperament and mental aptitude to carry are going to say "Oh, no guns? Guess I'll just leave it in the car then..." Seriously? I know I won't go there (shop there, whatever) but how many people do you think will do just what that guy in Aldies did? Carry illegally "just in case" something happens. It's concealed; no one's going to know it's there unless you actually use it.

It's not about whether people will follow the sign, it's about making it known what the premises' rules are, and not providing a convenient excuse for those who do carry guns and use them negligently/criminally, that "oh, I thought guns were allowed there and so the owners would have implicitly accepted the consequences of using guns there and the resulting damage, injuries and casualties caused, whether by criminals or by incompetent gun carriers".

KVoimakas wrote: I really expect malls to publicly endorse a gunfight over another massacre in a 'gun free zone' that turns out not to have been gun free due to some criminal.

If you can point to a mall that explicitly trusts everyone and anyone (non-LEO) who legally carry guns, to be able to engage in a gunfight that prevents a massacre and without causing any collateral casualties, then maybe you can be half-way realistic.

AdAstra wrote:

KVoimakas wrote: To get back to your comment: do you think people who don't have the temperament and mental aptitude to carry are going to say "Oh, no guns? Guess I'll just leave it in the car then..." Seriously? I know I won't go there (shop there, whatever) but how many people do you think will do just what that guy in Aldies did? Carry illegally "just in case" something happens. It's concealed; no one's going to know it's there unless you actually use it.

It's not about whether people will follow the sign, it's about making it known what the premises' rules are, and not providing a convenient excuse for those who do carry guns and use them negligently/criminally, that "oh, I thought guns were allowed there and so the owners would have implicitly accepted the consequences of using guns there and the resulting damage, injuries and casualties caused, whether by criminals or by incompetent gun carriers".

KVoimakas wrote: I really expect malls to publicly endorse a gunfight over another massacre in a 'gun free zone' that turns out not to have been gun free due to some criminal.

If you can point to a mall that explicitly trusts everyone and anyone (non-LEO) who legally carry guns, to be able to engage in a gunfight that prevents a massacre and without causing any collateral casualties, then maybe you can be half-way realistic.

So you're saying the no gun signs are to keep the owners from getting blamed for the actions of a concealed carry permit holder?

My point about the malls wasn't meant as a "malls do this" statement. What's better? Leaving all your customers defenseless and not having a chance to fight back or having the chance to fight back (and yes, I'm including the possibility of collateral damage here)?

KV, this is a pointless argument. AdAstra, Awake, and a few others here firmly believe that *they* are the only ones intelligent, sane, or trained enough to be qualified to defend themselves with a gun, and everyone else who carries or wants to carry is a lunatic loose cannon, who cannot be trusted and must be disarmed. It's a classically hypocritical stance.

I've experienced too much random violence to want to disarm those whom I trust, and therefore anyone I know and trust is welcome, no encouraged to carry in my home, in my car, when we go out to eat, etc. That's not to say that I encourage people to draw and handle their loaded weapons wherever or whenever they feel like it, but holstered guns rarely just go off.

Also, a lack of signage prohibiting weapons is absolutely NOT the equivalent of a sign saying "gunfights Ok", legally or philosophically.

AmirMortal wrote:KV, this is a pointless argument. AdAstra, Awake, and a few others here firmly believe that *they* are the only ones intelligent, sane, or trained enough to be qualified to defend themselves with a gun, and everyone else who carries or wants to carry is a lunatic loose cannon, who cannot be trusted and must be disarmed. It's a classically hypocritical stance.

I've experienced too much random violence to want to disarm those whom I trust, and therefore anyone I know and trust is welcome, no encouraged to carry in my home, in my car, when we go out to eat, etc. That's not to say that I encourage people to draw and handle their loaded weapons wherever or whenever they feel like it, but holstered guns rarely just go off.

Also, a lack of signage prohibiting weapons is absolutely NOT the equivalent of a sign saying "gunfights Ok", legally or philosophically.

You have valid points. The joke I make with close friends the first time they visit is "Hey, welcome to my home. Bathrooms are here, there and here's your firearm while you're on the premises."

My question: does a "No firearms" sign make the owners liable since they stripped me of my means of self defense? (Following the legal train of though from the previous comment)

My opinion is that, yes, prohibiting people from being armed and thus defending themselves means that you are ready, willing, and able to assume complete and total responsibility, legally and otherwise, for the ultimate safety of everyone who enters the premises.

AmirMortal wrote:My opinion is that, yes, prohibiting people from being armed and thus defending themselves means that you are ready, willing, and able to assume complete and total responsibility, legally and otherwise, for the ultimate safety of everyone who enters the premises.

that is the way that it is anyway; plus, i am responsible for everything a guest does or whoever the guest harms while on the premises...