http://www.primaryicare.com/doctors.html

Is this you and your office? If so, please be aware that I will do everything in my power to ensure gun owners all over the US know you hate law abiding gun owners and to never darken your door again.

Please tell us if this is your office or not. eye doc

My thoughts/questions - why is this common sense?

Is it because we (the greater American populace) have been trained that guns, especially pistols, are bad and hence, people that own/carry guns, especially pistols, are bad? Is it the fear that because somebody has a gun, that they could be a criminal, even if they are not? Personally, I wish everybody, good guys and bad, that were packing would pack openly, at least then you would know where you stood and what you were up against, instead of just wondering if that disheveled person is possibly more of threat than he might appear to be a first glance.

are you asking why it would make sense for a dr. to want to keep patients/staff from freaking out in his facility? really?




i agree with all your points here.

Sometimes it's best to vote democrat.

Just out of curiosity, and off topic, does the open carry law specify "Handguns"? Could I walk around walmart with a shotgun, LOL?

In his famous Senate speech about the 1856 �Bleeding Kansas� conflict, Charles Sumner proclaimed:

�The rifle has ever been the companion of the pioneer and, under God, his tutelary protector against the red man and the beast of the forest. Never was this efficient weapon more needed in just self-defence, than now in Kansas, and at least one article in our National Constitution must be blotted out, before the complete right to it can in any way be impeached. And yet such is the madness of the hour, that, in defiance of the solemn guarantee, embodied in the Amendments to the Constitution, that �the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,� the people of Kansas have been arraigned for keeping and bearing them, and the Senator from South Carolina has had the face to say openly, on this floor, that they should be disarmed�of course, that the fanatics of Slavery, his allies and constituents, may meet no impediment.� The Crime Against Kansas, May 19�20, 1856, in American Speeches: Political Oratory from the Revolution to the Civil War 553, 606�607 (2006).

We have found only one early 19th-century commentator who clearly conditioned the right to keep and bear arms upon service in the militia�and he recognized that the prevailing view was to the contrary. �The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such [militia-related] purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it.� B. Oliver, The Rights of an American Citizen 177 (1832).

So you're saying you do go into any business that don't allow firearms? I kinda doubt that...

We're not tearing the doc down for exercising his property rights. We just want to know ahead of time so we can send our families to a doctor who doesn't forbid them from having their own weapons in case some sleazy looking guy comes in to shoot the place up.

Open carry = the first person the bad guy is gonna go after.
Open carry is made for the hunting property and away from people. IMO

Have some sense and hide it.

1. The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly, or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution.

...The Attorney General for the State, argued that it was ... proposed to discountenance by punishment, a practice which had been greatly promotive of violence and bloodshed. Every man was still left free to carry arms openly, the only manner in which they could be used for defensive purposes.

... But a law [prohibiting concealed carry] which is intended merely to promote personal security, and to put down lawless aggression and violence, and to that end inhibits the wearing of certain weapons, in such a manner as is calculated to exert an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the wearer, by making him less regardful of the personal security of others, does not come in collision with the constitution.

Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.

But let it be conceded that it is doubtful, whether the statute does not come in collision with the constitution, yet it is our duty to maintain its validity. It has received the assent of the two houses of the General Assembly and the Governor, under a solemn pledge to support the constitution; and their opinion is at least, prima facie evidence, that they have not overstepped the limits of legislative competency. Before the judiciary can with propriety declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional, a case should be presented in which there is no rational doubt. Bank of Newbern v. Taylor, 4 N.C. 20; Ex parte McCollum, 1 Cow. R. 450.

... We will not undertake to say, that if in any case, it should appear to be indispensable to the right of defence that arms should be carried concealed about the person, the act "to suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," should be so construed, as to operate a prohibition in such case.

I just said I doubted it, most any restaurant or big box store businesses don't allow. More power to you if you don't go into any of those places. Heck, even most churches don't want people carrying guns.

In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the �natural right of self-defence� and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

�The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!�

... Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District�s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol �publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,� 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment ). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616�617 (1840) (�A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional�).

No, the third and fourth sentences in your original post. Is it common sense to freak out because it is a publically displayed gun or because it is a "disheveled" looking person with a glock (not a cannon) strapped on? If it was a dude in coat and tie would it make less sense to freak out? Hot chick in a bikini? Is it the person or the gun that caused the alarm?

Honestly, if I saw somebody with a gun on their hip, I probably wouldn't give it more than a passing glance. I wouldn't necessarily see the person as a threat - they walk in with it in their hand - totally different story.

Until the majority of law abiding citizens go back to open carry there will be similar instances and I completely understand the situation and agree with the Doc. Tomorrow if any of you that I don't know come onto my property openly carrying, I will drawdown on you and ORDER you to disarm. You are on MY property and I'll decide who open carries on my real estate. If you conceal carry we'll likely never know that both of us were armed. When the day comes that we all open carry as the general rule, tensions will be mostly gone and rule of law will get more respect than it does today.....at least amongst law abiding clans/communities.

Until the majority of law abiding citizens go back to open carry there will be similar instances and I completely understand the situation and agree with the Doc. Tomorrow if any of you that I don't know come onto my property openly carrying, I will drawdown on you and ORDER you to disarm. You are on MY property and I'll decide who open carries on my real estate. If you conceal carry we'll likely never know that both of us were armed. When the day comes that we all open carry as the general rule, tensions will be mostly gone and rule of law will get more respect than it does today.....at least amongst law abiding clans/communities.

... We do not agree that the corporation's property interests settle the question. The State urges in effect that the corporation's right to control the inhabitants of Chickasaw is coextensive with the right of a homeowner to regulate the conduct of his guests. We cannot accept that contention. Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U.S. 793, 798, 802, n. 8.

Section 13A-6-23
Menacing.
(a) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by physical action, he intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

(b) Menacing is a Class B misdemeanor.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, �2110.)