General Categories > Information Arsenal
Tens of thousands in Wisconsin apply for concealed carry permit
bullit:
When the the 30-06 law passed in TX, prohibition of CHP signs came down in droves.
CitizenClark:
--- Quote from: OnTheFly on November 25, 2011, 11:18:15 PM ---IMHO that is the way it should be. A property owner has the right to prohibit weapons on their property, but once they do that, in my mind they become responsible for my safety from others who would do me harm.
Fly
--- End quote ---
I think I should always be responsible for my own safety unless someone else has done something to assume that duty. If I knowingly walk into a business run by a damn fool who forbids private carry, I am choosing to assume that risk--I don't see why it should create any duty for the proprietor. I am always free to frequent another establishment or to go home.
I am pro-freedom, even for idiot storekeepers.
CitizenClark:
--- Quote from: OnTheFly on November 26, 2011, 12:15:05 PM ---I am surprised my comment has not ignited a spirited debate. I DO firmly believe in a property owner's or business proprietor's right to control what happens on their property, but when they remove a person's right to defend themselves against a criminal who would likely be armed with more than a stick, how can they not be responsible?
--- End quote ---
Because you chose to enter anyway, knowing that this danger existed. No one has a right to carry a gun on someone else's property against the owner's wishes. A storekeeper who posts a "NO CONCEALED CARRY" sign is not depriving you of any rights. He is just creating a condition for entry to his property. If you decide to go on in anyway, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
--- Quote ---Maybe this has been tested in the courts and failed. If not, I would love to see this tested on a (preferably large) business. Though I am not sure if that is something the SAF or other strongly pro-gun organization would want to fund up to the highest court. Mind you I am not a sue happy person. I think suits are way over used in the US. If a robber comes into a gun friendly business and causes someone harm, then the owner should not be held liable since there was nothing keeping the victim from exercising their rights and defending themselves. On the other hand, if you have said I can not have any means of defense on your property, then you either had better screen everyone entering the establishment or provide full-time armed security.
Other than that...I don't have an opinion.
Fly
--- End quote ---
Just to be clear, I am not making a prediction about how such a case would turn out in the courts. "Should do X" and "will do X" aren't necessarily related when it comes to the workings of the legal system.
Dan W:
I have to agree with Citizen Clark.
Choices are made and stuff happens
OnTheFly:
--- Quote ---Because you chose to enter anyway, knowing that this danger existed. No one has a right to carry a gun on someone else's property against the owner's wishes. A storekeeper who posts a "NO CONCEALED CARRY" sign is not depriving you of any rights. He is just creating a condition for entry to his property. If you decide to go on in anyway, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
--- End quote ---
I believe this same comment has been made before, and I am sure that would be the defense. It may very successfully in defending the property owner. Regarding what right is being taken away, do we not have the right to protect ourselves? Is that not what DC vs. Heller decided, at least in part?
Fly
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version