Gun show disarming Gunowners?

[FalArAk]

Why ?

Because 80% of the people at gunshows are complete idiots and are posterboys for the Liberals to point at and say "this is why we need more gun laws".

The promoters act accordingly,and being private property they can do what they want.

 

[enbloc]

Whip a flash-bang in the trash barrel and move briskly to the jerky table then to Safe Girl...

 

[Quiet]

Okay, I need to stop the madness.

I can tell you, knowing personally the cops working there yesterday, that they don't personally give a shit whether you're carrying or not. But the show organizers have asked for valid enforcement of their rights to control who and under what conditions persons enter their show. That, whether or not that condition was related to guns, was the concern.

I know some of you only think property rights are valid only when it's your own property rights being enforced, but asserting that the who public accommodation/Title II of the '64 CRA should apply to gun owners is just as much of an affront to liberty as it is when a business owner can't exclude whomever he wants for whatever reason, no matter how misguided or malicious.

The gun show was run by a private company on private property. Don't like it? Don't go to the show.

I don't think anyone was saying they don't have a right to do it, if they did they're wrong about that. It's a private show, they can do as they like.

That's not the issue I have. Why would any of us go and support what is a massive PR win for the anti lobby paid for and orchestrated by the gun community?

 

[OfficerObie59]

With a few exceptions, this thread must make Bloomturd and his friends smile. I mean if it's "reasonable" to disarm me at at freaking gun show, why should I be allowed to carry at the mall? At a park? At a restaurant? I mean, I might be one of those "irresponsible" gun carrying people. We can't be sure which one is, so none should carry.

I don't disagree, but where's the outrage by our NES 2nd Amendment firebrands than anyone who supports businesses who think this way, whether it's a gun show or not, is part of the anti-gun, pro-Bloomberg problem?

I don't think anyone was saying they don't have a right to do it, if they did they're wrong about that. It's a private show, they can do as they like.

That's not the issue I have. Why would any of us go and support what is a massive PR win for the anti lobby paid for and orchestrated by the gun community?

Oh yeah, right, it's a gun show and we like guns, so we're willing to set that aside for the day and not face the reality that people can enforce their property rights in an anti-gun way at a gun show. I smell some hypocrisy around these parts, or at least silence on those who'd be shitting a fit if this were a business engaged in any other type of conduct, like Starbucks or Jared's Jewelers or Wal-Mart.

And those who can't seem to wrap their minds around that, well **** it, blame the cops because it must be their fault.

 

[rkwjunior]

Why ?

Because 80% of the people at gunshows are complete idiots and are posterboys for the Liberals to point at and say "this is why we need more gun laws".

The promoters act accordingly,and being private property they can do what they want.

So what makes the percentage drop as soon as you go walking out the door, the same "idiots" at the gun show are the same idiots walking the street???.... I know what ur gonna say..... Cause everyone is in close proximity right??, Well it's the same as walking into Four seasons on a Saturday. I'd be more worried about getting in a car accident too and from the show than being shot by some dope.

So now it's ok for private property owners to have "gun free zones" because they own the property??? Well thats not what i was hearing back when various private companies implemented "gun free zones" after Sandyhook. So who's side is everyone on???

Lot of hypocrisy spewing around here.


OfficerObie..... We must have been writing at the same time

 

[M1911]

Why am I not surprised about the direction this thread is going?

 

[OfficerObie59]

Why am I not surprised about the direction this thread is going?

Because it's a debate pitting personal property rights against [the perceived scope of] gun rights, with a pinch of anti-cop rhetoric and gun show love thrown in for fun.

Frankly, it was always headed in that direction from the first post.

 

[rkwjunior]

Why am I not surprised about the direction this thread is going?

I'm completely shocked at where this is going.

The same people that say Massachusetts is wrong for having mandatory gun safety course before they issue LTC's, are now complaining about how many idiots are running free with no gun safety training. And that it's ok for gun show property owners to "confiscate" your firearms at the door when there is no law against it.

I'm very confused???

 

[Glockfan71]

Went to the show on the Cape 2 years ago at the Bourne range and my friend and I were both asked at the door to clear our weapons if we were carrying. So we did so but didn't have to hand anything over, at that point i would have probably left.

Fired from my HTC One with high capacity storage

 

[el duderino]

Only been asked a couple times, just say no and keep walking. Thousand people surrounded by guns, no way I'm going unarmed..

 

[Chet0729]

It is sort of stupid because someone while inside the show could purchase a gun and ammo, and load the magazine. As others have said, the correct answer is no when asked. Of all the shows I have been to I think I was only asked once.

 

[DSM_1]

If you can't handle your firearm safely, and correctly you should not have one, plain and simple. It's because of these people that stuff like this has to happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

[Cassadilla]

concealed means concealed. if i am asked and my hands are not currently holding a firearm, and if i am not actively 'carrying' one (like, on a sling) then the answer will be "nope" or "i'm on my way to find one!!" with a grin and a thumbs up.
however, if i bring a gun specifically to try to locate a holster, zip-tying the action open just makes this impossible. i had a need to do this once, so i left the mags empty, put the unloaded firearm (with a chamber flag) and the empty mag in a case, told the admittance officer what i was doin, and he seemed to agree that a zip-tie would wind up getting cut off within 2 minutes. so he didnt zip-tie it.

 

[W.E.C]

concealed means concealed. if i am asked and my hands are not currently holding a firearm, and if i am not actively 'carrying' one (like, on a sling) then the answer will be "nope" or "i'm on my way to find one!!" with a grin and a thumbs up.
however, if i bring a gun specifically to try to locate a holster, zip-tying the action open just makes this impossible. i had a need to do this once, so i left the mags empty, put the unloaded firearm (with a chamber flag) and the empty mag in a case, told the admittance officer what i was doin, and he seemed to agree that a zip-tie would wind up getting cut off within 2 minutes. so he didnt zip-tie it.

hey stop with the common sense stuff.

 

[M1911]

I'm completely shocked at where this is going.

The same people that say Massachusetts is wrong for having mandatory gun safety course before they issue LTC's, are now complaining about how many idiots are running free with no gun safety training. And that it's ok for gun show property owners to "confiscate" your firearms at the door when there is no law against it.

If you don't want them to "confiscate" your gun, then don't go or just say "no" when they ask if you are carrying. Is it really that hard?

In this case, I would argue that the word "confiscate" is incorrect.

As for gun shows themselves, I don't have any interest in spending money to see a bunch if overpriced guns in an overcrowded venue. Been there, done that, and it is a complete waste if time.

 

[XJ6]

Last year I was waiting in line to buy my ticket and noticed the cop was asking everyone to disarm. Then a woman with 2 little girls walks up to him and says "we usually have dance lessons here on Saturday, are they canceled?" He replies "absolutely not, your dance lessons are in that separate room on the left, come right in"

I get my ticket, head for the entrance and as the cop is about to ask something I interrupt him with "excuse me officer, are the dance lessons in that room on the left?" his jaw drops and he stares at me like I just grew a second head. He couldn't answer, all he did was nod and point. I thanked him and walked in. I guess not many OFWGs take ballet.

 

[rkwjunior]

If you don't want them to "confiscate" your gun, then don't go or just say "no" when they ask if you are carrying. Is it really that hard?

In this case, if argue that the word "confiscate" is incorrect.

As for gun shows themselves, I don't have any interest in spending money to see a bunch if overpriced guns in an overcrowded venue. Been there, done that, and it is a complete waste if time.

I don't go, for the reasons of over priced items, but thats not the point . I'm wondering why nobody cares or think it's ok when gun shows implement the so called "gun free zone"??

 

[Rehoboth Dave]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but at every gun show you've ever been to there were people who were carrying. More than a few people ignore such policies.

Of course since they had to hide them they weren't waving them around either.

 

[M1911]

I don't go, for the reasons of over priced items, but thats not the point . I'm wondering why nobody cares or think it's ok when gun shows implement the so called "gun free zone"??

1) It is private property. The property owner can do what he wishes.

2) It is ineffectual and only disarms you if you choose to go along with it. If you want to protect yourself, go ahead and carry. No one will frisk you and there are no criminal penalties if you get caught (as far as I am aware - IANAL).

3) The venue owner requires the show promoter to have insurance.

4) The insurance company requires that the promoter have a no loaded guns policy.

5) As a result of 3 and 4 (and morons regularly cranking off rounds at gun shows), the policy isn't going to change.

6) The bored cop at the door doesn't care. He just wants to earn a few extra bucks and get home without getting shot by some moron.

If you really want to get your knickers in a twist over this, have at it; they are your knickers after all. Personally, I choose to spend my time doing something more important, like trying to convince someone on the internet that they are wrong.

And one more thing, using the word confiscate is similar to calling certain guns "assault weapons". It isn't accurate and is used to intentionally invoke an emotional response. It is a rather shabby debating technique.

What is a situation when the word confiscate is appropriate to use along with the word weapon? A fellow is in the midst of an ugly divorce. His wife calls the police and claims he made threats. A judge issues a restraining order. The police show up at his home to confiscate his weapons. Now that is a confiscation. The police aren't leaving without his weapons, even if they have to send in a SWAT team.

 

[rkwjunior]

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong or trying to start an argument. But I'm not surprised buy the silence in this particular thread, seems odd, i must be reading into it to much. Might as well lock it up since there's nothing to say anymore.

I don't think "confiscation" is defined with a time period, but I could be wrong. Either way my right to defend myself has now been denied, whether its 2 hours or the rest of my life, I call it confiscation.

 

[jasons]

Either way my right to defend myself has now been denied, whether its 2 hours or the rest of my life, I call it confiscation.

How so?

 

[jibbr71]

Either way my right to defend myself has now been denied, whether its 2 hours or the rest of my life, I call it confiscation.

No it hasn't. Worst case, you've forfeited that right in order to attend the event. No one said you HAD to go.

 

[AngelKing]

I dont see why the OP is surprised and I honestly got a chuckle when he mentioned his badge. Im not justifying anything or saying anything is right or wrong with it, but we all operate under the auspices of "my house, my rules," correct?
\
the vendor makes the rules, right wrong or indifferent, its their bbq.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

1) It is private property. The property owner can do what he wishes.

2) It is ineffectual and only disarms you if you choose to go along with it. If you want to protect yourself, go ahead and carry. No one will frisk you and there are no criminal penalties if you get caught (as far as I am aware - IANAL).

3) The venue owner requires the show promoter to have insurance.

4) The insurance company requires that the promoter have a no loaded guns policy.

5) As a result of 3 and 4 (and morons regularly cranking off rounds at gun shows), the policy isn't going to change.

6) The bored cop at the door doesn't care. He just wants to earn a few extra bucks and get home without getting shot by some moron.

If you really want to get your knickers in a twist over this, have at it; they are your knickers after all. Personally, I choose to spend my time doing something more important, like trying to convince someone on the internet that they are wrong.

And one more thing, using the word confiscate is similar to calling certain guns "assault weapons". It isn't accurate and is used to intentionally invoke an emotional response. It is a rather shabby debating technique.

What is a situation when the word confiscate is appropriate to use along with the word weapon? A fellow is in the midst of an ugly divorce. His wife calls the police and claims he made threats. A judge issues a restraining order. The police show up at his home to confiscate his weapons. Now that is a confiscation. The police aren't leaving without his weapons, even if they have to send in a SWAT team.

+1

FOr a forum of peopel so well versed in the constitution, etc, far to f-ing many seem to forget the constitution is meant to restrict the power of the government, not to stop a private company from imposing their own rules at an event a person WILLINGLY CHOSE To ATTEND. Gets really frustrating to see so many people claim to get it, but show they do not get it.

 

[M1911]

I don't think "confiscation" is defined with a time period, but I could be wrong. Either way my right to defend myself has now been denied, whether its 2 hours or the rest of my life, I call it confiscation.

Dude. Really? You are searching for a reason to be upset about this and to do so you are stretching the truth.

Calling this confiscation is like calling an orange an apple - calling it an apple doesn't make it one.

Confiscation means something is taken by force or threat of force. If you go to a gun show, nothing is taken from you by force or threat of force. They ask you if you have a gun. You can say no and walk right in. You will then still have your gun and be able to defend yourself.

Or you could choose to leave and not enter the private property.

Or you could say yes and voluntarily comply with their request.

What is perhaps most interesting about this conversation is that you have your knickers in a twist because I don't have my knickers in a twist about a no guns policy at a privately owned venue that neither you nor I go to.

 

[ProGun]

Sure, their house, their rules. It still smells like "anti" policy...whatever. I still stand by my earlier post. I don't waste time at guns shows these days anyway. I used to hit the "Sun Coast Gun Shows" when I lived in FL, but that was like 20 years ago.

 

[Marty McFly]

i didnt go cuz i wanted to shoot trap but all these shows are the same. and last time in plymouth and marlboro they were not real leo's did that change? i never get asked anyway so i just go right in.

 

[Cassadilla]

of the past 5 shows i have gone to, only the wilmington shows had actual LEOs asking if you're carrying IIRC... the other shows (marlboro, manchester, concord, etc) usually just have a guy that asks. marlboro had more LEOs walking around than other shows that ive been to though.

 

[Tyke]

Their house, their rules. I don't like it though -- makes an easy political target ("Look! Guns are so dangerous even gun nuts, who need guns to make up for their sorry manhoods, btw!, know to have attendees disarm!").

 

[ntomsw]

Their house, their rules, yes.

It still stands when asked, you say "NO!" Not sure what's so hard here.

You have two answers..."Yes I am carrying, here is my gun master." Or, "NO I am not carrying", don't be a retard, and go about your day eating jerky and smelling farts.