Constitutional Carry question

[Subdeacon Joe]

Much of the problem lies with gun owners.  (snarling) "WELL I WON'T SET FOOT IN *****!"  but don't let the owners and management of that establishment know it.  If you just stop shopping there, so what?  If you tell them, in writing WHY you aren't shopping there, and that you are spreading the word to all your friends, that might make a difference.

Something I put together in about 2005 when CA had about a dozen anti-civil rights laws going through our Legislature.  With a change in numbers it can apply to the whole of our republic:
 

GET OFF YOUR COMPLACENCY AND DO YOUR PART!

In California there are at least 6,000,000 firearms owners, yet we have some of the most draconian and Byzantine firearms laws in the country.  Why?  Because too many of us are content to sit and complain but are unwilling to take half an hour a week to do anything about it.  Most of us would rather stand around at the range or in a gun shop and spend a couple of hours debating the merits of .300 Magnum over the latest .270 super short ultra mag.  Can you find five minutes a day to support your civil rights? That is all it takes.  If you can’t give that little amount of time, you deserve to have your guns legislated away from you.  Imagine if in your assembly district EVERY gun owner called his or her assembly member once a week to complain about restrictive firearms legislation.  Say there are only 15,000 gun owners in your district (with 80 districts that comes to 1.2 million, a far cry from all the legal gun owners in the state) and each one makes a call once a week which takes 3 minutes of staff time.  It would take 750 man-hours per WEEK just to listen to gun owners complain about restrictive gun laws.  That would mean that every member of the Assembly would need almost 19 full time staff members to do nothing but pay attention to our calls.  Think they might hear us?  After all, politicians are concerned with numbers.

 

There are five calls you need to make each week – to one assembly member, one state senator, one member of the House of Representatives, and two members of the US Senate.  That is what it will take, each of us calling once a week to make our views known.

 

Yes, you may belong to the NRA or Gun Owners of America, or the California Rifle and Pistol Association, but so what?  Do you think that absolves you from taking personal responsibility for what happens?  YOU are responsible for protecting your rights.  No one else can do it for you. 

 

According to both Gallup and Pew about 42% of all households have at least one firearm.  Unfortunately only about 1% of that 42%, at my guestimate, bother to call or write their elected representatives.  Imagine the power we would have if as a block we all made those calls and wrote those letters to the capons and wethers in office.  We'd be almost as powerful as the antis claim we are.

 

[Texas Maverick]

18 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Was at an Outback restaurant several years ago. We had just come off the range after a Saturday match and there were eight or ten of us, hungry and thirsty and looking for grub.

 

When I saw the sign prohibiting firearms, I asked the person at the door if they were providing security and protection for me and my party.  They went a got the manager who seemed put out when I repeated my query!!

 

I explained that we were interested in dining, but that unless Outback was providing active security that we weren’t willing to be without our own sidearms and would take our business elsewhere.

 

His retort was something to the effect of what we were scared of, to which several of us replied, almost in unison, “Not a damned thing!”

 

I later sent a letter to the Outback Corporate Office, complaining of their no firearms policy and describing our experience.

 

No one ever responded. I never thought that they would.

 

Our bunch spent some pretty good money at a Texas Roadhouse down the road a ways.

Our Outback here in the Austin, TX area don't have the firearm restriction. I was just there on Wednesday with my wife and daughter and was carrying as I always do. No issues. So maybe it is by area, city, state, etc or the management of that restaurant.

 

TM

[Texas Maverick]

15 hours ago, Anvil Al #59168 said:

 

 

You are right. Not sure why I put .08 .07. 

 

I never worry about the 51% signs as I never go into those places.

You might be surprised on what restaurants have that sign. We have a couple here in the Austin area that have the sign posted back in the bar area but not out front. Which isn't legally posting the sign. One in particular we like to go to for breakfast and never even noticed the sign because we never went into the back area where the bar is. I only noticed it one day when going to the restroom which was also in the back. Needless to say I continue to carry because I only do concealed carry and they don't know I have one on me plus their sign is illegally posted so no one even knows that they have it under most situations. 

 

TM

[Texas Joker]

14 hours ago, Pb Mark said:

 

 

Selective discrimination is what you just said you felt was acceptable though....   I need to say no more.

Yes selective discrimination is practiced by everybody. Some preffer classical music some like rap or r&b or country.

 

Some of us like to carry guns others preffer not to. And we all freely choose who to associate with.

 

Discrimination is inherent to the human condition. It can be good or bad depending what it's based on and how far it's carried.

 

To just apparently use 'discrimination' as a slur is both hypocritical and baseless. 

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

32 minutes ago, Texas Maverick said:

Our Outback here in the Austin, TX area don't have the firearm restriction. I was just there on Wednesday with my wife and daughter and was carrying as I always do. No issues. So maybe it is by area, city, state, etc or the management of that restaurant.

 

TM

Outback Steakhouse is a national franchise outfit.  Most franchise holders have multiple locations, generally in a certain area.  The franchisor usually has set rules that the franchisee is expected to follow and may or may not enforce those rules, depending upon location, the size of the franchise, or by prearranged agreements at their discretion.

 

The Outback restaurants in my area, by all accounts, prohibit carry, whether concealed or otherwise. I’ve visited several and friends have reported on others and all of them here are the same.

[Cypress Sun]

2 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Outback Steakhouse is a national franchise outfit.  Most franchise holders have multiple locations, generally in a certain area.  The franchisor usually has set rules that the franchisee is expected to follow and may or may not enforce those rules, depending upon location, the size of the franchise, or by prearranged agreements at their discretion.

 

The Outback restaurants in my area, by all accounts, prohibit carry, whether concealed or otherwise. I’ve visited several and friends have reported on others and all of them here are the same.

 

All of the Outbacks' around here are the same way, at least, that's what my gal tells me...I guess I've never seen the sign.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

I assume the problems  encountered in some of these establishments involve open carry, not concealed.

[El Chapo]

15 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

I don't know about that. While it would be difficult to change one's skin color, it's far too easy to untuck a shirt or stow your gun in your vehicle while shopping there. I see much less incentive for change if the store owner doesn't see any change in his clientele. If he doesn't know that he's losing money, or more particularly if he's NOT because it's too easy to comply, he'll have no reason to change.

When my wife got a "Costco" card, I decided to see if they had changed their anti gun ways. Nope. I barely got in the door when I was told I couldn't enter while carrying. I told them that if I couldn't bring my gun in, I wouldn't be bringing my money in.

 

I'm talking about in terms of the law, which is the question presented.  I think we all know how the "no" followed by racial slurs would be considered.  The law has a way of changing people's minds over time.  The people who wanted to put up that sign in the 1950s probably still want to put up that sign.  They don't because public accommodation laws, which were considered an insult to property rights in their time, are now considered the norm and all decent people agree that it is not permissible, perhaps even immoral, to be outwardly discriminatory.

 

There have been high profile incidents of people and their families murdered in front of them because they left their gun in the car to respect someone's property rights.  It only takes a few of those before the public starts to understand and minds change.  Property rights, for all of relevant legal history, have been shaped by what the government wants to let you do with your property (or not).  One big example in the last 20 years alone is smoking inside bars and restaurants.  What was once the norm is now not just unacceptable, but banned.

 

Even in just the last 10 years, the overall attitude of jury panels in my community toward carrying guns in public has changed remarkably.  Just like Brown vs. Board of Education changed the world in 1954, decisions like Heller, McDonald, and Bruen have influenced moderate people's thinking even if they weren't paying attention to the legal changes as they happened.

 

But to respond to your point more directly, property rights do not really care if you can change the characteristic or not.  If you came to my house and I asked you to leave, it matters not whether I asked you to leave because you had a darker suntan than I do or because you're carrying a gun.  I have basically an absolute right to require you to leave immediately or you can be arrested, and depending on the circumstances, I might even be privileged in using force against you to make you leave if you refused to leave.

 

My hypothetical simply proposes that me asking you to do so at my business, motivated by dislike toward those who carry a gun might someday be viewed similarly to those motivated by racial animus or discrimination against intellectually disabled people.  People certainly have changed their mind about race and disability, and they implicate the same rights.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

1 minute ago, El Chapo said:

My hypothetical simply proposes that me asking you to do so at my business, motivated by dislike toward those who carry a gun might someday be viewed similarly to those motivated by racial animus or discrimination against intellectually disabled people.  People certainly have changed their mind about race and disability, and they implicate the same rights.

I hope that you are right.

[Texas Joker]

20 hours ago, Pb Mark said:

 

 

Selective discrimination is what you just said you felt was acceptable though....   I need to say no more.

If people viewed self protection rights as strongly as they did voting rights it would be a different ballgame.

 

However they have been indoctrinated to the notion that the state should protect them and to 'leave it to the professionals' 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

15 hours ago, Texas Joker said:

If people viewed sleep protection rights as strongly as they did voting rights it would be a different ballgame.' 

If people cared as much about politics as they do about their favorite sports team it would too. 

[El Chapo]

1 minute ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

If people cared as much about politics as they do about their favorite sports team it would to. 

 

I don't know about the people you interact with, but while I have friends who are serious about sports, most all the people I interact with care a whole lot more about politics than sports, even the ones who don't talk about it.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

12 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

 

I don't know about the people you interact with, but while I have friends who are serious about sports, most all the people I interact with care a whole lot more about politics than sports, even the ones who don't talk about it.

The people I interact with do too. But I think that if more people got serious about politics, the country wouldn't be in the shape it is. Gas wouldn't cost what it does, inflation wouldn't be where it is, etc. 

People spend hundreds of dollars on sports: tickets, jerseys, flags, watch parties. Heck, some people buy the largest TV that they can JUST to watch sports. But they don't pay attention to politics until about a week before Election Day. And then, IF they bother to vote, they just vote for the guy that has the letter that they prefer beside their name. 

[El Chapo]

1 hour ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

The people I interact with do too. But I think that if more people got serious about politics, the country wouldn't be in the shape it is. Gas wouldn't cost what it does, inflation wouldn't be where it is, etc. 

People spend hundreds of dollars on sports: tickets, jerseys, flags, watch parties. Heck, some people buy the largest TV that they can JUST to watch sports. But they don't pay attention to politics until about a week before Election Day. And then, IF they bother to vote, they just vote for the guy that has the letter that they prefer beside their name. 

 

I don't know if that is true either.  Inflation is caused by bad monetary policy.  The current fed chairman was put there by Trump and kept there by Biden.  Considering those are the only two people who had any hope of winning the 2020 election, I don't think more voters or interest would have made a difference there at all.  We were getting the same bad monetary policy regardless of who won that election.

 

Gas prices are a market equilibrium, with fuel being both fungible and highly competitive in our economy.  Fuel is the virtual definition of a competitive market.  There is virtually nothing that any politician can do to make a meaningful change in that.  I'm sure you're going to cite some sort of regulatory decision some President made as contrary, but given the size of the worldwide market for oil, those decisions have a minuscule effect on gas prices compared to market forces.  The media just wants you to be enraged so they talk about those regulatory decisions.  Those who buy and sell crude oil for a living view that as noise compared to how much oil is being produced and what the demand is for it.

 

Some people, maybe the people you interact with, pay a lot of attention to sports.  I recently started a new job and my boss and his boss talk about sports all the time, right from one sports season to the next.  Almost all of the other friends I have from virtually every other aspect of life seldom ever talk about sports or have any interest, to include SASS.  I can't recall anyone ever talking about the outcome of a sporting event at a match.  I can recall many occasions where they have talked about the culture wars, economy, and other matters of political interest, regardless of whether it was an election year.  I think you just have sample bias.  Sports are of wide interest to many people, but they are nothing compared to what people think about matters of law, morality, the economy, and the ability to make a fair living.

 

Our country thrives despite, not because, of its government.  I think you're giving government far too much credit.  Interestingly, there was a time in my lifetime where a President very sternly told the camera that the role of government was to get out of the way.  Now we blame every consequence of everything that happens on the government.  I really can't point to where that changed, but I find it tremendously strange that people blame so many things on the government.  Short of there being a war, most of what the government does is an insignificant and immaterial waste of everyone's time and the productive people's money.

[Pb Mark]

2 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

If people cared as much about politics as they do about their favorite sports team it would to. 

This has been a good, enjoyable topic and it has given me thought about politics vs my favorite sports team... The KC Chiefs.

 

Need to frisk Taylor Swift next time she shows up at a game.  Bet she is packing heat.  Time to figure out where the gun is...

 

Can't be serious all of the time.  

 

[Blackwater 53393]

5 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I assume the problems  encountered in some of these establishments involve open carry, not concealed.

In this case, not a valid assumption.  We were dressed cowboy, but nobody was openly heeled.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

5 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I assume the problems  encountered in some of these establishments involve open carry, not concealed.

Absolutely. I always open carry. I usually get compliments on my gun, and often thanked for doing so. On those rare occasions I CCW, nobody knows that I do.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

1 hour ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Absolutely. I always open carry. I usually get compliments on my gun, and often thanked for doing so. On those rare occasions I CCW, nobody knows that I do.

 Since I never open carry, I never am on the lookout for these 'no guns' signs, and I don't believe I've ever actually seen one in consequence.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

39 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

 Since I never open carry, I never am on the lookout for these 'no guns' signs, and I don't believe I've ever actually seen one in consequence.

I always look for them. If there is one, I don't go there.

[Blackwater 53393]

I often carry my sidearm openly.  Since in most cases I DON’T wear a jacket and ALWAYS wear my shirt tail tucked in because I often work around machinery that operates with exposed drives and moving parts that could snag loose clothing, it’s extremely inconvenient for me to wear a coat or jacket just to try to conceal my gun.

 

I have been thanked and complimented by neighbors, store personnel, clerks, other citizens, and even once or twice by police officers when I have done business in public.

 

I despise having to store or secure my sidearm when I have to enter places where carry is prohibited!  I won’t frequent eateries where it’s prohibited and I tell the management why! The nation is flooded with reports of guns stolen from cars, particularly in places where carry is precluded by law or by the owner/proprietor of the property/business!  Thieves KNOW that people have to leave their weapons behind and they concentrate their efforts on places where they know this is required!!

 

Even most of my medical professionals have moved into facilities that DO NOT prevent legal possession and carry of firearms! That’s a trend that I would like to see expand and accelerate!

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

By the way! If you knowingly carry your sidearm into a place that legally and openly prohibits that action , in many places you are in violation of the law!

 

 

[Rip Snorter]

The rare times I have to leave my gun in the car, it is secured as best I can.  I do not leave a magazine or a single cartridge.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

45 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

By the way! If you knowingly carry your sidearm into a place that legally and openly prohibits that action , in many places you are in violation of the law!

 Laws vary from state to state. There are laws that make it illegal to carry in certain places, such as bars, schools, and courtrooms. Those are positive laws that carry statutory penalties for violation; i.e, usually misdemeanors. It is unwise, at the very least, to violate these laws.

 

Then there are laws, civil in nature, which allow property owners, even those providing public accomodation, to disallow the carrying of guns. Violation of these laws generally means that the owner can tell you  to leave if he becomes aware you have a gun, and you must leave or be guilty of trespass. This is a different thing than violation of positive criminal law.

 

There are many variations. The forgoing is not legal advice, by any means. 

 

 

[El Chapo]

12 hours ago, Texas Maverick said:

Our Outback here in the Austin, TX area don't have the firearm restriction. I was just there on Wednesday with my wife and daughter and was carrying as I always do. No issues. So maybe it is by area, city, state, etc or the management of that restaurant.

 

TM

 

Here in New Mexico, it's a felony to carry a firearm into a liquor establishment, so Texas Roadhouse couldn't let you carry in there even if they wanted to, open or concealed.

[Blackwater 53393]

In Tennessee, you can carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, so long as you don’t consume alcohol.

 

If the establishment doesn’t prohibit carry, you can. The folks at the Texas Roadhouses here have always been very cordial with us when we visit! Logan’s and Longhorn are also welcoming when we dine with them.

[watab kid]

i dont announce that im carrying concealed - i dont print that either , its not concealed if you do that and that paints a target on you , the whole purpose of concealed is to stay anonymous , i ignore their signs - they can ask me to leave - no one has ever noticed or raised an issue , nor asked me to leave , im seldom unarmed , 

[Cypress Sun]

9 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

In Tennessee, you can carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, so long as you don’t consume alcohol.

 

If the establishment doesn’t prohibit carry, you can. The folks at the Texas Roadhouses here have always been very cordial with us when we visit! Logan’s and Longhorn are also welcoming when we dine with them.

 

In Florida, you can carry in restaurants that serve alcohol as long as you stay in the restaurant portion of the restaurant and not the bar section. You can consume alcohol but if you have the need to use, or display, your firearm...it could become a problem if you're at or past what the State considers intoxicated (.08 bal).

 

If I am traveling, I always read up on the gun and carry laws of the States that I am traveling to and through. There are some States/jurisdictions that I would purposefully drive around to get to my location. If you are traveling to Florida for a visit, we have (concealed) Constitutional Carry. I suggest reading up on Florida's gun laws just to be on the safe side. I highly recommend a book called Florida Firearms - Law, Use and Ownership by Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq. It's not a cheap book, but it is a concise and clear layout of Florida gun laws and nuances within. It is also written in easy to understand language and the print is a larger size for aging eyes.

[Texas Maverick]

On 12/9/2023 at 8:08 AM, Ozark Huckleberry said:

Disney World is an example in Florida. 
 

They ban, and enthusiastically enforce, gun bans on WDW property. 
 

If you carry one in in an otherwise legal manner (legally-concealed, for example) they will ‘trespass’ you — kick you off the property with permanent a ban from any future entry. But you won’t be prosecuted.
 

 But if you go back again and get caught, with or without a gun, it’s, ‘trespass after warning,’ which is a whole level of hurt past just being asked to leave. Forfeiture of anything associated with the trespass (e.g., your cat in the parking lot), fines, jail.

 

And from what I’ve heard, they don’t have a lenient policy regarding signing a complaint against someone that violates their ban. 

they touch my cat and I will show them my gun. LOL

 

TM

[bgavin]

On 12/9/2023 at 2:51 PM, El Chapo said:

 

Inflation is caused by bad monetary policy.

 

Inflation is the direct result of printing money.

The gov't from Reagan forward prints fiat currency, fueled by debt and injected into the economy via give-away programs. 

[El Chapo]

1 hour ago, bgavin said:

Inflation is the direct result of printing money.

The gov't from Reagan forward prints fiat currency, fueled by debt and injected into the economy via give-away programs. 

 

That's not entirely true.  The term "printing money" refers to loose monetary policy.  It is not to be taken literally.  Monetary policy changes happen with minor changes in some number and a mouse click.

 

Whether increasing the money supply actually causes inflation depends on the velocity of money.  MV = PQ.

[bgavin]

In my opinion, it is entirely true.

When the gov't prints fiat currency, they increase M1.
Increased numbers of dollars in circulation means more dollars in competition for the same goods and services, and the prices go up.

Econ 101.

If we disagree, leave it at that.
I'm not here for a pissing contest.

 

 

[Gungadin]

Hard currency is not the problem.  Easy $ that creates inflation happens in many ways.  At the same time the Fed was trying to slow things down the administration was giving away $ further stimulating the economy.  That $ was largely created from thin air.  In addition when you give your bank $100 they only need to reserve some percentage.  They loan the rest.  Say $90 is loaned.  So your 100 is now $190.  But that guy or the next guy puts some of the $90 in the bank and it also gets loaned out at 90% of what is deposited.  Then as I remember there is the concept of velocity....how fast a dollar moves from person to person.  I bet we have gotten much faster since the cash and check days :-).

 

So the printing $'s is a very small issue.  It is all the digital money that is the issue.

 

I still don't get the farse where the government (FED) buys the government debt because nobody else wants it.  I wish my family could create $ that way.

 

And when the anti USA countries get their way the Dollar will cease being the reserve currency...oil is priced in dollars.  PROBLEM.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

4 hours ago, bgavin said:

Inflation is the direct result of printing money.

The gov't from Reagan forward prints fiat currency, fueled by debt and injected into the economy via give-away programs. 

I'm no economist but I bet it has something to do with the 3 TRILLION dollars of economic stimulus they pumped into the economy during the Covid pandemic.  I got a stimulus check from Trump and a year later, Biden.  This stimulus was passed by congress and signed off by the current president so none of them can claim it wasn't their fault.  It'll take a few years of elevated interest rates to ring this "stimulus" money out of the system.  

 

The Federal Reserve board is just reacting to what the politicians did and trying to keep the U.S. dollar under control.  Of course, we are now 33 Trillion dollars in debt with no plans to pay is down.  That's a whole other topic.

[Duffield, SASS #23454]

On 12/8/2023 at 4:18 PM, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Good luck with that.

Private property that you willingly and freely interact with has no obligation to protect you from occurances outside their direct control.

 

 

 

They have prevented me from protecting myself. 

That is what they will be sued for.

[Texas Maverick]

On 12/9/2023 at 10:18 PM, Blackwater 53393 said:

In Tennessee, you can carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, so long as you don’t consume alcohol.

 

If the establishment doesn’t prohibit carry, you can. The folks at the Texas Roadhouses here have always been very cordial with us when we visit! Logan’s and Longhorn are also welcoming when we dine with them.

I don't drink when out and carrying. I wait till I get home if I need a beer.

 

TM