Next time you happen to be driving through Chappel Hill, TX, consider opening a bank account at the Chappel Hill Bank. The bank has been in business for over 100 years, purports to have at least $45,000 in gold reserves, and you can be assured that your person and your money will be safe from would-be bank robbers:
About a month ago, Chappell Hill Bank president Edward Smith looked at a sign on the front door prohibiting concealed weapons from his business and decided to make a policy change.
Licensed to carry a handgun? Come on in, and bring your weapon.
The sign, now prominently displayed on the bankâ€™s front door, says, â€œLawful concealed carry permitted on these premises. Management recognizes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right of all citizens. We therefore support and encourage the carrying of licensed concealed weapons.â€
Smith said he made the policy change to send a warning to potential robbers, and also to express support to Americansâ€™ right to bear arms.
source: Brenham Banner
If you were a would-be bank robber, and had to choose between two banks to rob that particular day, would you take your chances with the one displaying this notice on the front door?
Considering that FBI statistics show that as gun sales rose in 2009 violent crime around the nation dropped, we are of the opinion that bank robberies would decline significantly if this notice was displayed on the entrance door of every bank in the country.
Hat Tip Patriot One
If that bank were in my tow, I’d switch.Â Knowing that trained and lawful weapons bearers were the in the bank would make me feel safer.Â
Only a “permit” should be just that, even with a “permit” your limited.
I’d even pay for a federal type permit, one that would be “without restrictions” country wide! So these jackass kids with badges can quit acting like they are the only ones that ever carried a weapon.
Excellent decision.Â Maybe other banks will join the ranks.Â My bank is locally owned and operated and I will forward this to the owner.Â
Nice sentiment from this banker, but does anybody really disarm just because some weenie puts up a sign?Â If your rig is concealed and there’s no security checkpoint frisk, why would you care what a sign says?Â I keep my permit in the Bill of Rights, right between the first and third amendments.
[quote=”Sheldon Plankton”]If your rig is concealed and thereâ€™s no security checkpoint frisk, why would you care what a sign says? I keep my permit in the Bill of Rights, right between the first and third amendments.[/quote]
As much as I (and many others here) may agree with you, thats also the attiude that will get you put in jail tossing salad or worse – and you won’t be remembered as one standing up for your rights. you’ll be labeled at BEST an extremist, and at worst a mental patient or crack head. pick your battles wisely.
The right to carry should never have come to licensing..licensing in its own right is an infringement to the right to bear arms..
No where in the constitution say we need government to “approve” or licence individuals..
now as far as the criminal element..they should lose those rights and any others that they had violated, and if found to be carying, they should automatically be thrown in jail..and legally tried for breaking the law,and time served etc..
No place should be able to tell a lawful citizen if they can or cannot carry..if they havent or arnt a law breaker , there shouldnt be any reason to ban them anywhere in the entire USA..including any government office..period
I carry ..everywhere..its supposed to not be noticed..therefore no one knows i have it..just because im walking into someplace that says you cant have it on you, do you think for one moment a criminal with a gun is going to obey..hahahaha please people..this is silly thinking
my 2nd amendemt says “shall not be infringed”..good enough for me
Was opening an account at a local bank, and used my Carry Permit for ID to open the account.Â Â Branch manager was the one opening the account, and she asked “are you carrying now ? “Â , and I said yes.Â She said “Good……I carry all the time too” and we got into a discussion of wheel guns over automatics…..ahahahaaa
I was Tennessee girl for 57 years andÂ last 3 in Ky..
Tennessee has an online site to check before dining for those restaurants that allow guns…is that cool or what??
I think only Nashville/Davidson Co. Â is listed now, bit more counties to follow!!
A private business can not make it illegal to carry a weapon. All they can do is make it against store policy. If they find out you are violating store policy, they can ask you to leave. If you don’t leave, they can charge you with trespassing, that’s it.
A private business hanging a sign saying not to carry doesn’t make it illegal it just makes it against store policy. It is no different than a “no pets” or “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign.
I call BS. by state and federal LAW – if a store posts a sign stating no guns allowed – it is ILLEGAL to have a gun in the store – It is not only a civil offense, it is criminal offense as it is state or federal law that you’ve broken – depending on where you are (i.e. state capitol, federal court, school, store,Â etc…), and shows that you are not capable of carrying a gun within the given laws. that said, why bother with a license?Â you’re now a criminal with a criminal mindset – just like people bitch about when talking about ‘gun control’ .
Just because a county/state issues you a license to carry a gun that does not mean you can carry a gun anywhere you please. Just like I can not WALK anywhere i please (i.e. your living room, etc…). These rights must be counter balanced against other rights and public safety – why over-the-top gun nuts do not see this is beyond me. I am all for carrying. I have my CCW and carry when I can – but thumbing your nose at other people is not only disrespectful, its potentially dangerous. If a cop sees a person carrying in a posted no-carry store, they will assume (rightly or wrongly) that that person is a.) a criminal (which they are at that point) and b.) they are up to no good… Cops these days shoot first and ask questions later. If you want to talk semantics, and the philosophical view points, fine. but you’ll be doing it from prison or worse.
Finally some common sense is applied, lets hope it catches on, you can not victimise an armed man or woman, why do you think the second amendment is always under attack from D.C., as if we aren’t already victim enough..
In Tennessee, they can do exactly that….make it a crime.
The HUGEÂ “BUT” in that is the signage has to conform to State law, which spells out quite specifically the language, sign size and location it must be posted…..and frankly, I’ve never seen one.
What I do see are the little “circle jerk” signs….picture of a pistol in a red circle with a slash bar, or something like the mall rules that has in it’s list “No Weapons Allowed”…..and none of that conforms to the law, which means, worse case, they can ask you to leave, and you’re trespassing if you don’t……all of which is solved by concealed carry.
Here in New Mexico, it’s illegal for CCL holders to carry in a bank (as well as schools, courthouses, and a few others).Â I think that part of the CCL law wasÂ a compromise to get it passed in the first place.
I have studied the law in detail for my state. It is illegal (but not unlawful – there *IS* a difference lawful has to to with rights, legal has to do with the corporate government) to carry to in certain places. Schools, post offices. A business owner hanging a sign means nothing except a tresspassing violation if you carry anyway. Humungus is correct. …and, according to the Second Amendment, God has given us the right to carry, unrestricted. “Shall Not Be Infringed” is an absolute statement. The fact that some of you have been brainwashed into not understanding what this means, is a big problem. In effect, most of the “laws” we obey are not laws at all, they are statutes, codes and rules. The “law” is the constitution. Most of the rest if simply garbage. Now, understand, that doesn’t mean you won’t go to jail, but, it does mean that when you start talking about “lawful” versus “legal” the court will treat you differently.
People have been brainwashed to thing that legal and lawfal are sysnonyms. They are not. In fact, the same statute that keeps you from carrying in a school is the same that would keep you from carrying in a business that puts a sign up. The difference is the corporation that has issued the order. In one instance (the school) they have hired goons (cops) that enforce their desire to take away your God given rights. In the second, that corporation does not have goons, or, if they do, they don’t have cruisers (pirate ships) and badges (pirate flags).
To fix all this we need a mass wake up of people. While, Sketch, you are brainwashed in many respects, you are a realist. Tossing salad and labeled an extremist are realities. They are unlawful realities, but, when did breaking the law ever stop this corporate cabal of criminals from doing thei evil deeds?
The fact is, one must avoid the pirates, Humungus. Keep doing what your doing. The life you save, one day, may be your own. Oh, and by the way, don’t blame the cops. Yeah, they are unlawful power freaked maniacs, but, they don’t know it. The best pirates are the ones that think what they are doing is “admirable”, hmmm. Admirable? Admiralty? Piracy? Wow! I wonder why all that stuff is so closely related?
When you wake up and begin to study this stuff, at first you become scared. …then angry. …then *VERY* angry. …then, once the knowledge really sinks in, you become serene. Realizing these thieves of justice WILL BURN IN HELL and also realizing you’ve outsmarted them by knowing the reality that has been hidden from even them, you will come to understand that the collapse will give you more satisfaction than anything in your life has up until now.
@ NetRanger –
so – I’m “brainwashed”, but I’m also a “realist”? does that mean that you’re admitting to living somewhere other than “Reality”? as that would certainly explain your post.
First – YOUR “rights” END where MINE begin, and vice versa. and TECHNICALLY – that IS an “infringement”. your rabid fear of the gov’t taking your guns is actually a hindrance to you. that’s sad, actually.
Second – MEN gave us the RIGHT to bear arms. NOT god. to say otherwise is a desecration to their efforts. You’re REAL big on the second amendment, but apparently know dick about the 1st amendment (establishment clause). leave your religious leanings and bull crap out of this.
Third – if you carry into any place where firearms are not allowed, you’ve just broken your “agreement” with the state/county in order to GET the license, and therefore have invalidated it.
if you want to talk about why we should even HAVE licenses, that’s fine – I would probably agree with you on most points. but that’s not what this article is about – this article has to do with carrying within the CONFINES of the LAW.
As it is, if you want to carry anywhere at any time, for any reason, thats fine too – but if you expect there to be no consequences – then that alone proves that YOU are the one who is brainwashed – but then, you’ve already admitted to not living in “reality”.
\Its been brought.
Wow!Â It’s about time someone in authority used their brains.Â I’d like to see more of these sign.Â A lot more.
Just because you believe something is law, does not make it law. Realistically, breaking rules and statutes (victimless “crime”) is not crime at all. The state has brainwashed you into believing it is, there, you are brainwashed, believing Color of Law is law.
Realistically, it doesn’t matter. You break the statutes, you go to jail under COLOR OF LAW. The term “Color Of Law” has been shortened to “Law” and with that, you believe it. You are brainwashed, or at least ignorant of the facts that exist.
My rights do not end where yours begin. I’ll assume a misstatement. What your really mean is that my rights do not exist where they infringe on yours.
…and now, I have no fear of the government taking my guns. They only want out gun rights and our right to self defense. Look at history: They want these rights so we can become more depended upon them. It will be a long time before they manage this because the Second Amendment is absolute. “Shall Not Infringe” means only ONE thing. *ONLY* *ONE*. Every gun “Color of Law” is in violation of “The Law” and treads upon it which means it is invalid. The only thing we can lawfully be prosecuted for when carrying, say, at the post office, is for trespassing. Understanding “The Color of Law” and “The Law” leads *ONLY* to this conclusion and no other. But, since most people (like yourself) have been raised to believe “The Color of Law” is “The Law” we bow to it. There will come a time when we won’t.
So, men gave us all those rights in the amendments, huh? Really? Are you sure of that? I’ll bet you a 10oz silver bar that you are wrong? The men that wrote them down claimed the rights came from “Nature’s God”. The Amendments do LIMIT government and give it rights. They do not limit men. They don’t give We The People *ANY* rights whatsoever. They only enumerate rights that we have and warn government to not infringe. Ever read any of the Constitution outside of the GIC? (Government Indoctrination Center = public school)
So, if I carry into any place, can that place invalidate the Second Amendment? Just because I have a license to carry doesn’t mean I have no rights. Sure, they can take my license but I only have my license to (hopefully) avoid the realities that you mentioned earlier (tossing salad in jail and/or being labeled an extremist).
As I keep saying, while you are brainwashed into believing that these are “laws” when they are not, you are also a realist, as I am. I do not “expect”, as you say, there to be no consequences. There should not be since the law says I can carry anywhere, anytime, however, since the police and the courts ignore the law, and instead enforce statutes and codes (corporate rules under the color of law), there are consequences.
So, let me summarize this so you don’t fight with me anymore:
A) You don’t understand where we get our rights. USDI and USCON both indicate rights come from God, not man.
B) USCON limits government and enumerates rights, it does not give us rights. It does, however, take away rights from the government.
C) I am not worried about the government taking away my guns. If they could, they already would have.
D) You have been brainwashed into thinking the consequences (salad tossing while looking good in orange or stripes and/or being labeled an extremist) are lawful. Please read the law before you spout off. They are legal, they are not lawful. There is a difference. Standard English dictionaries seldom make a distinction but Blacks Law Dictionary does.
The famous propaganda: “Click It Or Ticket: Its The Law” is really an abbreviation. Law, in this situation meaning “Color of Law”.
…and it has not been brought. I’m talking about the collapse. Unless, of course, you are talking about the collapse of our rights since the War of Northern Agression. In that case, I agree.
feel free to act all you want to outside of stated law or declared law or whatever the fuck you WANT to call it. You’ll be brought up on charges regardless if you thing its a violation of your rights or not. feel free to research Saddam Heussain, Slobodan Milosevic, or the Montana Freemen. Just because one has READ the law, doesn’t make one a lawyer.
funny – i just read and did a text search of the constitution and found absolutely NO reference to god. hmm. where is your god now? ah, the USDI… however, the USDI is NOT the ‘law of the land’. It is NOT what we as a country argue incessantly over, and therefore inconsequential to the current topic. A strawman argument. so you are either ignorant of the constitution – something you’ve proven to us already, or you are a liar. our RIGHTS – are given to us by MEN. Unless you believe god refused to give (almost) every country in Europe, SA, Africa, Australia and Asia, RIGHTS – I guess Epicurus was right.
so you’re saying that the consequences are not lawful? and that I am the one brainwashed? yet you – like 90% of Americans are looking for a way out of YOUR personal responsibility. you have a RESPONSIBILITY to the law – you either abide by it, pay the consequences for breaking it, or change it. You piss and moan SO MUCH about how its unjust This, and unjust That… yet, you’ve admitted to HAVING a LICENSE to carry… doesn’t that mean that you’re perpetuating a system that YOU deem as ‘corrupt’? again, admitting to tying to AVOID reality – instead of trying to CHANGE it.
NetRanger – you REALLY need to build a bridge and get over it. all this philosophizing you do about how things SHOULD be, and how things SHOULDN’T be does nothing to change the country. It only adds NOISE to the already deafening cacophony of BS out there. Deal with REALITY. work to change it if you don’t like it, otherwise, stop bitching about non-existent literary nonsense.Â
tell me – whats the difference between YOU carrying sans license, and a stereo-typical gang banger carrying at all? maybe the color of your “bandanna”?
I’m sorry. You appear to be getting a bit agry. I may be taking this a bit too far. If I am, I apologize.
So, you found no reference to “God” in the Constitution. I could have told you that. But, the question remains: Where did the founders think our rights came from? Did the founders give us our rights?
You say: “Men”
I say: “Nature’s God”
Can anyone out there help us find the solution. Oh! I know. How about this guy:
“Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.” -Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)
Oh, oops. Sorry. He was referring to you on that one. Uh, let me see. How about this guy:
“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” –Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376
Same guy, two years or so later. Hmmm. The “Author of Nature”. Who could that be? The source of all rights is this “Author of Nature”. All men men are born “free”. The only thing another man can do is TAKE RIGHTS AWAY because all men are born free. The Constitution gives no rights, it only lists them. The “Law” is not of man. The law is of “Nature” and “Nature’s Author”. How dare ANYONE decide they know better to take away a right either by our feeble “majority” voting or our feeble logic in the name of safety or security.
I think you will agree that Thomas Jefferson probably is one of the main founders of our (once great) union. While certainly not a perfect man, he definitely knew more about freedom, rights, liberty and their source than any of us. Reading his works makes me almost mad when I think of what the world has done to our Natural Rights. They have convince most of us, much like they have Sketch convinced, that we don’t have them anymore. I feel that vein in my forehead bulging! Damn them! THEY, people that claim to be lawyers and lawmakers, THEYÂ ARE THE ONES! THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS TO TAKE FROM ME WHAT THE AUTHOR OF NATURE HAS GIVEN ME!
While Sketch and I ague about the realities and the philosophical, they (who who believe they have the right to take your rights) are planing on taking away more of our rights. Property rights. Healthcare rights. Travel rights. Even personal protection rights.
Whether Sketch or I are correct or not, will you continue to let them take YOUR rights? They cannot. The reality is that some of us may be wearing orange (or stripes) and tossing salad, but, it won’t be lawful, regardless of how much paper they use to take your nature rights away. If we all stand up together and stop allowing this theft of liberty to continue, it will not. But, if we all just accept it, or as Sketch puts it, “Build a bridge and get over it.” (…a very cute saying, I must admit), it will continue.
To answer your final question, Sketch. There is absolutely no difference between my right to carry and a gang bangers right to carry. Did the 2A say “Shall Not Be Infringed, except of ganbangers…” I don’t think so.Â No difference at all under the law. The difference is only in how the weapon is used. Indeed, a gangbanger has just as much lawful right to carry as you or I. However, if he uses that weapon in an unlawful manner, the lawful punishment will have him pushing up daisies (or, if he’s lucky, wearing that fashionable orange jump suit while he tosses that salad!)
One final question to ask, you, Sketch, do you have a right to live? If you do, who gave you that right? Once you figure that out, then, who has the right to take that away?
no anger in the slightest…. so god gave Americans a ‘right’, but not the europeans, south americans or africans, or the nearly 2 BILLION chinese? you’re kidding me, right? you were strangely silent on that one. maybe your god doesn’t exist or is a hypocrite to create something and not treat it equally – maybe he gave the asians the RIGHT to trademark and copyright infringement instead? While I agree with you on the matter of TJ – he was a religious man – unless you count the slave girl he fornicated with and had bastard children with – that doesn’t mean ALL founding fathers were religious. See the US/Tripoli treaty of 1796, Article 11. Written under George Washington, signed by John Adams – another of the founding fathers, and himself a deacon. After reading that – if there is any more doubt to what this nation was founded on – then you simply are completely in denial of reality and see only what you WANT to see.
……And now that you’ve admitted that you’re akin to a gangbanger, I ask: if either you or he used said weapon “in an unlawful manner, the lawful punishment will have him…” well – who exactly is it that makes the laws? now… if only those ‘laws’ were vetted against a court of some kind to verify whether or not they follow constitutional guidelines… hmmmm if only…. maybe we could call it the “grand court”, or the “really big court”…I’m sure you’ll think of SOMETHING – oh, well lookie there – its right there in your favorite USCON – Article III. It seems you’re picking and choosing which laws you want to abide by – it doesn’t work that way without consequences.
I was born with the ‘right’ to live as all creatures in nature are, and I have the right to take my own life if i so choose. The fact that nature exists does not prove the existence of a god. If god exists, why not search for him/her? instead you give your duty over to boy lovers and money swindlers who pedal false hope with fiery speeches. sales seminars work much the same way. you TOO can be a millionaire if….
oh – i get it – you believe dinosaur bones in ground are here to TRICK us. you think the earth really IS 6,000 years old, and don’t believe a bacteria can evolve to become resistant to antibiotics within a few years or any of that DNA nonsense…. okay. lollyland. time your meds. were there no funerals to protest at this morning?
Why would I need to say anything about the Chinese or the Africans? I think the quote I listed by Thomas Jefferson pretty much answers that question.
Yes. Article 11 pretty much states that the country was not founded upon the Christian religion. “The Author of Nature” and “Nature’s God” don’t seem to really refer to Christianity. What has that got to do with anything?
…and, by the way, Thomas Jefferson would have disputed your classifying him as a “religious” man, if in person, probably with a whack on the snoot. He would have considered it an insult.
Copyright and trademark infringement? Where did that come from? Now young earth theory?Â “â€¦And now that youâ€™ve admitted that youâ€™re akin to a gangbanger…”
Wow! Just wow! It appears to me that you have engaged this conversation purely to get your punches in against Christianity. You are off the rails.
You really are mad. …and strange.
This is the way of the pusher of the delusion. Get everyone on the defensive so they are putting their effort into defense. Rules For Radicals. Good study. Dishonorable but if you want to win at any cost, even dishonest tactics, thats the way to go.
Get lost. I have better things to do than to converse with radical shills. Good day, sir.
I don’t know whether to laugh at you or pity you. YOU are the one that continued to run your yap about god, even when I asked you not to. so the fault is yours – even though you don’t like the idea of “personal responsibility”.
How does it feel knowing that you’re lack of constitutional knowledge has just been outed to the entire internet?
How does it feel knowing that everyone can see straight through you and know that you care NOTHING about law, only about what you think you should be able to get away with.
If you can’t follow the conversation – please stay on the sidelines.
Licencing in and of itsself is an Infringment.
Agreed, but thats not what this article is about.