Right to bear arms vs. right to fire

[A.Nonymous]

Why would I win? Because they have to prove for a fact that I stole something, which is impossible, because I don't steal. Not even police/peace officers are allowed to respond with any kind of force unless it's necessary.

Not to mention, when an officer is off-duty, he has no more authority than a regular citizen.

If you set off an anti-theft alarm when you leave the store, that's probable cause that you've stolen something. When the off-duty cop (who is always in uniform in these parts) tells you to stop and you keep going, that's further probable cause that you've done something illegal. A reasonable person would conclude that someone who sets off the security alarm at a store and then refuses to comply with the commands of a uniformed police officer has likely done something illegal. I'm sorry, but a judge is not going to side with you in that situation. Any reasonable person is going to conclude that you've done something illegal therefore an officer using force to apprehend you is going to be justified as long as it's reasonable force.

No, it's not lol. It's restricting the ability to be on private property. There's a difference.

No, you're wrong. It's very much restricting speech. If I'm standing on the front lawn of the capital building holding a sign that says, "The governor sucks" they can't kick me off. If they're doing that, they're restricting my speech. If I'm on your lawn doing the same thing and you kick me off, you're well within your rights to do so.

I once worked for a company that had a policy that said you were not allowed to speak to the media without their approval upon penalty of termination. That's flat out restricting speech. If you punish someone in any way for what they say, that's restricting speech. The government has no right at all to do that (with the exceptions of libel/slander of course), but companies have every right to do so.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

No, you're wrong. It's very much restricting speech. If I'm standing on the front lawn of the capital building holding a sign that says, "The governor sucks" they can't kick me off. If they're doing that, they're restricting my speech. If I'm on your lawn doing the same thing and you kick me off, you're well within your rights to do so.

I once worked for a company that had a policy that said you were not allowed to speak to the media without their approval upon penalty of termination. That's flat out restricting speech. If you punish someone in any way for what they say, that's restricting speech. The government has no right at all to do that (with the exceptions of libel/slander of course), but companies have every right to do so.

Dang .. that's twice now that I agree with you.

Free will and Free Speech are two different things.

 

[IOWA]

If you set off an anti-theft alarm when you leave the store, that's probable cause that you've stolen something.

No, it's not. Any sane person knows those things give off way to many false positives to be considered anywhere near the word accurate. Hence, no probable cause.

When the off-duty cop (who is always in uniform in these parts) tells you to stop and you keep going, that's further probable cause that you've done something illegal.

Your off duty cops wear their uniforms everywhere? That's the first I've ever heard of that. Since the first one isn't really probable cause, how is this? I've hardly ever seen an off-duty cop, working a DIFFERENT job, in his police uniform. The sound of that is ludicrous. Nice try though.

A reasonable person would conclude that someone who sets off the security alarm at a store and then refuses to comply with the commands of a uniformed police officer has likely done something illegal. I'm sorry, but a judge is not going to side with you in that situation. Any reasonable person is going to conclude that you've done something illegal therefore an officer using force to apprehend you is going to be justified as long as it's reasonable force.

No, because in order to use force they have to prove for a fact, a FACT, (meaning they have to see me steal the item, and never break visual contact to ensure I never put it down) in order to use any sort of forceful detention. And still, the force is only when necessary, and 99.9% of the time it won't be necessary for any reason.

No, you're wrong. It's very much restricting speech. If I'm standing on the front lawn of the capital building holding a sign that says, "The governor sucks" they can't kick me off. If they're doing that, they're restricting my speech. If I'm on your lawn doing the same thing and you kick me off, you're well within your rights to do so.

That's what I said. Isn't it? I can exercise my right to speech, they can exercise their right to remove me from their property.

I once worked for a company that had a policy that said you were not allowed to speak to the media without their approval upon penalty of termination. That's flat out restricting speech. If you punish someone in any way for what they say, that's restricting speech. The government has no right at all to do that (with the exceptions of libel/slander of course), but companies have every right to do so.

You're trying to redefine restricting.

re

 

[TxGoat]

As it applies to this thread, you have no 2nd amendment rights at work. If anyone wishes to challenge that notion, I say take your firearm with you at work, let it be known that you have a concealed weapon, and see how fast they ask you to go home or leave your firearm in your car. I am not responsible for what may happen btw. Unless your employer has indicated that you're allowed to carry a firearm on site, they aren't bound by the constitution as a condition for your employment. There are other rules and regulations that an employer has to abide by, but the constitution does not apply in this case.

 

[IOWA]

As it applies to this thread, you have no 2nd amendment rights at work. If anyone wishes to challenge that notion, I say take your firearm with you at work, let it be known that you have a concealed weapon, and see how fast they ask you to go home or leave your firearm in your car. I am not responsible for what may happen btw. Unless your employer has indicated that you're allowed to carry a firearm on site, they aren't bound by the constitution as a condition for your employment. There are other rules and regulations that an employer has to abide by, but the constitution does not apply in this case.

Generally speaking, concealed means concealed. Part of CCW, is not telling the world you have a gun.

If illinois allowed CCW(which they soon will), I'll have mine on me as well regardless of employer wishes. If they want to fire me, that's their right.

 

[TxGoat]

Generally speaking, concealed means concealed. Part of CCW, is not telling the world you have a gun.

If illinois allowed CCW(which they soon will), I'll have mine on me as well regardless of employer wishes. If they want to fire me, that's their right.

That's exactly what we've been saying.

 

[A.Nonymous]

No, it's not. Any sane person knows those things give off way to many false positives to be considered anywhere near the word accurate. Hence, no probable cause.

A judge would disagree with you. A reasonable person is going to conclude that if someone sets off the security alarm and then refuses to comply with the commands of a security officer, that person is up to no good. That's probably cause.

Let's say you're driving down the street in your red car. You're minding your own business not doing anything wrong. Unbeknownst to you the bank a block away was just robbed by a guy who left in a red car that's the same model as your. Can you not stop if the cop pulls you over? No. You are required to stop even though you've done nothing wrong. Furthermore, the cop will point his gun at you as he approaches the car. He's going to assume that you are a bank robber until proven otherwise and nothing he's doing is illegal.

Your off duty cops wear their uniforms everywhere? That's the first I've ever heard of that. Since the first one isn't really probable cause, how is this? I've hardly ever seen an off-duty cop, working a DIFFERENT job, in his police uniform. The sound of that is ludicrous. Nice try though.

When they're working security at various stores they do. Stores want them to. The site of a uniformed police officer standing at the front door deters shop lifters. Well, that's the logic anyway.

No, because in order to use force they have to prove for a fact, a FACT, (meaning they have to see me steal the item, and never break visual contact to ensure I never put it down) in order to use any sort of forceful detention. And still, the force is only when necessary, and 99.9% of the time it won't be necessary for any reason.

No, they don't. You walked out of the door and refused comply with verbal commands. You're telling me the cops just have to let you go? So I can rob a store blind and as long as the cop doesn't see me steal the item, I can get away scott free. That's ridiculous.

That's what I said. Isn't it? I can exercise my right to speech, they can exercise their right to remove me from their property.

How come the state has no right to remove you for your "Our governor sucks" sign? How come if they do that, it's a cut and dried first amendment violation?

You're trying to redefine restricting.

By definition, if something is restricted, it can't happen in the first place. The word you're looking for is most likely prohibited.

You're quibbling about the dictionary definition vs the legal definition.

 

[Frisco]

Generally speaking, concealed means concealed. Part of CCW, is not telling the world you have a gun.

If illinois allowed CCW(which they soon will), I'll have mine on me as well regardless of employer wishes. If they want to fire me, that's their right.

You would be fine as far as your rights (and the employer's rights) but, regrettably, maybe not as far as future employment goes. "Reason for release" and "eligible for re-hire?" are legal queries on employment questionnaires in many states now, and the trend is increasing.

A challenge as to being fired for cc may come along at some point, I guess.

 

[IOWA]

A judge would disagree with you. A reasonable person is going to conclude that if someone sets off the security alarm and then refuses to comply with the commands of a security officer, that person is up to no good. That's probably cause.

Like I said, it depends on the state, and circumstances. The alarm alone is not enough. Spend some time in a court room, and see how much get's thrown out. It'll enlighten you.

Let's say you're driving down the street in your red car. You're minding your own business not doing anything wrong. Unbeknownst to you the bank a block away was just robbed by a guy who left in a red car that's the same model as your. Can you not stop if the cop pulls you over? No. You are required to stop even though you've done nothing wrong. Furthermore, the cop will point his gun at you as he approaches the car. He's going to assume that you are a bank robber until proven otherwise and nothing he's doing is illegal.

Really? You're going to compare a squad car to a rent-a-cop? I know, you're being facetious

When they're working security at various stores they do. Stores want them to. The site of a uniformed police officer standing at the front door deters shop lifters. Well, that's the logic anyway.

Not once, in my travel of 36 states have I ever seen this.

No, they don't. You walked out of the door and refused comply with verbal commands. You're telling me the cops just have to let you go? So I can rob a store blind and as long as the cop doesn't see me steal the item, I can get away scott free. That's ridiculous.

Actually, without proper cause/proof cops DO have to let you go. POLICE officers are only allowed to detain for a reasonable time, which is usually about 15 minutes. And even still, you have to CONSENT to a search of your person.

Officer, Am I Free to Go? - YouTube

How come the state has no right to remove you for your "Our governor sucks" sign? How come if they do that, it's a cut and dried first amendment violation?



You're quibbling about the dictionary definition vs the legal definition.

Quibbling? When it comes to legal terms, it's a HUGE difference. EvEN CaPitAlIZaTIoN has a HUGE legal difference in the eyes of the law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyokKFIecIo&feature=relmfu

 

[IOWA]

You would be fine as far as your rights (and the employer's rights) but, regrettably, maybe not as far as future employment goes. "Reason for release" and "eligible for re-hire?" are legal queries on employment questionnaires in many states now, and the trend is increasing.

A challenge as to being fired for cc may come along at some point, I guess.

When it comes to money, or personal security, I'll pick personal security every time.

 

[Frisco]

When it comes to money, or personal security, I'll pick personal security every time.

Me too.. but not completely cut and dry. Perhaps 51% personal security to 49% financial well-being.

If you give up some personal security, and I say "some" because cc is for rare, very rare dire emergencies, for money I think you're still in pretty good shape, especially if you know how to make "ready secure" your weapon in your car, etc.

And to expand just a bit on the "very rare dire emergencies," that of course depends on where you live! If I lived in Detroit or Chicago, Miami or Houston, I'd change jobs right away for the right to carry at work.

But I live in a city of 350,000 that has such a low crime rate people are startled when a serious violent crime does occur, and it's often some creep from a large city about 50 miles up the road from here.

But I'm from L.A. and also lived in the Bay Area for decades, so I know the difference, I know how it feels to feel like you really do need to carry that thing because chances are a bit stronger for violence to be encountered.

 

[IOWA]

Me too.. but not completely cut and dry. Perhaps 51% personal security to 49% financial well-being.

If you give up some personal security, and I say "some" because cc is for rare, very rare dire emergencies, for money I think you're still in pretty good shape, especially if you know how to make "ready secure" your weapon in your car, etc.

And to expand just a bit on the "very rare dire emergencies," that of course depends on where you live! If I lived in Detroit or Chicago, Miami or Houston, I'd change jobs right away for the right to carry at work.

But I live in a city of 350,000 that has such a low crime rate people are startled when a serious violent crime does occur, and it's often some creep from a large city about 50 miles up the road from here.

But I'm from L.A. and also lived in the Bay Area for decades, so I know the difference, I know how it feels to feel like you really do need to carry that thing because chances are a bit stronger for violence to be encountered.

Yeah, I've been shot at on multiple occasions with no way to defend myself... not fun. If they were up close I would be dead.

 

[copestag]

Generally speaking, concealed means concealed. Part of CCW, is not telling the world you have a gun.

If illinois allowed CCW(which they soon will), I'll have mine on me as well regardless of employer wishes. If they want to fire me, that's their right.

Im no expert on CCW..... and Im sure it varies by state...... but most language I have seen explicitly states it is a violation of the law to carry anywhere that has specifically informed you its not allowed.....

for instance: a sign on the door that says no firearms allowed OR

an employee handbook which says no firearms

so I would say go right ahead and CCW regardless of your employers wishes........ youll not only be at risk of firing..... but youre also breaking the law...... doesnt exactly sound like the characterization of the typical CCW person that weve been led to believe does it?..... I mean come on..... those honest law abiding CCW people would never intentionally break the law right?

 

[OstrichSaK]

If I lived in Detroit or Chicago, Miami or Houston, I'd change jobs right away for the right to carry at work.

Yeah, because that's the ONLY place those things happen. I promise you that your 'quaint' little town of 350k people has a LOT more violent crime than you're aware of. It happens daily. Trust me. As an example my town is much smaller than that and I personally witnessed two office involved shootings where someone was killed in less than a 24hr period (Saturday night then again Sunday afternoon) and there was not a peep about it in the news. They go out of their way to keep stuff like that under wraps because that feeling of security you have isn't a coincidence.

Not once, in my travel of 36 states have I ever seen this.

Actually, LE regularly does security work outside of patrol and do so under the auspices of whatever agency they are employed with. There is generally someone who is in charge of negotiating the rate and then LEOs can either sign up by seniority or on a first come first serve basis. Pay is commonly time and a half or better and they are in full uniform and use agency vehicles and everything as if they were on duty. A common example is sporting events & concerts. Just to get this conversation back on track.

Im no expert on CCW..... and Im sure it varies by state...... but most language I have seen explicitly states it is a violation of the law to carry anywhere that has specifically informed you its not allowed.....

for instance: a sign on the door that says no firearms allowed OR

an employee handbook which says no firearms

so I would say go right ahead and CCW regardless of your employers wishes........ youll not only be at risk of firing..... but youre also breaking the law...... doesnt exactly sound like the characterization of the typical CCW person that weve been led to believe does it?..... I mean come on..... those honest law abiding CCW people would never intentionally break the law right?

You're completely wrong (there's a shock, right?). It is against the law to carry in a federal or state building because it's an actual law. Someone posting a sign on their business is NOT a law. The most they can do is ask you to leave and if you comply you have broken ZERO laws. If you do not comply then you are breaking a law called trespassing. That's ALL!

It's SO hard to have these conversations with people who just make crap up and assume it's real and live their life by such made up BS. Same people who think guns are so evil and dangerous because they get all their 'facts' from a 'guy they know' and Hollywood movies & weeknight TV drama. This is who I'm supposed to be debating with?

 

[batgeek]

so I would say go right ahead and CCW regardless of your employers wishes........ youll not only be at risk of firing..... but youre also breaking the law...... doesnt exactly sound like the characterization of the typical CCW person that weve been led to believe does it?..... I mean come on..... those honest law abiding CCW people would never intentionally break the law right?

we have a winner.

 

[IOWA]

Im no expert on CCW..... and Im sure it varies by state...... but most language I have seen explicitly states it is a violation of the law to carry anywhere that has specifically informed you its not allowed.....

for instance: a sign on the door that says no firearms allowed OR

an employee handbook which says no firearms

so I would say go right ahead and CCW regardless of your employers wishes........ youll not only be at risk of firing..... but youre also breaking the law...... doesnt exactly sound like the characterization of the typical CCW person that weve been led to believe does it?..... I mean come on..... those honest law abiding CCW people would never intentionally break the law right?

If it's against the law, then no I wouldn't. But you bet your ass it'll be in a quick release safe in my car then.

...and isn't it illegal to use Municipal/State property for duties other than official?

we have a winner.

Hmph. Looks like you don't have a winner after all. Thanks for contributing!

 

[batgeek]

ok so he confused policy with law.

If illinois allowed CCW(which they soon will), I'll have mine on me as well regardless of employer wishes. If they want to fire me, that's their right.

continue to rage agaisnt the machine. what a wonderful example you set for the honest and upstanding CC population.

Actually, LE regularly does security work outside of patrol and do so under the auspices of whatever agency they are employed with. There is generally someone who is in charge of negotiating the rate and then LEOs can either sign up by seniority or on a first come first serve basis. Pay is commonly time and a half or better and they are in full uniform and use agency vehicles and everything as if they were on duty. A common example is sporting events & concerts.

and to add to this: some counties i've lived in, a deputized sherriff is considered "able to act in official means" 24/7 regardless of being in uniform/on shift.

edit: and as an aside, the BoR and it's amendments pertains to what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do to an individual, not what any other public or private entity can do to an individual.

 

[IOWA]

ok so he confused policy with law.



continue to rage agaisnt the machine. what a wonderful example you set for the honest and upstanding CC population.



and to add to this: some counties i've lived in, a deputized sherriff is considered "able to act in official means" 24/7 regardless of being in uniform/on shift.

edit: and as an aside, the BoR and it's amendments pertains to what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do to an individual, not what any other public or private entity can do to an individual.

So then would you agree with the policy?

For some absurd reason, the majority of this country seems to believe that a woman who choose to defend herself with CCW and use it is somehow morally inferior to the woman who can defend herself and gets raped. ...yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

If it's not against the law, my life is worth more than any job, career, or employment. So yeah, I think I am setting a pretty good example. Life is precious. Can not be replaced. Employment can.

 

[batgeek]

i may not agree with it, but i abide by it because i wish to continue to work there.

quit working there and find a place that doesn't have that policy. don't defy the policy because you disagree with it. i don't frequent stores or restaraunts that have a no weapon policy. 2 reasons: a) i don't like to leave my weapon in my car, and b) i don't wish to give a business with that policy any of my money.

 

[copestag]

You're completely wrong (there's a shock, right?).

Actually it is a shock because Im completely right and you are completely wrong.

It is against the law to carry in a federal or state building because it's an actual law. Someone posting a sign on their business is NOT a law. The most they can do is ask you to leave and if you comply you have broken ZERO laws. If you do not comply then you are breaking a law called trespassing. That's ALL!

as I said ...... Im no expert......... all I can use are the resources available to me..... for instance heres a DIRECT QUOTE from the Missouri Highway Patrol official government website regarding the LAW.

" In accordance with Section 571.107 RSMo., you may not carry a concealed weapon in the following places:"

theres a list (which contains more than just federal and state buildings) so I will spare all the typing.... heres the last on the list however

"private or public property where posted"

sounds like some legal stuff to me....... as in ITS AGAINST THE LAW

trespassing is not the law youre violating...... the CCW law is.... the very act of carrying a concealed weapon in places listed is a violation of the law and can result in penalties.

that of course is just one state...... it happened to be the first I checked and didnt need to go any further to prove my point.... Im sure I could check every other state and find similar language

It's SO hard to have these conversations with people who just make crap up and assume it's real and live their life by such made up BS. Same people who think guns are so evil and dangerous because they get all their 'facts' from a 'guy they know' and Hollywood movies & weeknight TV drama.

I absolutely agree...... it is very hard to have these conversations with people who refuse to educate themselves....... and instead just make crap up

These are the people who want so badly to be cool and carry a gun that they disregard any logical sane realities in life...... such as THE LAW....... they are dangerous because they get their 'facts' from a 'guy they know' and wild west comic books & cartoons

This is who I'm supposed to be debating with?

personally Id prefer if instead of wasting your time debating... you went and educated yourself about THE LAW

and in the future before you try to sound condescending in your replies.... as if youre dealing with a bunch of morons or something....... at least try to have a clue what youre speaking about

again Im no expert

Edit: guess I should have checked YOUR state first.... that way you can be educated a little bit about laws that directly apply to you specifically..... not just the typical state in general as I referred to earlier

interestingly according to the Colorado State Patrol website:

"Colorado law allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, you cannot carry the weapon concealed on or about your person while transporting it into your home, business, hotel room, etc. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6]."

you cannot have it concealed in a place of business at all.... the very act is a Class 2 Misdemeanor

thats your own state... you should learn this stuff

interesting information when you take the time to read the law before jumping in some discussion and start making things up

 

[OstrichSaK]

Edit: guess I should have checked YOUR state first.... that way you can be educated a little bit about laws that directly apply to you specifically..... not just the typical state in general as I referred to earlier

interestingly according to the Colorado State Patrol website:

"Colorado law allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, you cannot carry the weapon concealed on or about your person while transporting it into your home, business, hotel room, etc. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6]."

you cannot have it concealed in a place of business at all.... the very act is a Class 2 Misdemeanor

thats your own state... you should learn this stuff

interesting information when you take the time to read the law before jumping in some discussion and start making things up

Now he's quoting gun laws that say you can't conceal a firearm WITHOUT A PERMIT to any of those listed places. It says NOTHING about businesses posting no firearms. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

I know WAY more about firearm law then you THINK you do. I'm tired of your uninformed BS you spew about everyone with guns thinking their cool or cowboys. Very mature. Congratulations to being the 2nd person I've blocked on this forum. It takes a special kind oblivious-to-reality person to make that list. There's only one more that I can see adding so I should just add them now to make this forum somewhat enjoyable. Enjoy life in your fantasy world where those who own and shoot guns are bad guys no matter what.

 

[batgeek]

wow. drama queen much?

 

[copestag]

Im quoting the laws pertaining to what is ILLEGAL to do under concealed carry........ the laws written specifically in regards to concealed carry........ the laws as posted on the state police websites for everyone in the world to see..... and these laws...... which are very clearly written so even a moron could understand them.... say you cannot bring a concealed weapon into any place that has posted no firearms... and some states LIKE COLORADO... explicitly forbid concealed firearms in businesses at all (with a couple of exceptions such as LEOs)

I know its hard to admit that you are wrong...... but the truth is there plain as day........ I would encourage you to learn the law before you go totin that gun around thinking youre John Wayne

I personally am all for gun rights..... and being in Illinois it saddens me to be the holdout state that still bans concealed carry.......

unfortunately we have 3 groups of people:

those who are against..... and make it very difficult

those who are educated.... and do what they can to change the laws

and uneducated people who spout nonsense which makes the rest of the gun rights activists look like tinfoil hat morons

those who refuse to learn the laws and abide by them are doing a terrible disservice to educated people who are trying to make a difference..... its people like this that prove exactly what the anti-gun people are spewing...... this leads people to believe that everyone who wants to own a gun must be as undeducated and ridiculous

as I said Im no expert.... but I certainly can read exactly what a law says..... and exactly what the penalties are for disobeying

 

[batgeek]

i think CSR 18-12-214 is more pertinant to your arguement. specifically section 5: Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

so yeah, if in Colorado there is a sign stating you cannot carry concealed, or if your company states that you cannot carry concealed at work; shoot, even if your neighbor tells you they don't want you carrying concealed in/on their property; you are violating CSR 18-12-214(5).

 

[A.Nonymous]

We can run in circles all day over this. I can say whatever I want, anywhere I want unless it causes harm to someone else. There will be no legal consequences if I walk into Home Depot and chant "Home Depot sucks!" until they ask me to leave. Although the 1A is under attack now too, so that might soon change.

And if Home Depot asks you to leave they're restricting your speech. They are in direct violation of the First Amendment by asking you to leave. However, they're well within their legal rights to do so. By your argument, free speech can NEVER be restricted short of putting a pillow in someone's mouth. The fact is that any time you punish someone in any way (whether it's tossing them in jail or just kicking them off your property) you are restricting their speech. The feds have no rights to do this except in the case of threats really. With private property owners it's pretty wide open. I can kick you off my property because I don't like the message on your tshirt if I want.