I apply a simple rule to bearing arms: if it’s not legal, I don’t do it. And if I did, I sure as hell wouldn’t A) tell anyone, or B) tell other people to do it. Despite the Yankee Marshall’s fancy footwork – “This is not a request to commit a crime. It’s a just a request to carry into places where it’s against the rules but not illegal” – he’s urging gun owners to break the law. I appreciate his passion, but our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms does not trump property rights, which are the foundation of law itself. Don’t get me wrong . . .

if a gun owner wants to carry in contravention of the law as an act of civil disobedience, fine. Posting pictures of carry illegally with the hashtag #carryeverywhere probably qualifies as “a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole.” But is it effective?

The Yankee Marshall reckons non-gunny types will see photos of lawbreaking concealed carriers in gun-free-zones and conclude that there are “good guys” in “gun free zones” and “nothing happens” so “gun free zones” are stupid. Yeah, no. They’ll see “good guys” as “bad guys” breaking the law. My advice: boycott or respect GFZs, STFU if you don’t, work to eliminate them through the political process and keep your powder dry, culturally speaking. Your thoughts?

Recommended For You

120 Responses to Yankee Marshall: Break the Law. #carryeverywhere [VIDEO]

  1. “This is not a request to commit a crime. It’s a just a request to carry into places where it’s against the rules but not illegal” – he’s urging gun owners to break the law.

    How exactly is he encouraging gun owners to break the law?

    Carrying where prohibited by policy is not breaking the law. Carrying where posted but no force of law is also not breaking the law.

    • This. The point of his video is not to break the law, but to let people know that you’re not alone in the theatre or grocery store when those “no force of law” or “don’t hurt our emotions” signs tell you not to be armed. I’m a sub of Yankee, and despite his less than classy vids (which I find absolutely funny) the dude has a brain and he’s not dumb by any stretch.

      • He advocates choosing your carry weapon based upon how intimidating it looks. If you disagree, he calls you an armchair warrior who doesn’t carry, even if you carry daily for over a decade. I dispute your claim to his intelligence.

        • This guy is a complete idiot, he posts videos with titles like ” The best carry gun EVER” and ” Why all kel tec guns are garbage”.
          I thought the best carry gun is whatever you’re confident with and can conceal well…but I was wrong..apparently it’s a smith 686 with a 4 in barrel…WTF? Also, I must be wrong, but I could have sworn I had three kel tecs that run just fine. Do they shoot as well as my PPS? No..but they serve their purpose…and yes, If you disagree with the idiot, he will berate you as an armchair warrior.
          What can you expect from a guy who does most of his videos wearing comic book T-shirts? I tell people that youtube has some real winners on it…be careful who’s opinions you put any stock in…then I tell them look up Hickock45.

    • TYM is a fellow Washingtonian.
      In this state, other than the obvious illegal spots (post offices, K-12 schools, courts & jails, etc.), it’s only illegal to carry in the over 21 section of a bar or restaurant (and it’s a misdemeanor that won’t necessarily get your CPL revoked). A no-guns policy anywhere else is merely a request by management, and the worst you can get is trespassing, if you refuse to leave when asked, if they even spot it.

      From the perspective of somebody from Texas or the east coast, with all their restrictive laws, it might seem like he’s encouraging people to carry illegally, because in those places the same actions would be illegal.

      • I was about to say the same thing. Signs posted at Panera or your local movie theater have no force of law in Washington.

        • Nor in WV , and property rights do not trump the 2nd A rights unless you’re using your 2nd A to take some ones property . Yes , as a property owner , both business and home real and personal , I have a right to ask people to not bring a gun into my business , home or car , but the only thing I can legally do if they do not comply is request that they vacate and the only recourse if they do not comply to my vacate request is call law enforcement . I don’t care if someone wants to enter my home , house , or car carrying a gun under most circumstances and if they do with nefarious intentions , they will seriously regret their decision whether my wife or I deals with them .
          I love America !

      • Even in Texas, unless they post the appropriate 30.06 sign, it isn’t illegal. So, my employer’s sign saying firearms are prohibited could get me fired, but not arrested.

        • Correct. I’ve checked every inch of several establishments in Texas reported to be gun free, I have yet to see the proper signage. I often see a sign that says something like “Illegal possession of a firearm on these premises is a felony and punishable by yadda yadda yadda.” Well, no sh*t. Illegal possession of a firearm anywhere is illegal. I’ve also see “Unlicensed possession of a illegal firearm…” I thought that one was funny.

          I won’t carry in places prohibited by law, even if it seems down right silly, out of respect for the law. If a place has a 30.006 sign posted, and I see it, then I’ll also not carry, both out of respect for the law and out of respect for their property rights (actually, I’ll probably not even go to their business but I’ll still have respected their property rights).

          But, if an establishment wants to apply restrictions, then they need to know and follow the law on how to properly apply and notify people of those restrictions. Otherwise there is too much ambiguity between what they might be trying to say and what various other people might be hearing.

        • My credit union has a sign at the counter that says: REMOVE CAPS AND SUNGLASSES AN DO NOT BRING IN FIREARMS
          Well by the time I got to the counter, I had already brought my firearm in.

        • Yep, my credit union has a sign that says no caps, sunglasses, or hoodies. I didn’t have any of those, but I did open carry my XD45 right on in. Had my papers notarized, and left. No issues at all.

        • The opposition will use this against us and suggest that if we don’t follow these rules we can’t be trusted.
          Look at what MDA did with open carriers. They portrayed the open carriers as specifically and personally threatening the MDA crowd. Even though the intent of the open carriers was to show that the were in fact not a threat to them at all.

          Shannon did the same thing when concealed carriers posed for pictures with her. The message they put out was that the concealed carriers were threatening her personally by getting close to her, and then publicly disclosing later that they were armed at the time.
          We need to be aware of how we will be perceived in the media and how our actions might be twisted to fit an agenda.

        • Excellent point! The antis constantly run off at the (foaming) mouth, calling all gun owners murderers, should be shot. lined up and killed, etc. They say these things over and over again, and with enough vitriol (and often, flying spittle) to show that they mean exactly that.
          So, knowing this is what the opposition says and does, why in the world would any sane man give the slightest thought to what they might think or say? The will obviously make up, and say, whatever pops into their anti-depressant addled brain. If we cannot, as a group, learn to ignore the ravings of the addled and foolish, then we will deserve whatever horrible fate those miscreants have in ‘mind’ for us.
          THEY know exactly what they are about, saying and doing whatever it takes to get their own way. WE are the ones who need to wake up and smell the coffee…
          A wise man once said; “When good compromises with evil, evil wins. When good stands up to evil, the good wins.” I agree, but it seems to me like we either have a lot of closet evil traitors in our ranks, or a lot of whoosies that can’t find the cajones to take a stand on anything other than, lets not offend anyone, even the ones who are offended by our very existence……
          Or perhaps we just have a very few traitors, but ones that are very vocal(and with lots of sock puppets)!

        • Excellent point!. With the antis growing ever bolder and more violent, with them openly stating in print that all gun owners are murderers, should all be shot, etc.(many other signs of violent and unstable minds), and with enough wild eyed looks and flying spittle to suggest they might actually be that addled and serious, why would any sane man give a rip what such addled idiots say? If we stay unable to get over this “must not offend anyone”(even those who find your very existance offensive) attitude, then we will deserve whatever horrible fate these mentally addled ones comtemptate for us.
          A wise man once said: “when good compromises with evil, evil wins, but when good stands up to evil, the good wins”. It seems to me we either have a lot of evil traitors in the ranks, or a lot of whoosies who cannot even imagine having enough cajones to stand for something.

        • “Look at what MDA did with open carriers!”

          You mean the same ones that hurt the cause, yet within a few years of their bursting on the scene, texas changed a law that was multiple decades old for the better?

          Sorry, OCT is a win in my book. MDA would burn down a church if it were made with the same wood as a gun stock.

        • Technically, true, but in reality, not so relevant.

          A 30.06 sign provides “effective notice”, general notice to all, collectively. True, your employer’s goofy ghostbusters type sign isn’t legitimate, but only insofar as it doesn’t legally provide effective notice.

          There’s still such a thing as actual notice, which is notice provided to you, individually, by the property owner or someone with apparent authority to represent the owner. That notice can be verbal or written and take any form. If it’s your employer, you were probably provided actual notice of their no firearms policy via the employee handbook you signed for having received. That’ll be the basis for your arrest.

          Finally, being arrested is like getting sued: it can be over something or nothing. Cases in criminal and civil court are dismissed as b.s. every day, but that’s AFTER you’ve been sued/arrested, hired a lawyer and had your life turned upside down.

          Ultimately, you don’t know what the cop on the scene will do. He has a badge and a gun, and a hundred similarly equipped buddies just a radio call away. You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.

      • Restrictive gun laws in Texas? Perhaps some. We’re working on that, but Washington state isn’t paradise, either. Texas beats Washington on plenty of points. For examples, in Washington state, unlike Texas:

        Local police record is made of firearms purchases from dealers.

        There’s no castle doctrine.

        Since 1994, machine guns are banned.

        There’s no statutory protection for gun ranges.

        Gun drop boxes in Tacoma.

        The state has the authority to ban firearms during declared emergencies.

        Washington recognizes only ten other states’ carry permits. (Texas recognizes about 45 other states’ licenses.)

        Vehicle carry is legal only with a valid carry license, and you must be in the vehicle, and the firearm must be on your person. (Texas, anyone not a prohibited possessor may carry concealed anywhere in their vehicle, even on school property, without a license.)

        Once you g wrt past the outright slave states like Mass., IL, CT, RI., etc., the rankings of firearms freedom are tougher to compile, because there are so many nuances to firearms laws that vary between states.

        • Local police record is made of firearms purchases from dealers.
          Only of handguns, and since the feds already have a record from the 4473, especially with more FFLs doing the electronic form 4473, I’m not too worried about the state having it.

          There’s no castle doctrine.
          According to the state supreme court it’s enshrined in the state constitution.

          Since 1994, machine guns are banned.
          Since 1986, machine guns are effectively banned nationwide.

          There’s no statutory protection for gun ranges.
          That would be nice to have.

          Gun drop boxes in Tacoma.
          Not sure what that has to do with gun rights.

          The state has the authority to ban firearms during declared emergencies.
          Nope. The state has no authority to do any such thing.

          Washington recognizes only ten other states’ carry permits. (Texas recognizes about 45 other states’ licenses.)
          But anyone can open carry here regardless of permits. Also, it takes about 10 minutes of paperwork, $65, and a month of waiting, to get a Washington permit. How many hours of training does the Texas permit take?
          Also, we’ve had campus carry since before the state was a state. And there’s statewide preemption, so no city can legally restrict firearms.

          Vehicle carry is legal only with a valid carry license, and you must be in the vehicle, and the firearm must be on your person. (Texas, anyone not a prohibited possessor may carry concealed anywhere in their vehicle, even on school property, without a license.)
          Not exactly. The firearm must be under the control of a person with a valid permit. But yes, to carry in a vehicle, you must be in a vehicle, but that’s more of a physical law than a state one. If you’re not in the vehicle, the firearm is unattended, and it has to be out of view, with the door locked.

        • Local police record is made of firearms purchases from dealers.
          Oh…….only of handguns, you say? Well. I guess that’s ok. *rolls eyes*. First, handguns are 50% of what’s produced. So “only” handguns is halfway to all. Also, many gun owners own more than one gun. If there’s a record of who has a handgun, then they likely know where the long guns are, too. So there. Fed records, via ATF’s National Tracing Center, are legally accessible to local law enforcement only for a bona fide criminal investigation. Local records the local police already have? Well………they’re open to snooping by anyone, simply because they’re more readily available and there are fewer people and laws involved in accessing them. There are many cases of people invading privacy via local police records (or hospital records), simply because they have local access. So it’s not a moot point and you should be concerned. Texas wins!

          There’s no castle doctrine.
          Yes, the Wash. S.C. ruled in 2003 “The law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be”, but the state has not actual Castle Doctrine law, as you concede. Problem is, Washington law defines “assault” as “physical harm”, per RCW 9A.36, not merely the threat of serious injury or death. That’s a huge difference from other states. Don’t take my word for it, though. Take that of Marty Hayes, president of the Washington-based Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network, who argues the state’s self-defense standards have become increasingly vague in recent years, as policies have been pieced together from case law and statutory codes. “We no longer have a clear-cut self-defense law,” he says. “Everything is as clear as mud right now.” Texas wins!

          Look at the Gail Gerlach case. Yes, ended in acquittal, but only after a criminal trial in which Gerlach had to take the stand and testify. How about the case of George Wallace in the Marshall Balduff shooting? Deceased has a BAC of .18, a long knife and was shot dead while in the doggie door after threatening residents and ignoring warnings to leave. Sure, the D.A. declined to prosecute, but only months of investigation and succumbing to political pressure not to prosecute. Not exactly as clear cut, painless and predictable outcomes as your Wash. SC case would suggest, huh? In Texas, these would be open and shut Grand Jury cases. (Texas Joe Horn case: shotgunned two illegal alien thieves in the back who’d robbed his neighbor: Grand Jury refused to indict.) Texas wins!

          Since 1994, machine guns are banned.
          Since 1986, machine guns are effectively banned nationwide, you say? Sure, by federal law, private citizens may not own “machine guns” which were not in existence and registered as of 1986. That crimps ownership by limiting supply and driving up prices, but in Texas such weapons are still legal to own. Expensive, but legal. In fact, there are over half a million registered machine guns out there. 31,493 in Texas, per ATF data. In Washington state: illegal for private owners. Huge difference. Texas wins!

          Gun drop boxes in Tacoma.
          Not sure what that has to do with gun rights? Well, it goes to culture, which affects politics, juries, media coverage, etc. Freedom is about more than just the laws. For example, federal civil rights laws are the same in SC as anywhere else, and yet, they had to jettison their Confederate Flag because of the symbolism and cultural impact on blacks. Gun drop boxes naggingly remind gun owners that they’re in possession of something icky and outlandish. That matters. Texas wins!

          The state has the authority to ban firearms during declared emergencies.
          “Nope. The state has no authority to do any such thing”, you say? Afraid so, friend, per state law RCW 43.06.220 State of emergency – Powers of governor pursuant to proclamation:
          (1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:
          (e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business;
          http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.06.220
          Soooo………Texas wins!

          Washington recognizes only ten other states’ carry permits. (Texas recognizes about 45 other states’ licenses.)
          So OC is legal for all, you say? So what? Most everyone argues that concealed is better. Even you concede that it takes money and a month before someone can get a license to carry concealed in WA. That does NOTHING for an out of state visitor. In Texas, 45 other states’ license are recognized TODAY, not a month from now. Your counterpoints are moot. Texas wins!

          Vehicle carry is legal only with a valid carry license, and you must be in the vehicle, and the firearm must be on your person. (Texas, anyone not a prohibited possessor may carry concealed anywhere in their vehicle, even on school property, without a license.)
          All you did was agree with me: WA forbids vehicle carry unless you’re licensed and the firearm is on your person. In Texas, vehicle carry is for everyone regardless of license (who isn’t a prohibited possessor) and it may be concealed anywhere in the vehicle. You can dance around that, but you cannot refute that. Texas wins!

  2. Meh. Many GFZs are either not enforced whatsoever or do not have a legal status (i.e. they can kick you off the premises but nothing else)..

  3. “It’s a just a request to carry into places where it’s against the rules but not illegal”

    With all due respect, did you miss the last three words? I don’t believe in violating a property owners wishes, but it’s not necessarily a violation of the law.

    • Property owners with such signs want to BELIEVE that their property is gun free because they think their patrons want to believe it. Bottom line, don’t open carry in these places. Concealed is concealed and unless something occurs to force you to reveal your pistol no harm, no foul. If something happens that DOES reveal your pistol, such as a valid need to use it in defense of self or others, do you really think the property owner is going to be pissed that you were there and willing to act? Unlikely.

  4. You summed it up and buttoned it up nicely, Farago.

    Fact of the matter is, violation of another’s rights (property) is not a valid excuse to exercise one of your rights (self-defense.) In the exceedingly rare circumstance where avoiding private/public property that disallows firearms isn’t an option you ought to choose with your conscience.

    I’m not saying I haven’t violated property rights and/or law by carrying where I shouldn’t, but I sure as shit wouldn’t advocate it, nor would I be proud to do so.

    • Another spot on point! As people who are demanding our rights be respected as well as having a permanent bullseye on our backs we have an obligation to not only respect the rights of others, but to carry ourselves in a manner that shows that we are a law abiding, peaceful bunch. A strong “no guns, no money” resistance will go much further in the long run than walking into a gun free Zone strapped.

        • Michael in GA,

          Your description is the most succinct way to describe the situation that I have yet to see.

          Everyone talks about how property rights supercede our right to life. Why? Why is our right to life inferior to property rights? Why are property rights superior to our right to life?

          When a property owner invites a guest onto their property, how is it righteous to invite that guest with the condition that the guest forfeits their right to life? What irreparable harm will a property owner suffer if a guest exercises their right to life?

          The idea that guests have to forfeit their right to life on another person’s property is one of the most perverted concepts that I have ever encountered. In fact that position means that we don’t have an unalienable right to life at all.

        • It all hinges on what one’s definition of “property rights” is.
          I believe it means ownership. You want to talk about encroaching on property rights, let’s talk about property tax.

        • “I respect others property. But my gun on my hip is not damaging anyone’s property. They retain all their rights when I exercise mine.”

          Exactly. More to the point, a gun on my hip (or shoulder) is not ON anyone’s property — it’s on MINE. In carrying it, I am not harming their property because it is not using their property. it’s not touching their property.

        • Maybe I’ll walk into a nice restaurant in a greasy tank top and flip flops. After all, who are THEY to violate MY right to be comfortable. It’s not damaging their property.

          Maybe I’ll walk into a daycare with my “I fuck big tittied hoes with my huge dick” shirt. After all, who are THEY to violate my right to free expression? It’s not damaging their property

          It’s completely reasonable for a property owner, even someone who is seeking businesses invitees to place reasonable restrictions on the conduct of those business invitees while on the premises. This could include no guns. (As to whoever said that this is a violation of their “right to life,” that’s complete malarky). If you don’t like the rules, don’t go in!

        • False comparison: you set examples of things which actually interfere with running specific businesses with something that doesn’t affect the running of ANY business. If you can come up with an example of a business where customers wearing guns interferes with the actual practice of the business, you might have a point. Until then: fail.

      • an argument can be made that SCOTUS interpreting the Commerce Clause took away property rights for people wishing to discriminate in service and accommodations to the public, but there is now 60+ yrs of acceptance of that argument.

        here, my gun on my hip, where no one knows, is no different than Shannon walking into a church with her favorite toy in her purse. Yes, I may be violating the property owner’s “rights”, but if they are inviting me on to their property and failing to provide for my protection, then they get a pass? Moreover, if I am asked to leave and I refuse, then I should be subject to the force of law. speeding is also “breaking” the law, yet you don’t go to jail for it. you get a warning or a ticket. Spitting on the sidewalk and swearing in public in front of women or children is still a crime in most states (as is adultery, of which Shannon is guilty), but where is the outrage? No, property rights creep in when someone can show the right exist, my actions harm or destroy that right, and I fail to acknowledge my actions to repay that person for their lost right.

    • That may be the most absurd argument I have every heard.

      Public land is owned by the people. Suspension of rights on public land is unconstitutional on its face.

      Being armed on private land does not violate an owners property rights. I am not depriving them of anything by being peaceably armed.

      The hard and fast rule to always remember is your rights end where mine begin.

      • I am afraid you are wrong. The property owner is the sole arbiter of the use of his property and what you can bring on it. If he doesn’t know that you are carrying that is all fine and good as long as you accept that if he finds out and asks you to leave you comply. Any other action on your part is criminal trespass.

  5. In Illinois, carrying in a prohibited area is a Class B Misdemeanor for the first offense. Being convicted of such has more consequence for some people than for others. Some people could lose their jobs over it.

    And if the GFZ is your place of employment, you definitely could lose your job over it. And no matter how you conceal your gat, if you carry at work every day, someone will eventually discover it.

  6. I’m law abiding, so I abide by the law. I’m not “policy abiding” because I don’t give a single rat turd about some hoplophobic policy set by a bunch of scuzzy suits in some corporate HQ far removed from real life.

    Let’s face it — the sleezebgs who prohibit guns in their stores are the same sleezebags who permit poisonous melamine in their dog food or lead paint on their baby toys.

    So, I carry everywhere that’s legal. I carry where it’s prohibited by policy or whatever but not illegal. I don’t carry anywhere when such carry is a violation of law, because I don’t go to such places. That includes the Post Office.

    • +1

      Had lunch at a Buffalo Wild Wings just today. And you know, it was the strangest thing…as I walked past the “Banned Guns” sign on their front door, I was not struck by lightning, the world did not end, nor did my Shield leap from it’s holster and gun down innocent bystanders.

      I enjoy BWW food. And while I do not agree with their corporate policy on firearms, it does not carry the weight of law in my state. Thus, they can have their cute little sign, if it makes them feel better, but I will not be disarmed by it and will continue to live my life the way I choose…not harming anyone or infringing on anyone else’s rights.

      • I concur and here in WV we have our little signs , Panera Bread , BWW , etc. , hospitals , clinics , doctors offices and any number of other privately owned establishments and I have never been screened or run through a metal detector or been patted down for my carefully concealed firearm and if it was somehow discovered and I was ask to leave I would happily comply and NEVER return . I will not jeopardize my personal safety , the safety of my wife and family or that of my fellow citizens because someone is having irrational thoughts regarding reality . The fact that I must disarm myself when I go to town to pay taxes , search a deed , or vote , pisses me off enough and should these state institutions ever put these rules up for a vote in my neck of the woods , I’ll certainly lobby for and vote for repeal .The Federal laws , well , lets just say I can understand their worries more because they are stealing from me , lying to me and generally reaming me out on a regular basis , they should be scared .

  7. A lot of this depends on where you are. Some states recognize violation of a posted GFZ as illegal. Others, like NY, only recognize GFZ’s that are defined by law. In the latter it is a trespass charge if you don’t leave when asked. So concealed means concealed in those places. There are also places where it is ambiguous: teaching hospitals and public performance halls attached to music schools in a state that legally defines universities as a GFZ. However, I think the Yankee Marshall makes a mistake when he thinks that taking selfies while carrying in one of the not-legally-defined GFZ’s will acclimate people to that behavior. It will work on some, but he incorrectly assumes that most people will see it the same as we do.

  8. It’s a compelling argument for civil disobedience. He himself won’t risk a felony, but if it’s only a misdemeanor, he’s willing to take the chance. I don’t think it’s a bad strategy. If and when a conceal carrier in a gun free zone has to use it to defend themselves, how are the gun grabbers going to defend the law when prosecuting them?

    • Technically, it’s not even a crime. He’s advocating carrying in GFZs where the signs do not carry the force of law.

  9. I’ve carried for a long long time. I carried back in the 70’s in college. There wasn’t anything in the student handbook concerning guns so I didn’t even think about it. I spent a lot of free time running around in the national forest the school was in so it was more for that than personal protection on campus. I don’t remember what state law about concealed handguns were at the time but I never worried about it. I don’t look for no guns signs. Never even enters my mind when I go someplace that’s not a government building. So I guess I may be guilty of breaking some property owners rules. Unless that property owner is going to take full responsibility for my safety though I could care less. I’m not about to pull my gun out and take pictures though just to prove a point.

  10. I think Yankee Marshal’s #whynothow comments in the video deserve it’s own post to discuss. That’s really important that we start changing the conversation on violence away from a focus of whether or not it’s gun related. Focusing on the guns doesn’t get the gun grabbers what they say they want (reduced violence) nor does it do us or anybody else any good either.

    • They don’t want reduced violence or death. They want guns eliminated because they hate guns and gun people. They just use violence and death to get emotions going.

  11. Use a pocket gun only in gun free zones. The Iraq war vet who stopped the shopping mall shooting in Oregon a few years ago, was breaking Oregon rules at least if not Oregon gun free zone laws.

    As jimi hendrix said ” wave your freak flag high”, but if your flag is carrying a gun outside the waist band in a GFZ, then if you will pay a price when your caught. Private property rights trump the other persons gun right.

    • I don’t follow, with the exception of schools, Federal buildings and some courtrooms, there are no “Gun free zones” to my knowledge in Oregon? Was the mall posted? If it was private property all they can do is ask you to leave, and if you refuse then you can be arrested for trespassing.

      • When my son was in high school, every time I was there for a function,and there were a lot of occasions, my wife and I always carried. You have to carry in your child’s school if you carry anywhere.

      • The press reported at the time the mall was a gun free zone. If they wanted to, the Iraq war vet could have been prosecuted at the demand of the shopping mall property owners.

        • Ah, well the media loves to use buzzwords. It’s the private property thing, not illegal, but they could ask you to leave. Technically not a gun free zone, but that’s splitting hairs. Here’s a quote from The Oregonion, or as we refer to it the daily fish wrapper:

          “Although Clackamas Town Center rules forbid firearms, carrying a weapon into the mall is not illegal, as long as the handgun owner has a concealed weapons permit. Given that an estimated 7,000 shoppers packed the mall that day, odds say about 280 of them – 4 percent – had concealed handgun licenses.”

      • +1

        Can a restaurant throw someone out for praying before their meal, if they are not disturbing those around them?

        • In todays upside world , probably could if you are saying a soft Christian prayer , but go into a IHOP and trip over the prayer rugs . I would hope that no restaurant would toss my family and I for bowing our heads and speaking a few soft words of blessing before our meal , haven’t yet , but I have been expecting it . I could understand a manager or owner asking someone to quiet down if they were being obnoxiously loud or disrespectful of other paying patrons but it should be an unbiased and fair assessment by logical standards , for instance , it is sometimes very annoying to sit down to eat a $100.00 meal and have a screaming child or children next to you but being 57 years on earth should tell you that even the most disciplined children can sometimes have a bad moment and fortunately , having two decent ears and ample matter between the two I can generally tell if I should request to move to another table or wait for calm , within a reasonable amount of time . I find myself in silent prayer many times during the course of any given day , usually for God to give me patience and to thank Him for His blessings .

        • I have read of Christians being ask to stop praying even tho it was a quiet prayer. They could have been asked to leave by the business staff. The war on Christianity continues.

      • I disagree. If you are asked to leave and refuse to do so you will be arrested for trespassing. And that is a goodthing.
        Everyone has private property rights. Whether it is a private home, building, a car, a gun etc. Private property rights must be protected. Even with a gun by private armed security.

      • What rights? The second amendment (and the rest of the constitution) says the government can’t violate your rights. For example, you can’t go into your neighbor’s yard, spout off a bunch of speech that he doesn’t like, and then accuse him of violating your first amendment rights when he tell you to stop.

  12. If there is no force of law then no crime has been committed until you refuse to leave, at which point they have either spotted the CCW (your bad) or you were being an ass of some kind (also your bad).

    If people pay attention and abide by laminated signs regardless of legal requirements on mall doors why are the anti’s bothering with all the lobbying, a xerox machine, some comic-sans love and sticky tape would keep guns out of almost anywhere.

    Hell I might put some up and stand at the mall door with a lowes bucket for the easy led to deposit their firearms into. Save me a fortune on Christmas presents.

  13. If a business doesn’t want me to carry there, I take my business elsewhere. I don’t carry into a post office even though technically a licensed carrier should be okay, but who needs to spend time in jail and court to find out. Oregon law in keeping with the Federal exception to the gun free school zones act (as has been so well pointed out in the commedia lately) allows licensed carriers to carry anywhere on school campuses that are not private property. If I were to find myself in a situation where I needed to go somewhere I felt the need to carry, but was not legally allowed to, I’m not sure what I would do, maybe take the chance, but most certainly work to change the laws. Civil disobedience with a firearm just gets us more bad press and gives the grabbers more vocal ammunition for propaganda. My opinion.

  14. Herr Farago, haben sie das video anzusehen?

    There is a difference between a statutory gun free zone , with criminal penalties attached for violations and a gun free zone with no force of law beyond simple trespass.

    The number of licensed concealed carriers and the the number of states that have decriminalized concealed carry is on the rise. Retail establishments that adopt a no guns policy are in the unenviable position of losing paying customers if they take measures to aggressively enforce those policies against concealed carriers. Does “don’t ask, don’t tell” sound familiar?

    If less than one percent of my customers are concealed carriers I can absorb the loss in income, if five or ten percent of my customers are packing heat and I turn them away, my profit margin may walk out the door with them.

  15. Your last sentence is the one. Stay away from GFZs and if you can’t, don’t talk about whether you’re carrying or not.

  16. Here in Texas, it’s a 30.06 sign that prohibits us from carrying, legally. And, usually, that has to do with restaurants who sell 51 percent or more in alcohol. The Texas Alcohol Commission takes two years to audit a restaurant. So, call the TABC and see if the restaurant is legally posting.

    But, any business, or residence, for that matter, can ask that you leave the premises. If you don’t, it’s trespassing. Frankly, I’d choose to leave. I don’t want to waste my valuable time with the police, while I get a ticket. Nor do I want to waste theirs.

    • Actually, if they derive more than 50% of their sales from alcohol, then they are suppose to post a 51 sign rather than a 30.06 sign.

      btw, I think only a bar is going to reach that >50% of revenue from alcohol sales, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 51 sign on a restaurant.

    • I have found myself, several times, hoping to be asked to leave prior to paying the check. That would be just so fine!

  17. I think what he said poorly is if the no guns sign is non binding than it is ok to enter. The law doesn’t come into play until the property owner discovers it and asks you to leave. At this point refusal to leave is where the law is broken. So I have carried in states where the no guns sign is not legally binding. If I were called on it I would have complied.

    Wisconsin is an interesting state because if you put up a legally binding no guns sign then you assume responsibility for the safety of your customers. You see a lot of legally binding no guns signs in the state outside of government offices. Other no gun signs are advisory until they catch you with a gun.

  18. If not for “civil disobedience” Black people still not have the rights they now, Gays, Lesbians would still be in the closet. Sometimes it’s the right to do.

  19. In some states, there aren’t really such things as “NO GUNS” signs because concealed carry permits aren’t very common. Here in New York (upstate) I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “NO GUNS” sign. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think we have a law in NY that allows businesses to say “NO GUNS” and have someone arrested for trespassing for noncompliance. I’m pretty sure that if any business in NY had a “NO GUNS” policy, anyone carrying in violation of that “rule” would be asked to leave (although in NY, some scared liberal would call the police after so much as hearing the word “gun”. For these circumstances, I would advise: obey the LAW, ignore any “RULES” if they’re not actually law.

  20. How about… don’t give money to businesses that don’t want you to be able to defend yourself.

    I like the campaign to hand out little business cards saying as much.

  21. My thought are: once again RF is simply inaccurate in his facts(as well as the opinions based upon those ‘facts’.
    Nothing in this in illegal, nor unlawful, nor even unethical. If one carries into a zone that a private owner has decided NOT to allow it in, even though it be both legal AND lawful in that jurisdiction, their legal remedy is only in getting the offender removed from said private property. Wearing a piece into such a location impacts the owners property rights not in the slightest, so long as the carrier is willing to leave peacfully when asked. That has always been the way of tresspass, one MUST BE INFORMED of the tresspass, and then if the tresspass ceases, no one was harmed, thus no crime was committed. Signage is never enough, for there exist persons who cannot read, or even see well enough to read. So long as the tresspass ceases upon request, there is NO tresspass!

    This ofc avoids all the further questions about is govt property ‘private’, as they claim regularily! NGOs are not really private either, although they claim such loudly, and a case could be made that just being open to the public allows carry anyway, sign or no sign. Note that the signs about no shoes means no service has only been upheld for businesses that serve food. All others can post the signs, but they cannot refuse service simply because they dont like the potencial customer’s looks, skin color, or footwear. Please to also note that I do not agree with these decisions, but the US courts have held such, over and over again.
    I, personally, think you should be free to refuse service to any customer, for any, OR NO, reasons at all. Whatever the business is, its NOT unique, and that good or service can always be filled somewhere else. And if some redneck won’t serve a black man, he should be happy to vote with his feet and take his money elsewhere, as he should. Why in the world would he ever choose to SUE that man, FORCING him to take his money? I would be TOO happy to know that this is yet another retarded zombie to be avoided at (almost) all costs, and to tell everyone I know to do the same. Why would they wish to force this idiot to have their money, when they could instead spend their resources COSTING him money? The only reasons I can think of is, they are either in a scam to create controversy (and customers) for the place, or they are unaware that there are much better ways.

    • Pardon my ignorance, and this is an honest question, but carrying can be both legal AND unlawful? This isn’t to insult you or anything and it may only prove my ignorance furthermore. But if I understand your post correctly, I can only be asked to leave the premises if I’m carrying in a gun free zone (still stupid on both ends, if you ask me)? I’m under the impression that if it’s unlawful, they can call thee authorities on me, but if it’s legal, I can’t be arrested. I’m honestly confused. Can you point me in the right direction or clarify this for me? Thanks!

      • I’m glad to see someone ask this question. Unlawful is in reference to the laws as they existed prior to FDRs stacking of the Supreme Court, circa 1933. Prior to this, the US was run by the force of law, which changed at that point into the “statute” sytems of ‘laws'(actually legalisms, not laws.) as they are practiced in today’s courts. The legal system is now based upon the ‘statutes’ which jurisdiction does not even appear in any law book. Black’s Law defines “statute jurisdiction” as that jurisdiction that is not civil nor is it criminal. The is the only time I’m aware of where the definition of a thing is based upon what it is NOT, instead of what it IS. Seems dumb, but it is what it is, just yet another insider secret to keep those INTERNATIONAL barristers in the easy money(ours, naturally…).
        Anyway, legal refers to the various state codes annotated, and US code annotated. IOW the various commerse clauses. Which brings to mind, what is a “code” anyway? I’m under the impression that it is a large volume of text that makes no sense without the proper CODE KEY. Hmmmm, perhaps these might be related?
        Law, on the other hand, refers to what existed prior to 1933, and while its not easy to be both legal and unlawful, it is quite easy to be both illegal AND yet lawful, simultaniously. All of the firearms laws, except perhaps for the NFA, are legal but yet unlawful…

    • What about if someone decides to be black, or jewish, in a private place where the owner has decided not to allow such people to enter? These laws need to change, such that people can not own businesses which deal with the public, if they wish to also be mindless bigots.

      • Then you have no concept of what the words “liberty” and “freedom” actually mean. It means the freedom to say and do as you wish, so long as you don’t restrict someone else’s freedom by doing so.
        Note that does NOT include giving offense, name calling, etc. It’s only their LIBERTIES that you must not damage. Their tender little feeling are fair game! If someone does not want Blacks, Jews, or Cowboys(that’s me!) in their bar/restraunt/whatever then they have that right. Theyu have not damaged me, and I still retain the right to boycott, picket, write articles and letters to editors and name them as bigots, etc. I retain many tools to see justice done, and the power of the purse is the biggest one. At least of the ones that most are aware of.
        In short, freedom means that others WILL act, think, and BE different than you. If that idea offends, then you are not a one that likes freedom. You might be one of the ones alluded to by Winston Churchill when he said: “Some people’s idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”
        http://thinkexist.com/quotation/some-people-s-idea-of-free-speech-is-that-they/363638.html
        That is the consequence of freedom, and unfortunatly it includes the right to be mindless bigots, jerks, and assholes! But so long as they exist anyway(as they always will. Think about it, do you really believe that if one cannot ban jews or blacks from his bar, it will turn him into a NONbigot? You know better than that… it will make his problem worse, not better), I’d rather they feel free to say so…. at least this way I know who they are.

  22. The whole idea of taking a picture of you carrying and posting it online is crazy. # 1 If you did actually commit a crime and dind’t realize it, you just gave a prosecutor evidence to use against you (how many times have we heard about some thug taking pics of him and his buddy with the cash they stole) # 2 If you take a picture while you are carrying concealed, it is no longer concealed, therefore unless you’re in the restroom taking the pic, someone is going to see you. If not in person, perhaps on survelliance cameras.

    For lack of a better word, the whole concept is STUPID.

  23. Not all private property rights are equal. Residential structures are the most sacred under the law. Followed by commercial property not open to the public. Then lastly commercial property open to the public.

    Private property rights don’t trump everything in the open to the public category. We live in a system now where you cannot refuse service to anyone without risking civil or criminal infractions. It’s time for gun owners to stop saying private property right trump everything. A man’s home is his castle. A business open to the public is encumbered by all sorts of things that they cannot discriminate against. It’s silly to think you’re creating a moral wrong by walking past a no guns sign in these areas.

    Where I live most of these signs do not carry the weight of law. If you refuse to leave after being asked you can then be charged with trespassing. You have to be pretty blatant to be asked to leave.

    Policies and laws that disarm good people are immoral and should not be obeyed, and there is no moral obligation to do so.

  24. Wow. I am quite disturbed by this. Especially since I have watched many of his videos, and, except for this one, they tend to show a lot of common sense and good advice. The second part of this video is spot on, but he is totally wrong in advising people to carry where they are not supposed to. Doing so makes US the bad guys. It goes even lower than what the anti gun rights crowd are doing. I have a CCW in the state of AZ. I both open carry and concealed carry. But I do not carry where I know I am not allowed to. If the owner of an establishment has made it clear by an obvious means, such as posting a sign, that they do do not want weapons on their premises, then I will not take a weapon there. It is their property after all, and their reason for feeling the way they do is none of my business. If it is a money making business, then the most I can rightfully do in protest is not give them my business. The anti gun advocates make owning and carrying a gun out to be a bad thing, and anyone who does so to be a bad person. Doing what he says basically validates what they are saying, and gives them political ammunition to use against us. I am a “responsible” gun owner, and do not advise anyone to even consider doing what he advocates. I’ll even go a bit further. I think this video actually makes him look like an extremist, and we all know what they are capable of. He will be getting an email from me.

  25. YM might have had something interesting to say, but I didn’t wait for it, because I got bored with his opening titles (which I’ve seen before) and his dumb jokes about computer illiteracy. Dear YouTubers: get right to the point. You aren’t as funny as you think you are. Comedy is HARD.

  26. ” right to keep and bear arms does not trump property rights,”

    Property rights allow you to dictate whether I can enter or not. Once you allow me to enter, whether I am wearing white boxers or pink briefs is none of your concern, just as all other concealed aspects of my apparel are none of your concern. Including caliber and magazine capacity.

  27. Although I don’t subscribe to his channel, he’s undeniably has a following. I wish I had almost 150k subscribers!

    This video is a good example of why he’s popular…he borders going over the line.

    I don’t agree with much of what he says but he’s certainly entertaining.

  28. Though I’m generally a fan of his youtube channel’s content (by generally, I mean I agree with about half of what he contributes), This was easily his most boneheaded post/suggestion. I have one question that I seriously doubt that he took into consideration: If facebook can quasi/semi suggest that I tag myself in one of my own pics of myself that it “recognizes” that I’m in, wouldn’t the government already probably (definitely) have an algorithm/program that was similar but on steroids? I just purchased my first handgun, an SD9VE and despite it’s appeal to my meager budget, I don’t want anybody tracking me down to take it away because I’ve posted it on a social network. Mind you, I haven’t done so because concealed means CONCEALED. I’m not interested in tipping the powers that be (or anyone else) off any further than what was required for my background check! Common sense aint common…

    • I must agree with you. That is the only idea that prevents me from posting it myself. But I must admit I like the concept. I certainly never carry where it is a violation of the law, but in my state, signs do not have the force of law, so I do carry! Someone suggested that we should respect private property, and if I am ever asked to leave I will peacefully comply, but my right to defend myself and my family trumps silly rules that put can potentially put us at risk. I do try to stay out of GFZ, but it at times is impossible.

  29. I live in the state of Maine. “Gun free” signs are few, far between, and also bear 0 weight of law.
    #carryeverywhere (that it’s not a felony)

  30. Pissing off people who are neither your friends nor your enemies will just turn them into enemies. The way you advance your agenda is to show them that they have nothing to fear from you. If the law forbids carry somewhere, put pressure on politicians to change it. If a business posts no guns signs, send them a polite letter that explains why you are patronizing their competitors. The incremental approach works best. That’s how Kansas went from no concealed carry, to carry with a permit and now constitutional carry. In my state, a new shopping mall was about to post no guns signs. The managers changed their minds on receiving letters informing them that concealed carriers were the least likely to cause problems.

  31. 1. I am innocent until proven guilty. If I am not convicted of a crime, I have committed no crime. My wife has spent her career in retail management. Retail establishments almost never prosecute shoplifters or any other petty crime committed in their stores by policy. I highly doubt anyone caught in most GFZs would be prosecuted.

    2. Concealed means concealed. If I’m doing it right, I will not get detected unless I have to defend my life, in which case I will make that trade. Again, no conviction, no crime.

    3. A place may be private property, but if it is a PUBLIC VENUE, they can’t refuse my entrance if I am a certain race, creed, color or sexual preference. That would be a violation of my civil rights. 2A is part of my civil rights also.

    4. I carry to defend myself, not to prove some political point. GFZs are are dangerous places. If I’m serious about EDC, that’s exactly where I should be carrying.

    5. If you’re going to kowtow to GFZs, you might as well also say that if the confiscators come, you recommend just handing over all your guns, because we wouldn’t want to violate the gun laws, would we?

    6. I do think TYM makes valid political points with what he’s doing: 1) The antis learn they can’t control us the way they imagine they can. 2) They learn that a gun carrier entered a store and didn’t rob it or shoot anyone! Imagine! 3) A law that can’t be enforced is not a law.

  32. BTW, in reference to actual Gun Free Zones, in Oregon and some other states you can legally licensed carry on school grounds, BUT if you should actually fire your weapon you may be arrested for it, even if said action was an act of self defense. such is the nature of the minefield of gun laws we face daily. Carry is legal, discharge is not. Go figure.

  33. I skipped all the comments, so it’s possible my own may be redundant.

    I do not agree that there is some conflation between carrying where it’s illegal vs against the “rules.” I won’t carry where it’s illegal, period. But, where it’s against the “rules” of some mall, theater, or other establishment not included in the “prohibited by law” list, then I just don’t care. Concealed is concealed. And, “no guns” signs do not carry the weight of law in my state. RF is in Texas, where a particular sign (30.06) DOES carry the weight of law… so the “rule” becomes the “law.” That is not the case in some states (like mine). Know your state laws and “carry on” accordingly. Rules? Schmules!

  34. I’d rather not have popular YouTube gun pundits advocating that we carry illegally.
    Makes us all look dangerous in the eyes of the public that is not savvy on issues.

  35. I will not take a picture and post it to support anyone. If I carry only my wife will know because she is too. I think this is a ridiculous request.

  36. Despite the Yankee Marshall’s fancy footwork – “This is not a request to commit a crime. It’s a just a request to carry into places where it’s against the rules but not illegal” – he’s urging gun owners to break the law.

    Whoever wrote this is a DUMBASS! Please read what you wrote, I was a supporter of Truth about guns, but after readng this nonsense it makes me wonder what TTAG agenda is? I support Yankee, I support his idea and I believe we need physical action to make the changes we need “Boston Tea Party anyone?”

  37. I apply a simple rule to bearing arms: if it’s not legal, I don’t do it.

    Clearly, Mr. Farago has little or no respect for the writings of Henry David Thoreau.

  38. The right of someone to own property and do with it as they please does not supersede your right to self defense or your right to have the best means of self defense. I don’t know why people think it does.

    If there are not armed guards and metal detectors, you should be carrying regardless of unconstitutional laws.

  39. Wow. I quote:
    “This is not a request to commit a crime. It’s a just a request to carry into places where it’s against the rules but not illegal” – he’s urging gun owners to break the law.”
    The Marshall is NOT urging anyone to break any law, as it’s not illegal, at least in Michigan, to conceal carry in a place with a “no guns” sign- we’re not speaking of restricted gun zones for persons with a CPL. If one carries concealed and the owner somehow sees your weapon, then he/she may ask you to leave, and then you must; but that’s not breaking any laws.

  40. “our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms does not trump property rights, which are the foundation of law itself”

    1. Of course it trumps property rights, as far as real estate. Real estate as property is a purely artificial, invented human right; it is not natural in the least. Naturally, all humans have the right to travel as they please; that we have a system that restricts said right is merely a human convention. Right to my person, on which my gun is carried, trump all artificial rights.

    2. Property rights are not “the foundation of law itself”. They are an excuse for a whole myriad of laws, but that’s just a heritage we have from the days of “might makes right” and animal-instinct territoriality. That thinkers back in the day had to struggle to come up with a valid basis for property rights, and failed, showed that property rights are an artificial system arranged for human convenience.

    The foundation of all law is self-ownership, which is an observable phenomenon and one we know instinctively. From there we get the Ethic of Reciprocity (i.e. the Golden Rule), and thus to all other valid law.

    It’s been a long-held principle in various cultures that a contract to do one’s self harm is invalid. Agreeing to go somewhere that says you can’t be armed is an agreement to do one’s self harm — that is, after all, why we carry: to prevent harm. It is as much a contract to do one’s self harm as would be an agreement to hike through rattlesnake territory in bare feet following a straight line. Thus anyone making the request of a person to go unarmed should be despised as uncivilized; correction should be given and their request ignored by the entire community.

  41. I carry wherever I go.

    Other than those very rare occasions when I’m going into a building that has an entry control point, then I leave the firearm in the truck. Other than that… I’m armed, 24-7-365. I’m either packing or theres a pistol within arm’s reach.

  42. Which constitutional amendments don’t apply on private property? I mean if property rights trump Constitutional rights, we should break it down as to which ones.

  43. Here is a little journalistic tip for you in the future. To make sure you don’t misrepresent someone’s position, you should speak to them first. It often makes writing an article so much easier if you actually do some research and have some knowledge first.

  44. Reading comprehension is just as important as listening louder. Something being against someones rules, without force of law, does not make it inherently illegal. re: your rant on ‪#‎carryeverywhere‬. Robert? Following statements, and ~understanding~ the point is a hallmark of attention to detail, whether you agree with it or not. You clearly missed the point, and I suppose this may be due to jurisdictional differences. In many places, it is most certainly not a felony, not even a misdemeanor, and not even the slightest slap on the wrist to carry where it is not expressly forbidden by the state or fed. You simply need to leave when asked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *