Toby Keith's I love this bar

[willy09]

I'd just carry concealed and no one would know...

 

[bigpuddin43]

Ok ace. Believe what you want. Maybe it was just the way I was raised but I respect a persons wishes on their property. As an ADULT I prefer to spend my money in places that don't have a no gun sign on their door.

 

[Dubya Gee]

Ok. I agree with BigPuddin's argument. You make a very valid point. Our rights end where someone else's start.

However, Ace has a valid point here too. If you can legally carry past the sign in KY, why wouldn't you? If you believe in carrying to protect yourself and your family, why would you allow anyone to effectively disarm you during ingress and egress of their facility? In all likelihood, if you ever need your weapon, it will be in one of those situations where you are going into or exiting some establishment of some kind and somebody gets the drop on you. If the law is ever changed to the point that these signs have any legal validity, then I will comply, but not a minute before. Why bother to even conceal and carry if the gun is gonna spend 80% of the time in your car because some corporate office in liberal America doesn't think citizens are smart enough to be trusted? If you are doing it right, no one but you will know it is in the building.

And yes, I totally agree with the voting with your wallet piece too. No one is forcing me to choose an establishment that has such a policy. I rarely go to BDubs because of their policy. When I do go, the sign is ignored, I have my wings, no one gets injured, and no one ever knows I was in violation. IMO, that is why the law is structured as is. If you can carry responsibly, and keep it concealed, then no harm, no foul. If you are an idiot, you will be made quickly and asked to leave the premises for your lack of intelligence. You don't comply, then the law is involved. Seems like a nice middle ground for the rights of businesses and individuals to me.

As for Ohio, if the sign is legally binding there, then you are breaking the law of the land by ignoring it, and you do so at your own peril.

 

[Art]

My thing is this. When you open a business, it becomes private and public property. What I mean is I can't go into a business and get blasted drunk and act like an idiot and claim I'm on private property so I should be immune to public laws. I may be on property that is owned by someone, but it is still a public place .

We had this discussion with smoking. Just because you own the restaurant, it doesn't give you the right to make your own laws under that roof. It is open to the public, and as a business operating in a certain city or state, you must operate under their laws and regulations. To make the argument some of you are is like saying, "Well, I own then business so I can serve alcohol after 1am, because I own the property." You can't legally do that just because you "own" the business if the local or state govt. doesn't allow it. It sounds as if some of you would argue that you can do what you want because it's yours.

I totally agree with you guys IF it were a private, members only club not open to the general public. I say smoke all you want and kick anyone with a gun out-if you want.

 

[bigpuddin43]

Ok. I agree with BigPuddin's argument. You make a very valid point. Our rights end where someone else's start.

However, Ace has a valid point here too. If you can legally carry past the sign in KY, why wouldn't you? If you believe in carrying to protect yourself and your family, why would you allow anyone to effectively disarm you during ingress and egress of their facility? In all likelihood, if you ever need your weapon, it will be in one of those situations where you are going into or exiting some establishment of some kind and somebody gets the drop on you. If the law is ever changed to the point that these signs have any legal validity, then I will comply, but not a minute before. Why bother to even conceal and carry if the gun is gonna spend 80% of the time in your car because some corporate office in liberal America doesn't think citizens are smart enough to be trusted? If you are doing it right, no one but you will know it is in the building.

And yes, I totally agree with the voting with your wallet piece too. No one is forcing me to choose an establishment that has such a policy. I rarely go to BDubs because of their policy. When I do go, the sign is ignored, I have my wings, no one gets injured, and no one ever knows I was in violation. IMO, that is why the law is structured as is. If you can carry responsibly, and keep it concealed, then no harm, no foul. If you are an idiot, you will be made quickly and asked to leave the premises for your lack of intelligence. You don't comply, then the law is involved. Seems like a nice middle ground for the rights of businesses and individuals to me.

As for Ohio, if the sign is legally binding there, then you are breaking the law of the land by ignoring it, and you do so at your own peril.

How I look at it is nobody is disarming you. Nobody is making you walk into that establishment. Nowhere does it say you have the right to go out to eat. That is a privilege that you can enjoy by following the rules of the establishment.

Of course this is my opinion. And yes apparently the law allows you to disregard the wishes of the owner in his own place of business but that's just not for me. Same as if I invited a bunch of guys over for a wingding and asked that since alcohol was going to be drank that everyone left their pistols at home. I would expect you to honor that.

 

[bigpuddin43]

My thing is this. When you open a business, it becomes private and public property. What I mean is I can't go into a business and get blasted drunk and act like an idiot and claim I'm on private property so I should be immune to public laws. I may be on property that is owned by someone, but it is still a public place .

We had this discussion with smoking. Just because you own the restaurant, it doesn't give you the right to make your own laws under that roof. It is open to the public, and as a business operating in a certain city or state, you must operate under their laws and regulations. To make the argument some of you are is like saying, "Well, I own then business so I can serve alcohol after 1am, because I own the property." You can't legally do that just because you "own" the business if the local or state govt. doesn't allow it. It sounds as if some of you would argue that you can do what you want because it's yours.

I totally agree with you guys IF it were a private, members only club not open to the general public. I say smoke all you want and kick anyone with a gun out-if you want.

I believe they should be able to do as they want. That's where we differ you agree with government intrusion into the private sector of business and I do not.

 

[Dubya Gee]

How I look at it is nobody is disarming you. Nobody is making you walk into that establishment. Nowhere does it say you have the right to go out to eat. That is a privilege that you can enjoy by following the rules of the establishment.

Of course this is my opinion. And yes apparently the law allows you to disregard the wishes of the owner in his own place of business but that's just not for me. Same as if I invited a bunch of guys over for a wingding and asked that since alcohol was going to be drank that everyone left their pistols at home. I would expect you to honor that.

No doubt on the drinking. I don't think anyone that isn't drinking should be penalized, but anyone imbibing should definitely be held to a much higher standard. Just because they serve doesn't mean everyone is consuming though. If we are all adults, we should be trusted to make choices as such.

I know the question was about a bar, but my answer was a little broader. If the signs aren't legally binding, why should I care what sign a grocery store, big box store, or shopping mall puts on the door? I fully understand that I could be removed and potentially banned from the premises, but if I accept those consequences as a result of my personal choices what is the harm?

And I was a small business owner for a couple of years, so I fully understand that side too. However, I have no illusions to the fact that I knew zero about what was on or about the person of 98% of the people that came into our establishment. What I didn't know never hurt me, or my feelings. How could it if I didn't know it was there? After all the whole premise of concealed is just that, concealed.

 

[Art]

I believe they should be able to do as they want. That's where we differ you agree with government intrusion into the private sector of business and I do not.

What kind of restaurant do you think you'd have if there were no laws governing that establishment? That prospect is far more scary than a lawful citizen carrying a concealed weapon. I know that it's the cool thing to do to be anti-government, and I'm not a big fan of government myself, but the fact of the matter is without laws and regulations on a business open to the public, things would be REALLY bad.

 

[bigpuddin43]

That's your opinion. I believe capitalism would govern it and we would have as good or better food than we have now. I believe capitalism would govern better than elected officials that get paid off by guess who? The corporations that own the restaurants. I'll cast my vote with my dollar. If that were the case then if enough people wanted smoke free restaurants they would happen because someone would see the niche and fill it. Same as gun free establishments. I don't believe the government knows what's best for me.

 

[JDMiller]

I've had my Ky CDWL since they were offered and as I stated in an earlier post..... I support carrying a firearm as much as anyone on this site.

But ... I do try to respect others opinions .... including businesses that have no firearms policies. I've always looked at it that I have a choice of either respecting their wishes or go somewhere else. I have always felt the same concerning smoking... it should be left up to the business owner.... and I'll add that I don't smoke nor am I much of a social drinker.

I also feel like the basis of this thread concerns carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol and possibly defined as a bar. Which somewhere we've forgotten that aspect and treating this as it was no different than walking in McDonalds or Wal-mart.

I'm no expert on the laws here but no doubt the restriction is better outlined in a statute devoted to it specifically.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=40574

Also say ..... which I'm looking at their mobile version ... but at the bottom of the page concerning this link.... it states that if asked to leave and you don't comply than you can legally be charged with criminal trespass. Which I know that's been the jest of this discussion but I view that the perception that you can't be criminally charged is not completely correct. It's more of a one strike thing that the business owner only ask you to leave once. If you repeatedly do it ... there's no free pass just because you have a CDWL.

http://kentuckystatepolice.org/ccdw/restrictions.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dubya Gee]

It's more of a one strike thing that the business owner only ask you to leave once. If you repeatedly do it ... there's no free pass just because you have a CDWL.

http://kentuckystatepolice.org/ccdw/restrictions.html



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. I personally think that the law is too lax on this end. If you fail to comply with the request to leave, you should be charged with something much heftier than criminal trespass.... At that point, you are obviously not mature enough to handle the responsibility, and you should be penalized accordingly.

 

[Dubya Gee]

I would like to add that people who keep going back to smoking bans aren't really making an apples to apples comparison to either side of the argument. Smoking is in no way concealable, and most certainly has impacts to those around you. Proper CONCEALED carry is completely the opposite in both regards, as long as there is no alcohol involved.

For what it's worth, I think the idea of a smoking ban is stupid. It should totally be left up to the business owners. Capitalism will sort out the winners and losers of that debate, just like Puddin said.

No matter how you frame it, that does not make my opinion, and that's all it is, hypocritical. They are not even close to the same scenarios.

 

[JDMiller]

While I agree that there is some differences in the debate concerning smoking .. there's a lot of similarities as well.

Primarily the aspect as a consumer we have a choice to either abide by the private business policies to receive their services or go elsewhere in either case of smoking or allowances for firearms. I don't think either case should be mandated or circumvented involving private property. To me it's a fine line on where this leads in the future involving other private property such as our personal residences. Which I'm not breaking out a tinfoil hat but it's something to ponder as our society in general is being dumbed down in many regards that we allow what use to be a personal choice be mandated.

I personally don't like that aspect and it goes well beyond the health debate of smoking in my opinion. Which here in Murray we were lucky to not have smoking bans mandated concerning restaurants. Most went smoke free on their own accord with very few still allowing smoking. But it was left up to the private businesses to make that decision. No one was forced and the issue resolved itself in regards to their patrons. Which is how it should work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Art]

I think it's important to remember that the government is an arm of the people. It may not seem that way recently, but laws and ordinances come about through concern of the public. You could argue that the minority has been given too much power in recent years, but overall the system still works and it is the BEST system. Smoking bans did not come about because most people smoke. Concealed carry laws did not come about because the majority of the public hates guns.

I think businesses should have a lot of freedom, but I also think that there HAS to be limits. It can't be lawless. I personally don't like squashing the freedoms of the majority through unfounded concerns. To me, this issue is not that complicated. I'm not looking to disrespect anyone, or cause a fight at a restaurant. I just think that if you want to keep lawful gun owners out of the business, then you should be able to justify it. I might understand, I might not, but I've yet to hear WHY this is a good idea? I still believe the idea is ideological at best, because I don't know of any studies that would prove a place is safer or better without concealed weapons. I think given the fact that there's no clear objective justification for such a ban, it borders on discrimination. I don't think this is what a majority of the public wants, and that's what gets me.

 

[JDMiller]

I just think that if you want to keep lawful gun owners out of the business, then you should be able to justify it. I might understand, I might not, but I've yet to hear WHY this is a good idea?

I don't disagree completely with exception to what I quoted above.

I may have a distorted view but why should a private owned business have to give an explanation concerning a policy regarding property they own???

It may be splitting hairs but I'm not going to give a trespasser on my farm a lengthy list of reasons why I don't want trespassing on property I own. Nor would I do the same if I found someone in my home without my permission. With the latter I doubt they will walk out and if they do they will be leaking badly upon exit.

To me there's more to this than just a carry issue. Which again I support concealed or open carry but I don't think my rights should infringe on someone else's.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk