You may start a topic here for an Open Carry Log -- a place to relay places and any events which may occur.
 #69445  by jminnich66
 
hello everyone!

i have been OC for about 2 weeks now, just reasturants, quick stops, gas ect. but tonight i went to the movies with my bro his friend and my gf. We received a few looks when getting in line for snacks and such but noting to out of the ordinary. when we were walking to our seats i noticed a manager following us down the hall from a pretty long distance behind us. now i fiured it was ok and lawful to OC in a movie theater, iv looked for a week and couldnt find much in de about it. i wasnt even sitting for 2 mins before i was approached by 2 managers demanding me to step out of the isle. the seemed a little nervous asking me but the one asked what i had on my hip? and before i cold answer he started to reach for my gun...[*] :sparring: so i stepped back and said please dont reach for my gun sir. then he starting sayin the had a private policy and no guns were aloud even on the property. (yet i did not see any sign posted or anything about this). i continued to tell him it was my 2nd ammendment right to bear arms and to protect myself. i wanted to really see the movie and didnt wana start a huge scene at the beginning of it so i stashed my glock in my trunk. now my question is was this lawful? am i aloud to OC in a movie theater?? (btw it was regal Bradywine movie theater on 202)
 #69446  by myopicvisionary
 
Yes it is legal, but property owners have the right to refuse to allow carrying on their property. If they demand you to leave and you refuse, you are now guilty of criminal trespass.
 #69465  by jminnich66
 
myopicvisionary wrote:Yes it is legal, but property owners have the right to refuse to allow carrying on their property. If they demand you to leave and you refuse, you are now guilty of criminal trespass.
ok thanks! so is this is how they want to resolve their issues?? By takin everyones saftey into heir own hands?? i personally feel that this is a huge violation of our 2nd amendment right!! I feel as more and more property owners do this they are an easier target to be targeted!!
 #69467  by SugarBoy13
 
jminnich66 wrote:
myopicvisionary wrote:Yes it is legal, but property owners have the right to refuse to allow carrying on their property. If they demand you to leave and you refuse, you are now guilty of criminal trespass.
ok thanks! so is this is how they want to resolve their issues?? By takin everyones saftey into heir own hands?? i personally feel that this is a huge violation of our 2nd amendment right!! I feel as more and more property owners do this they are an easier target to be targeted!!
One way to resolve this issue is to enact legislation requiring property owners who ban or refuse to allow employees and patrons to utilize certain kinds of personal protective equipment to be fully liable for the safety and security of those individuals while on their property. You could go a step further and even include a criminal aspect such as a accessory to a felony or aiding and abetting.

You will most likely see these private property gun bans disappear in short order...

Wishful thinking of course.
 #69468  by jminnich66
 
One way to resolve this issue is to enact legislation requiring property owners who ban or refuse to allow employees and patrons to utilize certain kinds of personal protective equipment to be fully liable for the safety and security of those individuals while on their property. You could go a step further and even include a criminal aspect such as a accessory to a felony or aiding and abetting.

You will most likely see these private property gun bans disappear in short order...

Wishful thinking of course.[/quote]

so your saying since the are taking my personal protection away from me they intern must be liable for anything that would happen?? not exactly sure what u meant lol if u could explain a lil more i would greatly appreciate it!! :banghead:
 #69470  by scampbell3
 
Liberty is a bitch...I wil explain.

An individual right to do activity "A" cannot take another individuals right to "B". In other words, your right to carry a firearm, does not remove my right to manage private property that is in my possession. The property owner/agent is free to run that business as they feel necessary, hence the term "private property" regardless if that property is open to the public.

The idea of enacting legislation (from the gubbamint) to make a private property owner liable for your safety place more control in the hands of gubbimint (taking liberty away from the owner) in order to give you the "sense of security"

In other words...You have the right to be you. I also have the right to be free from you.

Liberty is a bitch.

You cannot increase liberty by removing liberty from another. That is tyranny.

Chip


BTW, Congratulations on joining the dark side (OC). :applause: :applause: :applause:
 #69474  by SugarBoy13
 
scampbell3 wrote:Liberty is a bitch...I wil explain.

An individual right to do activity "A" cannot take another individuals right to "B". In other words, your right to carry a firearm, does not remove my right to manage private property that is in my possession. The property owner/agent is free to run that business as they feel necessary, hence the term "private property" regardless if that property is open to the public.

The idea of enacting legislation (from the gubbamint) to make a private property owner liable for your safety place more control in the hands of gubbimint (taking liberty away from the owner) in order to give you the "sense of security"

In other words...You have the right to be you. I also have the right to be free from you.

Liberty is a bitch.

You cannot increase liberty by removing liberty from another. That is tyranny.

Chip


BTW, Congratulations on joining the dark side (OC). :applause: :applause: :applause:
And here I thought I was going to get him to agree...

The sad reality is that a move such as this may be justified based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where employers and/or facilities that serve the general public ("public accommodations") must accommodate everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, finger size, "member" size, etc. It is rather scary how much the commerce clause has expanded.

Now, don't get me wrong, discrimination should not be acceptable in this society and certainly can not be tolerated coming from a governmental agency. However, Congress does not have the authority to dictate who an individual or private property owner chooses to associate with when we view the Constitution from an Originalist's perspective.
 #69477  by scampbell3
 
SugarBoy13 wrote: And here I thought I was going to get him to agree...

The sad reality is that a move such as this may be justified based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where employers and/or facilities that serve the general public ("public accommodations") must accommodate everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, finger size, "member" size, etc. It is rather scary how much the commerce clause has expanded.

Now, don't get me wrong, discrimination should not be acceptable in this society and certainly can not be tolerated coming from a governmental agency. However, Congress does not have the authority to dictate who an individual or private property owner chooses to associate with when we view the Constitution from an Originalist's perspective.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Come on Sugar...do you have to keep bring up Original Intent again :lol: :lol: :lol: JK
 #69478  by SugarBoy13
 
scampbell3 wrote:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Come on Sugar...do you have to keep bring up Original Intent again :lol: :lol: :lol: JK
Unfortunately, yes. If I didn't, many would be confused when reviewing current case law on this subject for example.

Current jurisprudence, authorizes Congress to regulate whatever activities they feel are appropriate under the guise of the ever-expanding Commerce Clause. However, if you take a more literal approach to the clause and review what the original intent of the framers were, you would see that our current interpretation is...







Batshit $%^& insane! :troll:
 #69480  by jminnich66
 
scampbell3 wrote:Liberty is a bitch...I wil explain.

An individual right to do activity "A" cannot take another individuals right to "B". In other words, your right to carry a firearm, does not remove my right to manage private property that is in my possession. The property owner/agent is free to run that business as they feel necessary, hence the term "private property" regardless if that property is open to the public.

The idea of enacting legislation (from the gubbamint) to make a private property owner liable for your safety place more control in the hands of gubbimint (taking liberty away from the owner) in order to give you the "sense of security"

In other words...You have the right to be you. I also have the right to be free from you.

Liberty is a bitch.

You cannot increase liberty by removing liberty from another. That is tyranny.

Chip


BTW, Congratulations on joining the dark side (OC). :applause: :applause: :applause:

thanks chip. i undestand what u are sayin now. also another question. is there any other places i should be weary about OC besides the christiana mall or movie theaters?? and of course all federal and govt buildings and state parks ect..