Responsible Gun Owners...NOT!

[uspatriot1960]

Servicing ATM's? In many places it's legal carrying in that situation and in others it should be. If you haven't already, would check into that further. For example, armored truck couriers normally carry.

When going to court house here, just check in any weapons like guns or knives at metal detectors, they secure them for you and you pick them up on way out. Better than leaving in locked vehicle, but that's here. Like you stated, many different situations in different places and scenarios.

Yeah, I’m not an armored carrier. We are a small business, just me and my brother. I service a number of ATMs for the credit unions we do business with. These ATMs are in Federal Buildings and they do not check firearms. In fact I went to one of the locations once and left my firearm locked in the car. Forgot to take off my holster. They would not let me in with the holster. Would not hold the holster for me while I went in. They made me go back to my car in a parking deck down the street to leave the holster. A holster, mind you. Like a holster is going to hurt someone. And I wasn’t about to navigate downtown Atlanta and make other stops down there without my firearm available for 90% of my trip.

I just think making a blanket statement that “leaving a firearm locked in a locked vehicle is irresponsible” is irresponsible in itself. Every situation is different.

 

[Peglegjoe]

Just because a place says it is their rule that you can not carry does not make it a law. Most they can do is call the police and they are going to show up and ask you to leave the property.

Depends on where you are.

Some places, those signs DO carry the force of law, and you can be arrested for violating them.

Some places, those signs do NOT carry the force of law, and you can only be asked to leave.

KNOW YOUR LAWS AND YOUR LOCALES.

 

[the obsrver]

No, a property owner cannot "discriminate" based on sex, religion, race, and several other qualifiers, however they can set rules for all such as "No shirt, no service", "No Smoking", etc, etc, because that is not discrimination, it's a rule.

Where discrimination impacts only a certain individual or segment, rules cover everyone so there is no discrimination. Maybe a fine line, but not a line that can be successfully argued in the law.

Much the same as a rule to limit one's speech. You have a right to free/protected speech in affront to the gov't, but not necessarily to an individual person/property owner. Again that doesn't make it an infringement of your 1st amendment rights since it's personal and your 1st amendment protections are directed at and toward the gov't. And there are many limits to that free speech directed to certain groups based on sex, race, religion, etc.

Yeah except the clothing and the smoking thing is for health and sanitary reasons. A holstered side arm does not violate those things.
There is absolutely no lawful reason to make a rule for a business to infringe on a law abiding persons 2nd. None.
Just as there is no lawful reason or argument to infringe on any other constitutional right.
Also do you not find it discriminatory to tell a certain segment, such as people who wish to exercise their rights, that they can not exercise their rights? Is that not the same as putting up a sign that says while a state or federal law recognizes your right to be gay and even be married, we do not recognize that right and will not allow it on our property? How about a sign that says while the government and constitution says this group can do this, we do not allow that here. In fact one could argue the second amendment is far more inclusive than the rest of them, which should make it even harder to infringe upon or violate. That is like putting up a sign that says all people are created equal, but not on this property or in this establishment.

 

[BobM]

Depends on where you are.

Some places, those signs DO carry the force of law, and you can be arrested for violating them.

Some places, those signs do NOT carry the force of law, and you can only be asked to leave.

KNOW YOUR LAWS AND YOUR LOCALES.

Yep it does. Generally, signs need to be posted for prohibitions.
But, regardless, if carrying a firearm and owner asks someone to leave for almost whatever reason or leave a firearm elsewhere for example? It's their property and their right as an owner. If refusing to honor owners wishes in many places the person carrying can be arrested if refusing to vacate premises.

 

[jumpinjoe]

Yeah except the clothing and the smoking thing is for health and sanitary reasons. A holstered side arm does not violate those things.
There is absolutely no lawful reason to make a rule for a business to infringe on a law abiding persons 2nd. None.

obsrver, I never said there was a lawful reason for such a rule, or any other kind of reason for that matter, only that it is the right of the private property owner to make such a rule. If I don't agree with that rule, then it's my choice to either not go on that property, unholster before I go on that property, or go on armed and face whatever consequences follow. It still must be understood it is not an infringement to your 2nd amendment since it in no way hinders your "keeping and bearing" in general, only on that property.

And for whatever it's worth, I personally believe the 2nd amendment should be all the national carry permit any of us should need, excepting of course those who have forfeited that right by their own actions and/or decisions. I believe the 2nd has been infringed on many, many times over many years and legislatures, some with society's blessing such as the GCA of 1934 where almost all of society was ready and willing to accept that "Thompson Machine" guns were restricted to very exacting circumstances for ownership in an effort to put a stop to the gangsters and gangland shootings.

Keep in mind that was supported by many/most of society even though it severely infringed on our 2nd amendment right. That's why it is so very important for those in favor of the 2nd (and others that have been infringed) to vote accordingly. We cannot continue to vote people into office who continue to deny our rights, re-invent/re-interpret the constitution, and ignore their actual charge. This includes legislators at all levels of gov't, and most especially judges who legislate from the bench where they are selected by vote. Something to note here is that even where judges are appointed to the bench, it's those same people we elect that does the appointing.

Our country is slowly being bastardized into something it was never envisioned to be, but as I see it has been going downhill for one reason or another ever since the baby boomers. Not saying they are the entire problem, but it primarily started during that generation. I hate saying that since I'm one of them, but in fact that gives me a front row seat in seeing what is and has happened to our country from that point on. I have very narrow ideas on why it has gotten to the point it is now after several more generations, except I will not/cannot express them here on the forum. Just suffice it to say it has gone more downhill with each following generation since then.

It's sad, sad, sad to see what is happening to our country. I fear we are at a very bad and dangerous point of losing it for what it is ..... the best and noblest country to have ever been on the face of the earth. And I further fear that once lost, it can never be regained.

 

[BobM]

obsrver, I never said there was a lawful reason for such a rule, or any other kind of reason for that matter, only that it is the right of the private property owner to make such a rule. If I don't agree with that rule, then it's my choice to either not go on that property, unholster before I go on that property, or go on armed and face whatever consequences follow. It still must be understood it is not an infringement to your 2nd amendment since it in no way hinders your "keeping and bearing" in general, only on that property.

And for whatever it's worth, I personally believe the 2nd amendment should be all the national carry permit any of us should need, excepting of course those who have forfeited that right by their own actions and/or decisions. I believe the 2nd has been infringed on many, many times over many years and legislatures, some with society's blessing such as the GCA of 1934 where almost all of society was ready and willing to accept that "Thompson Machine" guns were restricted to very exacting circumstances for ownership in an effort to put a stop to the gangsters and gangland shootings.

Keep in mind that was supported by many/most of society even though it severely infringed on our 2nd amendment right. That's why it is so very important for those in favor of the 2nd (and others that have been infringed) to vote accordingly. We cannot continue to vote people into office who continue to deny our rights, re-invent/re-interpret the constitution, and ignore their actual charge. This includes legislators at all levels of gov't, and most especially judges who legislate from the bench where they are selected by vote. Something to note here is that even where judges are appointed to the bench, it's those same people we elect that does the appointing.

Our country is slowly being bastardized into something it was never envisioned to be, but as I see it has been going downhill for one reason or another ever since the baby boomers. Not saying they are the entire problem, but it primarily started during that generation. I hate saying that since I'm one of them, but in fact that gives me a front row seat in seeing what is and has happened to our country from that point on. I have very narrow ideas on why it has gotten to the point it is now after several more generations, except I will not/cannot express them here on the forum. Just suffice it to say it has gone more downhill with each following generation since then.

It's sad, sad, sad to see what is happening to our country. I fear we are at a very bad and dangerous point of losing it for what it is ..... the best and noblest country to have ever been on the face of the earth. And I further fear that once lost, it can never be regained.

Thanks JJ,
Agree and well said. Government can almost be like a roach motel sometimes?

 

[Recusant]

I'm going to tell this story not in order to change anyone's opinion but to get folks to think about unintended consequences. My youngest has worked in law enforcement for almost 20 years. He is a deputy sheriff in a county that has a jail that they share with another county. The other county runs the jail. Several years back they had a guest of the county somehow manage to just walk out of the jail one night. The jail personnel soon alerted the county that this man was missing and presumed to be on foot in the community. The patrol officers began a search. After several hours they were able to locate the escapee without incident. Well sort of. The kicker was that when they apprehended him he was in possession of a .357 revolver which he had not left the jail with a couple of hours earlier. Needless to say the deputies were upset. The man told them that after he had escaped he began searching unlocked vehicles in the immediate area in hopes of finding a cell phone or a car with keys that he could drive away. It was during this time that he'd stolen the pistol from an unlocked truck that actually belonged to the sheriff's brother. The man related that he'd sat in the woods along the road, and had watched marked cars ride back and forth searching for him. He also told them that they were lucky he hadn't shot any of them. They all were indeed lucky that this event hadn't ended in a tragedy. It was a cheap lesson.

 

[the obsrver]

I was not trying to argue. I was trying to point out what a slippery slope it is when we infringe on others. The constitution is all about those things, not to infringe.
I also hope that every group can understand that while my trigger is the 2A and reporters trigger is the 1stA and women's trigger is the 19A and African Americans trigger is the 15thA.
The difference is the 2A says shall not be infringed upon. Meaning no law can ever be passed legally to violate it or alter it.
I hope that everyone understands that no matter what amendment serves your view or position, the idea that the government or anyone, can or seeks to change, modify or infringe upon any amendment should scare the crap out of everyone.
Because as I pointed out if one can be infringed, changed, altered or violated, they all can be. That when infringed upon, it is the infringement of liberty and freedom itself.

 

[the obsrver]

Maybe this is what is missing in the youth today.

 

[somorris]

Some people need to realize that every person's situations are different. Some people are faced with options of which neither option is optimal. Sometimes, leaving the house with a firearm to go somewhere that you know a firearm is not welcome is a necessity. To travel to a part of town without being armed would be unadvisable. But part of that trip entails not being able to carry the firearm inside. Is it more irresponsible to put myself in danger on the way to or leaving that place than it is to leave the firearm locked inside a locked car? What would happen if one pulled up to a stop light and was confronted by some neerdowells with no way to defend themselves because they left their firearm at home knowing they couldn't take it into their destination? Or on the way to the no firearm destination, had to make a stop for something else or for gas and was without firearm?

I am in the ATM business. There are times I have to go to more than one location to service an ATM. One location may allow firearms, while the next one doesn't. I have ATMs in downtown Atlanta and work and live around 40 miles north of there. I am not going to leave my firearm at home or in the office to make this trip and be unarmed the whole time, including at the location I can take my firearm in with me, just because one of the locations does not allow firearms. That would be stupid. And I'm not driving 40 miles one way to go to the location where I can take my firearm inside, then driving 40 miles back to the office to leave my firearm inside and driving 40 miles each way just to go to the location that will not allow firearms.

I'm all for firearms safety, but sometimes risks must be taken. Do I take a risk with my own life and safety or do I take a risk of someone stealing my firearm that is locked inside a locked car for a short period of time?

I know the answer for me...

My thinking is about identical to yours, uspatriot1960. That is why I said earlier that saying someone is irresponsible for doing exactly what you do is actually irresponsible. Most of us have to lock our carry gun in the car sometimes and to me at least, that is definitely not irresponsible.

 

[jumpinjoe]

Maybe this is what is missing in the youth today.

This is only one small part of what most of today's kids are missing obsrver. I have three grand kids in school .... ooops, one graduated this past year during the quarantine, but the two boys are in 7th and 10th grades this year. To make a sad story short, the last time I asked either of them, including the grand daughter who just graduated, what the constitution is, they couldn't tell me. One thought it might have been a "'major peace treaty' with some foreign country,", the younger two had no clue.

Then when I asked them about the 'B-of-R's', neither had a clue. Asking them anything about the founding of the country basically brought a 'thousand mile stare' to their eyes. Now I don't mean to say my grand kids are dumb, they most certainly are not, but they have been 'dumbed down'.

Without a computer or at least a calculator, or better yet an Alexa, they are simply lost. The youngest had never even heard about the US landing a man on the moon .... and that happened in the very year their dad was born. And it's not just them, but their typical school friends as well.

Now I will not divulge where they go to school or even where they live, but suffice it to say it's not near enough for me to interfere/intervene with their schooling. It absolutely infuriates me to listen to their dad (and mom) talk with the kids the way they do, (mind you they don't talk to them, they talk with them.) I've got to believe all the negotiations and time outs these kids have endured have not had the result their parents were expecting, sure as hell not what I was hoping for. And I won't take any responsibility for the outcome of the parents or the kids, I'll only say he (their dad) was raised from just over a year old without any involvement (her insistence, not mine) from me. I hate the whole situation so bad I don't know what to do.

I think I've also mentioned before that I worked for many years in a public school system. Not as a teacher but in a capacity wherein I was in a classroom of one level or another most every day I worked. I can remember the type things I would overhear being taught and discussed in classes going back some 40+ years ago (not to very different from what I had been taught 60+ years ago, and they don't even compare to twhat was being taught and discussed in the last few years I worked.

Some of what I overheard in the last few years would literally drive me crazy. Some of it so bad, so misguided, so incorrect, so misdirecting, I wanted to grab some teachers up by the throat and just choke them hopefully back to reality. Obviously I never did that, but I truly hate for the kids that are captive audiences for the kinds of BS being taught these days.

 

[the obsrver]

This is only one small part of what most of today's kids are missing obsrver. I have three grand kids in school .... ooops, one graduated this past year during the quarantine, but the two boys are in 7th and 10th grades this year. To make a sad story short, the last time I asked either of them, including the grand daughter who just graduated, what the constitution is, they couldn't tell me. One thought it might have been a "'major peace treaty' with some foreign country,", the younger two had no clue.

Then when I asked them about the 'B-of-R's', neither had a clue. Asking them anything about the founding of the country basically brought a 'thousand mile stare' to their eyes. Now I don't mean to say my grand kids are dumb, they most certainly are not, but they have been 'dumbed down'.

Without a computer or at least a calculator, or better yet an Alexa, they are simply lost. The youngest had never even heard about the US landing a man on the moon .... and that happened in the very year their dad was born. And it's not just them, but their typical school friends as well.

Now I will not divulge where they go to school or even where they live, but suffice it to say it's not near enough for me to interfere/intervene with their schooling. It absolutely infuriates me to listen to their dad (and mom) talk with the kids the way they do, (mind you they don't talk to them, they talk with them.) I've got to believe all the negotiations and time outs these kids have endured have not had the result their parents were expecting, sure as hell not what I was hoping for. And I won't take any responsibility for the outcome of the parents or the kids, I'll only say he (their dad) was raised from just over a year old without any involvement (her insistence, not mine) from me. I hate the whole situation so bad I don't know what to do.

I think I've also mentioned before that I worked for many years in a public school system. Not as a teacher but in a capacity wherein I was in a classroom of one level or another most every day I worked. I can remember the type things I would overhear being taught and discussed in classes going back some 40+ years ago (not to very different from what I had been taught 60+ years ago, and they don't even compare to twhat was being taught and discussed in the last few years I worked.

Some of what I overheard in the last few years would literally drive me crazy. Some of it so bad, so misguided, so incorrect, so misdirecting, I wanted to grab some teachers up by the throat and just choke them hopefully back to reality. Obviously I never did that, but I truly hate for the kids that are captive audiences for the kinds of BS being taught these days.

I understand. I was talking to someone and the topic of education got brought up. I said did you know in the late 70's the graduation rate was at almost 80%. That until then the teachers union was mostly conservative.
The graduation rate stayed about the same until the late 90's early 2000's when the no child left behind act went into effect. Since then the teachers union has been Democrat. Then the avg graduation rate is at about 85%. They passed a law and that suddenly made kids smarter?? However funding was based on graduation and so people suspected kids were being passed when they should not have. But with computers and all modern tech even if that were not true (more on that in a sec) the path to graduation is without a doubt easier today then in the late 70's, which should account for some of a rise in the graduation rate.
Now back to the being passed when they should not be. "Consider these statistics: 40%-60% — that’s the percentage range of first-year college students who require remedial classes in English, math, or both;¹ "
So without question the quality of education has declined in High schools and is sub par.
This concerns me as these people vote.

America, We Have an Education Crisis

The Science of Learning Can Help

medium.com