"By invitation only" vs "Open to the public"

This may (I hope) be the wrap-up to the recent posts on anti-gun bigots, right-of-way, and all that mess.

As I said in a previous post, I see a big distinction between private property which is "by invitation only"-- your house, yard, car, etc.-- as opposed to private property which is "open to the public"-- a business or something like that.

If you invite me to your house, I will assume you aren't going to say "no guns", just as I would never do to you or anyone else. But if you do say that, I will decline the "invitation" (which I won't see as an invitation at all, but as an insult). There was no necessity for me to go to your property, and if you don't trust me armed, you don't trust me at all. And if you insist I show up disarmed I will assume you intend to violate me in other ways, too, and don't want me able to fight back. So, no, I will not go to your place. I doubt I would invite you to my house either after that.

But maybe you have a rational reason-- strong magnetic fields in your house that would turn a gun into a dangerous projectile or something like that. Unless you can give a reasonable explanation of that sort that's not based on mere feelings, I will never again trust you because of this violation of trust.

If you have a business that you claim is "open to the public", then I'm going to assume you mean what you say. I always assume liberty unless shown otherwise. If, however, you were lying and your property is not really "open to the public" but is only "open to disarmed people" I will go elsewhere if I have an alternative. And I hope I have an alternative because I really don't want to support your bigotry with my money.

Is a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign the same thing as a "We don't care if you die" sign? Not even close.

Requiring you to wear clothes might be the same as asking you to carry concealed rather than having an AR15 slung over your shoulder, though. It's about what's in the open, visible, outside your personal space zone. Not wearing a shirt reduces that zone down to the surface of your skin. Requiring shirt and shoes isn't usually the business owner's personal feelings anyway, but is generally mandated by the State. I've seen many businesses turn a blind eye in certain circumstances. Wearing a shirt isn't likely to harm you in any way, and if your shirt suddenly caught fire no business owner would have a hissy fit if you stripped it off to keep from burning to death. It's possible to take off your shirt if an emergency requires it; it's not possible to conjure a gun out of thin air if an emergency requires one.

And, obviously, it's a serious crime for any government facility to pretend they can forbid guns. Yet, they get away with it and will murder you for ignoring their violation. Which just shows what they really are.

I don't trust anyone who tries to deny anyone's right to be responsibly armed. I never have and I never will. I wouldn't do that to anyone and I expect reciprocity.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.