• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Open carry keeps the peace at once troubled NH bar

Started by Dave Ridley, October 04, 2007, 08:03 AM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

CNHT


lildog

Quote from: ny2nh on October 13, 2007, 05:49 AM NHFTI am 100% pro-2nd amendment, but I disagree that anyone would be giving up any of their rights if Keith opted to completely ban firearms in his establishment. It is a privately owned business and he can set the restrictions however he sees fit.

Key words in what you just posted is "if Keith opted".  When the government puts a gun to his head and threatens his livelihood it no longer becomes about what he opts.

burnthebeautiful

Does the law say you need a concealed carry permit to carry concealed in a (privately owned) bar, or do they only demand a permit on government property? It seems strange that you'd need a concealed carry permit on private property, but the government seems to have a difficult time wrapping its head around the fact that businesses are private property, so it wouldn't surprise me.

error

The fact that they issue concealed carry licenses at all proves that they haven't grasped this whole rights thing.

mvpel

Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court is on their side when it comes to concealed carry, as I recall.

J’raxis 270145

Quote from: Captain Liberty on October 15, 2007, 10:12 AM NHFT
Does the law say you need a concealed carry permit to carry concealed in a (privately owned) bar, or do they only demand a permit on government property? It seems strange that you'd need a concealed carry permit on private property, but the government seems to have a difficult time wrapping its head around the fact that businesses are private property, so it wouldn't surprise me.

RSA 159:4: "No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license ..."

Dan

Quote from: Bald Eagle on October 13, 2007, 04:33 PM NHFT
I generally try to ask what people's policies are at their homes when they visit or especially if they have children.  I respect their personal decisions.  It's called common courtesy and respect.

Please have some for Keith while we support him and try to sort all this crap out.

So far what experience ha worked out at the Crayola house (or porcfest camping tents) the rules for firearms on Dan and Beth's turf are:

  Don't point them at Daisy.
  Firearms at rest should be pointed at the dirt.
  ... and yet STILL not at Daisy.



Dan

Quote from: freedominnh on October 13, 2007, 06:13 PM NHFT
It may be time to open a private member club that is BYOB and out of complete state jurisdiction.

Kevin's is pretty close.  Working on the jurisdiction part.

ny2nh

Quote from: lildog on October 15, 2007, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: ny2nh on October 13, 2007, 05:49 AM NHFTI am 100% pro-2nd amendment, but I disagree that anyone would be giving up any of their rights if Keith opted to completely ban firearms in his establishment. It is a privately owned business and he can set the restrictions however he sees fit.

Key words in what you just posted is "if Keith opted".  When the government puts a gun to his head and threatens his livelihood it no longer becomes about what he opts.


OK - where are you getting that the gov't ever put a gun to Keith's head and would be forcing him to do anything? Keith is opting to do what is good for his business....his livelihood.....the livelihoods of the 30 people he employs. That doesn't mean he's a sell-out or he's caved to the gov't - he would just be making a business decision.

lildog

Quote from: ny2nh on October 15, 2007, 01:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on October 15, 2007, 08:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: ny2nh on October 13, 2007, 05:49 AM NHFTI am 100% pro-2nd amendment, but I disagree that anyone would be giving up any of their rights if Keith opted to completely ban firearms in his establishment. It is a privately owned business and he can set the restrictions however he sees fit.

Key words in what you just posted is "if Keith opted".  When the government puts a gun to his head and threatens his livelihood it no longer becomes about what he opts.

OK - where are you getting that the gov't ever put a gun to Keith's head and would be forcing him to do anything? Keith is opting to do what is good for his business....his livelihood.....the livelihoods of the 30 people he employs. That doesn't mean he's a sell-out or he's caved to the gov't - he would just be making a business decision.

Let's talk about hypothetical here and leave Keith out of it...

Mr. X owns a bar.  Mr. X Chooses to ban smoking from his bar.

No problem there as it is the owner's choice to do so.

Mr. Y chooses not to ban smoking but the government passes a smoking ban.

Now it is no longer the choice of the owner.  It is the government putting a gun to his head.


Mr. X allows anyone to come into his bar as long as they don't cause a problem.
Mr. Y has a metal detector at the door and doesn't allow weapons (even legally owned).

Again, both are choices of the owners... no problem.

Because Mr. X treats people like adults, responsible adults including some who carry guns choose that bar.  Government finds out that people in Mr. X's bar enjoy the freedom of a beer and at the same time opt to use their right to arm themselves.  Government has a "talk" to Mr. X about his license.  Worried his business is being put at risk, Mr. X "chooses" to no longer allow people to open carry.

In this case Mr. X isn't doing it because he wants to do it but does so because he fears the consequences otherwise.
It is nothing more then fear keeping them in line.

error

Quote from: Dan on October 15, 2007, 01:37 PM NHFT
  Don't point them at Daisy.
  Firearms at rest should be pointed at the dirt.
  ... and yet STILL not at Daisy.

What about my pocket laser pointer?

Dan

Quote from: error on October 15, 2007, 02:34 PM NHFT
What about my pocket laser pointer?

We here all realize that original intent, and the resulting repressing law, are often quite different.  You show a case in point: originally you pointed a laser pointer near Daisy.  But Beth just couldn't sell the idea to our in-home congress (tent at the time) to impose restrictions on laser pointer use.  But the pointer IS for use with a gun, so we attached a ride to the gun law (point at down at rest) and snuck it through anyway.

At least now we can rest a little eaiser that Daisy will not bark at a laser dot while being targeted by sidearms. 

What a relief.

error


KBCraig

In all the sidetrack discussions, and with all the uproar about the videos, it's important to keep in mind what Keith expects of his customers:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/nhinsider/show_single_post?pid=21104917&postcount=41


Lloyd Danforth

Quote from: error on October 15, 2007, 02:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dan on October 15, 2007, 01:37 PM NHFT
  Don't point them at Daisy.
  Firearms at rest should be pointed at the dirt.
  ... and yet STILL not at Daisy.

What about my pocket laser pointer?

Aren't you afraid it might go off in your pocket, and, take out a scroat or worse?