Beware the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)

checksandbalances.com ^ | 5/28/03 | Checks and Blances

[jdege]

bewaree the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)

Written on: 5/28/03

It is interesting to see the Governor's Chief of Staff Charlie Weaver, a former Anoka County Prosecutor come out and telegraph the movement by Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) on the Conceal & Carry legislation he recently signed into law. As the public has learned more about the change there has been a natural backlash. The Special Session creates an opportunity to address the problems with the law, which goes into effect today.

While it is reasonable for a person or a business to protect their property, when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards. In an attempt to smooth the edges of the most liberal gun legislation ever passed in the United States the Administration sees the need for an adjustment. Perhaps this is just an attempt to prevent the courts from finding the legislation unconstitutional, but it shows how ramroding legislation through the process is a poor way to govern.

The fact that this issue needs to be revisited shows how its initial passage was a rash act and signing it so rapidly was equally so. It was a purely partisan attempt to steamroll the Majority in the Senate and even though the Governor received a flawed bill and he signed it.

This creates an opportunity for the Senate Majority to embarrass both the Governor and Members of the House and the Minority Members of the Senate. When the bill was forced onto the agenda in the Senate there was little the DFL Majority could do to prevent the bill from passage. They held back on a stack of amendments at the Secretary's desk knowing full well the item had momentum.

The floor discussion by the Senate authors will now be available for full debate and now Sen. Mike McGinn (R-38, Eagan) will be able to correct his inadvertent pressing of the wrong button during final passage as his office stated. This debate may provide good fodder.

[lepton]

Your right to carry doesn't override his property rights. So you can declare your place "For Whites Only" legally?

Before you go down that path, consider that such policies didn't work until government bans were in place. Businesses want money, and businesses that treated customers poorly lost out to those that didn't. Few businesses wanted to pay that price.

Actually, if businesses were allowed to be open about it, it might improve the treatment of non-white customers generally, and certainly in places that wanted to compete for their business.

Don't know that it's a good idea, but it's not what is generally implied when people make such references.

[cinFLA]

The owner's rules cannot require that you give up your rights. Otherwise, he can have a rule dissallowing blacks.

False argument. We are talking behaviour, not genetics.

[Travis McGee]

The card with the CCW specs is far better. Just showing a "no gun" slash sign fails to make the point clearly.

No CCW gun is what is needed, the CCW specs makes that point.

[cinFLA]

Society can only set rules that provide for an orderly and reasonably safe environment (i.e. laws against smoking while fueling your car, yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theather, etc.

Upon what do you base these limitations?

[Travis McGee]

How about "no homosexuals" or "no tattoed people" or "no Mormons?"

[cinFLA]

How about "no homosexuals" or "no tattoed people" or "no Mormons?"

Huh?

[Squantos]

Thats the same card........ just the reverse of the no gun/no money card.

Stay Safe !

[George Smiley]

Texas has a "30-30" law which requires that places that post against concealed carry to post a specific notice in letters that are, I believe, one inch high.

It makes for quite a large sign.

[Shooter 2.5]

< Smile > Wrong caliber. It's not a 30-30 sign.

It's a 30-06.

And yeah, it just happened to be a coincidence.


Just so you know, business owners have also taken upon themselves to print fairly large "no guns" signs that start with, "The carrying of a unlicensed firearm on these premises is expressly forbidden...." which, of course doesn't hinder me from carrying my licensed firearm into the establishment.

[safisoft]

I just refuse to be a patron in any facility that has a sign posted that says no firearms allowed.

When CCW came to North Carolina, there were TONS of businesses that put up "no firearms" signs. I do not know if it was subtle pressure or the realization that CCW is not bad, there are fewer and fewer of those signs now.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Incorrect. We are talking RIGHTS, not behavior.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Common Law. Ever heard of it?

[cinFLA]

Common Law. Ever heard of it?

Yes. But what has that to do with supporting your argument. Ever heard of the Constitution? Ever heard of the bible? Ever heard of the Communist manifesto?

[SauronOfMordor]

If businesses can ban firearms from their property, the next step is for their insurance companies to tell them that they MUST ban firearms, or lose liability coverage. If businesses can ban firearms easily, then some lawyers will argue that failure to ban means that they allow firearms, and thus will be liable for any shooting that happens on their property

[Blood of Tyrants]

Your arguments are both uninformed and moot. You begin by attacking the messenger. When that doesn't work, you try to equate the right to keep and bear arms with behavior. When that doesn't work, you try to change the subject.

See you later. You are not worth my time.

[SauronOfMordor]

Out of curiosity (not that I'd necessarily advocate such a thing) would it be legal in MN (or TX, or other CC states) for a business to post a sign indicating that no firearms were to be carried in the premesis without prior written permission?

Your insurance company and attorney would have a fit. Giving explicit permission to be armed means that to a degree you assume a degree of liability for what the armed person does on your property

Conversely, posting a "no guns" sign (which has no way of being enforced) absolves the owner of any liability for what the patron might do with his gun

[Blood of Tyrants]

If they can ban guns, they must also be liable for injury caused by failing to protect his patrons from the criminal behavior of others. I would go for a bill that would allow business to ban firearms IF they could prove that they had the means and the ability to adequately protect patrons while they were on his property.

[RRWCC]

I guess this is where the "rubber meets the road" as they say. Either it is the business owner’s store, or it is the government’s store. Either we enjoy the freedom to associate with whom we choose, or we don't.
As disagreeable and distasteful as it is, yes I as a business owner he can serve anyone he chooses based on whatever criteria he chooses.
Hopefully the financial price of such a decision would be so heavy that he could not continue in business.

[Teacher317]

False argument. We are talking behaviour, not genetics.

I disagree. Gun Rights are a civil rights issue. By the mere fact of my genetic being, the Almighty endowed me with the right to protect myself by keeping and bearing arms.

[George Smiley]

One reason the signs go away:

Grass Roots North Carolina Don't Buy Program