Posted on Nov 12, 2015
Should a business be allowed to not let people into their store/restaurant if they are carrying a weapon?
13.4K
143
63
9
9
0
http://www.ksat.com/news/watch-how-mom-and-pop-shops-can-follow-states-open-carry-law
Texas has passed the Open Carry Law.
Should Restaurant owners, store owners or any business owners be allowed to ask anyone entering their place of business to leave their weapon in their vehicle, or otherwise don't come in?
I personally don't like it....but I know many on RP will disagree.
What do you say?
Texas has passed the Open Carry Law.
Should Restaurant owners, store owners or any business owners be allowed to ask anyone entering their place of business to leave their weapon in their vehicle, or otherwise don't come in?
I personally don't like it....but I know many on RP will disagree.
What do you say?
Posted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Law
Gun Control Law
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 35
2
2
0
Absolutely they can. Private property, private rules. A private individual or a business should be able to determine 100% the rules in their environment, provided that they are not actively violating the law. Very few laws give anyone the right to do anything against a property owner's wishes on that property (well, except for the government.....). Easements and the like are so contentious because of that very fact.
I felt the same way about smoking (should be the business' call) before - and after - it was outlawed in businesses in this state. I am very anti-smoking and would often not frequent restaurants & bars just because of the clouds of the stuff. But it was their right to forego my business. And most other things.
Should they? That is a much harder question. For me, the answer is always no. This is more for philosophical reasons than practical. However, it is something that the business will have to give some thought to. Which option will affect their bottom line the most? Is that acceptable? Do they somehow get some insidious liability? Etc.
I felt the same way about smoking (should be the business' call) before - and after - it was outlawed in businesses in this state. I am very anti-smoking and would often not frequent restaurants & bars just because of the clouds of the stuff. But it was their right to forego my business. And most other things.
Should they? That is a much harder question. For me, the answer is always no. This is more for philosophical reasons than practical. However, it is something that the business will have to give some thought to. Which option will affect their bottom line the most? Is that acceptable? Do they somehow get some insidious liability? Etc.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
COL Vincent Stoneking Sir, I was also thinking about it from a liability standpoint. For instance, a patron has a negligent discharge and cause either injury or property damage. Is the business owner somehow liable due to it happening on their property? Will this cause businesses to have additional types of insurance? I don't know, which is why I say yes to them having the right to deny guns in their businesses.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I'd lean towards the "general liability" that all businesses maintain. That which they can control, they can be held civilly liable for. That said, MUCH lower burden of proof, and much easier to escalate the blame from the individual to the DEEPER pockets of the business.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Kinda torn on this one... The limit of any right, to include the right to keep and bear arms, is that you violate the rights of nobody else in the process, which comes from our equality of rights. This includes the right to property. Nobody would think another person was out of line if I told a person I didn't want them to bring a gun into my own home against my will and I think the same should apply to privately owned business. However, we routinely violate the right to property of business owners by way of anti-discrimination laws. As such, I would argue that we should either get rid of anti-discrimination laws and allow business owners to exercise their property rights or include exercising one's 2nd Amendment rights as protected as well.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
That's a Hard one. In Missouri its weird how that works. They cant stop you from carrying but they can ask you to leave. Yet we have an open carry law here.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Sgt Kelli Mays I think they've been doing this since the 1800's. It was not unusual for towns, cities, and establishments to request that those entering relinquish their firearms. People think the argument for gun control is new, but it isn't. The truth is that the Tombstone leaders of the 1880s did more to combat gun violence that the state of Arizona is doing today.
(No I do not have anything against Arizona)
(No I do not have anything against Arizona)
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Anyone who has such a policy must take on the responsibility for the safety of those they disarm. Certainly, when such a policy exists in courtrooms or police stations there are armed individuals present to protect the disarmed "civilian". The same should be required of any business that puts up a "No Guns Allowed" sign. The sign must be backed up by searches and armed guards, or else that sign serves only to point out a "defenseless victim zone".
Of course, as matters stand, that entitlement to protection only extends to those who might otherwise remain lawfully armed, if it were not for the policy of the property owner. Those who have chosen to be unarmed, trusting in the statistical likelyhood of not being a victim of violent crime, have no claim against the property owner. Their potential victimization is a risk they have accepted passively no matter where they go, in public places or in privately owned businesses.
Of course, as matters stand, that entitlement to protection only extends to those who might otherwise remain lawfully armed, if it were not for the policy of the property owner. Those who have chosen to be unarmed, trusting in the statistical likelyhood of not being a victim of violent crime, have no claim against the property owner. Their potential victimization is a risk they have accepted passively no matter where they go, in public places or in privately owned businesses.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
CW3 Harvey K. I can see your point of view, however, I don't feel searches or pat downs are necessary. If I owned a business I would not allow firearms or alcohol into my business.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Sgt Kelli Mays - Would you intend to merely post a "No Guns Allowed" sign, with no means of enforcement of that prohibition?
Signs alone do not dictate the nature of the venue that they (supposedly) control. Such signs as "No Guns" have no power over the criminal element. Criminals would interpret the sign as an "Unarmed Victim Zone", an opportunity.
The error of thinking that a sign can -- all by itself -- somehow control a venue where it is displayed is illustrated by "Donna, the Deer Lady". She was the woman who called in to a radio show and claimed she had recently struck several deer with her car, and wanted the highway department to remove the "DEER XING" signs from the busy Interstates and relocate them to back roads with lower speed limits and less traffic. A win-win proposition, from her point of view. I hope it was a joke, and she was not serious.
The humor of that preposterous idea is based on the false concept that a sign will magically control its venue -- the deer will cross only where the signs are found, and say it is permitted for them to cross . That is the same error we see in posting signs to keep away armed criminals, or homicidal maniacs like Holmes, or Lanza. It is founded on the belief that the "No Guns" sign can -- somehow -- control such people and keep them away.
Signs alone do not dictate the nature of the venue that they (supposedly) control. Such signs as "No Guns" have no power over the criminal element. Criminals would interpret the sign as an "Unarmed Victim Zone", an opportunity.
The error of thinking that a sign can -- all by itself -- somehow control a venue where it is displayed is illustrated by "Donna, the Deer Lady". She was the woman who called in to a radio show and claimed she had recently struck several deer with her car, and wanted the highway department to remove the "DEER XING" signs from the busy Interstates and relocate them to back roads with lower speed limits and less traffic. A win-win proposition, from her point of view. I hope it was a joke, and she was not serious.
The humor of that preposterous idea is based on the false concept that a sign will magically control its venue -- the deer will cross only where the signs are found, and say it is permitted for them to cross . That is the same error we see in posting signs to keep away armed criminals, or homicidal maniacs like Holmes, or Lanza. It is founded on the belief that the "No Guns" sign can -- somehow -- control such people and keep them away.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes, this goes to concept of private property rights. I would go further, and suggest that any private business should be able to refuse service to anybody they choose. Doing so is likely counterproductive for the business owner, but is their right to make such mistakes on their property, or place of business, or home, for that matter.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think absolutely, without question. With that said, it is definitely a right of citizens to voice their displeasure at this.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes. A business or property manager should be able to make that call. HOWEVER, the decision, like smoking-vs-no smoking and closed-toed-shoes, will impact their clientele and marketplace. The option citizens have to defend themselves will open opportunities for some and limit others. It's just a thing...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes, if a business chooses that path, it's my right not to go into that establishment. In TX, I'm sure there are a lot of firearm owners who feel the same way. Here is my prediction; stores who refuse open carry consumers will be targeted by criminals more often.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Absolutely. Armed or not, if a business decides he/she doesn't want my business, they are free to ask me to leave. Once the owner/manager informs me I am not welcome, I will leave, even though the only crime I could be charged with is trespassing (a misdemeanor in most locales, yours may vary).
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google