Concealed Carry: for the non believers.

[smashweights]

As far as the no weapons allowed signs, my curiosity is this: say your local taco bell has one and you have it legitimately concealed, who's ever gonna know to get you caught?

[smashweights]

Well' date=' nobody if you don't have to use it, but not respecting someone's right to keep guns out of their establishment is kind of shitty.. in my arrogant opinion.[/quote']

while i agree with you, for the devil's advocate in me: is it more shitty for him to deny me my interpretation of my constitutional rights? and if he gets robbed and i bust a cap in the fucker, you think he'd still press charges?

[smashweights]

lol ok. think that'd be a dick move to save someone's ass and then have them press charges like that.

[MidgetTodd]

wouldnt be the first time for a move like that

[fusion]

I guess you don't care if anyone comes into your home and doesn't follow the rules of your property. Private property is private property.

A wise man once said, "It's my house, and if you don't like it, you get the fuck out!"

[max power]

having a ccw licence's is a big problem if u ask me...u get treated like a convicted when u get pulled over, you always have to read up on new laws all the time...shit is dumb i got arrested and takin to jail when a cop seen me in my garage working on my bike and seen my gun wuz on my side the cop apporcted the garage and asked me if i seen some guy's on a 4 wheeler i said no i didnt he grabs my hand and puts it behind my back and goes do u have any weapons on u i stated yes i have my gun and i have a ccw licences he said what are u suppost to say when u see a officer and u have ur ccw licences...and i said inform then u are carring a gun but i never know if im in my garage minding my biz and u walk up on me asking me a question about some guys on a atv....i spent 2 days in jail....for this act so everyone beware...lol i got it droped in court but i cant get the 2 days of my life back....lol

I gotta call bullshit here, or ask, how much did you get from the wrongful imprisonment lawsuit?

[Likwid]

Thank goodness my motorcycle mechanic doesn't post a no guns sign

I agree that it's their property, once they open it to the public I don't feel they have a right to prohibit CONCEALED carry... but as Pauly said, that's my opinion.

[Likwid]

They have the right because you aren't limited to that establishment. Plus' date=' you aren't forced to pay them. Making a government building a no carry zone is infringement. Not giving my establishment money because I don't allow carry is free market. I love free market.

I don't discriminate. I let people with Hi Points inside as well as citizens with real guns. [/quote']

While you're not forced to pay them, you're forced (if you do) to be put at risk. We're still talking the same thing as before, laws don't stop criminals, and neither do stupid little signs or the owner of an establishment being a whiny baby.

I never brought a HiPoint in your house!

[Disclaimer]

Do the guys with HiPoints ride Q-links?

You'd think that the quality of their weapon would be reflected in the quality of the other things they have in life.

Or, maybe they're rocking wrecked GXSR750s with decent-sized apartments?

[Likwid]

The bolded section is what makes your defense flawed. You don't HAVE to patronize my establishment. However' date=' if I am legally obligated to purchase tags for my car, appear for court summons or even taxed to pay for postage stamps and I'm not allowed to carry in those places. That is the difference. I'm taxed to pay for a court house that I'm not allowed to carry inside of. You don't have to give me any of your money.

[/quote']

So you're a fan of "separate but equal"?

[Strictly Street]

/thread resurrected.

I thought Gun + non-believers fit well with Guns + Churches

Proposed Law Would Allow Guns in Churches

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0109/590527.html

Copied text for the ones who have the site blocked or can't get the link:

Discuss.

I also wonder how everyone would feel if this story was done about a mosque or synagogue. Let the Jews and Muslims CC in their respective places of worship... acceptable or not?

Weapons in a Mosque?

It's not PC to pick on Muslims or Jews, of course they can have their guns.

[Likwid]

We're allowed guns, just can't buy Lugers

[chevysoldier]

while i agree with you, for the devil's advocate in me: is it more shitty for him to deny me my interpretation of my constitutional rights? and if he gets robbed and i bust a cap in the fucker, you think he'd still press charges?

You CANNOT use deadly force to protect property. Now if the robber had a gun pointed to his head, then you would be able to use deadly force. But If I were in an establishment while CC'ing where they posted a CPZ sign, then I don't know if I would shoot to protect him. One side of me says it would be the right thing to do, the other says he gave up the opprotunity to be protected, or actually took the opprotunity to be unprotected, so why would I want to risk taking punishment for him? Free (mostly) right?

[chevysoldier]

and if he gets robbed and i bust a cap in the fucker, you think he'd still press charges?

You CANNOT use deadly force to protect property. Now if the robber had a gun pointed to his head, then you would be able to use deadly force. But If I were in an establishment while CC'ing where they posted a CPZ sign, then I don't know if I would shoot to protect him. One side of me says it would be the right thing to do, the other says he gave up the opprotunity to be protected, or actually took the opprotunity to be unprotected, so why would I want to risk taking punishment for him? Free (mostly) right?

I disagree. If someone enters an establishment with enough gumption to rob it at gunpoint I have no reason to believe they don't have the balls to shoot someone. Eliminate the threat before an innocent person gets shot/killed.

First of all' date=' he never said he robbed it at gun point. This is from the Ohio CCW Handbook.

"

In Ohio, deadly force can be used only to prevent serious bodily harm

or death. Deadly force can never be used to protect property only. Depending on the specific facts and circumstances of the situation, use of

deadly force may lead to criminal charges and/or civil liability."

My whole point was he needs to be sure the store owner was in danger of his life, then yes it's ok to use deadly force. But as his scenario stated he was only being robbed, not being a threat to life, especially not at gun point. That being said, how many people try to rob a place without a weapon? Not too many but it does happen and you need to be fully aware of the situation AND the threat at hand.

[fusion]

I disagree. If someone enters an establishment with enough gumption to rob it at gunpoint I have no reason to believe they don't have the balls to shoot someone. Eliminate the threat before an innocent person gets shot/killed.

Unless they've changed it since I read about it, I believe Ohio Castle Doctrine supports this..

[chevysoldier]

Castle Doctrine

Under certain changes enacted in 2008, a person does not have a duty

to retreat from the residence that they lawfully occupy before using force

in self-defense or defense of another. Additionally, there is no duty to

retreat if the person is lawfully in that person’s vehicle or lawfully is an

occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of that

person. However, being a lawful occupant of a residence or vehicle is

not a license to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is

attacked, without fault of his own, may use deadly force only if he reasonably

and honestly believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent

serious bodily harm or death. If the person does not have this belief, he

should not use deadly force. Again, if it does not put your life or the life

of others in danger, you should withdraw from the confrontation if it is

safe for you to do so.

[Likwid]

Castle doctrine only appliees to motor vehicles and residence... and the only thing it does is remove your duty to retreat, the other 2 fingers of self defense still apply.

[chevysoldier]

No' date=' but if someone is trying to rob me without a gun I'll still draw on them. At that point they have a few choices. They can lie down on the ground like I tell them to, they can turn and run out the door, or they can charge me and get shot to death. Just because someone isn't armed with a gun doesn't mean they can walk out the door with someone's money/property. They will only be shot if they choose to be shot. The choice is solely on their shoulders.[/quote']

But see now you say they charge you and get shot. There is your deadly force. You didn't shoot them to protect property, you shot them to protect your life which is fine. Pulling a weapon is not deadly force. Shooting them is.

[Likwid]

Meaning, you still must perceive immediate serious bodily harm and you must not be the agressor...

If someone comes into a store and robs it, you still have a duty to retreat, regardless of perceived threat to your person.

When in your home or on your bike you don't HAVE to attempt retreat, but that doesn't mean you should ignore. If retreat is a viable alternative, you should still use it, but you can't be charged if you don't.

[Likwid]

well, to IP, would you be willing to stand up in court and defend yourself by saying he ran at you and you feared he would cause harm? probably.

But you MUST still attempt retreat, "hey, I don't want any part of this, I'm leaving"... if you don't do that in some form... you haven't satisfied requirements under self defense.

[Disclaimer]

I thought you just had to yell 'They're coming right at us' before you shoot?