Should businesses be required to allow CCW?

[Frederick]

I've been seeing a lot of these businesses try to restrict concealed carry. obviously, if you're deep concealing a weapon, it's not like they're going to know it's there anyway and the best they can hit you with under Oklahoma law is trespassing.

I think businesses should be allowed to require that such weapons be concealed, but prohibited from a complete prohibition on Concealed weapons on those with permits. Obviously state law could define what places are still illegal to carry.

Property rights of business owners are secondary to the state right to regulate such businesses. If we can prevent discrimination against races and genders, if we can dictate food safety standards and fire standards on private business property, certainly we can do the same with regards to their ability to ban firearms in public places. Certainly banning firearms in certain locations can in certain circumstances be a safety issue.

What do you guys think? It's not a novel idea.

http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/10/22-states-now-say-businesses-can-ban-guns-property/

 

[Pokinfun]

What do I think? A business owners property rights are primary against what a state wants. Also, a business in Oklahoma cannot restrict your right to carry, but they can ask you to leave, which I agree with. They do not have to take my money and I do not have to shop in their store. And, if they would be required to allow CCW, then they should be required to allow open carry.

 

[Frederick]

What do I think? A business owners property rights are primary against what a state wants. Also, a business in Oklahoma cannot restrict your right to carry, but they can ask you to leave, which I agree with. They do not have to take my money and I do not have to shop in their store. And, if they would be required to allow CCW, then they should be required to allow open carry.

I'm curious about the last part of your statement, why should open carry be permitted if concealed carry is? I think concealed carry offers the advantage for the business of being out of sight. allowing them to restrict open carry while requiring concealed carry would give them some leeway to prevent the open display of weapons in their business. That makes sense to me if you're a business that doesn't want to scare customers and balances it with the right of self defense.

What do I think? A business owners property rights are primary against what a state wants. Also, a business in Oklahoma cannot restrict your right to carry, but they can ask you to leave, which I agree with. They do not have to take my money and I do not have to shop in their store. And, if they would be required to allow CCW, then they should be required to allow open carry.

I do think a business owners property rights are important, but i also believe in the importance of not depriving a citizen of his right to self-defense when patronizing a business. I shouldn't have to choose between my right to self-defense and buying gas, water or getting lunch. it's fine to support business property rights when there are **** tons of alternatives around, but if you live in a small town, it's not practical.

 

[druryj]

My opinion: The State has NO RIGHT to impose any more regulations on private businesses. If I own a business, and I do not want to allow firearms in my place of business, then that should be my right. Leave well enough alone.

 

[Frederick]

My opinion: The State has NO RIGHT to impose any more regulations on private businesses. If I own a business, and I do not want to allow firearms in my place of business, then that should be my right. Leave well enough alone.

I understand that, but when you enter into commerce, the government has a right to regulate your business. You can't deny a black person service, so why should a business be permitted to refuse service to an individual exercising his right to self defense? If you don't respect people's right of self-defense, then you should probably not be in business here in Oklahoma. A city/state has a right to regulate business and business regulation is important.

After all, to open that business, you have to get permission from the city/town council and approval from the State and follow all applicable laws. The right to defend yourself is just as important as making sure fire exits are clearly marked.

These laws have consequences, and some anti-gun idiot should not be the one to decide whether or not you can defend yourself.



It's just too bad the shooter in that situation didn't respect the 'business property rights' of the owner.

 

[Rod Snell]

It's pretty much a pointless argument because every major court contest between the 4th and 2nd amendments regarding private property, the 4th amendment has won, including in Oklahoma.
The law is the same as for your home. Would you want to be unable to ask someone to leave and charge them with trespassing if they don't? I doubt it.
Having a business does not take away any property rights, and the owner can put up "No Shoes, no service" or "no firearms allowed." What he can't do is search you to see if you have a gun. But if he sees you do, he has every legal right to ask you to leave and can call the police if you don't. Do you see the difference? He can even serve you with notice you are prohibited from ever setting foot on his property again, and you can be charged with criminal trespass if you return. This is usually used on repeat shoplifters.

 

[Frederick]

It's pretty much a pointless argument because every major court contest between the 4th and 2nd amendments regarding private property, the 4th amendment has won, including in Oklahoma.
The law is the same as for your home. Would you want to be unable to ask someone to leave and charge them with trespassing if they don't? I doubt it.
Having a business does not take away any property rights, and the owner can put up "No Shoes, no service" or "no firearms allowed." What he can't do is search you to see if you have a gun. But if he sees you do, he has every legal right to ask you to leave and can call the police if you don't. Do you see the difference? He can even serve you with notice you are prohibited from ever setting foot on his property again, and you can be charged with criminal trespass if you return. This is usually used on repeat shoplifters.

Well, we could just deny business licenses. That way we're not infringing on their property rights, and he can do as he pleases with it.

 

[Rod Snell]

Well, we could just deny business licenses. That way we're not infringing on their property rights, and he can do as he pleases with it.

Been tried and shot down in Federal Court. Licensing authority will get sued big time and lose.
You can't be Castro and seize businesses.

Suggest you look up the history of the Weyerhauser cases in Oklahoma and District Court in CO.

 

[Frederick]

Been tried and shot down in Federal Court. Licensing authority will get sued big time and lose.
You can't be Castro and seize businesses.

Suggest you look up the history of the Weyerhauser cases in Oklahoma and District Court in CO.

Sure, but what about the Oklahoma laws requiring them to be permitted in parking lots?

 

[Frederick]

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/tennessee-gun-free-zones-bill/

This is interesting as well.

"Two Tennessee state lawmakers have introduced an unusual measure aimed at business owners who ban guns in their buildings. Under the bill, they could be held liable for injuries suffered by concealed carry permit holders who are not allowed to bring firearms onto the property."