Hello and Happy New Year from the other side of The Pond!

I'm intrigued by this article in the New York Times:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/a-heavily-armed-man-caused-panic-at-a-supermarket-but-did-he-break-the-law.html>
or
https://archive.vn/0qsrh

Forgive me for being unfamiliar with different nuances between our
legal system and yours but over here, banks frequently instruct
customers to "Remove Helmet before Entering" and more and more shops
are warning customers in advance "Cards Only - No Cash." Neither of
these are "protected characteristics" under our laws and shops are
free to exclude any customers for these - and other - reasons.

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on these
Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the entrance)? Where
does a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free environment and a
private citizen's right to carry a gun begin and end? Does this vary
state by state? No wonder the NYT article is full of confusion.

Thanks,

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:22:54 -0800, Nick Odell wrote:

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on these
Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the entrance)? Where does
a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free environment and a private citizen's right to carry a gun begin and end?

The second amendment. It's that simple.

Would a courts action in upholding the rights of a property owner to
exclude gun toting citizens be construed as infringing a citizens right
to bear arms ?

Only one way to find out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/2/2023 7:22 AM, Nick Odell wrote:

Hello and Happy New Year from the other side of The Pond!

I'm intrigued by this article in the New York Times:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/a-heavily-armed-man-caused-panic-at-a-supermarket-but-did-he-break-the-law.html>
or
https://archive.vn/0qsrh

Forgive me for being unfamiliar with different nuances between our
legal system and yours but over here, banks frequently instruct
customers to "Remove Helmet before Entering" and more and more shops
are warning customers in advance "Cards Only - No Cash." Neither of
these are "protected characteristics" under our laws and shops are
free to exclude any customers for these - and other - reasons.

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on these
Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the entrance)?

The Second Amendment -- like the rest of the Bill of Rights -- limits
what the Government (Federal/State/local) can do. If you consider only
the Constitution and federal laws, shopkeepers can do whatever they like
in this regard: gun owners are not a "protected class" (WIYF) in US law.

A state is (in general) free to regulate what businesses can do. This
falls under what is called "police power" in constitutional law. So a
state *could* enact a law saying that shopkeepers are not allowed to ban firearms. AFAIK, no state does this.

In fact, it might be the opposite: Texas used to have a rule that you
were not allowed to bring firearms into a place that served alcohol.
That law was changed a few years ago. Now the rule is that you can bring firearms into a bar *unless* there is a sign posted to the contrary.

Many large businesses, especially those that do substantial business in
blue states, have a rule against bringing firearms into their corporate headquarters or other place where they have a lot of people working at
desks. The signs are usually posted at the entrance to the parking lot,
but there is an understanding that you can drive into the lot, park your
car, lock your gun(s) in the trunk, then go into the building gunless.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. If somebody is planning to "go postal"(*), they aren't going to be deterred by a "no guns" sign. And
tacking a misdemeanor trespassing or gun rule violation onto a charge of multiple murders (or, at best, attempted murders) seems picayune.

(*) A misnomer: many more of these incidents occur in private businesses
than in USPS workplaces.
--

GIYF
WIYF
SIYF

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Nick Odell wrote:

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on
these Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the
entrance)? Where does a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free
environment and a private citizen's right to carry a gun begin
and end?

Yes, and there are businesses that do that. At the NRA's annual
meeting they have a no-firearms requirement.

The second amendment. It's that simple.

Actually it's not simple. The wording of it is quite problematic.
But even so, the Second Amendment only restricts what governmente can
do, not what private citizens or businesses can do.

Would a courts action in upholding the rights of a property owner
to exclude gun toting citizens be construed as infringing a
citizens right to bear arms ?

No.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>:

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:22:54 -0800, Nick Odell wrote:

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on these
Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the entrance)? Where does
a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free environment and a private
citizen's right to carry a gun begin and end?

The second amendment. It's that simple.

This is "simple" as in "incredibly complicated and politicized."

Until the Heller decision in 2008, everyone agreed that the 2nd
amendment protected the right of each state to have a state militia (a "well-regulated" one) which we now call the National Guard. The Heller
decision ignored two centuries of history and pretended the first part
of the amnndment wasn't there and invented a new right for individuals
to carry guns. We've been working out the bloody consequences ever
since.

Would a courts action in upholding the rights of a property owner to
exclude gun toting citizens be construed as infringing a citizens right
to bear arms ?

Only one way to find out.

With the current wacky court, I fear the likely outcome.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Nick Odell" wrote in message news:5do5rhtka53g6l0vq5jv3s373kgaf5vfbs@4ax.com...

Hello and Happy New Year from the other side of The Pond!

I'm intrigued by this article in the New York Times:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/a-heavily-armed-man-caused-panic-at-a-supermarket-but-did-he-break-the-law.html>
or
https://archive.vn/0qsrh

Forgive me for being unfamiliar with different nuances between our
legal system and yours but over here, banks frequently instruct
customers to "Remove Helmet before Entering" and more and more shops
are warning customers in advance "Cards Only - No Cash." Neither of
these are "protected characteristics" under our laws and shops are
free to exclude any customers for these - and other - reasons.

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on these
Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the entrance)? Where
does a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free environment and a
private citizen's right to carry a gun begin and end? Does this vary
state by state? No wonder the NYT article is full of confusion.

Thanks,

Nick

Yes, a private owner can place any restrictions they want on you entering
their premises. Many entities explicitly prohibit guns or weapons, and
others restrict various other items. Before Covid, a local bank had a sign prohibiting anyone from entering with sunglasses on or face covering unless there was a medical or religious reason. Restaurants and similar establishments typically have signs prohibiting anyone from entering without shoes or while wearing shorts or other informal dress. Amusement parks like Disney World refuse to let anyone in without going through a bag search and,
I believe, a metal detector as well. Sea World explicitly prohibits anyone from bringing food into the park. A one-day gambling cruise has a sign prohibiting anyone from bringing a computer or laptop on board. Many establishments prohibit bringing pets or animals into their facility, and
many prohibit adults from bringing in children. So yes, private owners can
and do prohibit people from entering with various items.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:27:12 -0800, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Actually it's not simple. The wording of it is quite problematic. But
even so, the Second Amendment only restricts what government can do,
not what private citizens or businesses can do.

My (admittedly limited) understanding was that when cases come to court,
the court - as a body of the state - is bound by the constitution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:26:25 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

In fact, it might be the opposite: Texas used to have a rule that you
were not allowed to bring firearms into a place that served alcohol.
That law was changed a few years ago. Now the rule is that you can bring firearms into a bar *unless* there is a sign posted to the contrary.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around shops in Houston with
people (men) with holstered pistols.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/2/2023 7:22 AM, Nick Odell wrote:

Hello and Happy New Year from the other side of The Pond!

I'm intrigued by this article in the New York Times:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/a-heavily-armed-man-caused-panic-at-a-supermarket-but-did-he-break-the-law.html>
or
https://archive.vn/0qsrh

Forgive me for being unfamiliar with different nuances between our
legal system and yours but over here, banks frequently instruct
customers to "Remove Helmet before Entering" and more and more shops
are warning customers in advance "Cards Only - No Cash." Neither of
these are "protected characteristics" under our laws and shops are
free to exclude any customers for these - and other - reasons.

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on these
Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the entrance)? Where
does a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free environment and a
private citizen's right to carry a gun begin and end? Does this vary
state by state? No wonder the NYT article is full of confusion.

In addition to my longer answer, I'll quote a sign often seen in retail establishments:

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.


--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

In addition to my longer answer, I'll quote a sign often seen in
retail establishments:

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

That sign is ubiquitous. There are situations when, by law, it's not
allowed to apply. But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with it.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Actually it's not simple. The wording of it is quite
problematic. But even so, the Second Amendment only restricts
what government can do, not what private citizens or businesses
can do.

My (admittedly limited) understanding was that when cases come to
court, the court - as a body of the state - is bound by the
constitution.

Right, even state courts have to follow the Constitution. But the Bill
of Rights only restricts governmental actions, not private actions.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/2/2023 1:48 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:27:12 -0800, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Actually it's not simple. The wording of it is quite problematic. But
even so, the Second Amendment only restricts what government can do,
not what private citizens or businesses can do.

My (admittedly limited) understanding was that when cases come to court,
the court - as a body of the state - is bound by the constitution.

Yes, but "rights" in the Constitution are about what the government can do.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

You have a right to "keep" (own and possess) and "bear" (carry) arms.
But that does not override the right of businesses to decide who they
will do business with.

"No shoes, no shirt, no service." That does not infringe your right to
go around shirtless or in bare feet. The government cannot make it a
crime for you to go around in bare feet. But a private person can say,
"you must wear shoes and a shirt to enter my property."

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis
of their race, religion, skin color, or sex. Not because the
Constitution says so, but because Congress says so under its power "To
regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"


--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:47:33 -0800 (PST), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:26:25 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

In fact, it might be the opposite: Texas used to have a rule that you
were not allowed to bring firearms into a place that served alcohol.
That law was changed a few years ago. Now the rule is that you can bring
firearms into a bar *unless* there is a sign posted to the contrary.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around shops in Houston with
people (men) with holstered pistols.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around Sainsbury's
supermarket in Huddersfield, England one day with two police officers,
each wearing a pistol and carrying an automatic rifle who were
shopping for food before they went home.

In the UK the police are routinely armed only for diplomatic and
airport protection services and a few other specific, select reasons:
most other police officers do not carry firearms but in emergency can
call on the services of an Armed Response Unit which has weapons
locked in the trunk.

These two officers were not confronting a hostile situation: I can
only imagine that there must be a rule about not leaving police
weapons in an unattended vehicle even when they are locked in the
trunk and that's why they brought them into the shop. Nevertheless it
was most disconcerting to see even friendly faces so heavily armed
when and where we are not used to it. No delays at the checkout for
them either...

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 2 Jan 2023 07:22:54 -0800 (PST), Nick
Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Hello and Happy New Year from the other side of The Pond!

I'm intrigued by this article in the New York Times:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/a-heavily-armed-man-caused-panic-at-a-supermarket-but-did-he-break-the-law.html>
or
https://archive.vn/0qsrh

Forgive me for being unfamiliar with different nuances between our

You are forgiven, but you must pay 40 farthings in penance.

legal system and yours but over here, banks frequently instruct
customers to "Remove Helmet before Entering" and more and more shops

Helmet? American football helmet? Motorcycle helmet? What do they
have against helmets? Makes it hard for the bank tellers to hit
customers over the head?

are warning customers in advance "Cards Only - No Cash." Neither of
these are "protected characteristics" under our laws and shops are
free to exclude any customers for these - and other - reasons.

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on these
Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the entrance)? Where

I would think so.

does a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free environment and a
private citizen's right to carry a gun begin and end? Does this vary
state by state? No wonder the NYT article is full of confusion.

I've wondered about this very topic. So far, thank goodness, gun
possessors are not a protected class. Those are race, religion,
national origin, and in some places some others, so I don't seen any
good reason not to do this.

There is a potential practical problem... If the guy has a car with him,
he can leave the gun in the car, but if he doesn't, where can he put it?
I don't mind if he just stays home, or leaves the gun at home, but he
might.

I read your link and I dont' think your supermarket had such a sign.
Maybe they think it would antagonize the gun nuts who migth then refuse
to shop there. Or maybe it never came up before.

The USA must be the laughingstock of the world because of all our
shootings, killings, and the many who defend what makes it possible.

For the record, I live in the near suburbs of Baltimore, in a lower-middle-income n'hood and everything is peaceful here.

Thanks,

Nick

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 07:22:54 -0800 (PST), Nick Odell
<nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Hello and Happy New Year from the other side of The Pond!

I'm intrigued by this article in the New York Times:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/a-heavily-armed-man-caused-panic-at-a-supermarket-but-did-he-break-the-law.html>
or
https://archive.vn/0qsrh

Forgive me for being unfamiliar with different nuances between our
legal system and yours but over here, banks frequently instruct
customers to "Remove Helmet before Entering" and more and more shops
are warning customers in advance "Cards Only - No Cash." Neither of
these are "protected characteristics" under our laws and shops are
free to exclude any customers for these - and other - reasons.

Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on these
Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the entrance)? Where
does a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free environment and a
private citizen's right to carry a gun begin and end? Does this vary
state by state? No wonder the NYT article is full of confusion.

Thank you for the informative and thoughtful contributions. In my
opinion the NYT goes out of its way to take a neutral stance on the
issues but I wonder: would it have made the Publix situation any
easier (or worse?) had they had a clear, no-firearms policy in place?
Or am I just trying to oversimplify things here?

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Nick Odell" wrote in message news:38m8rh5tnas5ac1puhqc3ue4pufv1rgpb6@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:47:33 -0800 (PST), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:26:25 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

In fact, it might be the opposite: Texas used to have a rule that you
were not allowed to bring firearms into a place that served alcohol.
That law was changed a few years ago. Now the rule is that you can bring >>> firearms into a bar *unless* there is a sign posted to the contrary.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around shops in Houston with >>people (men) with holstered pistols.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around Sainsbury's
supermarket in Huddersfield, England one day with two police officers,
each wearing a pistol and carrying an automatic rifle who were
shopping for food before they went home.

In the UK the police are routinely armed only for diplomatic and
airport protection services and a few other specific, select reasons:
most other police officers do not carry firearms but in emergency can
call on the services of an Armed Response Unit which has weapons
locked in the trunk.

These two officers were not confronting a hostile situation: I can
only imagine that there must be a rule about not leaving police
weapons in an unattended vehicle even when they are locked in the
trunk and that's why they brought them into the shop. Nevertheless it
was most disconcerting to see even friendly faces so heavily armed
when and where we are not used to it. No delays at the checkout for
them either...

Nick

In that situation, I would just turn around and leave if you were uncomfortable. Personally I think I would rather be in the presence of law enforcement officers with visible weapons that private citizens with same.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:2qh8rhpj1eofcsk4kc0fvveoi63c56g3vh@4ax.com...

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 2 Jan 2023 07:22:54 -0800 (PST), Nick
Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Hello and Happy New Year from the other side of The Pond!

I'm intrigued by this article in the New York Times:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/a-heavily-armed-man-caused-panic-at-a-supermarket-but-did-he-break-the-law.html>

or
https://archive.vn/0qsrh

Forgive me for being unfamiliar with different nuances between our

You are forgiven, but you must pay 40 farthings in penance.

legal system and yours but over here, banks frequently instruct
customers to "Remove Helmet before Entering" and more and more shops

Helmet? American football helmet? Motorcycle helmet? What do they
have against helmets? Makes it hard for the bank tellers to hit
customers over the head?

No, but a motorcycle helmet makes it hard to identify the person on a
security camera if a crime is committed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 11:41:56 -0800 (PST), "Rick" <rick@nospam.com>
wrote:

"Nick Odell" wrote in message >news:38m8rh5tnas5ac1puhqc3ue4pufv1rgpb6@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 13:47:33 -0800 (PST), Jethro_uk >><jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:26:25 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:

In fact, it might be the opposite: Texas used to have a rule that you
were not allowed to bring firearms into a place that served alcohol.
That law was changed a few years ago. Now the rule is that you can bring >>>> firearms into a bar *unless* there is a sign posted to the contrary.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around shops in Houston with >>>people (men) with holstered pistols.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around Sainsbury's
supermarket in Huddersfield, England one day with two police officers,
each wearing a pistol and carrying an automatic rifle who were
shopping for food before they went home.

In the UK the police are routinely armed only for diplomatic and
airport protection services and a few other specific, select reasons:
most other police officers do not carry firearms but in emergency can
call on the services of an Armed Response Unit which has weapons
locked in the trunk.

These two officers were not confronting a hostile situation: I can
only imagine that there must be a rule about not leaving police
weapons in an unattended vehicle even when they are locked in the
trunk and that's why they brought them into the shop. Nevertheless it
was most disconcerting to see even friendly faces so heavily armed
when and where we are not used to it. No delays at the checkout for
them either...

Nick

In that situation, I would just turn around and leave if you were >uncomfortable. Personally I think I would rather be in the presence of law >enforcement officers with visible weapons that private citizens with same.

I take your point though I think I didn't make mine clearly enough.
It's the context that makes it uncomfortable. They were both fine
chaps who have been in the force a long time and who I knew by sight
and yes, both definitely good people to have on your side if you need
it but in what is normally a completely firearm-free society, I found unexpectedly seeing guns being toted up and down the quiet shopping
aisles disorientating.

The only other place where I've come across a man with machine gun in
a supermarket was in Kampala, Uganda and the fact he was the store
security guard didn't make me feel any more comfortable.

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

"Nick Odell" wrote

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Barry Gold wrote:

In fact, it might be the opposite: Texas used to have a rule
that you were not allowed to bring firearms into a place that
served alcohol. That law was changed a few years ago. Now the
rule is that you can bring firearms into a bar *unless* there
is a sign posted to the contrary.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around shops in
Houston with people (men) with holstered pistols.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around Sainsbury's
supermarket in Huddersfield, England one day with two police
officers, each wearing a pistol and carrying an automatic rifle
who were shopping for food before they went home.

In the UK the police are routinely armed only for diplomatic and
airport protection services and a few other specific, select
reasons: most other police officers do not carry firearms but in >>>emergency can call on the services of an Armed Response Unit
which has weapons locked in the trunk.

These two officers were not confronting a hostile situation: I
can only imagine that there must be a rule about not leaving
police weapons in an unattended vehicle even when they are locked
in the trunk and that's why they brought them into the shop.
Nevertheless it was most disconcerting to see even friendly faces
so heavily armed when and where we are not used to it. No delays
at the checkout for them either...

In that situation, I would just turn around and leave if you were >>uncomfortable. Personally I think I would rather be in the
presence of law enforcement officers with visible weapons that
private citizens with same.

I take your point though I think I didn't make mine clearly
enough. It's the context that makes it uncomfortable. They were
both fine chaps who have been in the force a long time and who I
knew by sight and yes, both definitely good people to have on your
side if you need it but in what is normally a completely
firearm-free society, I found unexpectedly seeing guns being toted
up and down the quiet shopping aisles disorientating.

The only other place where I've come across a man with machine gun
in a supermarket was in Kampala, Uganda and the fact he was the
store security guard didn't make me feel any more comfortable.

In the US all police routinely wear firearms irrespective of the
situation they are in. They are trained to act like they are at
literal war, and are equipped similarly.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/3/2023 10:10 PM, Nick Odell wrote:

...

The only other place where I've come across a man with machine gun in
a supermarket was in Kampala, Uganda and the fact he was the store
security guard didn't make me feel any more comfortable.

Nick

I was visiting my daughter in Italy and we were having ice cream in a
local shop when two gentlemen in military style field uniforms came in
to also get some ice cream. They both carried what appeared to be
submachine guns and pistols. We were about a mile from an active air
base (Aviano) so that may have had something to do with it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsAF81E2B39CA10spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...

Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

"Nick Odell" wrote

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Barry Gold wrote:

In fact, it might be the opposite: Texas used to have a rule
that you were not allowed to bring firearms into a place that
served alcohol. That law was changed a few years ago. Now the
rule is that you can bring firearms into a bar *unless* there
is a sign posted to the contrary.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around shops in
Houston with people (men) with holstered pistols.

I cannot describe how odd it felt walking around Sainsbury's >>>>supermarket in Huddersfield, England one day with two police
officers, each wearing a pistol and carrying an automatic rifle
who were shopping for food before they went home.

In the UK the police are routinely armed only for diplomatic and >>>>airport protection services and a few other specific, select
reasons: most other police officers do not carry firearms but in >>>>emergency can call on the services of an Armed Response Unit
which has weapons locked in the trunk.

These two officers were not confronting a hostile situation: I
can only imagine that there must be a rule about not leaving
police weapons in an unattended vehicle even when they are locked
in the trunk and that's why they brought them into the shop. >>>>Nevertheless it was most disconcerting to see even friendly faces
so heavily armed when and where we are not used to it. No delays
at the checkout for them either...

In that situation, I would just turn around and leave if you were >>>uncomfortable. Personally I think I would rather be in the
presence of law enforcement officers with visible weapons that
private citizens with same.

I take your point though I think I didn't make mine clearly
enough. It's the context that makes it uncomfortable. They were
both fine chaps who have been in the force a long time and who I
knew by sight and yes, both definitely good people to have on your
side if you need it but in what is normally a completely
firearm-free society, I found unexpectedly seeing guns being toted
up and down the quiet shopping aisles disorientating.

The only other place where I've come across a man with machine gun
in a supermarket was in Kampala, Uganda and the fact he was the
store security guard didn't make me feel any more comfortable.

In the US all police routinely wear firearms irrespective of the
situation they are in. They are trained to act like they are at
literal war, and are equipped similarly.

It's also worth noting that in the US, police officers are effectively
always on duty, even when it's not their normal shift. By that I mean, an officer who is technically off-duty, such as when he is in a grocery store shopping, will still respond if a situation comes up requiring police assistance.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On January 3, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

In the US all police routinely wear firearms irrespective of the
situation they are in. They are trained to act like they are at
literal war, and are equipped similarly.

I've know many foreign residents, they're students or green
card workers. After they've spent some months here, learned
the lay of the land, so to speak, I ask: "What's the biggest
difference between USA and Switzerland or wherever?"

The most common response: "The cops here are such assholes (or nazis)."

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

} Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
} > Nick Odell wrote:
} >
} >> Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on
} >> these Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the
} >> entrance)? Where does a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-free
} >> environment and a private citizen's right to carry a gun begin
} >> and end?
}
} Yes, and there are businesses that do that. At the NRA's annual
} meeting they have a no-firearms requirement.

And so would the issue,in this case, be that no such sign was posted and so there was no basis, other than an ad-hoc rule by the manager, to hassle the guy? and so the lesson, perhaps, in open-carry states is to post "no
firearms allowed" if that's what you want for your business?

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
} Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
} > Nick Odell wrote:
} >
} >> Are your shops not free to stick up signs reading "No Guns on
} >> these Premises" (and maybe place a metal detector at the
} >> entrance)? Where does a shopkeeper's right to work in a gun-
} >> free } >> environment and a private citizen's right to carry a
} >> gun begin } >> and end?
}
} Yes, and there are businesses that do that. At the NRA's annual
} meeting they have a no-firearms requirement.

And so would the issue,in this case, be that no such sign was
posted and so there was no basis, other than an ad-hoc rule by the
manager, to hassle the guy? and so the lesson, perhaps, in
open-carry states is to post "no firearms allowed" if that's what
you want for your business?

Apparently so.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)