|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 0:15:33 GMT
I think any business should make it as safe as possible for all their clients/customers but you cannot foresee every circumstance. If a business wants to ban firearms from their establishment, I don't think it is their responsibility to do anything other than normal/usual safety measures. It isn't as safe as possible if you cannot defend yourself. That puts you in an unsafe situation if you did need to defend yourself and could not.I really do not understand this line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 0:17:01 GMT
Rainbow...I am curious...what type of handgun do you own? What type of holster do you carry it in? Is it a side holster or do you carry in your purse? How often do you train with it ? (shooting is a perishable skill) when training what type of drills are you training? What type of ammo? When training do you change the conditions? (For example shooting from prone, in adverse weather, if you wear glasses (RX) shooting without them) How many yards out do you shoot? Do you train strong and weak side? Do you practice malfunctions? There is no snark to these questions. Thanks I really do not feel comfortable answering these questions for security reasons. I will say that I do have prescription range glasses though.Lol! I think I'd be willing to answer only 2 of those questions!!! Lol
|
|
LeaP
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,939
Location: Los Angeles, CA where 405 meets 101
Jun 26, 2014 23:17:22 GMT
|
Post by LeaP on Jul 2, 2016 0:17:05 GMT
I guess we all should be able to bring our dogs with us everywhere we go. I'm going to demand being able to bring my dog everywhere with me, because she would keep me safer than any firearm I might carry. I should sue any business owner who doesn't let me bring her with me and anything bad happens to me. And don't you dare complain if my dog is sitting on the bench in the booth next to me in a restaurant, or that she is on the floor next to my chair. And I'm going to bring her in the grocery store, because you have all seen what is happening in Target lately with perverts accosting women. Hmm, maybe this is the reason every store in my area is overrun with dogs especially Target. It's a side effect of California's stricter gun laws SaveSave
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 5:03:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 0:19:41 GMT
gah! time for jello
|
|
LeaP
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,939
Location: Los Angeles, CA where 405 meets 101
Jun 26, 2014 23:17:22 GMT
|
Post by LeaP on Jul 2, 2016 0:27:52 GMT
gah! time for jello
Off to Etsy to shop for some "unique" Jello molds. Is that a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle head with lima beans? SaveSave
|
|
purplebee
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,726
Jun 27, 2014 20:37:34 GMT
|
Post by purplebee on Jul 2, 2016 0:30:09 GMT
If I was too scared to leave my house unarmed in broad daylight in fear of being raped, I would be TAKING valium! You are aware that rapes can happen in broad daylight, correct?Of course I do. I just chose not to let fear of what could happen affect how I go about my daily activities. Maybe I live in a safer area of the world than you do, I don't know. Rainbow, we all have to live our lives the way we see fit. I am just saying that I am thankful that I don't have to let fear of being attacked, raped, robbed or assaulted take the joy out of my life, be it working or leisure or being comfortable in my own home.... If you are carrying legally and are handling your weapons and ammo in a safe and responsible manner, then that is your right, I would never debate that. I am just glad that MY anxiety level is not such that I have to be on guard/fearful 24/7, enough to warrant carrying a weapon at all times. BTW, Dh has a Concealed Carry license, but rarely uses it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 5:03:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 0:34:42 GMT
LeaP, I'm not sure The picture didn't have a description or explanation, so many of my jello pics are sadly, unidentifiable. It's kind of fun to speculate, though!
|
|
|
Post by rockymtnpea on Jul 2, 2016 0:40:09 GMT
Fair enough in not wanting to answer the questions...😃 My point in all this and in trying to keep it civil is that people (general people not specifically you) typically talk about protecting themselves and what they would do if such and such happened and they were armed an then you talk to them and it is some joker who hasn't trained with their firearm in who knows how long (some states issue concealed weapons permits which require initial training hours and then....NOTHING. A person cannot be proficient if the last time they shot was 3 years ago in their uncles back yard popping cans. As I said...shooting is a perishable skill. If a person doesn't train under various conditions, in less then perfect weather, under duress, without their RX glasses and cute shooting outfit, weak handed or with a mal function, or with an elevated heart rate the odds of them being useful in a firefight is greatly diminished. Further, they must be prepared mentally....
So...although I enjoy hearing people boast about all they will do sometimes I just think 'sure you would.' Hell just reading some posts folks are afraid to even speak to a stranger when they are clearly doing something they should be called on.
Btw...from this post I have neither indicated which side of the fence I am on in this debate...just throwing out food for thought. And Rainbow...I am not making any assumptions about your qualifications with a firearm. I am speaking in general terms.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 0:51:01 GMT
I think it's very short-sighted. The state will end up spending a mint in legal costs to defend the inevitable challenge. Just because some gun rights folks think something is "fair" doesn't make it constitutional. What would make it unconstitutional?There's a lot of legal precedent for the preservation of private property rights, including the right of the property owner to restrict what things may happen or what items may be brought onto the property. I think a strong argument could be made under the 9th amendment that the Tennessee law is a violation of private property rights. I expect that some will argue that gun-free zones are a violation of 2nd amendment rights, also under the 9th amendment, but I think that would be hard to defend as long as the CHL holder's presence there is voluntary. It's might also be possible to argue that creating CHL holders as a special class of individuals who must be protected on private property, and may sue if they are not, is a violation of the 14th amendment. I think an unintended consequence of this law might be signs on businesses stating that CHL holders may not enter, or that they do so at their own risk.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 1:15:59 GMT
gah! time for jello Uh oh!!!! You're going to be called a bulky and immature now!! Lol lol lol!!!!
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Jul 2, 2016 1:29:20 GMT
No. We have the right to arms. We have the right to be free of arms in our own privately owned business. You don't like my business choices. Don't shop there. Sounds very familiar. I haven't read the whole thread yet so I am sure it has been said somewhere down the road but... yes and no to that sounding familiar. In this case the whether you will shop or be served in the establishment depends entirely on you. No one is saying because you are a gun carrier I will never serve you, only that if you want to be served please do not bring in Your gun. In my opinion that is vastly different than a "I don't agree with your gun choices I will not serve you at all" view. More like follow the rules of the establishment, whether it be shirt and shoes required or no guns, and we will serve you.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2016 1:45:28 GMT
Fair enough in not wanting to answer the questions...😃 My point in all this and in trying to keep it civil is that people (general people not specifically you) typically talk about protecting themselves and what they would do if such and such happened and they were armed an then you talk to them and it is some joker who hasn't trained with their firearm in who knows how long (some states issue concealed weapons permits which require initial training hours and then....NOTHING. A person cannot be proficient if the last time they shot was 3 years ago in their uncles back yard popping cans. As I said...shooting is a perishable skill. If a person doesn't train under various conditions, in less then perfect weather, under duress, without their RX glasses and cute shooting outfit, weak handed or with a mal function, or with an elevated heart rate the odds of them being useful in a firefight is greatly diminished. Further, they must be prepared mentally.... So...although I enjoy hearing people boast about all they will do sometimes I just think 'sure you would.' Hell just reading some posts folks are afraid to even speak to a stranger when they are clearly doing something they should be called on. Btw...from this post I have neither indicated which side of the fence I am on in this debate...just throwing out food for thought. And Rainbow...I am not making any assumptions about your qualifications with a firearm. I am speaking in general terms. Thank you for understanding!
I agree with you about training/practice. It is ongoing like with any other skill.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2016 1:52:12 GMT
What would make it unconstitutional? There's a lot of legal precedent for the preservation of private property rights, including the right of the property owner to restrict what things may happen or what items may be brought onto the property. I think a strong argument could be made under the 9th amendment that the Tennessee law is a violation of private property rights. I expect that some will argue that gun-free zones are a violation of 2nd amendment rights, also under the 9th amendment, but I think that would be hard to defend as long as the CHL holder's presence there is voluntary. It's might also be possible to argue that creating CHL holders as a special class of individuals who must be protected on private property, and may sue if they are not, is a violation of the 14th amendment. I think an unintended consequence of this law might be signs on businesses stating that CHL holders may not enter, or that they do so at their own risk. People can argue literally anything. I don't believe people give up rights in order to shop.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2016 1:54:34 GMT
Sounds very familiar. I haven't read the whole thread yet so I am sure it has been said somewhere down the road but... yes and no to that sounding familiar. In this case the whether you will shop or be served in the establishment depends entirely on you. No one is saying because you are a gun carrier I will never serve you, only that if you want to be served please do not bring in Your gun. In my opinion that is vastly different than a "I don't agree with your gun choices I will not serve you at all" view. More like follow the rules of the establishment, whether it be shirt and shoes required or no guns, and we will serve you. And when the bad guy comes in with his gun, then what? Hope for the best? Sorry, not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 2:12:04 GMT
There's a lot of legal precedent for the preservation of private property rights, including the right of the property owner to restrict what things may happen or what items may be brought onto the property. I think a strong argument could be made under the 9th amendment that the Tennessee law is a violation of private property rights. I expect that some will argue that gun-free zones are a violation of 2nd amendment rights, also under the 9th amendment, but I think that would be hard to defend as long as the CHL holder's presence there is voluntary. It's might also be possible to argue that creating CHL holders as a special class of individuals who must be protected on private property, and may sue if they are not, is a violation of the 14th amendment. I think an unintended consequence of this law might be signs on businesses stating that CHL holders may not enter, or that they do so at their own risk. People can argue literally anything. I don't believe people give up rights in order to shop.Sure you do. You can't exercise your rights to free speech or assembly, among others, on private property if the property owner doesn't allow it. Show up tomorrow at the nearest store with a no guns sign on it, with 30 friends and a lot of protest posters, and parade through the aisles of the store chanting "2A is here to stay," and see what happens. (Here's a hint: If you're not arrested, you'll be escorted to the public sidewalk to continue your protest. And that's also as far as you can take your gun if the property owner has signage against it.) When I say argue, I mean legal argument in court. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it, but I'd be surprised if the legal challenges aren't already being planned.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 2:13:04 GMT
I haven't read the whole thread yet so I am sure it has been said somewhere down the road but... yes and no to that sounding familiar. In this case the whether you will shop or be served in the establishment depends entirely on you. No one is saying because you are a gun carrier I will never serve you, only that if you want to be served please do not bring in Your gun. In my opinion that is vastly different than a "I don't agree with your gun choices I will not serve you at all" view. More like follow the rules of the establishment, whether it be shirt and shoes required or no guns, and we will serve you. And when the bad guy comes in with his gun, then what? Hope for the best? Sorry, not good enough.Then exercise your right to find a different place to shop. Easy peasy.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2016 2:27:58 GMT
And when the bad guy comes in with his gun, then what? Hope for the best? Sorry, not good enough. Then exercise your right to find a different place to shop. Easy peasy. In Tennessee, you don't have to. I think this act is a good compromise.
|
|
LeaP
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,939
Location: Los Angeles, CA where 405 meets 101
Jun 26, 2014 23:17:22 GMT
|
Post by LeaP on Jul 2, 2016 2:31:33 GMT
Fair enough in not wanting to answer the questions...😃 My point in all this and in trying to keep it civil is that people (general people not specifically you) typically talk about protecting themselves and what they would do if such and such happened and they were armed an then you talk to them and it is some joker who hasn't trained with their firearm in who knows how long (some states issue concealed weapons permits which require initial training hours and then....NOTHING. A person cannot be proficient if the last time they shot was 3 years ago in their uncles back yard popping cans. As I said...shooting is a perishable skill. If a person doesn't train under various conditions, in less then perfect weather, under duress, without their RX glasses and cute shooting outfit, weak handed or with a mal function, or with an elevated heart rate the odds of them being useful in a firefight is greatly diminished. Further, they must be prepared mentally.... So...although I enjoy hearing people boast about all they will do sometimes I just think 'sure you would.' Hell just reading some posts folks are afraid to even speak to a stranger when they are clearly doing something they should be called on. Btw...from this post I have neither indicated which side of the fence I am on in this debate...just throwing out food for thought. And Rainbow...I am not making any assumptions about your qualifications with a firearm. I am speaking in general terms. This is how I know that my fears of shooting myself in the foot are well founded. Only airsoft in our house, even BB guns are too dangerous for us. SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Jul 2, 2016 2:35:32 GMT
I haven't read the whole thread yet so I am sure it has been said somewhere down the road but... yes and no to that sounding familiar. In this case the whether you will shop or be served in the establishment depends entirely on you. No one is saying because you are a gun carrier I will never serve you, only that if you want to be served please do not bring in Your gun. In my opinion that is vastly different than a "I don't agree with your gun choices I will not serve you at all" view. More like follow the rules of the establishment, whether it be shirt and shoes required or no guns, and we will serve you. And when the bad guy comes in with his gun, then what? Hope for the best? Sorry, not good enough.Again you are free to frequent places where you feel comfortable and safe and where you can carry your gun. What I am saying is that I do not consider not allowing someone to bring in a gun to an establishment the same as an establishment not providing services at all because of your sexual orientation. I guess I would have to say I would hope for the best if it was that or carry a gun. I would never carry a gun because it is not something I would be comfortable doing. That does not mean that I think that you shouldn't be able to. But You do need to follow all the rules and regulations to do so, which would include not carrying them in to establishments that do not allow it. Just out of curiosity how would you handle traveling by air to another city? Would you bring your gun with you or leave it home? How do you travel when you are carrying, would you just check it in with your luggage? Again I guess I can google it but I am curious to how this works. I have to say that even coming from the state that is known for having the least gun legislation, I do not see or know people that feel it necessary to carry guns on them at all times. I realize the there are people that do but I don't think it is as prevalent as in some other states.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 2, 2016 2:49:33 GMT
Wait.
I only skimmed this thread, but I don't think anyone has mentioned this part of the bill: The individual or business that posts a no-gun sign is ALSO responsible for the safety of prevented gun carrier (PGC) on any property PGC traverses between (to or from) the no-gun property and wherever PGC's gun is stored.
So, let's say I go to a gun-free jello mold delicacy shop. The jello shop owner is responsible for protecting me from a gunman while walking from my car to the shop? What if I don't think it's safe to store my gun in my car and store it at home? What if I walk to the shop? What if I take public transportation? I can sue Jello Entrepreneur 'cause gunless me was held up on the city bus while going to pick up my molded jello confection?
ETA: And how in the world would I prove I was on the way to the jello shop? ("Officer, I was held up while walking down Main Street. And...why, yes...come think of it, I was on my way to that gun-free jello shop.")
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 2, 2016 3:12:52 GMT
gah! time for jello That smiley is brilliant. Even better than the dueling swordsmen.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 3:13:50 GMT
Then exercise your right to find a different place to shop. Easy peasy. In Tennessee, you don't have to. I think this act is a good compromise.It's not a compromise at all for those business owners who don't allow guns in their places of business. I posted before about insurance. Because of this law, insurance is going to sky rocket for those business owners because of this new liability. Which In itself is ironic because there is no added liability insurance required for gun owners! Small businesses won't be able to afford it and costs will go up. It's an unbalanced and unfair burden on the business owners.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 3:21:27 GMT
This stupid law is a perfect example of the claims
"Stop punishing gun owners and punish the bad guys"
Now it appears that the business owners who request no guns are being punished.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 5:03:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 4:12:26 GMT
link
I guess you could call this the tale of two states. I didn't read all the previous posts so forgive me for posting this information again if someone already posted this information. Today Gov. Jerry Brown of CA signed into law 6 new gun control laws that includes no more big magazines and requiring background checks to buy ammunition. Brown didn't sign all the laws but I'm happy with the ones he did sign. Also in CA there will be a way to prove or disapprove the impact of these and others gun control laws on public safety. The reason CA lawmakers voted to create and fund a Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of CA. I'm glad I live in a progressive state like CA instead of a state like Tennessee.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 2, 2016 4:23:16 GMT
This stupid law is a perfect example of the claims "Stop punishing gun owners and punish the bad guys" Now it appears that the business owners who request no guns are being punished. Wait until the next thread about Obamacare or minimum/living wage and we will hear lots of complaining about their negative impact on small business owners by the same people supporting this law.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jul 2, 2016 4:32:15 GMT
I think any business should make it as safe as possible for all their clients/customers but you cannot foresee every circumstance. If a business wants to ban firearms from their establishment, I don't think it is their responsibility to do anything other than normal/usual safety measures. It isn't as safe as possible if you cannot defend yourself. That puts you in an unsafe situation if you did need to defend yourself and could not.What about those of us who feel less safe at the thought of someone else in the store carrying a gun? I understand that anything can happen at any time, but I personally think that an average joe carrying a gun in a store has a better chance of causing more problems in a shooter situation than actually helping or preventing deaths.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 5:03:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 4:49:19 GMT
This stupid law is a perfect example of the claims "Stop punishing gun owners and punish the bad guys" Now it appears that the business owners who request no guns are being punished. Wait until the next thread about Obamacare or minimum/living wage and we will hear lots of complaining about their negative impact on small business owners by the same people supporting this law. Unless I missed someone else, I do believe only one person here supports this law.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 5:03:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 5:04:13 GMT
It isn't as safe as possible if you cannot defend yourself. That puts you in an unsafe situation if you did need to defend yourself and could not. What about those of us who feel less safe at the thought of someone else in the store carrying a gun? I understand that anything can happen at any time, but I personally think that an average joe carrying a gun in a store has a better chance of causing more problems in a shooter situation than actually helping or preventing deaths. I know there are many reported instances of a citizen with a gun stopping an active shooter situation, there was one at a nightclub just this past weekend. Have there been many, if any situations where a citizen with a gun attempted to stop a shooter, failed and shot a bunch of innocent bystanders instead?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 2, 2016 5:33:46 GMT
Wait until the next thread about Obamacare or minimum/living wage and we will hear lots of complaining about their negative impact on small business owners by the same people supporting this law. Unless I missed someone else, I do believe only one person here supports this law. I counted two, not including you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 5:03:29 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 6:22:28 GMT
Unless I missed someone else, I do believe only one person here supports this law. I counted two, not including you. So, are you saying you see 3 people on this thread that support this law if you DO include me?
|
|