Cub Foods

[Stradawhovious]

I have gotten in this argument before so I probably should not jump in here but what they hay...

Does the owner of the property not have rights? If I was a property owner and I asked you to do something you do not feel I have the right to ask you to do do I not have the right to ask you to leave my property at anytime? So even though the permit holder is in the right does prudence and courtisy not rule the day?

So if the drive through attendant at McDonalds demanded to see your drivers license because they questioned whether or not you could legally drive, would you show it to them? Where is the line?

[hammAR]

...in the sand..............

[justaguy]

...in the sand..............

I was thinking they could pound sand.....

[hammAR]

...agreed, then you can put a line in it......

[Holland&Holland]

So if the drive through attendant at McDonalds demanded to see your drivers license because the questioned whether or not you could legally drive, would you show it to them? Where is the line?

I would tell them I was not going to do business with them if those were their terms and leave. I do beleive that the owner of the property or someone representing the owner of the property has the right to ask you to leave?

I can completely understand the point that it would be rediculous for McDonalds to do so but the flip side is also just as true. Lets say you decided use my back yard as your personal dog park and my son sees you out there with your dog doing his business on my back deck and he "politely" lets you know that you are not welcome... I guess you could say the property was not posted so therefore it is OK...

I guess we all have to draw our lines in the sand sometime...

[Stradawhovious]

I would tell them I was not going to do business with them if those were their terms and leave. I do beleive that the owner of the property or someone representing the owner of the property has the right to ask you to leave?

I can completely understand the point that it would be rediculous for McDonalds to do so but the flip side is also just as true. Lets say you decided use my back yard as your personal dog park and my son sees you out there with your dog doing his business on my back deck and he "politely" lets you know that you are not welcome... I guess you could say the property was not posted so therefore it is OK...

I guess we all have to draw our lines in the sand sometime...

Being asked to leave, and demanding to see a carry permit are two completely different things. If the "security guard" had asked the OP to leave, that is fine. They have no legal right to demand a permit. That is reserved for LEO. They do, however, have a legal right to post their establishment, they also have a legal right to ask you to leave. Big difference.

[Holland&Holland]

I would tell them I was not going to do business with them if those were their terms and leave. I do beleive that the owner of the property or someone representing the owner of the property has the right to ask you to leave?

I can completely understand the point that it would be rediculous for McDonalds to do so but the flip side is also just as true. Lets say you decided use my back yard as your personal dog park and my son sees you out there with your dog doing his business on my back deck and he "politely" lets you know that you are not welcome... I guess you could say the property was not posted so therefore it is OK...

I guess we all have to draw our lines in the sand sometime...

Being asked to leave, and demanding to see a carry permit are two completely different things. If the "security guard" had asked the OP to leave, that is fine. They have no legal right to demand a permit. That is reserved for LEO. They do, however, have a legal right to post their establishment, they also have a legal right to ask you to leave. Big difference.

Fair enough however since we are splitting hair hear does not anyone have the right to ask anything? Freedom of speach is it not? Then you have a choice, you can refuse and face those consequences or comply.

[jgalt]

Fair enough however since we are splitting hair hear does not anyone have the right to ask anything? Freedom of speach is it not? Then you have a choice, you can refuse and face those consequences or comply.

Your question is not relevant in this situation. Someone who is neither LEO nor the owner / owner's agent of the store can of course say / ask anything they want were they to see you carrying in a Cub Foods, including asking you to leave. But if for example, I - who is not LEO nor the owner / owner's agent - asks you to leave because I don't want to be around people carrying guns, you are under no obligation to do so, and there will be no consequences if you do not. If the owner / owner's agent asks you to leave, you do have the obligation to leave.

Say we were both visiting a mutual friend's house - you're carrying, I'm not. I see that you are carrying - of course I can ask / demand that you disarm or leave, but I have no power other than physical force (which would be illegal) to make you do so, and again, there will be no legal consequences to you if you do not. But if our mutual friend asks the same thing - disarm or leave - and you refuse to do so, he does have recourse other than physical force. He can call the police, because as the owner of his home, he has a right which I do not, and can call upon the authorities to enforce his rightful request if you refuse to comply.

See the difference?

[Holland&Holland]

Fair enough however since we are splitting hair hear does not anyone have the right to ask anything? Freedom of speach is it not? Then you have a choice, you can refuse and face those consequences or comply.

Your question is not relevant in this situation. Someone who is neither LEO nor the owner / owner's agent of the store can of course say / ask anything they want were they to see you carrying in a Cub Foods, including asking you to leave. But if for example, I - who is not LEO nor the owner / owner's agent - asks you to leave because I don't want to be around people carrying guns, you are under no obligation to do so, and there will be no consequences if you do not. If the owner / owner's agent asks you to leave, you do have the obligation to leave.

Say we were both visiting a mutual friend's house - you're carrying, I'm not. I see that you are carrying - of course I can ask / demand that you disarm or leave, but I have no power other than physical force (which would be illegal) to make you do so, and again, there will be no legal consequences to you if you do not. But if our mutual friend asks the same thing - disarm or leave - and you refuse to do so, he does have recourse other than physical force. He can call the police, because as the owner of his home, he has a right which I do not, and can call upon the authorities to enforce his rightful request if you refuse to comply.

See the difference?

This is not the situation at hand though. In this case there was an authorized agent of the property owner making the request. Now I do not want anyone to get me wrong here I think the right to carry should not have been challenged however I think the OP handled this situation nicely, represented our community well, and was the consumate gentleman as we should all be. That said to state that property rights can be ignored is not something I will perscribe to.

[infidel]

I understand private property rights. However Cub Foods is a public business. Can they legally discriminate against those who carry?

[The_real_ozman]

I understand private property rights. However Cub Foods is a public business. Can they legally discriminate against those who carry?

Like a mall they are a Private Business OPEN to the public. They have the right to kick any one out for anything. If you are walking around the store wearing a T-dhirt that says your Grandma is a good F***K, you will be asked to leave. Any where that is privately owned and open to the public have the right to refuse service to any one, then if you fail to leave then it becomes a tresspass and a court apearance if they call the man.

The answer is just to cover up your Gun and what no one see's no one can react about. As it is your right to open carry it is also their right to refuse service and kick you out. So are using the law to exercise the same rights.

[Pat]

Any where that is privately owned and open to the public have the right to refuse service to any one, then if you fail to leave then it becomes a tresspass and a court apearance if they call the man.

Nope. That stuff went out the window with the passage of the civil rights laws.

[Holland&Holland]

I understand private property rights. However Cub Foods is a public business. Can they legally discriminate against those who carry?

Like a mall they are a Private Business OPEN to the public. They have the right to kick any one out for anything. If you are walking around the store wearing a T-dhirt that says your Grandma is a good F***K, you will be asked to leave. Any where that is privately owned and open to the public have the right to refuse service to any one, then if you fail to leave then it becomes a tresspass and a court apearance if they call the man.

The answer is just to cover up your Gun and what no one see's no one can react about. As it is your right to open carry it is also their right to refuse service and kick you out. So are using the law to exercise the same rights.

That is my point. Well stated sir.

[phorvick]

Any where that is privately owned and open to the public have the right to refuse service to any one, then if you fail to leave then it becomes a tresspass and a court apearance if they call the man.

Nope. That stuff went out the window with the passage of the civil rights laws.

That is only true to a member of a protected class (typically race, sex, age etc). Being a gun owner is not a protected class. We can generally be discriminated against at will. It is within the right of John's Taco Stand to ban guns if they want. I.e. "No guns allowed" is a property owner's rights. My gun rights do not, in my opinion, generally trump a property owners rights. I think that banning permit holders that are carrying is silly, but I generally honor the signs regardless of whether they are compliant or not. Unless, of course. I really want that taco

[jgalt]

Fair enough however since we are splitting hair hear does not anyone have the right to ask anything? Freedom of speach is it not? Then you have a choice, you can refuse and face those consequences or comply.

Your question is not relevant in this situation. Someone who is neither LEO nor the owner / owner's agent of the store can of course say / ask anything they want were they to see you carrying in a Cub Foods, including asking you to leave. But if for example, I - who is not LEO nor the owner / owner's agent - asks you to leave because I don't want to be around people carrying guns, you are under no obligation to do so, and there will be no consequences if you do not. If the owner / owner's agent asks you to leave, you do have the obligation to leave.

Say we were both visiting a mutual friend's house - you're carrying, I'm not. I see that you are carrying - of course I can ask / demand that you disarm or leave, but I have no power other than physical force (which would be illegal) to make you do so, and again, there will be no legal consequences to you if you do not. But if our mutual friend asks the same thing - disarm or leave - and you refuse to do so, he does have recourse other than physical force. He can call the police, because as the owner of his home, he has a right which I do not, and can call upon the authorities to enforce his rightful request if you refuse to comply.

See the difference?

This is not the situation at hand though. In this case there was an authorized agent of the property owner making the request. Now I do not want anyone to get me wrong here I think the right to carry should not have been challenged however I think the OP handled this situation nicely, represented our community well, and was the consumate gentleman as we should all be. That said to state that property rights can be ignored is not something I will perscribe to.

I know that is not the situation at hand - your comment that I bolded did not make it clear that you understood that. Now that you have made clear what your understanding is, we are in complete agreement regarding how the OP handled himself.