As an aside, but in my opinion a private business or a church that posts a no-gun sign is not infringing upon my rights as I still have the freedom of association. Or in this case, the freedom if disassociation. I am not forced to disarm, I have to choose to in order to receive their services which can be found other places.
If Chad invites me to his house for a BBQ, but I am vegan, he isn’t infringing on my rights to eat as I please or oppose meat as I have no duty or obligation to take part.
What would be an infringement is if I were to knowingly and willfully break the rules of a property owner by partaking in a behavior that they have forbidden on their property.
Does this mean I support anti-gun signs? Absolutely not. But I do differentiate between me having my rights infringed upon and me having to respect the rights of others on their own property.
I think it is very important that we are clear, or at least have a strong idea what an “infringement” is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@B00ger when you have a church, exactly whose property is it? Taking the question further, how open to the public at large is it?
I agree, I can choose to partake or not but the law telling me I have to is not in their rights or authority.
Well you shoot to stop the threat as fast as possible. You don’t technically shoot to kill. Stopping the threat can result in the criminals death, as typically the fastest and most reliable way to take down a threat is hitting the vital organs. Their possible death is just the result of you defending yourself and others the most effective way possible.So, I head up our Church security team. I *was* the only one who carried at the time so it wasn't a surprise when our Pastor talked to me about it.
The biggest hurdle I'm facing right now is: folks who may legally be allowed to CC a handgun but because of their odd personalities, I'd prefer they not. In the event of any sort of situation, those are not the kind of people I'd want to interfere with any sort of de-escalation attempts.
We held a half-day seminar at our facility with a Captain from the Matthews PD just to get their take and position on hostile church situations (this was before the TX shooting). This one fellow in our meeting asked the Captain, "I've always heard that dead men tell no tales so even if the bad guy is incapacitated, should we still shoot to kill?"
I about fainted after that. Quite literally, he's the ONE guy I'd NOT want to be carrying but we really don't have a recourse against him carrying unless we post the Church building.
Well, it is a property owners right to tell you how to behave on their property or you transfer from guest to trespasser. It’s no longer whether they have the right to ban you from carrying, but their right to ban you from their property. I could legally ban red heads from my house.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a huge difference when the State says you have to ask. What if they say you have to get specific permission at grocery stores? Gas stations? Pretty much kills the ability to conceal carry, as well as forcing you to have a discussion with lots of people that either don’t care (best case) or don’t want to know or deal it (normal case). The rabid antis already have their signs up.
If a church wants to post a sign, fine, but what SC is doing is not a property rights issue. That is covered by signage.
There is a huge difference when the State says you have to ask. What if they say you have to get specific permission at grocery stores? Gas stations? Pretty much kills the ability to conceal carry, as well as forcing you to have a discussion with lots of people that either don’t care (best case) or don’t want to know or deal it (normal case). The rabid antis already have their signs up.
If a church wants to post a sign, fine, but what SC is doing is not a property rights issue. That is covered by signage.
I agree that the owner's private property rights trump a non-owner's 2A rights. As well as a host of others; I'm not hostile to religion, but if I wanted to prohibit the distribution of religious literature on my property, the law should allow me to do so.
The difference in NC is that if you show up barefoot at a restaurant that says "no shoes, no service", then they can tell you to leave, and if you do, no law has been broken. If you don't leave, it's just a "trespass after warning" charge. But if they post a no-guns sign, then you've committed a gun violation as soon as you step inside. "No guns" should be treated the same as "no dogs" or "remove hat before entering the bank". About 2-3 years ago, you would lose your permit for it, but now it's "just" a $500 ticket.
Busting on the Jehovah Witness I see. Hmmmm.Technically, the law does allow you to prohibit the distribution of religious literature on your property. If you post a sign that states so, and a Jehovahs Witness knocks, you can inform them that they are trespassing and they have had notice, failure to leave immediately will result in the police being called. Same as anything.
Busting on the Jehovah Witness I see. Hmmmm.
Busting on the Jehovah Witness I see. Hmmmm.
Let me just leave this hereYes, you got me. I used an obvious example to prove a point. I’m a horrid person.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let me just leave this here
"https://www.carolinafirearmsforum.com/index.php?threads/don-jr-at-shot.21662/#post-372164"
No need to feed the troll
Remember that in NC the posting needs to be "conspicuous" which as far as I know has never been defined in terms of legal requirements. Of course there is the dictionary definition, but if you didn't see the sign it obviously wasn't conspicuous.The difference in NC is that if you show up barefoot at a restaurant that says "no shoes, no service", then they can tell you to leave, and if you do, no law has been broken. If you don't leave, it's just a "trespass after warning" charge. But if they post a no-guns sign, then you've committed a gun violation as soon as you step inside. "No guns" should be treated the same as "no dogs" or "remove hat before entering the bank". About 2-3 years ago, you would lose your permit for it, but now it's "just" a $500 ticket.
Ouch. Sick burn.At least he didn't call them"nutcases" like you referred to CC holders.
Not what I said. Change it just slightly to meet your own needs. Oh well, gotta do why you gotta do. Bye Felicia.At least he didn't call them"nutcases" like you referred to CC holders.
Not what I said. Change it just slightly to meet your own needs. Oh well, gotta do why you gotta do. Bye Felicia.
Ok, in all seriousness. In effect you said that the idea of being around a large number of armed individuals makes you uncomfortable, claiming that it is their lack of some kind of training or other knowledge guarantee that makes you uncomfortable.Not what I said. Change it just slightly to meet your own needs. Oh well, gotta do why you gotta do. Bye Felicia.
Good points. Much more intelligent response than some of these changes in wording to fit the narrative. Some of the people on here’s remarks are quite disturbing and alienate the gun community. Many of my friends are democrats who vote and carry. Calling them dumbicrats and libatards is plain reckless. Because they vote to help others or not let 1% have 82% of the countries wealth does not make them dumb. I’m not a party guy. I vote on issues, not what daddy did. My father led the fight for gun rights and rights of divorced men and I thank him for that. But he also gave his hard earned money in big chunks to keep good ole boys in charge.
By the way. Many of the women in the church were ready to bolt if it was open to everyone. Not my congregation. It’s a private venue. It’s their right to make this decision. I like it.
I will say this as I used the term libtard: there is virtually NOTHING that I support of the R policy platform. I have said that the word republican is amongst the most foul words I know. I’ve said it gives me a rash. Still as long as the Dumb-o-crats make GUN RESTRICTIONS part of THEIR platform, I will vote against them.Many of my friends are democrats who vote and carry. Calling them dumbicrats and libatards is plain reckless.
See how they make this stuff up as they go. Unbelievable.So, people carrying concealed around you are nutjobs, but you've got multiple unsecured firearms around your house and cars, and have grandchildren running around...
And you think democrats want to help people...
Anything else the DU trolls want you to share?
Back on topic, if I'm at a church, I'm carrying. I give no poops about how you it makes you feel.
Misquoted again. Post says it’s not my church. Please read carefully before posting. SMHI am sure there are others carrying in his church and nobody will likely ever know. The ladies can be blissfully ignorant but safer.
Misquoted again. Post says it’s not my church. Please read carefully before posting. SMH
If Chad invites me to his house for a BBQ, but I am vegan
Agreed, yet too verbose for me. I'll stick with the terms DemoRats and Repubicans.I will say this as I used the term libtard: there is virtually NOTHING that I support of the R policy platform. I have said that the word republican is amongst the most foul words I know. I’ve said it gives me a rash. Still as long as the Dumb-o-crats make GUN RESTRICTIONS part of THEIR platform, I will vote against them.