» Site Navigation | | | |  | | 
04-07-2009, 09:32 PM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,926
Thanks: 652
Thanked 684 Times in 287 Posts
| | | 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.
__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC
"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen
| 
04-07-2009, 09:34 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 166
Thanks: 71
Thanked 87 Times in 32 Posts
| | |
The first rule of Concealed Carry Club is you do not talk about Concealed Carry Club.
__________________
SW
Church of the Highlands, San Francisco, CA
| | The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to E Nomine For This Useful Post: | | 
04-07-2009, 09:38 PM
|  | Use Bat Lip Balm | | Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 6,659
Thanks: 191
Thanked 2,436 Times in 1,347 Posts
| | |
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.
| 
04-07-2009, 09:53 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Cottonwood, AZ
Posts: 1,433
Thanks: 888
Thanked 150 Times in 119 Posts
| | |
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.
__________________
Josh Taylor
Verde Valley Reformed Chapel, OPC
Cottonwood, AZ
| 
04-07-2009, 10:00 PM
|  | Uncommon Denominator | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gambrills, MD
Posts: 11,936
Thanks: 2,001
Thanked 3,293 Times in 1,653 Posts
| | |
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?
| 
04-07-2009, 10:12 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,187
Thanks: 700
Thanked 818 Times in 448 Posts
| | |
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.
__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA
| 
04-07-2009, 10:21 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: wandering around
Posts: 1,860
Thanks: 155
Thanked 315 Times in 228 Posts
| | Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
Matt
Reformed Baptist
Christ Community Church
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sans nom For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 01:12 AM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie - Mobile, Alabama
Posts: 6,144
Thanks: 764
Thanked 2,922 Times in 1,454 Posts
| | |
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.'
__________________
We shall not adjust our Bible to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, we shall adjust the age to the Bible. - Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Lawrence Underwood, Jr.
Pastor - Providence Family Fellowship / Mobile, Alabama
1644/46 LBC My Blog - Imprimis | | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to LawrenceU For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 02:22 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Tchula, MS
Posts: 2,571
Thanks: 136
Thanked 560 Times in 259 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by sans nom Quote:
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.
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Romans922 For This Useful Post: | CDM (04-08-2009), Josiah (04-08-2009), w (04-08-2009) | 
04-08-2009, 03:03 AM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: wi
Posts: 6,242
Thanks: 1,471
Thanked 1,813 Times in 1,147 Posts
| | |
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.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to OPC'n For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 04:34 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Washington
Posts: 1,565
Thanks: 338
Thanked 410 Times in 280 Posts
| | Quote:
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?
__________________
DonP
| 
04-08-2009, 07:43 AM
|  | Reformed Dane | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Breum, Denmark
Posts: 6,346
Thanks: 2,713
Thanked 1,013 Times in 735 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by E Nomine The first rule of Concealed Carry Club is you do not talk about Concealed Carry Club. |   | 
04-08-2009, 07:56 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,187
Thanks: 700
Thanked 818 Times in 448 Posts
| | Quote:
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?
| 
04-08-2009, 08:05 AM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manhattan, KS
Posts: 4,119
Thanks: 495
Thanked 2,302 Times in 845 Posts
| | Quote:
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----- Quote:
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.
__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA
| 
04-08-2009, 09:41 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Cottonwood, AZ
Posts: 1,433
Thanks: 888
Thanked 150 Times in 119 Posts
| | Quote: |
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.
| 
04-08-2009, 10:29 AM
|  | Vanilla Westminsterian | | Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 10,519
Thanks: 334
Thanked 3,501 Times in 1,412 Posts
| | Quote:
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.
__________________ Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX) Christ Church Blog "The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle) | | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to fredtgreco For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 10:33 AM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,425
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 6,138 Times in 2,590 Posts
| |  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.
__________________ Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA Facebook - The Calvinist Vent Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry | 
04-08-2009, 10:38 AM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2007 Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 508
Thanks: 44
Thanked 64 Times in 45 Posts
| | Quote: |
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
__________________
Geoff/Reformed Baptist
Acworth, GA
John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
"Show me your war face."
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Reformed Baptist For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 10:39 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Tchula, MS
Posts: 2,571
Thanks: 136
Thanked 560 Times in 259 Posts
| | |
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!
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Romans922 For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 10:41 AM
|  | Vanilla Westminsterian | | Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 10,519
Thanks: 334
Thanked 3,501 Times in 1,412 Posts
| | Quote:
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.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to fredtgreco For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 10:59 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,813
Thanks: 248
Thanked 453 Times in 308 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomarus Quote:
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.
__________________
Jonathan
Audio Engineer
Reformed Anabaptist
Ohio
Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation: | 
04-08-2009, 12:13 PM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Monticello, IA
Posts: 6,146
Thanks: 3,623
Thanked 832 Times in 700 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyler Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomarus Quote:
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?
__________________
Norm
IA PCA In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. Ephesians 1:4-5 | | The Following User Says Thank You to Berean For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 12:44 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Washington
Posts: 1,565
Thanks: 338
Thanked 410 Times in 280 Posts
| | Quote:
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?
| 
04-08-2009, 05:45 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 5,315
Thanks: 177
Thanked 1,857 Times in 967 Posts
| | |
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.
| 
04-08-2009, 05:54 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,813
Thanks: 248
Thanked 453 Times in 308 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Berean Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyler Quote:
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?
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Skyler For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 05:59 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Washington
Posts: 1,565
Thanks: 338
Thanked 410 Times in 280 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaScriptura Quote:
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?
| 
04-08-2009, 06:04 PM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,926
Thanks: 652
Thanked 684 Times in 287 Posts
| | |
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?
| 
04-08-2009, 06:09 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 5,315
Thanks: 177
Thanked 1,857 Times in 967 Posts
| | Quote:
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.
| | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to VictorBravo For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 06:14 PM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,926
Thanks: 652
Thanked 684 Times in 287 Posts
| | Quote:
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.
| 
04-08-2009, 07:13 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Texarkana, Texas
Posts: 301
Thanks: 118
Thanked 64 Times in 42 Posts
| |
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.
__________________
Gregg
East Texas
Member Heritage Baptist Church
"I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way
be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so
that now, as always, Christ will be exalted in my
life." Phil 1:20
| 
04-08-2009, 07:29 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Washington
Posts: 1,565
Thanks: 338
Thanked 410 Times in 280 Posts
| |
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. | 
04-08-2009, 07:44 PM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manhattan, KS
Posts: 4,119
Thanks: 495
Thanked 2,302 Times in 845 Posts
| | |
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.
| 
04-08-2009, 07:45 PM
|  | Obi Wan Kenobi | | Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Escanaba, MI
Posts: 3,593
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 1,347 Times in 663 Posts
| | |
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.
__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Wannabee For This Useful Post: | | 
04-08-2009, 08:11 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Washington
Posts: 1,565
Thanks: 338
Thanked 410 Times in 280 Posts
| | |
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?
| 
04-08-2009, 08:27 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Browns Mills NJ
Posts: 2,326
Thanks: 621
Thanked 703 Times in 405 Posts
| | |
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.
__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25
| 
04-08-2009, 08:39 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Cottonwood, AZ
Posts: 1,433
Thanks: 888
Thanked 150 Times in 119 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by fredtgreco Quote:
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.
Last edited by gene_mingo; 04-08-2009 at 09:34 PM.
Reason: to add clarity to my post.
| 
04-08-2009, 08:48 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 265
Thanks: 0
Thanked 37 Times in 17 Posts
| | |
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).
__________________ Mark Geoffriau
Redeemer PCA
Jackson, MS | 
04-09-2009, 12:35 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Meridian, Idaho
Posts: 1,059
Thanks: 450
Thanked 798 Times in 284 Posts
| | |
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.
| 
04-09-2009, 01:15 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 24
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
| | |
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
| 
04-09-2009, 10:05 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Montana
Posts: 3,775
Thanks: 2,613
Thanked 985 Times in 537 Posts
| | Quote:
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...
__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana
|  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |