I agree with your premise that since there isn’t enough data, there isn’t a basis for a rule to be created in the first place. That’s the point here, that I highly doubt that an insurer would be really enforcing a rule such as this, and at most it would be a suggestion. The rule really doesn’t limit the exposures at hand here because there are still members of the public with loaded firearms, except they are ok in this area but not in the other? I’m sure the operator could implement a don’t ask don’t tell policy also, or tell his agent that my customers don’t like this rule and tell the underwriter to drop it or start shopping for another company.

The main point of this thread it to voice your viewpoint, respectfully and ask for change and try to change people’s minds for the better.

HardCorps, you’re looking at the question exactly backwards. If adequate data existed to determine the risks associated with not having this rule, insurers would either dump the rule outright or offer an alternative policy that costs a little more. From an insurer’s standpoint, there are no “bad” risks, only inappropriately priced ones. If they don’t have the right data, they won’t be able to price the risk appropriately, and will thus be loath to insure it at all. [Even if they do have the appropriate data, that doesn't always guarantee that they'll be able to get the right rate approved by regulators, but that's another thread.]

But you ignored my point which was that we can come to an agreement about what should happen, and work towards that goal with a win-win attitude while respecting everyones rights. (i.e. the premise of libertarianism)

What, the comment about throwing us under the bus? Yes, that was very constructive. Thanks for answering your question for us.

The insurance reason is a very good one IMO, and would have more to do with the actuaries than the shop owner. If you can’t get insurance to let random members of the general public walk into your store waving around loaded high power evil black plastic-metal-detector-defeating HIGH POWER armor piercing automatic assault SNIPER guns, it doesn’t matter how comfortable you are with the Good Guys coming in safely cocked & locked.

I guess I answered my own question…

Happy april fools day.

I had fun did you?

I wish you joy in your bankruptcy.”

I’ll take my chances, and it’s none of your goddamned business.

Bullshit. I didn’t say anything in the world like that (hint: you couldn’t quote it if your ass depended on it), and I am not responsible for your inability to grasp the bi-lateral nature of rights.

You’re dismissed.

I wish you joy in your bankruptcy.

Your insistence on the primacy of “enumerated rights” over what you think I might be taking/accepting from common law (which is just a differing verbally or socially enumerated codification, actually) is missing the mark; enumerated “rights” may be legally primary, but they are not so morally.

Simply put: when we are talking *ethics*, “right and wrong” trumps “legal and illegal”.

The ground is safe if you are not a dumbass*. If you are a dumbass, a clearing barrel is not safe. If you put a clearing barrel outside your shop, inside city limits, you are inviting people to discharge their weapons outside a shooting range, not in self-defense, inside city limits. This is not something people are supposed to do, in most cities I know of. Sure, they are not supposed to fire into it, they are supposed to point at it while clearing the weapon. You can cound on the fingers of one foot how many days would pass between people firing into the barrel to clear their weapons, regardless of how many DO NOT SHOOT INTO THE BARREL signs you post.

You have a right to be armed. You are a member of both the public and the militia. Fine.

I have a right to exclude from my premises anybody I like (at least in Texas, we can refuse service and have folks arrested for trespass) regardless of whether or not I serve the general public. I have a right to not have bubba walking around with a loaded Bryco in his hand, waiting for a true AD due to crappy weaponry. I have a right to not have some idiot, gun-neophyte, or g4ngst3r waving a loaded weapon around my shop.

I also have a right to require the honest, good people of the world to render their weapons 100% safe before entering my shop. It’s MY place you WANT to come into. You don’t have an absolute right to do whatever you want wherever you want. You don’t have a right to infringe on my right to property because you WANT to come into my store.

The good people of the world can choose not to frequent my shop. I can choose to not let them in. If you want a place where you can have people walking around armed, this is America and you can make your own next door to mine.

Is it really so hard to clear your carry weapon’s chamber in your car? Are you truly concerned that you will be assaulted outside the gun shop? If so, leave the magazine in and lock the slide back. You can then use one hand to release the slide and chamber another round if you need to. You could also push the mag release button and drop the magazine with one hand right before you *voluntarily* go to have your rights infringed by the store owner.

As for the people who will have a ND while they are clearing a weapon prior to entering the store: the guards on saws and railroad crossing guard arms don’t protect them from themselves, either.

*you are a dumbass if you clear your weapon while pointing it at concrete or stone, where a ricochet or shrapnel could injure other people or their property. Think, point yourself away from other people and their things.

Of course whenever there is talk about rules, Americans always focus on I ‘have the right to do this and no one can say shit’ and it goes on back and forth about that - which isn’t the issue at all. That argument is so childish! It’s about what is the correct and better course of action. Anyone has a right to be an anti-social prick - but what good does that do anyone?

If I were in this situation, this wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me, although I wouldn’t be happy about it, and I would speak my mind, respectfully as a gentleman, to the management and if enough people did the same in sure he’d change the policy. The insurance reason seems like a cop-out because the guy might not be as comfortable with guns or as educated about guns as could be. Kind of like that NRA asshole who says that all guns should be banned at all schools. What a fucker - thanks for throwing us under the bus.

Mr. Beck, you said “Get this straight: there is no such thing as a “right” which violates others’ rights.” You then proceed to say that you can violate other folks rights simply because you own a business. Which one is it?

My house is not open to the public and no reasonable person would say it was nor doubt my right to say who may or may not enter into it. My fenced yard is also not open to the public and if I lock the gates is almost as inviolate as my house. My unfenced yard, woods, and fields are open to the public (different States, different rules) unless I fence them in and put up signs restricting access.

If I open a business that caters to the general public( e.g.: retail ), than it is reasonable to expect the general public to have access to that business. No shirt, no shoes, no business is public health law. Rules set by the legislature are beyond our control, unless your last name is Naifeh. The assumption that you are in control is naive. You must follow THE RULES, whither set by your insurance provider or the legislature if you plan to remain in business.

If you set your own rules, they must be declared openly. But those rules can not violate my rights (as you say yourself). Enumerated Rights, such as the 2A, outweigh common law rights, such as you setting the rules in a business.

Mr. Good, I am aware that neither just because it is legal does not mean it is right nor just because it is illegal does not make it wrong. Roe-v-Wade and sharia are examples.

As to self-insurance, I’m not sure why you think the Texas AG will help anyone in Tennessee, or protect anyone (insured or not) from having to pay judgments against him, but that’s neither here nor there.

“John:

There are no easy, pat solutions that will please everyone.

True, so–in particular–stop expecting the one easy, pat solution you want.”

My bad tag-fu. I am ashamed.

Look, “the Law” is just something some folks wrote down, and it only properly serves as a factor in risk assessment; it’s not a guide to what’s right and what’s wrong.

This is about *right* and *wrong*, not about law.

Ergo: My place, my rules.

A balance between one right and the other must be found.

I know you mean well, but that’s an entirely wrong way of looking at it. Billy put it well above: “Get this straight: there is no such thing as a “right” which violates others’ rights. Period. Rights, properly understood, have their own proper boundaries as a part of what they are; they are separate entities and they don’t require “balancing” because they don’t conflict.

Hint: the opposite of right is wrong and *that’s* where you find any conflict.

If the store is open to the public, than why should the store owner be able to infringe the customer’s rights?

So (I ask respectfully), do you not believe a store owner ought not be able to enforce a “shoes/shirt” policy in his establishment?

That is solely upon the owner’s discretion.

Example: I’ve always maintained that the notorious asshole Lester Maddox had every right to stand at the door of his restaurant and bar entry to black people with his ridiculous axe-handle.

“Ownership” necessarily implies the right of disposition: if a person cannot dispose of what he is said to own, then there is no referent for the concept, “own”. This logic is well-known in everyday practice of the sort implied in the quote above. Every store is going to have its own rules about the limits of “open to the public”: almost none of them are going to allow you and your goats fucking in the aisles. The number of proscriptions that business owners place on customers’ behaviors must be nearly infinite even though most of them aren’t written anywhere. Well, this one is, and it is morally valid on the same principle of private property by which you get to call the plays around your place, which is why you should understand this issue.

In a free polity, a business is no more “open to the public” than your own house is, and for all the same reasons.

I have no intention of violating your rights and I expect the same from you.

Why do so many people who claim to be pro proerty rights not get this?

No, he is not. There are other insurers, they probably have higher premiums for what they perceive as heightened risk. There is also the possibility of “self-insurance” and it is not that onerous in most states.

Hell, if you’re self insured in Texas the Insurance Commission will protect you from a court order to pay, even if a court found you liable. Trust me on that.

Circular argument. If the store is open to the public, than why should the store owner be able to infringe the customer’s rights?

As to “guns at work”. I agree that an employer can set rules for in the workplace, but the car belongs to the employee.

A balance between one right and the other must be found. It is EASY to say do not shop there or do not work here. When the only pharmacy in the county says no guns and your child is sick, what do you do (drive or submit)? When the boss says no guns, the mortgage is due, the credit cards are due, the doctor says you child needs this operation, you wife wants implants, and you work at the only place in town that can pay you what you need; what do you do (quit or submit)?

There are no easy, pat solutions that will please everyone.

That’s why i’m not real keen on the NRA’s various ‘guns at work’ bills.

Obviously inside the workplace is my employers’ property, but has it ever been settled whether the interior of my car, while parked at work, is my property or my employers’ property? Isn’t that the crux of the ‘guns at work’ issue in most cases?

And what if he was bound by nothing but his own preferences, or even prejudices?

His property, do what he says. That’s why i’m not real keen on the NRA’s various ‘guns at work’ bills.

And what if he was bound by nothing but his own preferences, or even prejudices?

Look: this whole issue is a big part of why I have never affirmed the right to own/carry guns on a premise of the Second Amendment or the right of self-defense, but on the principled right of private property. It’’s because only a proper integration of that general principle can be rightly understood, and it extends to the right of people in their own homes and businesses dictating others’ behavior in these places.

Get this straight: there is no such thing as a “right” which violates others’ rights. Period. A person who walks into someone else’s place and asserts The Right That Shall Not Be Infringed is a fucking idiot, and he is in no way on my side of this mess. My answer to him is: if you don’t like it, then haul your narrow ass out of my place before this gets ugly.

Now, you might not like that, but freedom, ladies and gentlemen, doesn’t mean that anyone has to like you. They only have to leave you alone.

And people who cannot or do not think in terms of principles can be just as dangerous as anyone else on the scene. They’re just making it up as they go along, and there is no telling what someone like that is going to do next.

I heard The Gunny say something like Well, you can’t really carry a loaded weapon through the store to the range.

I interpreted that as a complete prohibition of CCW, but I realize it could go either way.

As to the cost of insurance… Ranges in my area - same as KCSteve there - run $20 a year for membership and $9-10 a day to shoot. I’m inferring just from the new member discount that the range fees here are going to be significantly higher than that.

I wish the guy the best of luck. I won’t go there, but that’s moot as I don’t live in the same city. If I didn’t have a selection of ranges to choose from here and was subject to the same policies, I’d probably have to suck it up and deal with it - at least for the winter months. But if one of the local ranges here tried it, they’d be out of business lickety split.

Joe

You can get insurance for anything, it’s just a matter of how much you want to pay. This guy is just starting out, so he’s going to want his overhead to be as low as he can get it. This is not an uncommon restriction, and maybe once the guy gets his shop going, he’ll be able to afford a better policy that would allow shooting your carry gun.

The guy also doesn’t say he prohibits concealed carry, just that you can’t shoot your carry gun at the range. I doubt he’s going to be checking too hard for your carry piece, and won’t say anything if you accidentally flashed it.