Every time I've asked about this the answer has always been the same: The unload requirement doesn't apply to those enering the store while carrying licensed CPL. It applies to the buyer, seller or shooter who brings a firearm into the establishment in a case or other carrier.

Plenty of people have entered these places with weapons they thought were unloaded... Oops.

quote:

There is no upside to me in them being in my business with weapons, and there is a potential (though remote) downside.

You have got to be kidding??
NO upside to having law abiding legal concealed carry??
What is the purpose then?

It sounds like a Brady commercial.

I work part time at a gun store and range that has a sign on the door that says no loaded guns in the store. There are several reasons for this.

Getting swept with the muzzle of a gun multiple times a day is part of it.

I can't tell you the number of times in a year that some idiot walks in with a loaded gun, that he thinks is not loaded and points it at you.

Then we have the guy with a concealed handgun, who pulls it out to try it in a holster he is thinking about buying.

I have seen a customer shoot the floor, one shot the ceiling, and another shot the wall. All with unloaded guns.

There just ends up being way too much gun handling to mix in loaded guns.

With all that said, if you have a permit and it stays concealed, there is no problem, the problem arises when you pull it out to try out that holster, or for what ever reason. The policy is for the safety of the employees and customers. You walk in with a loaded gun and it's visible, you will be asked to leave.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

There is no upside to me in them being in my business with weapons, and there is a potential (though remote) downside.

You have got to be kidding??
NO upside to having law abiding legal concealed carry??
What is the purpose then?

It sounds like a Brady commercial.

Actually, you managed to misquote me (though subtly.) Reread the quote that you are responding to. It's right there at the top of your post. I'll pause a second so you can look at it...

Do you see the words "to me" in between "upside" and "in?" I don't state that there is no possible upside, but rather that an armed but unknown, untested, potential yahoo, AS DESCRIBED IN NEARLY EVERY POST IN THIS THREAD, being in my business provides no upside to me, and a possible downside. Might he by being armed provide an upside to himself? Sure; insofar as he doesn't know that I am in fact armed and providing for the security of my building he might feel a need to do so himself. But I'm not worried about this theoretical person's feelings; I'm committed to the best course for myself and my employees in this building, and that is best accomplished if no armed people, good or bad, evil or righteous, skilled or unskilled, other than myself are in this building.

People who think that's unfair are free to buy their own building and hire fifty people to work with them, and then institute whatever policies they want.

(And please remember, I have already stated I have no policy forbidding anyone from carrying -- only that I PREFER no one but me be armed.)

NGB

NGB you are either misleading or attempting to purposely send a mixed message. I take offense at calling anyone who is legally carrying and licensed as "an armed but unknown, untested, potential yahoo" > your words not mine. Unlicensed illegal carry is not acceptable, IMO. I have no issue on your right to prohibit anyone from carrying in your business however your words are leading in an anti-gun/carry direction. Either you are for legally licensed law abiding citizens to conceal carry or you are not. The no forbidding but prefer not is waffling, IMO. I get the same feeling when I hear "sensible gun control" sentiment ~ one that I detest.

I can see his point. Private property rights trumps the 2nd amendment.

The fact that someone goes through the effort and scrutiny to obtain a CCW and does carry a weapon doesn't mean that person can't become a potential threat to a business owner/employees under the right/wrong circumstances.

He has a right just as a gun shop owner (or any other business or your home) does to oppose weapons on the property. Do business elsewhere if that doesn't sit well with you.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
NGB you are either misleading or attempting to purposely send a mixed message. I take offense at calling anyone who is legally carrying and licensed as "an armed but unknown, untested, potential yahoo" > your words not mine. Unlicensed illegal carry is not acceptable, IMO. I have no issue on your right to prohibit anyone from carrying in your business however your words are leading in an anti-gun/carry direction. Either you are for legally licensed law abiding citizens to conceal carry or you are not. The no forbidding but prefer not is waffling, IMO. I get the same feeling when I hear "sensible gun control" sentiment ~ one that I detest.

Perhaps everyone in your state is well-trained and thoughtful about their handling of a firearm. In the state of Georgia the only requirements for a concealed carry permit are that you NOT be a felon or a nutjob. No course, no training, no requirements. From a constitutional point of view I'm happy about that. From a pragmatic POV, I'd rather an unknown but licensed person not be carrying in the presence of my associates; again, no upside, slight potential downside.

Jeepers, guys, we don't all have to think exactly the same way on this issue. Sounds suspiciously like the "sheeple" I'm always hearing about on the gun control side of the fence.

I would ask anyone who vehemently disagrees with me on this to try this experiment: Imagine that you own a business with multiple employees, mostly ladies. Now imagine that an unknown person comes into your building openly carrying a pistol on his hip, presumably legally, though you don't know that. He's not being a problem, he's just come in off the street. Would you be happy he was there, or would you prefer he not be there.

No need to answer -- I'm not trying to "win an argument on the internet." Just asking that anyone who is truly interested in my reasoning thoughfully consider that question.

Thanks!
NGB

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
I can see his point. Private property rights trumps the 2nd amendment.

The fact that someone goes through the effort and scrutiny to obtain a CCW and does carry a weapon doesn't mean that person can't become a potential threat to a business owner/employees under the right/wrong circumstances.

He has a right just as a gun shop owner (or any other business or your home) does to oppose weapons on the property. Do business elsewhere if that doesn't sit well with you.

Thanks, I appreciate your circumspection, whether or not you agree with me.

NGB

NGB apparently where you live the CCW permit, licensing and laws mean nothing at least to you. In Texas at least it has been shown that they are for the most part held by highly responsible individuals. All you have to do is compare the criminal actions of those with a Texas CHL and those without > Link

So, to keep this basic.

If you have a concealed permit and don't plan on taking your gun out (to show at the range or show it off for whatever reason) versus if you plan on selling your gun or have some work done.

So, if you don't plan on touching your gun and it's concealed no one needs to know.

If you need to show it to someone for whatever reason keep it unloaded. And always treat the gun as RULE #1 - treat as loaded. Don't point it at anyone.

Some basics for those that need work or want to sell. Bring it in unloaded and with the action open, no magazine in the firearm and best of all bring it in some container (case or bag). Before you start handling it in the store. Ask and let someone know what you are doing.

For those that are concealed carriers - Carry lawfully and don't let them know you are carrying. No one needs to know.

If someone ask... then you failed to carry concealed.

Disclaimer: yes there are certain circumstances but those are for LEO and per state requirements.

quote:

Would you be happy he was there, or would you prefer he not be there.

If he was there to do business I would certainly be happy. If he was there to cause trouble he is most unwelcome. The absence or presence of a properly carried firearm does not in any way sway my opinion.

I have no problem with your right to disallow others the right to protect themselves, and I understand this is not your policy. However, I don't agree with the sentiment.

quote:

Originally posted by harbinger:
If he was there to cause trouble he is most unwelcome. The absence or presence of a properly carried firearm does not in any way sway my opinion.

Wow. So if a person was in your home, for instance, and he was, in your words, "there to cause trouble", you wouldn't care whether or not he was carrying a firearm? Gotta say, you're a tougher cat than me. I'd prefer such a person to be unarmed, in a wheelchair, breathing from an oxygen tank.

NGB

quote:

Originally posted by Weshowe:
Gents,

You CAN simply choose to take your business elsewhere.

While I can understand some of the "liability" issues I can't live with a policy that labels me incompetent and unsafe at some level.

We see very few of this type of thing in Oregon.

Wes

What about a law that does the same thing? I do believe you're not allowed to pump your own gas in Oregon.

quote:

Originally posted by NoGaBiker:

quote:

Originally posted by harbinger:
If he was there to cause trouble he is most unwelcome. The absence or presence of a properly carried firearm does not in any way sway my opinion.

Wow. So if a person was in your home, for instance, and he was, in your words, "there to cause trouble", you wouldn't care whether or not he was carrying a firearm? Gotta say, you're a tougher cat than me. I'd prefer such a person to be unarmed, in a wheelchair, breathing from an oxygen tank.

NGB

Re read my post. It's quoted right there at the top of your post. Here I'll help you. I said

"If he was there to cause trouble he is most unwelcome."

The presence of a firearm does nothing in my presented scenario except up my level of response. If he were unarmed and causing trouble (by my perception) he would be asked to leave. If he were armed and causing trouble my response would be greatly increased (drawing my weapon).

It has nothing to do with being tough, and everything to do with not being a hoplophobe.

quote:

Originally posted by harbinger:

The presence of a firearm does nothing in my presented scenario except up my level of response. If he were unarmed and causing trouble (by my perception) he would be asked to leave. If he were armed and causing trouble my response would be greatly increased (drawing my weapon).

And you are saying that there is no difference to you between these scenarios, which deductive reasoning clearly concludes means that you don't care which occurs: either you ask someone to leave for causing trouble, or you draw your gun and face down this armed troublemaker. Makes no difference, just two different ways to protect your property and family.

I am simply saying that this is not how I think. I would actually prefer to be able to ask the first theoretical troublemaker to leave the premises, rather than have to attempt to force the second one out by means of armed conflict. Ergo, you are a tougher cat than me. Hey, it's a compliment.

NGB

quote:

Originally posted by harbinger:
It has nothing to do with being tough, and everything to do with not being a hoplophobe.

Fear of beer? Fear of rabbits and kangaroos?


NGB

quote:

Firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

Your reasoning reflects this, specifically if the weapon is carried (not held with any aggression toward you) by another person you don't "know".

quote:

Originally posted by harbinger:

quote:

Firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons".

Your reasoning reflects this, specifically if the weapon is carried (not held with any aggression toward you) by another person you don't "know".

LOL! The 228 on my hip, the CW9 in my front pocket and the LCP in my desk drawer amply demonstrate my fear of weapons.

As you well know, the scenarios I have theorized about in no way bespeak an "irrational fear" of weapons; they point to a healthy desire to avoid armed conflict. When I was 22 years old I thought it would be awesome to have to pull out the old shootin' iron and stitch some bad guy who was messin' with the womenfolk. I no longer think that way; I'd prefer any conflict in which I am involved to be resolved without force of any kind. Hence, my preference that those in the areas for which I'm responsible not be armed. I will be armed, but I'm not worried that I will escalate something to an armed conflict. I can't be so sure about the other guy.

But I'm sensing you might not be in agreement with me.


By the way, the word should be "armaphobe" to represent the Latin for weapon. That also sounds better and makes more sense. Looks like the old guy missed it on this one.
NGB

I never went through a "wanting to stitch some bad guy up" stage. Maybe that's the difference.

I agree with you in the sense that in no way do I want any kind of confrontation to go violently. The point you're missing is if someone wants to do harm to someone, they're not going to advertise it, and if they intend to break the law anyway, they're sure as hell not going to obey any kind of "No Weapons" sign. Again, I understand this is not your policy, I'm just fully making my point. Your reluctance to not have anyone else armed is a selfish thought. I understand why you feel that way, but it's still selfish.

Hoplophobe comes from the Greek word "Hoplite", or the "armed citizen-soldier". "The old guy" you refer to was a very respected and well-spoken firearms instructor. You should read some of his stuff, you'd probably like it.

Col. Cooper did not get anything wrong; I should have specified the full meaning of the word I used, but I figured you might get it.

quote:

Originally posted by harbinger:
Hoplophobe comes from the Greek word "Hoplite", or the "armed citizen-soldier". "The old guy" you refer to was a very respected and well-spoken firearms instructor. You should read some of his stuff, you'd probably like it.

Col. Cooper did not get anything wrong; I should have specified the full meaning of the word I used, but I figured you might get it.

I'm just pulling your chain. Very familiar with Cooper, though I would argue that nobody but Jesus did not get anything wrong. Early innovators in any discipline are celebrated not because everything they discovered/invented is "right" or unsurpassed by subsequent developments, but because a certain genius is required to be the innovator. The Sumerian potter who created the first crude clay vessel is rightly more celebrated than the potter two thousand years later who embellished his pitchers with beautiful filigrees and swan necks, even though the earlier vessel is an objectively less beautiful and useful one. Col. Cooper's methods are noteworthy for their innovation, not because none have been surpassed.

Besides which, I wasn't complaining about his gunnery, but rather his lexicography.

NGB