Example of consequences of carrying in a non-permissive environment

[WalkingTall]

I agree with you but will say its not that simple when it comes to employment. Yes you can carry smart and get away with it for years but there are scenarios in various workplace situations that are out of ones control that can expose you.

Ive always followed company policy both from respect and the fact the odds of needing a gun is way lower than the risk of losing a job but its always bothered me the lack of respect for individual safety companies have.

Like I said, perceived risk. Are you really that afraid of being shot at work? Me, not really. But I do carry cause we can wear whatever we want. If so, then you've measured your risk and found it worth carrying, if not well then you don't. I get it sucks to have to make a choice, but you do. It's not perfect, maybe not right, but it is. But I get it, I probably wouldn't carry if I had a really physical job that required me to bend a lot or lift, get in and out of places, etc.

 

[Koda]

Like I said, perceived risk. Are you really that afraid of being shot at work? Me, not really. But I do carry cause we can wear whatever we want. If so, then you've measured your risk and found it worth carrying, if not well then you don't. I get it sucks to have to make a choice, but you do. It's not perfect, maybe not right, but it is. But I get it, I probably wouldn't carry if I had a really physical job that required me to bend a lot or lift, get in and out of places, etc.

yup, thats my same opinon except I dont carry at work because the risk of needing it is not greater than the risk of getting caught.... I work in a pretty safe place (IMO) and also have a respect for both property rights as well as my word as a person. So no Im not paranoid... but I also understand the concept of being prepared in life and do note the risk outside of work commuting is a different level. As a gun rights supporter, this subject has always been a dead end... sadly.

 

[WalkingTall]

yup, thats my same opinon except I dont carry at work because the risk of needing it is not greater than the risk of getting caught.... I work in a pretty safe place (IMO) and also have a respect for both property rights as well as my word as a person. So no Im not paranoid... but I also understand the concept of being prepared in life and do note the risk outside of work commuting is a different level. As a gun rights supporter, this subject has always been a dead end... sadly.

I understand. Hard thing about rights, we feel they are owed to us, and in a way they are, by law, god, really whatever reason. 2A is hardly even about guns for me. It's about right to live and that at times means the right in defending myself or someone else by deadly force, it just so happens we live in a time where the best tool for it is firearms, at one time it was the spear (it's often said the Spear was the ideal tool of close combat warfare). I used to have to walk through downtown and work graveyards, you better believed I carried always, my job specifically said not to do it. I did it, my life was at risk daily. Now, I work in an office during day safe part of town, I don't feel the need to carry.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

best explanation thank you I have some stuff to think about there and appreciate the conversation.

in the end if there is no legal leg to stand on then gun rights are screwed as everyone needs a job and everyone needs to shop, in private stores. They just passed a law that gives both public places and private stores lawful right to have you arrested now, instant felon, for carrying. I hear a lot on this forum "shall not comply"... so whats the difference between becoming a felon and losing all your guns and your right and the guy that lost his job? How do we balance this alleged freedom to protect outselves when anyplace we go can get us arrested now?

First of all, thank you as well for the discussion. This is the best part of this forum -- reasonable people can disagree, respectfully and with the worthwhile objective of mutual understanding. This to me is the essence of free speech in the marketplace of ideas and robust debate is the best way I know of to learn, grow, and prosper.

To your point, I think you have just perfectly illustrated the paradox of freedom: My freedom to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose. In other words, one of the pitfalls of freedom is that in order for us to mutually coexist and mutually defend our rights, we must carefully balance competing interests. I think this is often expressed in what we call the social contract. Basically, you are free to act in a manner of your choosing up until the point precisely that doing so infringes on my right to do the same. A person who runs a business -- risks their capital, assumes the liability, pays the rent, the insurance, the payroll, the taxes, etc -- has the absolute right in my view to run that business as they see fit and owing no justification to anybody. And if that means they don't want guns on their premises, that is their right to tell me I can't be armed in that place they pay for, maintain, and operate for my enjoyment as a purveyor of whatever product or service in which I am partaking. If I am uncomfortable with their policy, I have three choices: 1. willfully violate the policy and assume the risks thereto -- thereby deeply disrespecting the sanctity of their property rights; 2. refuse to patronize the business and let them know why; 3. say nothing and refuse to patronize the business.

Look at all the jackasses who walked into stores in violation of their mask policies claiming "your policy violates my rights." No, sir, you are on private property. Your refusal to comply with the clearly stated policy on our door violates our rights. I hated wearing the damn mask, but I had to respect the property owners' policy in order to enter their property... OR, vote with my wallet and not patronize the place.

As for the 2A, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is what the Constitution says. And we the people have allowed the state to infringe with impunity. There is not another constitutional right that requires a background check to exercise. We have a LOT of work to do to restore that which we have cast off in the name of "safety" and political expediency.

 

[Koda]

I understand. Hard thing about rights, we feel they are owed to us, and in a way they are, by law, god, really whatever reason. 2A is hardly even about guns for me. It's about right to live and that at times means the right in defending myself

same, IMO I consider gun rights a part of human rights for the simple reason the right to live means including the right to defend yourself with commonly available tools.

 

[WalkingTall]

First of all, thank you as well for the discussion. This is the best part of this forum -- reasonable people can disagree, respectfully and with the worthwhile objective of mutual understanding. This to me is the essence of free speech in the marketplace of ideas and robust debate is the best way I know of to learn, grow, and prosper.

To your point, I think you have just perfectly illustrated the paradox of freedom: My freedom to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose. In other words, one of the pitfalls of freedom is that in order for us to mutually coexist and mutually defend our rights, we must carefully balance competing interests. I think this is often expressed in what we call the social contract. Basically, you are free to act in a manner of your choosing up until the point precisely that doing so infringes on my right to do the same. A person who runs a business -- risks their capital, assumes the liability, pays the rent, the insurance, the payroll, the taxes, etc -- has the absolute right in my view to run that business as they see fit and owing no justification to anybody. And if that means they don't want guns on their premises, that is their right to tell me I can't be armed in that place they pay for, maintain, and operate for my enjoyment as a purveyor of whatever product or service in which I am partaking. If I am uncomfortable with their policy, I have three choices: 1. willfully violate the policy and assume the risks thereto -- thereby deeply disrespecting the sanctity of their property rights; 2. refuse to patronize the business and let them know why; 3. say nothing and refuse to patronize the business.

Look at all the jackasses who walked into stores in violation of their mask policies claiming "your policy violates my rights." No, sir, you are on private property. Your refusal to comply with the clearly stated policy on our door violates our rights. I hated wearing the damn mask, but I had to respect the property owners' policy in order to enter their property... OR, vote with my wallet and not patronize the place.

As for the 2A, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is what the Constitution says. And we the people have allowed the state to infringe with impunity. There is not another constitutional right that requires a background check to exercise. We have a LOT of work to do to restore that which we have cast off in the name of "safety" and political expediency.

Lots of good points made here.

2A will survive,
Not because the constitution says so, but because as human beings we will always defend ourselves and our own. Guns are a great tool for that (at the time of the 2As creation rudimentary fire arms were the norm for arms). If it came down to it, we'd use bow and arrow, rock, or pointy stick to exercise our right to bear arms. Probably in the future contemporary guns will seem rudimentary to whatever future weaponry they develop, and they will. If you can count on anything it's human ingenuity and building better weapons. I love that line from The Mandalorian "weapons are apart if my religion" that's humanity. We love weapons. Tools. I'm holding out hope I'll one day play with a light sabers and blasters personally.

 

[billdeserthills]

One nice thing about Arizona

I kinda half read that. It's pretty vague, typical of what you see in any HR "how to...whatever ".
This situation( active shooter)is something employers can't win on paper. So just gloss over it and hope it doesn't happen. Statistically the odds are good that the average place of business isn't going to be a blood bath.
I don't have a problem with that approach. Pretty much how every real decision is made. What's the bottom line $$$ ? ,and can we afford to ignore the stuff that is low probability?

If we could sue the employer for forcing the workers to disarm & then neglecting to provide protection for those disarmed workers...

 

[Koda]

2A will survive,

only when history repeats itself.

 

[TTSX]

I sure hope not the lube techs.

A lube tech I worked with once found one in a customer's car, took it out and began waving it around. Apparently nobody but myself cared to do anything about that because it's normal for him. It's just what he does...

 

[Bushman]

Dummy broke the rules in his office and was fired. The end.

Yeah I got that from the first sentence of the post, that said he got made at work. I'm wondering how he got made, did HR come grab him, did they call the cops, etc.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

only when history repeats itself.

100%. The most profound statement of this thread.

 

[dangerranger60]

When I was a young man , I had skills, tools, and good transportation. If my Boss gave me krap he and I knew that by noon the next day I would be working for his competition!
I knew that if the boss piled on rules I would not follow, that there was no real penalty for breaking them! Or I would just quit and move on. So bosses did not tend to put unreasonable rules on me or people like me!
As I got older and needed to build a retirement, staying longer at one employer became more important, So I became a little more flexible in what I would except. And somewhere about year 10 as an engineer I realized I had too much invested to start over somewhere else. So I became a rule follower!
I had to weigh the risk of being caught VS the benefit of doing what I wanted!
As I got older the Benefit did not outweigh the risks.
Looking back would I have done things differently? No, The retirement pays more than I made while working!

Nowadays, carrying in a unpermissive envirement still has its risks! When the wife hugged me at a funeral and bumped into my gun I got a sharp elbow and a cold stare! DR

 

[po18guy]

A video on the consequences of "getting made" at work when you're not supposed to be carrying concealed. Not always something one thinks about.

Stupid is as stupid does...

 

[Idaho44]

When in Rome...... Here is an interesting series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_(TV_series)

 

[Dinglenutz]

Kind of hard not to in my opinion.

In Oregon, I'm not aware of a scenario that's hard to avoid and that carries criminal liabilities, but if I'm missing some I'd love to be informed.

 

[WalkingTall]

One nice thing about Arizona

If we could sue the employer for forcing the workers to disarm & then neglecting to provide protection for those disarmed workers...

In Oregon, I'm not aware of a scenario that's hard to avoid and that carries criminal liabilities, but if I'm missing some I'd love to be informed.

Are you asking me a question? I'm sorry not sure what kind of response you're looking for. As far as I'm concerned I'm constantly under the scrutiny of criminal liability as a legal daily carrying citizen. Doesn't take much to turn a benign situation deadly and criminal.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Are you asking me a question?

RFC I guess. I don't knowingly break laws, and I carry most of the time where there is no criminal liability for doing so. If I'm unaware of some laws I'm breaking I'd appreciate the insight. I don't carry in federal buildings and so on. I do (historically) carry on school property and when in places of business, even if they post signage. That signage has no criminal liability attached under Oregon law, AFAIK.

 

[WalkingTall]

RFC I guess. I don't knowingly break laws, and I carry most of the time where there is no criminal liability for doing so. If I'm unaware of some laws I'm breaking I'd appreciate the insight. I don't carry in federal buildings and so on. I do (historically) carry on school property and when in places of business, even if they post signage. That signage has no criminal liability attached under Oregon law, AFAIK.

Sounds like we carry the same way. My simple point is legal carry or not, you're not actually in control of a situation. If a cop wants to put you wrist chains or a property wants to sue you, etc. legal carry or not, we are all at risk for criminal liability. Never more so than when we choose to pull and fire. Your CHL isn't a pass for much of anything if you decide to pull and make a mistake or create a scenario where people are afraid of you and call the cops.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Sounds like we carry the same way. My simple point is legal carry or not, you're not actually in control of a situation. If a cop wants to put you wrist chains or a property wants to sue you, etc. legal carry or not, we are all at risk for criminal liability. Never more so than when we choose to pull and fire. Your CHL isn't a pass for much of anything if you decide to pull and make a mistake or create a scenario where people are afraid of you and call the cops.

I think we're not on the same page WRT what criminal liability means, but I don't think we disagree on anything else of substance. All good.

 

[Koda]

In Oregon, I'm not aware of a scenario that's hard to avoid and that carries criminal liabilities, but if I'm missing some I'd love to be informed.

Oregon just passed a law making it illegal to carry in places that have policies against it.