Kansas butthole....

[crowsnest2002]

First this isnt just a question of concealed carry, it is a question of moral authority. Responsibilty of yourself and the respect of others also has to come into play with this one.

So let me tell you guys a story. First of which let me tell you that Kansas now has concealed carry. First my wife works at a bank and for security reasons I wont state which. Second every store, library and etc etc. has the little picture of a handgun with the cross thru it (no concealed carry in this premises) Okay that is the stores ability to choose to not allowed concealed carry. But here is the story. My wife states that a gentleman comes into the bank about 3times a week and rants and raves about how the bank wont allow concealed carry inside the bank and he states that it would be stupid of them to not allow it for the reason that the bank would appear to be un armed. Well first no one at her bank is allowed to carry a weapon. Knives arent even allowed. So that is one of his conclusions busted down. Secondly he states that it is his right to carry a weapon wherever he wants. Well part of this is true, but it is the business owners premises and if he doesnt want average joe snuffy to walk in with a loaded firearm (such as in a bank) its his god given right to do so. At least in my opinion. Dont get me wrong on this subject I love guns as much as the next guy, but I think people can get a little obsessive on this issue. I agree guns should not be allowed on school property and places of that nature. I also agree that average joe snuffy business owner has the right to say he doesnt want a person carrying a firearm in his business. That is his right. I also like the abilty of concealed carry but I think that people should respect others wishes especially if you are on their property. I really think I am right on this subject, but what do you all think. I think people like this make a bad rep for the rest of us. Please input your comments.

[danp]

I've always felt the same way. While I think "No Guns" policies are stupid and mis-guided, I support a private property owner's right to manage their property as they say fit.

Private property rights are supreme.

[crowsnest2002]

I much agree. Its just that this dumb (butt) is making everyone in the gun community look like idiots... He even annoyed my wife lol. She got defensive about it all too.... lol bless her.

[762xIan]

All PAFOA members are welcome to carry on my 2 acres.

Agreed, private property rights are #1...to bad you can't outlaw stupidity.

[TonyF]

Private property rights do trump your 2A rights. However, the manner in which this bank patron is going about *educating* people is just plain loony and gives the movement a black eye.

How do you take someone like that seriouslY/

[crowsnest2002]

The key is you dont take them seriously. He has no argument and he will never convince the bank to change their minds on the policy. At least the way he is going around about it.

[MarcS]

He should just carry and STFU

[vetter3006]

He should just carry and STFU

+1 I agree if you carry no one will know but you.

[dmg1969]

I agree that his ranting and raving does nothing to further the case for the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry.

It would depend on what the Kansas law says (not taking the time to look it up right now) on the issue. If it is simply the business's policy (ie: not illegal), just carry discreetly without being an ass about it. It's not like they can frisk you. If they somehow found out you were carrying, all they could do is ask you to leave and perhaps not return.

This begs the question of which is more important...your right to self defense or the private property rights based on an irrational fear of guns. Ultimately, the property owner will win because they can ban you from the property. This, in my opinion is the lesser of two evils. The greater being in a position of needing your gun and not having it.

Dave G.

[theshadow]

This begs the question of which is more important...your right to self defense or the private property rights based on an irrational fear of guns. Ultimately, the property owner will win because they can ban you from the property. This, in my opinion is the lesser of two evils. The greater being in a position of needing your gun and not having it.

I agree with you here (big surprise I guess), the property owner in this case is being nieve and ignorant (one lacking education or knowledge). Since the only person or persons who will follow the rules are the law abiding, and those are not the ones the property owner needs fear of having a gun, or knife. I never leave home with out my leatherman's tool, and would ask someone who insist I not have it to seek professional mental help. It is within the property owners rights to make restrictions, and within the corporate law to refuse service, but CORPORATIONS HAVE NO GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, only individuals do. Ergo, there are no property rights involved. Also I would think my civil right to self-defense, would further assial thier arguement.