Thread: Carrying Concealed When It's Prohibited

As you all know, there are many places where concealed carry is prohibited, either by the law (schools, churches, bars, etc.) or by the private property owners (malls, retail stores, etc.).

I have heard a number of arguments, mostly from secular libertarians, with whom I sympathize on many issues, who believe that disobedience to these laws or the property-owners is valid at some times.

Does anyone here agree? Any of you carry where it's "prohibited"? What is your justification?

If you think it's foolish and unjustified, say so as well. Just looking for input.

The first rule of Concealed Carry Club is you do not talk about Concealed Carry Club.

I suppose the defense would be that the Constitution trumps lesser laws; but that wouldn't necessarily apply with regard to owners of private property.

I believe that owners of private business need to provide a place to store your weapon if they have a prohibition on carrying them. If they do not provide this I believe they cannot prohibit you carrying legally. Other than that you should always obey carry laws.

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 09:53:48 EST-----

and laws on carrying vary from state to state.

Another question to ask is whether the stiff penalties for carrying a concealed weapon w/o a permit makes it worth the risk. As you're possibly sitting in jail for a few years, will you feel justified in having stood firmly on the Constitution?

Places like Malls and Retail stores must have it clearly posted. If I don't see a posting on the door I enter, then I have no qualms. However, if it is posted properly, I will usually take my business elsewhere. If that's not feasible, I lock it in the trunk of my car for that short time.

As you all know, there are many places where concealed carry is prohibited, either by the law (schools, churches, bars, etc.) or by the private property owners (malls, retail stores, etc.).

I have heard a number of arguments, mostly from secular libertarians, with whom I sympathize on many issues, who believe that disobedience to these laws or the property-owners is valid at some times.

Does anyone here agree? Any of you carry where it's "prohibited"? What is your justification?

The only time we should be "breaking" the laws, is when those laws force us to sin. Laws restricting the carrying of weapons in certain locations are not causing us to sin. Private property owners who desire for customers to not carry are not causing us to sin. I would abide by both restrictions.

Originally Posted by Gomarus

I will usually take my business elsewhere. If that's not feasible, I lock it in the trunk of my car for that short time.

Good point. Vote with your feet. If enough people agree, the private groups will eventually change.

While I keep my practices to myself I did find a little line from a retired Spec Ops / attorney / fire arms instructor fellow interesting:

'Better judged by twelve than carried by six.'

Originally Posted by sans nom

As you all know, there are many places where concealed carry is prohibited, either by the law (schools, churches, bars, etc.) or by the private property owners (malls, retail stores, etc.).

I have heard a number of arguments, mostly from secular libertarians, with whom I sympathize on many issues, who believe that disobedience to these laws or the property-owners is valid at some times.

Does anyone here agree? Any of you carry where it's "prohibited"? What is your justification?

The only time we should be "breaking" the laws, is when those laws force us to sin. Laws restricting the carrying of weapons in certain locations are not causing us to sin. Private property owners who desire for customers to not carry are not causing us to sin. I would abide by both restrictions.

Maybe we need to consider whether not carrying a gun is a sin...

Westminster Larger Catechism:

Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

I think if it is against the law but allowed by the constitution, then you shouldn't carry it until your leaders acknowledge the constitution and allow you to do so. Romans 13.

Originally Posted by Romans922

How did you miss this. You just bolded the wrong spots to answer your question

Maybe we need to consider whether not carrying a gun is a sin...

Westminster Larger Catechism:

Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

You are not to use unjust and unlawful means to protect life.

So if it is against the law of the state to carry then it would not be a means of grace one should use.

When they pass the law here as they did in UK And Aus, to ban guns will you submit to your govt you live under and turn in your gun or lie or shoot it out with them?

Originally Posted by E Nomine

The first rule of Concealed Carry Club is you do not talk about Concealed Carry Club.

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

. . . When they pass the law here as they did in UK And Aus, to ban guns will you submit to your govt you live under and turn in your gun or lie or shoot it out with them?

I will not advertise my response in advance.

Is revolution against "a government gone too far" ever biblical?

Originally Posted by E Nomine

The first rule of Concealed Carry Club is you do not talk about Concealed Carry Club.

I think this about says it all.



Gangsters and criminals still carry in those places. Just last year there was an innocent bystander shot in the local mall in Fayetteville. Remember: Like all gun control measures, all they do is disarm the law abiding folk... giving the criminals a monopoly on gun possession.

-----Added 4/8/2009 at 08:05:31 EST-----

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Is revolution against "a government gone too far" ever biblical?

Only if a few 100,000 are involved. Otherwise you're just a criminal.

When they pass the law here as they did in UK And Aus, to ban guns will you submit to your govt you live under and turn in your gun or lie or shoot it out with them?

I will turn in my guns.

Originally Posted by gene_mingo

I believe that owners of private business need to provide a place to store your weapon if they have a prohibition on carrying them. If they do not provide this I believe they cannot prohibit you carrying legally.

You are incorrect. Private property rights precede all other rights. They are the foundation of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What right do you have to tell a person what they can do with their property? Does that mean I must allow smokers because smoking is legal? I must allow pornography, because that is legal?

I am all for concealed carry laws. But the above statement goes way too far.

to Fred.

Private property is private property, and if a property owner doesn't want you carrying while on his property, you shouldn't. It's absolutely his right (or it should be) to require that of you.

When they pass the law here as they did in UK And Aus, to ban guns will you submit to your govt you live under and turn in your gun or lie or shoot it out with them?

I will practice civil disobedience.

Those who plan to turn in their guns..give me a call first. I gots a place fer dem. lol

So when the F.E.D.S. come looking for my guns on my property, I can tell them to get rid of their guns?

Can we start a PB Militia? The PB will rise again!

Originally Posted by Romans922

So when the F.E.D.S. come looking for my guns on my property, I can tell them to get rid of their guns?

Absolutely, unless they have a warrant. That is part of the Constitution too.

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

. . . When they pass the law here as they did in UK And Aus, to ban guns will you submit to your govt you live under and turn in your gun or lie or shoot it out with them?

I will not advertise my response in advance.

Is revolution against "a government gone too far" ever biblical?

Not according to Paul in Romans 13. "There is no power but that which has been ordained by God." He who resists that power is therefore resisting an ordinance of God.

Seems pretty clear to me what the Christian's response should be.

Originally Posted by Skyler

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

. . . When they pass the law here as they did in UK And Aus, to ban guns will you submit to your govt you live under and turn in your gun or lie or shoot it out with them?

I will not advertise my response in advance.

Is revolution against "a government gone too far" ever biblical?

Not according to Paul in Romans 13. "There is no power but that which has been ordained by God." He who resists that power is therefore resisting an ordinance of God.

Seems pretty clear to me what the Christian's response should be.

So is the USA an illegitimate nation, having been born from a revolution against the legitimate British government?

Is revolution against "a government gone too far" ever biblical?

Only if a few 100,000 are involved. Otherwise you're just a criminal.

Not according to Paul in Romans 13. "There is no power but that which has been ordained by God." He who resists that power is therefore resisting an ordinance of God.

So is the USA an illegitimate nation, having been born from a revolution against the legitimate British government?

Good questions?

How do we determine a few 100,000 make it OK? Is this is % of total population or ???

Does God say we can resist a corrupt govt? Can't imagine a more corrupt govt than Rome and they were told to submit not do a Revolt.

Help us out here while you feel otherwise?

Moved to Law of God forum.

Please keep it from becoming political, or off it goes into Politics. That means discussions on how a believer should interact with government and how governments should act are fine, but if we start discussing particular current policies, it gets moved.

Originally Posted by Berean

Originally Posted by Skyler

Originally Posted by Gomarus

I will not advertise my response in advance.

Is revolution against "a government gone too far" ever biblical?

Not according to Paul in Romans 13. "There is no power but that which has been ordained by God." He who resists that power is therefore resisting an ordinance of God.

Seems pretty clear to me what the Christian's response should be.

So is the USA an illegitimate nation, having been born from a revolution against the legitimate British government?

Were they(the rebels) resisting the God-ordained authority that was placed over them?

If so, then would not the answer be yes, however distasteful that may seem to our modern sense of patriotism?

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Is revolution against "a government gone too far" ever biblical?

Only if a few 100,000 are involved. Otherwise you're just a criminal.

Well according to this, only if there were less than 100,000 minutemen.

Anyone know the answer?

Back on topic guys, if you please.

For a specific argument to consider - this comes from a guy in my church who carries everywhere, regardless of the law or his employer's wishes.

In his mind, you do of course lose a lot of ability to claim your rights when you are on someone else's property. But, one right you do not lose is your right to life, especially if (as at a retailer or employer) you are not trespassing but in fact were invited. Everyone should agree on this point.

In his mind, the right to life necessarily includes a right to self-defense. He would say that even on someone else's property, you have no obligation to obey his demand that you not defend yourself from bodily harm. As such, if they cannot take away your right to self-defense, then they cannot rightly demand you give up your means to that defense.

Of course, even if you do buy that whole line of thought, it is still not mandatory to carry everywhere, but it would then become a pragmatic question of potential cost/benefit of carrying that would look something like this:

Probability of getting caught times time punishment if you do vs. probability of using it to save a life * benefit if it does.

Comments or critiques?

Originally Posted by smhbbag

Back on topic guys, if you please.

For a specific argument to consider - this comes from a guy in my church who carries everywhere, regardless of the law or his employer's wishes.

In his mind, you do of course lose a lot of ability to claim your rights when you are on someone else's property. But, one right you do not lose is your right to life. Everyone should agree on this point.

In his mind, the right to life necessarily includes a right to self-defense. He would say that even on someone else's property, you have no obligation to obey his demand that you not defend yourself from bodily harm. As such, if they cannot take away your right to self-defense, then they cannot rightly demand you give up your means to that defense.

Of course, even if you do buy that whole line of thought, it is still not mandatory to carry everywhere, but it would then become a pragmatic question of potential cost/benefit of carrying that would look something like this:

Probability of getting caught times time punishment if you do vs. probability of using it to save a life * benefit if it does.

Comments or critiques?

Sure, he has a right to self-defense, and the owner of private property has the right to determine who can be on his property. The owner's right to place restrictions on the other's right to carry does not infringe on the carrier's rights in any fashion, because the carrier is not obligated to be on the property.

That is straightforward libertarian-common law property rights theory.

Sure, he has a right to self-defense, and the owner of private property has the right to determine who can be on his property. The owner's right to place restrictions on the other's right to carry does not infringe on the carrier's rights in any fashion, because the carrier is not obligated to be on the property.

That is straightforward libertarian-common law property rights theory.

That was my response to him (though, it was tough to be productive, as we were at a bar during the NCAA championship game).

I further added that it may be sin to willfully reject the authority of the owner, and enter his property with deceit in your heart. If you know the rules ahead of time, there is no excuse.

But, I respect this guy's intelligence and his perspective on a lot of things, so I wanted to see if I was in fact missing something.

My friends and I have often gone out of the way to complain to the management of establishments that have signs prohibiting concealed carry and explain the we will not patronize them. We have been successful on a number of occasions in having such signs removed. Don't just let them have their way without a fight.

Let them know you are Christians and how much safer he and the whole place will be with you there with your guns and God.

I understand private property. But not all private property is too private. Something like a mall, that may technically be considered "privately owned" is still public in terms of who is using it.

A man's house is his castle, and he has the right to defend, restrict entry or otherwise set policies as he sees fit. That goes for any private property. Businesses are inviting you to enter, so should post if they prefer guests to not carry weapons. But to enter another's home with a concealed weapon is to make one an invader rather than a guest.

Unless it becomes public access property by common law default.

If you don't lock it up 1 day a year some places in Cal I know for sure lose private rights. Like if you have a walkway by your house to the beach and you let people walk through, 1 day a year you have to chain it off or you lose right to control it and it becomes public domain.

BYW there is no private property in the US, if you don't have Allodial title then you only have a deed of trust, someone else, the state, actually owns it and can kick you off anytime.

So you maybe have manager or trustee rights to control the property by not private owner rights, its a fiction of law.

Where are our lawyers on PB when you need one?

I would not carry concealed in restricted areas unless a moderate level of anarchy is anticipated. Then I would consider it Biblically and Confessionally acceptable.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by gene_mingo

I believe that owners of private business need to provide a place to store your weapon if they have a prohibition on carrying them. If they do not provide this I believe they cannot prohibit you carrying legally.

You are incorrect. Private property rights precede all other rights. They are the foundation of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What right do you have to tell a person what they can do with their property? Does that mean I must allow smokers because smoking is legal? I must allow pornography, because that is legal?

I am all for concealed carry laws. But the above statement goes way too far.

hmm, the state of AZ seems to think they can legislate behavior on private property. Furthermore when you open a business to public commerce you give up certain privileges that private ownership carry.

Both of your examples are bad. In Az it is against the law to smoke in any building open to the public and it is against the law to exhibit **** to minors. So neither of your examples actual reflect lawful behavior to begin with. Whether or not a sign saying no guns are allowed in a business is enforceable is a matter of state law and varies from state to state.

As for private property, which wasn't part of the discussion to begin with, a property owner who is renting or leasing usually cannot restrict a tenant from possessing a firearm on their property as well. Again these laws vary from state to state.

I do not carry in places the law prohibits me from carrying. My views on this may change, but at the moment, my feeling is that it's not worth losing my legal right to carry for the rest of my life.

For private property, it's a judgment call. If I don't feel a particular need to carry, and the owner has the legally appropriate sign posted, I won't carry. If I want to carry, and there's some question about whether they have posted appropriate notices, I will carry anyway. All they can do is require I leave the property (in Mississippi you cannot be arrested for carrying on private property, regardless of signs; you can only be arrested for trespassing, so as long as you leave when asked there is zero legal liability).

In some states (I know this is true of Kentucky and Idaho, both very pro-gun states, in which I’ve held a license to CCW) which allow private property owners to post a restriction to conceal carry, the only consequence of their noticing you are carrying (remember “concealed” means they’re not suppose to see it), is they can ask you to leave. Only if you refuse to leave can you be charged with a misdemeanor. In both Idaho and Kentucky open carry is a guaranteed right which can not be preempted by local jurisdictions.

Of course we won't go into US Army regs and Federal Law prohibiting chaplains from being armed ('though Geneva Conventions allow it). I've talked with guys who were in the South African forces whose chaplains were armed with G-3s.

(FYI, I'm a former OKARNG chaplain)

________________
John Owen Butler
Pastor-Teacher
Beal Heights PCA
Lawton, OK

Originally Posted by okcalvin

Of course we won't go into US Army regs and Federal Law prohibiting chaplains from being armed ('though Geneva Conventions allow it). I've talked with guys who were in the South African forces whose chaplains were armed with G-3s.

(FYI, I'm a former OKARNG chaplain)

________________
John Owen Butler
Pastor-Teacher
Beal Heights PCA
Lawton, OK

Isn't the purpose of this to keep an enemy from mistaking the chaplain as a combatant? I only ask because I can't really think of another reason to keep a chaplain from having a weapon for self defense...