Treated With Suspicion Because I Asked if I Could Bring a Gun to a Hearing

My question involves civil rights in the State of: PA

Can I get some money? People get money all the time for BS. So I want to know if my BS is any good.

I had an unemployment hearing at a local unemployment office. This "office" was inside of a very large, privately owned building. It was actually held at a CareerLink office. In PA, CareerLink is a private company that is contracted to handle unemployment related type matters. This particular office that I needed to go to was located in a large city, in a bad section (high crime rates, regular shootings, etc.).

I called the CareerLink office the day before by hearing. I called to ask if firearms were prohibited and if so, if they provided a secure way for legal carriers to secure their weapons while attending official business. I was hung up on and treated rudely by the secretaries, who would not give me any information.

Day of the hearing, I decided, against my own good judgement, to leave my firearm securely secured in my car. When I walked in and signed in, I was told to sit in a specific section of the waiting area. At that point, 4 males came to where I was sitting and stood around, starring at me. They kept looking at me and made me feel intimidated and like I was not supposed to be there. I kept getting more and more uncomfortable.

Than my lawyer (for the unemployment matter) showed up and took me outside of the building. He asked me if I had a gun on my and asked why on Earth I would bring a gun to an unemployment hearing? He asked if I knew how many people took guns to unemployment offices to shoot them up (well, that's why I wanted to bring my gun...mr. lawyer). He tells me that I'm lucky that I wasn't arrested and that I'm lucky the cops weren't called.

We go back in and the "judge" asked me why I called and asked to bring a gun? I explained to her that I am a law-abiding citizen and try to find out ahead of time when going to unusual places if I can (or cannot) legally carry a gun. This helps me to avoid getting into potentially negative situations. She basically tells me I am an idiot and that I should know guns can't be taken onto federal or state property. Um, ok "judge". Your office is paying rent as a tenant to the building owner. CareerLink is not a State organization. This isn't a Post Office. I explain to the judge that I think she is mistaken, and that I think it is inappropriate to be discussing this prior to our unemployment hearing.

So again, I'm upset. I'm afraid to exercise my right to self preservation because of my persecution by all these antis. I was intimidated by those 4 guys who stood with their arms cross starring at me. Do I have any damages? Can I get some money from those 4 guys that were intimidating me? How about money from the "judge" that decided to berate me without having an f*ing clue what she was talking about?

Thanks!

You are not entitled to anything. There's no "right to self preservation." The officers of the court are allowed to be intimidating.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

My question involves civil rights in the State of: PA

Can I get some money? People get money all the time for BS. So I want to know if my BS is any good.

I had an unemployment hearing at a local unemployment office. This "office" was inside of a very large, privately owned building. It was actually held at a CareerLink office. In PA, CareerLink is a private company that is contracted to handle unemployment related type matters. This particular office that I needed to go to was located in a large city, in a bad section (high crime rates, regular shootings, etc.).

I called the CareerLink office the day before by hearing. I called to ask if firearms were prohibited and if so, if they provided a secure way for legal carriers to secure their weapons while attending official business. I was hung up on and treated rudely by the secretaries, who would not give me any information.

Day of the hearing, I decided, against my own good judgement, to leave my firearm securely secured in my car. When I walked in and signed in, I was told to sit in a specific section of the waiting area. At that point, 4 males came to where I was sitting and stood around, starring at me. They kept looking at me and made me feel intimidated and like I was not supposed to be there. I kept getting more and more uncomfortable.

Than my lawyer (for the unemployment matter) showed up and took me outside of the building. He asked me if I had a gun on my and asked why on Earth I would bring a gun to an unemployment hearing? He asked if I knew how many people took guns to unemployment offices to shoot them up (well, that's why I wanted to bring my gun...mr. lawyer). He tells me that I'm lucky that I wasn't arrested and that I'm lucky the cops weren't called.

We go back in and the "judge" asked me why I called and asked to bring a gun? I explained to her that I am a law-abiding citizen and try to find out ahead of time when going to unusual places if I can (or cannot) legally carry a gun. This helps me to avoid getting into potentially negative situations. She basically tells me I am an idiot and that I should know guns can't be taken onto federal or state property. Um, ok "judge". Your office is paying rent as a tenant to the building owner. CareerLink is not a State organization. This isn't a Post Office. I explain to the judge that I think she is mistaken, and that I think it is inappropriate to be discussing this prior to our unemployment hearing.

So again, I'm upset. I'm afraid to exercise my right to self preservation because of my persecution by all these antis. I was intimidated by those 4 guys who stood with their arms cross starring at me. Do I have any damages? Can I get some money from those 4 guys that were intimidating me? How about money from the "judge" that decided to berate me without having an f*ing clue what she was talking about?

Thanks!

---

Given your most endearing rant here, I have no idea why anyone would ever perceive you as anything other than perfect.

Your BS is apparently more offensive than the BS of others.

Can't imagine why.

:cool:

It appears your reality check has bounced. I suggest you replenish the account.

Afterthought:

Being profiled for acting like an obnoxious twerp is not illegal. And let's not bring up the McDonald's coffee issue, shall we? ;)

If your original conversation went down like you said I would take issue with everything that happened after that but we both know it didn't really go down like that, don't we?

JK - not sure what you mean? What other details can I provide to you? What's obnoxious about any of this? I was obviously singled-out and treated differently for carrying a gun (and let's not forget...I wasn't even actually carrying a gun in the scenario).

First school of thought - for a LCTF individual, concealed means concealed. That's the don't ask, don't tell policy, i.e. I wear my gun concealed anywhere until it becomes an issue. My school of thought, call the establishment and ask for a formal firearms policy. Even the county courthouses have a formal procedure and the armed deputies aren't dicks. Either way, it's a private building on private property, but it appears there is no formal policy.

I'm not sure what I did that was so offensive, other than trying to determine if there was a secure place to check my firearm. Does that warrant being hung up on and than basically surrounded, like some potential criminal until my lawyer arrives? The entire situation was ridiculous and I feel that I, the law abiding citizen, was singled out - and for what purpose?

- - - Updated - - -

PS - I give the "judge" or referee as I guess they are referred to props. Even after clearly making me aware of her disagreement with citizens actually owning weapons, she remained to be objective and grant me my decision. The real twerp in this whole thing is the "lawyer" I actually paid a fee to represent me.

You needed a lawyer for a UI hearing?

Irrelevant - but yes.

Quote:

---

PADriver13;760878]JK - not sure what you mean? What other details can I provide to you? What's obnoxious about any of this? I was obviously singled-out and treated differently for carrying a gun (and let's not forget...I wasn't even actually carrying a gun in the scenario).

---

I did not use the word: obnoxious

but as to what I mean?

You know what I mean.

Quote:

---

First school of thought - for a LCTF individual, concealed means concealed. That's the don't ask, don't tell policy, i.e. I wear my gun concealed anywhere until it becomes an issue. My school of thought, call the establishment and ask for a formal firearms policy. Even the county courthouses have a formal procedure and the armed deputies aren't dicks. Either way, it's a private building on private property, but it appears there is no formal policy.

---

sorry but the law doesn't care whether anybody realizes you are carrying it or not. If it is illegal to carry it where you are, it's still illegal even if nobody notices it.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what I did that was so offensive, other than trying to determine if there was a secure place to check my firearm. Does that warrant being hung up on and than basically surrounded, like some potential criminal until my lawyer arrives? The entire situation was ridiculous and I feel that I, the law abiding citizen, was singled out - and for what purpose?

---

and that's what I am talking about when I say you know what I'm talking about, know what I'm talking about?

In case it needs to be spelled out...

Nothing illegal happened here.

Would you like some coffee? :cool:

(Btw - it was I who used the word "obnoxious". As in, "I wasn't harmed, I suffered no damages but I want to tie up the courts anyway because my feelings were hurt and they didn't give me any coffee" obnoxiousness)

Why, oh why, is anyone wasting any time with such obvious trolling?

JK - no, still don't know what you mean. I'm really trying to figure it out. So far, all I can figure out is that you are an anti and you probably feel the same way as these sheep - that the "average citizen" doesn't need to carry a gun, therefore, in your opinion, based on your beliefs, you feel I am an idiot and this is clear as day to you. You're correct on the law - I just subscribe to the belief that it's better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6. So unless there is a sign specifically prohibiting me from carrying in a specific location (and of course all the federally protected locations), I am carrying. Some private property owner wants to kick me out, well that's fine and I will leave. BUT until then...

By the way, whoever changed the title of this post to "Treated With Suspicion Because I Asked If I Could Bring a Gun to a Hearing" is an idiot - as that is NOT what I asked. I asked if there was a secure way to check my weapon at the facility before attending the hearing.

The ironic thing here is that here I am, acting like a responsible and law abiding citizen. Checking with an establishment prior to arrival about their (or lack thereof) procedures, etc.

This was PRIVATE property, which I verified after the fact. CareerLink is not a State run or funded agency. So in actuality, I was completely entitled and legally able to carry my gun right on my hip into the building, and in fact, in to the hearing, as there are no State laws or Federal laws prohibiting this. So if there are no laws prohibiting a specific activity, and a bunch of sheeple decide that they need to surround me, make me feel uncomfortable, and embarrass me simple for being a law-abiding citizen, I don't see how this was all appropriate. My damages were pain and suffering.

Quote:

---

PADriver13;761022]JK - no, still don't know what you mean.

---

I get what ya mean ;)

Quote:

---

So far, all I can figure out is that you are an anti and you probably feel the same way as these sheep - that the "average citizen" doesn't need to carry a gun,

---

actually carrying a pistol is quite common in my circles in life. No, I am not anti-gun

Quote:

---

you feel I am an idiot and this is clear as day to you.

---

actually, believe it or not, depending on the laws pertaining to you being able to carry into the venue in question, possibly just the opposite.

Quote:

---

So unless there is a sign specifically prohibiting me from carrying in a specific location (and of course all the federally protected locations), I am carrying

---

. well I think you might want to reference the law before doing that.

Quote:

---

By the way, whoever changed the title of this post to "Treated With Suspicion Because I Asked If I Could Bring a Gun to a Hearing" is an idiot - as that is NOT what I asked

---

.actually, in effect, that is what you asked.

Quote:

---

This was PRIVATE property, which I verified after the fact. CareerLink is not a State run or funded agency.

---

but the fact they were engaging in state activities, either there are state employees there or they are a de facto public entity. I have not searched the issue but that could make a difference to what laws apply.

Quote:

---

So in actuality, I was completely entitled and legally able to carry my gun right on my hip into the building, and in fact, in to the hearing, as there are no State laws or Federal laws prohibiting this.

---

not so fast there bucky. What city was this in?

and do you have a CCP?


.

Quote:

---

My damages were pain and suffering.

---

you had no damages as they did nothing wrong.



If you are really this dumb, you have no business carrying a weapon either open or concealed. If you aren't as dumb as you are sounding, you will realize why what happened happened, know what I mean?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

well I think you might want to reference the law before doing that.

---

The law is clear (at least in PA). Laws tell us what we CANNOT do, correct? There are no laws telling us what we CAN do. Therefore, if there is no law prohibiting the activity of carrying a gun, what's the problem? The issues arises with private property, because the owner gets to make the decision. This creates a myriad of issues and it's practically impossible to be aware of every possible circumstance. That is what I was referencing. I will choose to carry a gun as long as I have not been specifically told that it is a prohibited action. (I am not referencing so-called "protected places").

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

actually, in effect, that is what you asked.

---

What I called and specifically asked was if there were secure lock-boxes or other arrangements for legally-carrying citizens. If that wasn't clear in my OP, my apologies. I never asked if it was "ok for me to bring a gun to a hearing". That implies I'd like to carry a gun into the "courtroom" and have it with me during the proceeding. Obviously, this is not what I was asking. Furthermore, this location isn't a court facility, and a private company that is contracted by the State does not give them any additional rights (as far as I can tell from reading PA firearm law).

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

but the fact they were engaging in state activities, either there are state employees there or they are a de facto public entity. I have not searched the issue but that could make a difference to what laws apply.

---

I disagree. Simply being "engaged in state activities" does not grant a private company (CareerLink) additional protections. Let's look at it this way - in the State of PA, any municipal/township/borough/county/federal Courthouse is obligated by LAW to make accommodations for gun carriers. These accommodations almost universally mean lock-boxes. Now, considering that the "hearing" (again, it's not an actual hearing right? There is no prosecutor or actual judge). Just a referee hired by the State. This leads me back to my initial point. Knowing that this was not federally (or State) protected property, I should not have even bothered to call and ask. Calling and asking was the mistake, correct? If anything, this would fall under private property issues, meaning that the actual building owner would have been the only authorized individual to file a complaint against me for carrying a gun. Had this been the case, I would have had two options: 1) leave the gun in my car or 2) refuse to leave and face defiant trespassing.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

not so fast there bucky. What city was this in?

---

A large city in Lehigh County

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and do you have a CCP?

---

No. PA does not have CCPs. We have LTCF, which is a License to Carry a Firearm. In PA, no license is needed to carry a weapon openly. You must, however, have a LTCF to convey a firearm (except to/from excluded locations - doesn't apply here) or to carry a firearm that is not openly visible (i.e. concealed). I DO have a LTCF.

I also think that the PA UFA (Uniform Firearm Act) plays in here. Basically, the UFA says that no local municipality may enact regulation that directly contradicts State law. In other words, a local municipality cannot prohibit firearms in a municipal park, because there is no State law already existing to prohibit such activity.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

you had no damages as they did nothing wrong.

---

What about being told that I could not have a firearm on the property? That is incorrect according to my research (IANAL), which is why I'm asking for opinions here.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

If you are really this dumb, you have no business carrying a weapon either open or concealed. If you aren't as dumb as you are sounding, you will realize why what happened happened, know what I mean?

---

Well, unfortunately, the Bill of Rights are not just afforded to those who JK on ExpertLaw.com feels are smart enough to be entitled to.

Would you like us to type in a few different languages on the off-chance you may understand one?

You seem to be having problems with basic English.

:cool:

Other languages are not necessary. Just maybe some straight talk rather than innuendo after innuendo about how dumb I am and how I should understand this better. Obviously, I do not. Obviously, the info I have received here is contradictory to other information I have received.

I don't understand how being told I could not do something that was not illegal, by someone who did not have the authority to make the demand, is not a civil rights issue.

Quote:

---

PADriver13;761067]The law is clear (at least in PA). Laws tell us what we CANNOT do, correct? There are no laws telling us what we CAN do. Therefore, if there is no law prohibiting the activity of carrying a gun, what's the problem?

---

well since you didn't want to answer all of the questions, that cannot be determined in your situation.

Quote:

---

I disagree. Simply being "engaged in state activities" does not grant a private company (CareerLink) additional protections. Let's look at it this way - in the State of PA, any municipal/township/borough/county/federal Courthouse is obligated by LAW to make accommodations for gun carriers

---

. they do? Go ahead and site that law for me.

These accommodations almost universally mean lock-boxes. Now, considering that the "hearing" (again, it's not an actual hearing right? There is no prosecutor or actual judge).

Quote:

---

Just a referee hired by the State. This leads me back to my initial point. Knowing that this was not federally (or State) protected property,

---

You haven't proven it isn't.

Quote:

---

A large city in Lehigh County

---

that is not the city and the city makes a HUGE difference.

Quote:

---

No. PA does not have CCPs. We have LTCF, which is a License to Carry a Firearm.In PA, no license is needed to carry a weapon openly. You must, however, have a LTCF to convey a firearm (except to/from excluded locations - doesn't apply here) or to carry a firearm that is not openly visible (i.e. concealed). I DO have a LTCF.

---

seriosly dude, you are going to argue about terminology? Your LTCF IS a CCP and even you have proven that by saying one is required if you wish to carry a weapon, dare I say it, CONCEALED?



I also think that the PA UFA (Uniform Firearm Act) plays in here. Basically, the UFA says that no local municipality may enact regulation that directly contradicts State law. In other words, a local municipality cannot prohibit firearms in a municipal park, because there is no State law already existing to prohibit such activity.



What about being told that I could not have a firearm on the property? That is incorrect according to my research (IANAL), which is why I'm asking for opinions here.

Quote:

---

Well, unfortunately, the Bill of Rights are not just afforded to those who JK on ExpertLaw.com feels are smart enough to be entitled to

---

well, you know what? I was the only one on your side but you want to be an ass so hop on down the street buddy. What I had isn't going to show up on this forum.

Quote:

---

What about being told that I could not have a firearm on the property?

---

what about it? What money did you lose. Beyond that, are you saying a private entity cannot prohibit you from possessing a gun in their property? I'll let you chase the laws and post the supporting law if you can find it.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

I don't understand how being told I could not do something that was not illegal, by someone who did not have the authority to make the demand, is not a civil rights issue.

---

as you said:

because there is no law that says a PRIVATE ENTITY saying they cannot make the demand.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

Other languages are not necessary. Just maybe some straight talk rather than innuendo after innuendo about how dumb I am and how I should understand this better. Obviously, I do not. Obviously, the info I have received here is contradictory to other information I have received.

I don't understand how being told I could not do something that was not illegal, by someone who did not have the authority to make the demand, is not a civil rights issue.

---

I tell my kids they're not banging on my door at 8am unless they're burning or bleeding.

Your point?

Sore feelings don't count. I believe I was more than clear earlier on, incidentally.

Oh, btw, this part:

Quote:

---

Your office is paying rent as a tenant to the building owner. CareerLink is not a State organization. This isn't a Post Office. I explain to the judge that I think she is mistaken, and that I think it is inappropriate to be discussing this prior to our unemployment hearing.

---

renting an office does make it property under the control of the state i.e. state property.


Don't know if that changes anything because I'm not chasing laws for you but you must use the proper definitions to achieve an accurate interpretation.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

They do? Go ahead and site that law for me.

---

In reference to Court facilities having to provide lockers -
§913. Possession of Firearm or Other Dangerous Weapon in Court Facility

"Facilities for checking firearms or other dangerous weapons.—Each county shall make available at or within the building containing a court facility by July 1, 2002, lockers or similar facilities at no charge or cost for the temporary checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109 or for the checking of other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law. Any individual checking a firearm, dangerous weapon or an item deemed to be a dangerous weapon at a court facility must be issued a receipt. Notice of the location of the facility shall be posted as required under subsection (d). (Chgd. by L.1999, Act 59, eff 2/15/00.)"

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

that is not the city and the city makes a HUGE difference.

---

It is not in Philly, and Philly is the ONLY First Class City in PA which has different rules. Therefore, EVERY single other lcoation (other than Philly), is treated the same.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

seriosly dude, you are going to argue about terminology? Your LTCF IS a CCP and even you have proven that by saying one is required if you wish to carry a weapon, dare I say it, CONCEALED?

---

Words have meaning - ESPECIALLY in law. Can you tell me where the word "concealed" appears in "License to Carry Firearm"? That's right, it's not there. Do you think that was by accident? Think a bunch of legislators said "hey - let's change the name from Concealed Carry Weapons permit to Licenst To carry Firearms for no specific reason? There was a specific reason for the change. Why is irrelevant to this matter.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Beyond that, are you saying a private entity cannot prohibit you from possessing a gun in their property? I'll let you chase the laws and post the supporting law if you can find it.

---

Yes. That is what I am saying. Let's say I am over at your house, JK, watching TV. You run out to the local 7-11 or whatever, and the cops come. They knock on the door and I answer the door, and they want to come inside and look around. Am I the authorized individual to grant or deny them permission? That's what I'm saying - the the individuals prohibiting me from exercising my rights were not the authorized individuals to make that demand.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

Can I get some money?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

I called the CareerLink office the day before by hearing. I called to ask if firearms were prohibited and if so, if they provided a secure way for legal carriers to secure their weapons while attending official business. I was hung up on and treated rudely by the secretaries, who would not give me any information.

---

That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

Day of the hearing, I decided, against my own good judgement, to leave my firearm securely secured in my car.

---

Perhaps you should sue yourself, then, because you were unarmed by choice.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

When I walked in and signed in, I was told to sit in a specific section of the waiting area.

---

That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

At that point, 4 males came to where I was sitting and stood around, starring at me.

---

That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

They kept looking at me and made me feel intimidated and like I was not supposed to be there. I kept getting more and more uncomfortable.

---

That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

Than my lawyer (for the unemployment matter) showed up and took me outside of the building. He asked me if I had a gun on my and asked why on Earth I would bring a gun to an unemployment hearing?

---

That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

He asked if I knew how many people took guns to unemployment offices to shoot them up (well, that's why I wanted to bring my gun...mr. lawyer). He tells me that I'm lucky that I wasn't arrested and that I'm lucky the cops weren't called.

---

That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

We go back in and the "judge" asked me why I called and asked to bring a gun?

---

That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

She basically tells me I am an idiot and that I should know guns can't be taken onto federal or state property.

---

That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

Um, ok "judge". Your office is paying rent as a tenant to the building owner. CareerLink is not a State organization. This isn't a Post Office. I explain to the judge that I think she is mistaken, and that I think it is inappropriate to be discussing this prior to our unemployment hearing.

---

It's not illegal to be mistaken.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

So again, I'm upset. I'm afraid to exercise my right to self preservation because of my persecution by all these antis.

---

You weren't persecuted by anybody.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

I was intimidated by those 4 guys who stood with their arms cross starring at me.

---

How sad for you.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

Do I have any damages?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

Can I get some money from those 4 guys that were intimidating me?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

How about money from the "judge" that decided to berate me without having an f*ing clue what she was talking about?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

Thanks!

---

You're welcome.

Quote:

---

"Facilities for checking firearms or other dangerous weapons.—Each county shall make available at or within the building containing a court facility by July 1, 2002, lockers or similar facilities at no charge or cost for the temporary checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under section 6106(b) or 6109 or for the checking of other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law. Any individual checking a firearm, dangerous weapon or an item deemed to be a dangerous weapon at a court facility must be issued a receipt. Notice of the location of the facility shall be posted as required under subsection (d). (Chgd. by L.1999, Act 59, eff 2/15/00.)"

---

bravo.

Quote:

---

It is not in Philly, and Philly is the ONLY First Class City in PA which has different rules. Therefore, EVERY single other lcoation (other than Philly), is treated the same.

---

so you do understand inference. So, I suspect you really do know what I mean when I say; know what I mean?

Quote:

---

Words have meaning - ESPECIALLY in law. Can you tell me where the word "concealed" appears in "License to Carry Firearm"? That's right, it's not there. Do you think that was by accident?

---

nope. WOrds are often not defined. When they are not, the common definition is used. THere is often case law clarifying it because many people ask the same questions.

Quote:

---

Think a bunch of legislators said "hey - let's change the name from Concealed Carry Weapons permit to Licenst To carry Firearms for no specific reason? There was a specific reason for the change. Why is irrelevant to this matter.

---

but you don't need a license to carry, do you?

When you figure out why any government does what they do, you win.

Quote:

---

Yes. That is what I am saying. Let's say I am over at your house, JK, watching TV. You run out to the local 7-11 or whatever, and the cops come. They knock on the door and I answer the door, and they want to come inside and look around. Am I the authorized individual to grant or deny them permission? That's what I'm saying - the the individuals prohibiting me from exercising my rights were not the authorized individuals to make that demand.

---

yes, they were. You were in their facilty, you know, the one they rent?

and btw: a person that answers my door is accepted to have the right to admit or deny somebody at the door. You really need to make your examples support your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

since you seem to have "cooled your jets" a bit, let me toss this in here;

given the current problem with people "going postal" I suspect they perceived your question as a veiled threat. Maybe it was the tone of your voice or, if you were anything like you have shown here, your stubborn insistence of correctness which is almost assuredly going to be accompanied with a more powerful inflection, simply adding to their perception of your intent.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

since you seem to have "cooled your jets" a bit, let me toss this in here;

given the current problem with people "going postal" I suspect they perceived your question as a veiled threat. Maybe it was the tone of your voice or, if you were anything like you have shown here, your stubborn insistence of correctness which is almost assuredly going to be accompanied with a more powerful inflection, simply adding to their perception of your intent.

---

I will acknowledge that that is a possibility - but I won't try to explain how I was perceived by others. What I can say is that my initial phone call to CareerLink was professional and respectable. I would also submit that a reasonable person would not call to announce that they would be bringing a gun to perpetrate a mass shooting, etc. As I said initially, I had two options: 1) call and find out for sure what the procedures and accommodations were, or 2) take my gun and find out when I got there. The reasonable side of my brain decided it made sense to make a phone call and find out so that I would not be in a situation where I would have to leave my firearm in my car in a high crime area. I try to avoid having to secure my weapon in my car, since, well, cars aren't all that secure.

When you called to ask about something you should have already known the legal truth to the matter, it did nothing more than cause them to hear:

there is a guy with a gun and he said something about bringing it here.


If it is legal, as you basically bragged about, you carry or not as you wish. It is when you make a point of: I HAVE A GUN, regardless of your intent, it is not going to be accepted well by most others.
So, the onus is on your to research the laws and abide by them. That way, if you enter a place you are lawfully allowed to carry and are rebuffed, you know there is no basis for an arrest although a private entity does have a right to refuse you entry or demand you leave at their discretion. You should know enough to make no more than a calm question of a possible misunderstanding of the law on your part or if they simply do not want you to carry on their property and if they still want you to leave, leave.


never ever raise your voice or become so insistent as to appear threatening. You simply leave and put the weapon in your car or take it home and come back another time.

anything else will put you in jeopardy of arrest, especially due to the weapon.

Quote:

---

Quoting PADriver13

---

I will acknowledge that that is a possibility - but I won't try to explain how I was perceived by others. What I can say is that my initial phone call to CareerLink was professional and respectable. I would also submit that a reasonable person would not call to announce that they would be bringing a gun to perpetrate a mass shooting, etc. As I said initially, I had two options: 1) call and find out for sure what the procedures and accommodations were, or 2) take my gun and find out when I got there. The reasonable side of my brain decided it made sense to make a phone call and find out so that I would not be in a situation where I would have to leave my firearm in my car in a high crime area. I try to avoid having to secure my weapon in my car, since, well, cars aren't all that secure.

---

The reasonable side of your brain should have told you that this was one time that you should have left the gun at home...without saying a word to anyone.

Seriously, no matter how someone feels about guns and gun control, it was sheer stupidity to not realize that taking your gun somewhere where people have a reason to be scared of someone "going postal" is just stupid. Even your attorney said so.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

The reasonable side of your brain should have told you that this was one time that you should have left the gun at home...without saying a word to anyone.

---

Excuse me - but the survivalist side of my brain said "you're an idiot for not carrying in this City, at this location". It's a high crime area - 3rd highest city in murders in the State. What is perceived as more threatening? A guy calling and asking if there is a lockbox available for his gun...or a gun actually walking into the place with a gun and asking the same question? Or how about if I had carried it in, concealed, no questions, etc. and while sitting in the hearing room, the referee glances over and asks "what's that under your jacket"? I wouldn't want to be in that situation.

But to say "this is one time to not have taken your gun" is just being ignorant of the surroundings. There'd be no other time I'd be in the City without my weapon, so why would this be any different? The responsible thing to do was to call and inquire before finding one's self in a situation like I just described.

I suggest you move to a safer city.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

I suggest you move to a safer city.

---

The way you people on these forums assume things is just silly. Did I ever SAY I lived in this city? This is where the hearing was located. I live 25 minutes away. And when something requires me to travel in or to this city, I travel armed.

This thread has more than run its course.