For those that carry Guns and Overlanding

[MOguy]

I only conceal carry. I don't want to be noticed. I carry about everywhere, even places where it is not welcome. I don't want to bring attention to myself.

I am not a cop, I am not responsible for others. I have no plans on protecting anything or anyone other than my family and myself.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I only conceal carry. I don't want to be noticed. I carry about everywhere, even places where it is not welcome. I don't want to bring attention to myself.

I am not a cop, I am not responsible for others. I have no plans on protecting anything or anyone other than my family and myself.

I laugh when I see those no carry signs on storefronts. I do agree they get to decide, I just wont let them know I'm carrying.

 

[MOguy]

I laugh when I see those no carry signs on storefronts. I do agree they get to decide, I just wont let them know I'm carrying.

They way I look at it is they have no business with what is in my pants in regards to which restroom I use or what is in my pocket or waist band.

 

[SigSense]

They way I look at it is they have no business with what is in my pants in regards to which restroom I use or what is in my pocket or waist band.

In TN, if a business creates a no gun zone -- they are responsible for your safety. If a person is injured, wounded etc while in that business, they can be sued. Plain and simple. Read about it here:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/new-tenn-law-puts-onus-on-gun-free-zone-property-owners/

 

[MOguy]

In TN, if a business creates a no gun zone -- they are responsible for your safety. If a person is injured, wounded etc while in that business, they can be sued. Plain and simple. Read about it here:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/new-tenn-law-puts-onus-on-gun-free-zone-property-owners/

That is good!!

 

[plainjaneFJC]

That is good!!

I guess I see it different . The business should be allowed to say no guns, and not.be responsible under normal circumstances IMO. I think personal responsibility is key here. If a business is truly going to keep you from carrying then you can make a risk calculation and decide.

 

[NevadaLover]

I guess I see it different . The business should be allowed to say no guns, and not.be responsible under normal circumstances IMO. I think personal responsibility is key here. If a business is truly going to keep you from carrying then you can make a risk calculation and decide.

I think I have to take MOguys side on this, yes personal responsibility is a much needed part of the world BUT, if a business decides for whatever reason to ban firearms then they are taking away our personal responsibilities and constitutional rights thus placing the burden of responsibility on their shoulders, so I would like to see laws like this all over the country as that would make me able to choose for myself whether to carry or not and not have to break laws doing what is first and foremost a constitutional right, not a crime.

 

[MOguy]

Lol ! Only in America...
Check the fineprint, Are government owned facilities exempt ??

government exempts themselves from everything. That is a huge problem here.

 

[SigSense]

Is everyone reading this thread aware that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT the responsibility of any Police Department to "protect" you? Surprising? So that begs the question.... if it is NOT the job of the Police to protect us, then who is responsible? It's an individual's responsibility. So I as an individual decide that I am going to "protect" myself and family. I go to a restaurant for dinner and the owner of that restaurant has made that place a No-Gun Zone. Now that I cannot "protect" myself and loved ones from harm (with my concealed weapon), it is the restaurant owner's job to "protect" me. Plain and simple. That's why the TN law was passed so easily. It is common sense.

This is why I get so upset when various Police Chiefs get on TV and say that we need to do away with guns etc. What they fail to mention is that they (the Police) are not responsible to "protect" anyone....... yet they have guns. See the irony?

 

[NevadaLover]

Is everyone reading this thread aware that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT the responsibility of any Police Department to "protect" you? Surprising? So that begs the question.... if it is NOT the job of the Police to protect us, then who is responsible? It's an individual's responsibility. So I as an individual decide that I am going to "protect" myself and family. I go to a restaurant for dinner and the owner of that restaurant has made that place a No-Gun Zone. Now that I cannot "protect" myself and loved ones from harm (with my concealed weapon), it is the restaurant owner's job to "protect" me. Plain and simple. That's why the TN law was passed so easily. It is common sense.

This is why I get so upset when various Police Chiefs get on TV and say that we need to do away with guns etc. What they fail to mention is that they (the Police) are not responsible to "protect" anyone....... yet they have guns. See the irony?

That's why it makes sense to me, I wish every state had this rule.

 

[MOguy]

I guess I see it different . The business should be allowed to say no guns, and not.be responsible under normal circumstances IMO. I think personal responsibility is key here. If a business is truly going to keep you from carrying then you can make a risk calculation and decide.

They can say what they want. The 2nd amendment is between individuals and the government not the business. They can deny you service if they choose for many reasons. BUT if the gun is concealed they don't know and have no right to know. What they don't know won't hurt them.

I am not interested in telling people what they can or can not do and I am not interested in people telling me what I can or can not do.

 

[Ray_G]

Is everyone reading this thread aware that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT the responsibility of any Police Department to "protect" you? Surprising? So that begs the question.... if it is NOT the job of the Police to protect us, then who is responsible? It's an individual's responsibility. So I as an individual decide that I am going to "protect" myself and family. I go to a restaurant for dinner and the owner of that restaurant has made that place a No-Gun Zone. Now that I cannot "protect" myself and loved ones from harm (with my concealed weapon), it is the restaurant owner's job to "protect" me. Plain and simple. That's why the TN law was passed so easily. It is common sense.

This is why I get so upset when various Police Chiefs get on TV and say that we need to do away with guns etc. What they fail to mention is that they (the Police) are not responsible to "protect" anyone....... yet they have guns. See the irony?

So we could get philosophic and say the police represent the legitimate control of violence (aka the bottomline for what government is); but I don't think having a discussion on Weber is all that useful. To your first point, I don't know why anyone things police are there to inherently protect you at the moment of conflict. It is safer to say they are there to document and clean up the mess, and that the rule of law tamps that the amount of those conflicts to a socially acceptable level.

That isn't meant as disrespectful to LEOs, more of an agreement with what you wrote-but I think folks just don't view the world through that stark a lens. Sadly. Or perhaps that's a good thing?

 

[MOguy]

There is a difference between a Security and a Law Enforcement. Police are Law Enforcement agents they are not Security Guards. If you want security you have to take care of that on your own.

 

[The Wizard]

I feel so much safer already.
View attachment 421767

Just like in Las Vegas!

 

[FJOE]

Is everyone reading this thread aware that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT the responsibility of any Police Department to "protect" you? Surprising? So that begs the question.... if it is NOT the job of the Police to protect us, then who is responsible? It's an individual's responsibility. So I as an individual decide that I am going to "protect" myself and family. I go to a restaurant for dinner and the owner of that restaurant has made that place a No-Gun Zone. Now that I cannot "protect" myself and loved ones from harm (with my concealed weapon), it is the restaurant owner's job to "protect" me. Plain and simple.

How good are the biscuits/shrimp and grits? I'll take that risk if its worth it.