The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Frosty on July 13, 2013, 05:19:11 PM
-
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/us-bank-corp-tells-customers-no-concealed-carry-at-their-banks/#axzz2YvhRYwPR (http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/us-bank-corp-tells-customers-no-concealed-carry-at-their-banks/#axzz2YvhRYwPR)
I say write corporate & switch banks, they don't post it but expect everyone that enters to know it? I go by It's called Concealed for a reason ;)
-
in some places in the us, going passed a sign is a crime. I full support the rights of property owners to ban things from thier place of biz
-
TAB,
I agree that we must obey the law of the state we are in. However, we also need to remember that property owners rights do not trump civil rights, so in states like Minnesota (where US Bank is based) where the sign carries very little weight ... Carry On!
-
in some places in the us, going passed a sign is a crime. I full support the rights of property owners to ban things from thier place of biz
So do you also support the right of biz owners to keep blacks out of their businesses?
-
I beleave you have every right to choose who you do biz with.
-
And in Minnesota I have the right to carry in the businesses I choose to patronize.
-
Its not like that in all states. Texas is a prime example of that. the 30.06 law is a very good thing. I find it very insulting to go against the wishes of others.
-
I don't care about most states. I live in Minnesota, and Minnesota is where I work most days of the year. Before I get in the vehicle or big bird I check out where I am headed and prepare accordingly.
If choose to let a business infringe on your Civil Rights, that is your problem, and I am offended that you will support the erosion of our freedoms.
-
If you were at some ones house and they asked you not to smoke, would you light up at thier house? I see no diffrence. its a respect thing for me. I ask then when you are a guest of mine, you respect my wishes. Its really that simple.
-
Apples and oranges TAB!
We are talking about a business. You have the right to ban people from your home for any reason you chose, including race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion. However, you can not do that when you are a business. A business can not infringe on Civil Rights!
-
A small biz owner spends more time in thier place of biz then they do at home. It is exactly like thier home, many infact see it as more important then thier home. would you say castle doctorin applys to a place of biz as well as the home?
-
A small biz owner spends more time in thier place of biz then they do at home. It is exactly like thier home, many infact see it as more important then thier home. would you say castle doctorin applys to a place of biz as well as the home?
Castle Doctrine applies to your personal space. It may be your home, office, front yard, or a safe radius that move throughout life with you. That said, you are wrong about a business place being the same as a home. I don't care if you live in an apartment that is a part of the business. Once you cross the threshold that is between you living quarters and the business area you are a business place and subject to the Constitution when it comes to the Civil Rights of those you invite* into your business.
*By posting a business sign, an open sign, putting an ad in the media, or taking out a listed phone number for your business you are inviting people to your business.
-
The bill of rights was written to protect the people from the gov, not other people. ccw is NOT, I repeat NOT a protected right. If it was it would be the same nation wide, its not. Its not a infringement to have a person say don't do that here, most employers do. its really simple, if you don't like some ones policys, take your money some place else. Don't be an ass about it and go against thier wishes.
-
Where are me friends on here?
You are supposed to be like designated drivers and bitch slap me before I go down the trail with TAB!
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e330/m58/thumbnailaspx-1.jpg) (http://s42.photobucket.com/user/m58/media/thumbnailaspx-1.jpg.html)
-
TAB never should have left commiefornia. He's part of the problem of the disease spreading beyond its borders. Go back before you infect anyone.
-
The bill of rights was written to protect the people from the gov, not other people. ccw is NOT, I repeat NOT a protected right. If it was it would be the same nation wide, its not. Its not a infringement to have a person say don't do that here, most employers do. its really simple, if you don't like some ones policys, take your money some place else. Don't be an ass about it and go against thier wishes.
Are you saying they can stop you from carrying concealed on their property put cannot stop you from open carrying?
Or are you saying that open carry is not protected also?
And, TAB,
The 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So, a right does not have to be listed in the Bill of Rights to be protected. So you will need to show me were the constitution prohibits CCW.
Similarly, contrary to popular belief, driving is a right and not a privilege. First because driving is the common means of transportation, like horse or horse and buggy was when the country was founded. From what I know of the founders, they would not let the government at any level restrict the right to basic transportation.
Second. The government derives it's power from the people, so unless we gave it the power to grant specific privileges, it has none to grant.
Note also that this does not mean I am in disagreement with your point of view, just that you need to defend it with valid arguments.
-
TAB, the second amendment says I have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. It does not specify the manner in which those arms may or may not be carried.
-
Fbg, that is exactly my point. It does not say, which means it can be regulated. Don't get me wrong I support ccw 100% and think if you can own a gun, tou should be able to ccw. I just very strongly feel that a biz owner should be able to regulate what comes to thier place of biz. its both a respect thing and a liabilty( minor part)
-
Fbg, that is exactly my point. It does not say, which means it can be regulated. Don't get me wrong I support ccw 100% and think if you can own a gun, tou should be able to ccw. I just very strongly feel that a biz owner should be able to regulate what comes to thier place of biz. its both a respect thing and a liabilty( minor part)
By that logic, it does not say which arms. Which means arms can be regulated. Unintended consequences and all that. As for respect, that is a two way street. If you don't respect my right to protect myself and my loved ones, then I won't respect your silly little signs.
-
That's why it's called Concealed Carry. So NO ONE will know you're carrying. As far as "getting caught"? After the shooting stops, who cares, if you've successfully defended yourself?
-
Like I believe was said, the constitution is there to protect the people from the government, not other individuals. As a business owner you should be able to control ANY aspect of who you do business with and what you allow. If you don't want to allow whites, blacks, or little green men from entering your property so be it. Same goes for carrying a weapon. The likelihood of the former passing muster in our current climate is slim due to political correctness. What SHOULD happen in such a circumstance (rather than big G interference) is sensible people decide that they do not wish to do business with someone with such extreme views and they go out of business or change their model. For the record, that should also be the recourse to the latter example. Shopping or even entering a given privately owned business is not a civil right and has no business being recognized as one. A private citizen or business cannot violate your civil rights, only government entities can.
I for one will never knowingly do business with an establishment that excluded anyone based on race, color, creed, or the ability to carry a firearm.
-
Like I believe was said, the constitution is there to protect the people from the government, not other individuals. As a business owner you should be able to control ANY aspect of who you do business with and what you allow. If you don't want to allow whites, blacks, or little green men from entering your property so be it. Same goes for carrying a weapon. The likelihood of the former passing muster in our current climate is slim due to political correctness. What SHOULD happen in such a circumstance (rather than big G interference) is sensible people decide that they do not wish to do business with someone with such extreme views and they go out of business or change their model. For the record, that should also be the recourse to the latter example. Shopping or even entering a given privately owned business is not a civil right and has no business being recognized as one. A private citizen or business cannot violate your civil rights, only government entities can.
I for one will never knowingly do business with an establishment that excluded anyone based on race, color, creed, or the ability to carry a firearm.
I agree, mooner, but with some exceptions.
First is the employees of a private business where the owner had disallowed firearms. While the employees have the choice not to work there, it is not as flexible a choice as deciding which hardware store gets your business. Since the employees are somewhat of a "captive audience" the parking facilities available to the employees must allow storage of firearms. This allows the owner his "rights" and does not trample the rights of the employees outside of work. If the employer does not provide parking, then some secure storage to "check" and "claim" firearms at the door would be needed, with the employer being responsible for the safe keeping of the firearms.
A note about liability. My take is that if an employer chooses to limit the ability of self defense for employees while at work, they have then assumed responsibility for that defense. If the employee suffers from a defensible attack while at work, the employer is eligible to be sued for redress.
Another exception would be a private company that has a monopoly on it's service. The first one I think of is the local cable service. It is genuinely the sole provider of cable in a region and often, if not always, chosen by the government. Since customers must do business with that company, they would have similar responsibility as the employer above.
Another area that I can think of would be transportation. Take the bus line. The choice to take a bus is likely not a flexible one, it is the best choice by far at the time it is needed. Therefore the bus line would have similar responsibilities as the employers. It is not likely that they can provide a secure firearms vault so they would need to allow carry on the buses or they would be denying the right of self defense to customers before and after the ride. If they do lock up the guns, they would be responsible for the safety of their passengers.
Taxi cabs would come close to a bus line. Even cabs with different names are often run by the same company, so the choices might be limited and should all cab companies restrict firearms, the choice would be none.
Still thinking about how all this works with other "civil rights".
-
being able to prove you could defend yourself in court, with out breaking company policy would be very, very hard. reality is the chance of a nd is much greater then a sd shoot. since a nd could cost in the 7 diget range very easy. i won't even start on going postal.
-
being able to prove you could defend yourself in court, with out breaking company policy would be very, very hard. reality is the chance of a nd is much greater then a sd shoot. since a nd could cost in the 7 diget range very easy. i won't even start on going postal.
You don't necessarily have to prove you could have defended yourself. You might just have to prove that you had no chance to because of company policy, and the company, who assumed that responsibility, failed to do so.
And yes, it might be better odds to go with the No Firearms ruling, but since you put employees at potential risk to save yourself $$, the company should be responsible for that risk, not the employees.
Either you successfully provide the protection of which you deprived them, or you pay for it in full.
-
THat would also be very hard to prove. Chances are very good, if you had no chance with out a gun, you would have had no chance with one. then there is the old, what if you start a fire fight and some one is hit, your employer is liable for that. That could cost untold ammounts.
-
THat would also be very hard to prove. Chances are very good, if you had no chance with out a gun, you would have had no chance with one. then there is the old, what if you start a fire fight and some one is hit, your employer is liable for that. That could cost untold ammounts.
Either allow your employees the means to defend themselves or assume that responsibility and liability if you faiil.
-
are they going to assume the liablity of thier actions? do you have atleas a 1 mil liquid to put up as a bond?
-
This thread is very telling of people's mindsets. One group wants to protect the people the other is focused on money and status.
-
are they going to assume the liablity of thier actions? do you have atleas a 1 mil liquid to put up as a bond?
I'm slow. You need to be more specific.
Is who going to assume the liability of (for) their actions?
Why do I need 1 mil liquid for a bond?
-
1 mil is a good starting point when it comes to the liabilty one can incure when a employee cares on the job. I'D personally go no less the 2 mil, 5 would be better.
-
TAB is stating that if you allow an employee to carry a defensive tool on the job you are opening yourself up to liability for any action they commit. The bond is his way of saying that you are going to paying out big time in any civil suit following this.
Bottom line is that TAB is anti-Constitution. He is against the purest meaning and intent of the Second Amendment and our American freedoms. These two threads show what we have seen from time to time over the years of debating with TAB.
By the way, did I mention that he is a Californian Sheeple? There has got to be a season for them ::)
-
In Ohio, part of the CCW law was that any place could post a No Guns Allowed sign and violating the sign was a crime. It also stated that places could not be sued based upon the decision to allow or disallow firearms there.
I don't know if the law has been tested, but just because it is a law, there is no guarantee it will work.
I like half the law. It is fine that the place can't be sued for someones misuse of a firearm on the premise but they should be responsible for removing the person's right to self defense.
TAB, in one of your posts, you state that "Chances are very good, if you had no chance with out a gun, you would have had no chance with one."
Can I assume from that statement that you don't carry a weapon as it would be useless?
-
Tab's logic is simple a dead employee is cheaper then one that defends himself so it's best that the serfs are unarmed.
-
TAB, in one of your posts, you state that "Chances are very good, if you had no chance with out a gun, you would have had no chance with one."
Can I assume from that statement that you don't carry a weapon as it would be useless?
Add it to the list(s) of things that Tab has said that make no sense.
As M58 has found, debating with Tab is much like debating your dog: you hope he gets it but I wouldn't count on it.
To the original topic, Who GAFF what US Bank does? They only get their way if the customers let them.
They can go tits up & horizontal for all I care. (I hope B of A joins them in the epic fail line)
Vote with your feet and your money. Tell them why.
Do you know people changes their SPOUSES more than they change their bank?