Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:
 


Judge: West Virginia Lawsuit to Ban Guns from Parking Lots May Proceed

woman gun open carry constitution

(AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

According to the Weirton Daily Times a West Virginia judge has ruled that an anti-gun-rights lawsuit may proceed:

A federal judge said Wednesday a lawsuit brought by an organization representing domestic violence victims challenging a 2018 law prohibiting businesses from banning guns from parking lots can move forward.

This is all about House Bill 4187, the Business Liability Protection Act. The bill and related lawsuit have been going on for a few years now:

The bill, which was passed by the West Virginia Legislature on March 10, 2018, and went into effect 90 days later, prohibits property owners or lessees of real property from prohibiting gun owners from possessing their firearms in their parked vehicles. It also prohibits the hiring or firing of employees based on their possession of firearms.

The Coalition Against Domestic Violence filed its lawsuit a year later, alleging the law violates the property rights of the coalition and its 14 affiliates across the state and puts its clients in potential danger.

You will be unsurprised to hear the aforementioned Coalition Against Domestic Violence isn’t quite as altruistic as the name suggests. The group’s lawsuit is being pushed and represented by none other than Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety civilian disarmament advocacy operation.

Then there’s this quote from Everytown Law:

“Under the law in question, private property owners can’t choose to keep guns off their property, no matter what their reasons are,” said Eric Tirschwell, managing director for Everytown Law. “It’s truly extreme, and it directly affects our clients’ ability to protect their staff, residents and visitors.”

This is where I wander off into the domestic violence weeds for a moment. DV isn’t something to be taken lightly and it’s a topic we’ve touched on before here on TTAG, with a mixed bag of results. My bottom line, as it always has been, is that victims of domestic violence are best served by learning to defend their own lives. That means owning and training with firearms. You are responsible for your own safety. No one is coming to save you.

The idea Everytown’s Tirschwell is pushing that a law that doesn’t allow business owners or lot owners to ban firearms from a parking lot endangers domestic violence victims is nothing short of ludicrous. A parking lot is a high-risk area for an attack, especially when you’re being stalked and harassed. Apparently Tirschwell is under the impression a person actively engaging in criminal, violent behavior will be dissuaded from an attack by a business saying they can’t have a gun in a parking lot.

It’s disappointing to see a domestic violence group actively advocating to make places more dangerous for victims. These are the actions that get people killed.

One can hope the original bill stands when the dust settles but it seems to be on shaky ground.

comments

  1. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

    It is really amazing the lengths the gun grabbers try to make more victims or crime, never less. Like if I wanted to kill someone in a parking lot, using the 4,000 pound wheeled instrument I’m most likely already in control of is just not good enough. Of course criminals by their very definition are not going to follow any gun ban signs anyway.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      If I wanted to kill someone publicly, I’d use a gun and not care about the possibility of getting fired, charged with trespassing, or charged with having a gun in a prohibited area. I’d happily plead guilty to any of those in exchange for dropping the 1st degree homicide charge.

  2. avatar Southern Cross says:

    Everytown seems to believe in the power of signs. I have a sign for them.

  3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    I’m tossed between private property rights and self defense rights.
    I own a property. I say you have to take your mask off to enter. You have to take your hat off. You have to leave your dog outside.
    I’m shopping on your property. I have the right to defend myself.
    I see both sides.
    You can choose to keep your mask on and go elsewhere.
    I can choose to shop elsewhere.
    I’m more upset about government service offices that make demands like that. I can’t go elsewhere. (Post office, DMV, social security…..)

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      I think it depends on how parking lot or property is owned/zone/law enforced/jurisdiction.

      Is it the actual police or the property owner? Speeding or having a wreck on said property? Who enforces what laws?

      If I’m the property owner and I decide speeding is ok then what? Can I dictate who can speed and who may not?

      Strip mall? Community parking? Our main post office is conjoined with a huge grocery store that shares parking. What then? Not that I pay attention to disarm signs anyway.

      Kinda confusing when I think about it.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        In my part of the world, police even have authority in private car parks and restaurant drive-throughs. You can be fined for using your phone for contactless payment at McDonald’s, or whatever, unless the the engine is off and the hand brake is on.

        Welcome to the most regulated country on earth. Fines apply.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Your questions about speeding can all be answered by the existence of racetracks.

    2. avatar higgs says:

      I have the same issue. I ultimately fall on the side of property rights, but maybe not in an expected way.

      To me, this means if you have a parking lot that is open for anyone to come in and park and shop, that is an open invitation to bring my property there, including the gun on my person in my car. Don’t want me to come into the shop with my gun, that’s your right as a property owner. I have the choice of abiding by the store’s rules, ignoring them, or shopping elsewhere.

      Ultimately we all know the only effect a gun-free zone sign has is to allow some people to feel safe by creating the illusion safety while criminals ignore the signs and come in knowing there will be little resistance.

      1. avatar AD of the Hinterlands says:

        Higgs: a parking lot (especially one without secure entrance and exit) is public insofar as anybody can access the area. State law would apply. This one is not difficult, folks.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        There is another effect of “no guns” signs, that is to lower your liability insurance rates, which is why they exist. Fine, but there is no excuse for anything approaching enforcement.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Victoria Illinois,

      You are on the right track. Maybe the following two concepts will help clarify things for you.

      1) Human life and human dignity are immensely valuable and precious.

      That must be the ultimate principle and all subsequent standards, rules, policies, laws, etc. must support that ultimate principle. Similarly, any standards, rules, policies, laws, etc. which violate that ultimate principle must not stand.

      2) Property owners who deny the human dignity or life of guests declare standards, rules, policies, laws, etc. which violate the human dignity or life of guests.

      Some property owners are on “power trips” and get-off on denigrating and belittling others. Other property owners want to exploit and/or abuse guests for illicit personal gains. Such property owners declare standards, rules, policies, laws, etc. which advance their indecent, perverted, illicit, and/or malicious desires while violating the core human dignity/life of guests.

      So, in light of those two principles, let’s look at property owners who want to ban firearms in their parking lot. Let’s be honest: it boils down to the oft stated notion, “My (property, home, business … fill in the blank), my rules.” Thus it is a power-trip — the property owner beating his/her chest and declaring a tiny fiefdom where all others must absolutely submit to the owner. And that is fine up to the point that it violates the human dignity/life of guests. Of course a “no firearms in the parking lot” rule prohibits guests from being able to defend themselves from attack in the parking lot which violates the human dignity/life of guests. Conversely, allowing guests to have firearms in a parking lot does not violate the human dignity/life of the property owner. Therefore, such a standard, rule, policy, law, etc. must not stand.

      Clarification on that last paragraph. A property owner may be incensed or even enraged that he/she cannot tell guests to disarm. That does not diminish the property owner’s human dignity or life any more so than if the the property owner cannot demand that guests stab themselves before entering his/her property. Just as a demand that guests stab themselves is perverted/malicious, a demand that guests be unarmed and at the (non-existent) mercy of attackers is perverted/malicious. As a result, society must not elevate a perverted/malicious desire over human dignity/life.

      1. avatar Emily Gingle says:

        –People who claim “domestic violence” need to have the courage to change their living and social patterns
        –Self-Defense and preparedness are the only ways to assure your own safety and survival
        –We are going in the direction of entirely too much regulation and micromanagement by the self-appointed
        –Self-Defense, security, marksmanship classes abound. Please choose one or two, or more, classes as appropriate for your situation. . . . also may ask nonprofit/government for relocation assistance
        –Qualify and choose associates carefully as there are just two kinds of people (good and bad)
        –Bullies tend to quiet down and/or disappear when they know the target victim is armed and prepared for full defense

    4. avatar Texican says:

      If a business is open to the public then all rights should be in force. Until one’s actions cause harm to another including that business, what’s the big deal? If I owned a biz open to the public I’d encourage people to bring guns open or concealed carry. Just like that Rifle, CO Shooter’s Grill owner who just got elected to Congress! And, even if you’re not open to the public your employees still have the right to self-defense. Also, I’d pass a law requiring armed security at all businesses that don’t allow guns based on number of employees or maximum capacity of the biz. Maybe 1 armed security per person? And heavy fines and loss of biz licenses for not complying.

  4. avatar Silentbrick says:

    To me there is a huge distinction between a parking lot and a home. Yes it’s your property, but you are also inviting the public to come there to shop or work. Their cars are STILL considered part of their home, so they are responsible for what’s inside it. If you can control what’s INSIDE their private property, so if they have drugs, dismembered body parts, etc, you are now the responsible party for whatever is inside it. Not them. It’s either THEIR property or it’s not.

    1. avatar LibertyToad says:

      If someone walks onto your property do you have the right to control what they have in their pockets (i.e. their private property)?

      1. avatar AD of the Hinterlands says:

        In short, yes. You can. They can either agree to your terms or leave.
        Government, however, has no such leeway due to our 4th Amendment.

  5. avatar Leigh says:

    Again…sue them when they fail to enforce the no gun policy…,sue them until they are broke .., twice…
    Use their own tactics against them.

  6. avatar FullPutinesqua says:

    Meanwhile, with people distracted by “Armed Parked Car Parking Lot Violence”, the scourge of “Golf Club & Kitchen Knife Violence” runs rampant!!!

    Attacker is fatally beaten and stabbed by victim’s mother and sister, authorities say
    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-29/attacker-fatally-beaten-stabbed-south-pasadena

    Clearly, we need a Federal Bureau of Parking Lots, Golf Clubs, Kitchen Knives & Hot Sauce!!!

    OR … the “PLGCKKHS” … for short …

    1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

      I left Southern California over a decade ago, and “South Pas” was already turning into a s*hole. Commuters were advised to not stray too far from Fremont Ave. Can’t imagine what it’s like now.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        It’s worse. Trust me on this.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Yes, the white supremacist gangs are a real problem in California:

        “FRESNO, California (KSEE) — Over 100 people allegedly connected to white supremacy gangs now face charges of murder kidnapping, and drug trafficking.

        The Fresno Sheriff’s Office said the gang leaders were ordering several violent crimes from state prisons.

        “Since the beginning of the investigation we have 102 arrests, 46 firearms seized, 89 pounds of meth, 5.7 lbs. of heroin seized, and $136,000 in cash,” said Sheriff Margaret Mims.

        The sheriff’s office, FBI, California Highway Patrol, and numerous other agencies made the arrest throughout the year. Those people face charges of illegal gun and drug trafficking, kidnapping, murder, and robberies.

        The Sheriff said the gangs were trafficking guns and drugs across the state and into Montana and Idaho. Mims said the gang is connected to white supremacy.

        “Their philosophy is white supremacy and to further that gang activity and that gang philosophy,” said Mims.“

        The statistics I’ve seen indicate that over 90% of the crystal meth that is trafficked in the United States is produced and distributed by white supremacist organizations and individuals, often in rural settings.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Fresno? Um, not even close to SoCal, Miner. CA is known as three major regions – Northern, Central, and Southern. Each can be divided up into umpteen smaller areas, but those are the major three. Fresno is in the middle of Central, far away from SoCal.

          Thanks for playing, though.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          It is fascinating to see that you believe Aryan gang members would pay any attention to your arbitrary boundary lines.

        3. avatar Montana Actual says:

          yea, we know all about your “statistics”

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          All of those gangs also eat cheeseburgers, which has exactly the same relationship to criminal activity as any white supremacy, Burn, Loot, Murder, or even Democrat participation. Spew your nonsense elsewhere.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Well, they were defending their relative against a deranged, homicidal ex-boyfriend… Looks like justice to me, but you can expect the progtards to come after them eventually. No life is worth either defending or taking unless their uniformed troops are doing it.

  7. avatar Peter Gunn says:

    Private property does not mean “Constitution-Free Zone”.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Well then I’m coming to your private property and exercising my right to peaceably assemble, I’m also going to set up a printing press and start distributing flyers advocating Shinto Buddhism.

      Then we’ll start baptizing people into the one true religion, druidism.

      And you can’t stop me because your private property doesn’t mean it’s a constitution free zone, there are many constitutional rights I’ll enjoy exercising on your property, and there’s nothing you can do about it, right?

      1. avatar Ron says:

        Oh please. You don’t believe in private property rights either. So give it a rest commie.

        Do you think private property owners have a right to discriminate as they see fit? Against race, sex and religion? Because I’m willing to bet you don’t.

        Also, do you believe private property owners should not have to pay taxes? I’m willing to bet you don’t agree with that, either.

        No, you’d argue that Private property that’s open to the public is subject to the rights the public is allowed.

        The second amendment is one of those rights.

        So, you either believe in the supremacy of private property and all the supreme rights of the land owner… or you don’t. Which given the above circumstances I’m sure you don’t.

        For the record, I personally, actually DO think private property owners have a right to discriminate and not pay taxes on private property. But the federal government has won that argument, so we should make everyone play by the same rules. Turnabout is fair play.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Well, let’s first address this:

          “Do you think private property owners have a right to discriminate as they see fit? Against race, sex and religion?”

          Not if there is a law against discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion in public accommodations passed by our democratically elected representatives in Congress and signed by our democratically elected president under the rules of the constitution.

          If you have a wedding cake business open to the public, the law says you may not discriminate based on race, sex or religion.

          That means if you will bake a cake for Adam and eve, then you need to bake a cake for Adam and Steve because the only difference is in the gender of the second couple.

          If you want access to this wonderful marketplace that my forefathers have worked and bled for there are certain concessions you must make. One of those is abiding by the laws passed by our democratically elected legislators and signed into law by our democratically elected executives.

          The purpose of the constitution is not to guarantee a profit to a business endeavor, but rather to protect individual citizens from bankers and businessman, in addition to an unjust government.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Now this:

          “Also, do you believe private property owners should not have to pay taxes?”

          If that private property owner wants to enjoy the benefits of living in a society that provides fire protection, police protection, a legal framework to settle grievances, highways and byways to make travel easier and more efficient, etc. then yes, private property owners should pay taxes.

          And I am opposed to tax breaks for religious organizations, they expect you and I to pay for their fire protection, police protection, etc. but they are not willing to chip in to cover the added expense. Look at the multi million dollar churches that rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars every Sunday, preachers driving Ferraris and Jaguars, some with three executive jets and yet they pay not a penny in taxes.

          Do you think it’s fair that you pay for their police protection, the fire protection, a legal structure to serve all their business, civil and criminal justice needs?

          I thought conservatives were against providing ‘free stuff’, why do you do all these giveaways for religious organizations?

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Next:

          “No, you’d argue that Private property that’s open to the public is subject to the rights the public is allowed.”

          No, I would say that any entity that offers public accommodations of any sort is governed by the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives and signed into law by our democratically elected representatives.

          I think you can discriminate against anyone or anything except for race, sex, religion and previous condition of servitude.

          That last part there about servitude may give you an idea why we need laws like this, strangely some people who consider themselves patriotic Americans advocate for groups that support the enslavement of African-Americans and the denial of the right to vote, as well as other freedoms.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “I personally, actually DO think private property owners have a right to discriminate and not pay taxes on private property.”

          Interesting, did you or your kids attend a public school, financed by property taxes?

          Or, do you realize the benefits of providing a public education so the citizens in our society are better informed and make better decisions about self governance?

          Maybe you’re right, why should I pay for your fire protection if you are careless in your kitchen and burn your house down with a grease fire?
          I mean, it probably wouldn’t hurt my property value to have your burnt out house next-door, would it?

          Have a dispute with your neighbor about where the property line is? Well, don’t come down to the courthouse because you don’t pay taxes and you don’t have access to our civil and criminal justice system. You are on your own.

          Neighbor put in a hog lot right across from your hot tub, too bad, you don’t have access to any mechanism to correct the problem except your shotgun. Go get ‘em, tiger!

        5. avatar Ron says:

          You literally just said I’m right.

        6. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Miner loves hearing himself talk lol. And yes, he did basically just say “you are right”.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Come on over, Miner, just prepay your final expenses first. What a moron.

    2. avatar Peter Gunn says:

      Unalienable and constitutional rights are noncontingent- they may not be abrogated at will.

      An individual does not relinquish rights by simply setting foot on private property.
      Property owners retain the legitimate right to preclude individuals from their property as they see fit.

      It is not a crime to exercise unalienable, constitutional rights on private property.
      It is a crime to remain on private property after the owner has asked you to leave.

      Exercise your unalienable, constitutional rights as you see fit.
      If you are personally directed by an owner to vacate their private property- leave.

      Many problems are avoided naturally by simply not forcing them to come into existence.

  8. avatar Ron says:

    I’ve always thought the whole “court made law” aspect of the common law system is kind of bullshit. If I remember correctly, the majority, I think even the vast majority of laws are court made. It seems to work more against the concept of liberty then for it.

    As an example, after decades of effort we could pass some great pro RTKBA legislation and in a matter of weeks it could be struck down by some unelected judge. Sure, we can benefit from this, but I think it works against us lord often then not. And further judges are the epitome of elitist, unelected, autocrats in this country. They are not subjected to the political process yet they are very influential on it.

    I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to have a civil law like system instead, where legislative law is law, end of story, unless repealed. Of course that’s not perfect either. Just some relevant thoughts I’ve had on the issue.

  9. avatar Cea says:

    Hmm, what if the victim of the domestic abuse wants to have the gun, for their own protection? Surely those who would claim to be so concerned for the abuse victims would agree that they deserve to protect themselves! No?

    1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      In the opinion of those filing the law suit, No. They don’t care it the DV victim gets beaten, maimed, even killed. They only know they hate/fear guns and they will do anything to keep anyone from bringing one near them.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Well that’s all victims need, another law and a sign to go with it. Should protect them like a force field.

  11. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    THIS is why I rarely go shopping in stores with parking lots, except for a weekly trip to the grocery store to buy fresh items (everything else I buy in bulk and have delivered). Also best to go early in the day when the less savory elements are sleeping. Homeless beggars are everywhere, hassling you for handouts. You never know when one will become violent.

    Luckily, the grocery store I frequent allows concealed carry.

    The days of conducting your business while carefree are over.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      If concealed well enough who besides You and maybe the Ol lady who may be carrying also know you’re/her are carrying. If SHTF and a DGU is in order worry about the carry consequences after the fact… When You’re Alive and knowing you wouldn’t have been if not for your ability to Protect yourself and loved ones. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  12. avatar Debbie W. says:

    That’s right…Let’s reverse course and make sure criminals know every parking lot and every business is a Gun Free Zone. Stupid judge.

    1. avatar Nonsensical sense says:

      Allowing the case to move forward MAY have a larger motivation. Everything takes time. Perhaps this judge paving the path for the Justices to award a cert down the road? Who knows.

      Optimism simply shines a light through the fog of nonsense.

  13. avatar nonips says:

    The so called judge needs disbarred immediately then sued trying to Infringe on the American People’s Constitutional Right

    1. avatar AD of the Hinterlands says:

      I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn the judge. The judge could be very much aware that this is a go-nowhere lawsuit and is also willing to allow the plaintiffs to toss their money into the pit.
      The judge could rule, in the end, that private property rights still apply and that anyone can be asked to leave for any reason under penalty of trespass. Case closed.

  14. avatar Peter says:

    How can a 95 year old guy be still a sitting judge putting out orders in significant matters? :/ Seriously, after this sham election I’m starting to see more and more that USA in many ways really is the banana republic that all the “conspiracy theorists” were painting it to be, most people are just to blind to see it.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The USA is a republic, not a democracy. This is by design. Although today with big business and big finance interests, it could be called a Corpocracy. Better though, not by much, than the Russian kleptocracy.

  15. avatar President Elect Lifesavor says:

    Hmmmmm…..

    In my place of business, at which the general public is invited to shop, you cannot engage in any of the activities listed below, because, well, it is my property and I say so. You cannot:

    — Pray or wear any religious symbols
    — Express any support for Donald Trump
    — Deny or resist my ability to conduct a search of your person and papers
    — Carry a gun

    It is my property. You will behave as I instruct while you are here. The Constitution ends where my property boundaries begin.

    Hmmmmmm……

    Yes. This is cynicism.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      I’ve always understood that private property rights still apply and that anyone can be asked to leave for any reason under penalty of trespass.

      Isn’t that the whole conservative idea, it’s your private property so you have a right to decide what goes on there private property and what is prohibited?

      Or is that conservative private property rights issue just about restricting other people?

      1. avatar President Elect Lifesavor says:

        Miner,

        So, you would be OK with Wally World banning the wearing of religious symbols and garb? Ejecting people wearing a MAGA button? Randomly searching people without cause? After all, private property.

      2. avatar AD of the Hinterlands says:

        Yes. Any private home or enterprise CAN ask anyone to leave for any reason under penalty of trespass. What then is the basis for this suit in WV?
        On its face, this suit is a blatant attempt at an end-around from legislative action. WV is a Constitutional Carry state and local statutes are invalid under state law.
        I would really like you to respond to my question above. Again, under what basis is a property owner not free to eject anyone?

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Our democratically elected representatives have passed a bill and our democratically elected executives have signed that legislation, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race, sex, religion or previous condition of servitude.

          Other than that, you can ban them from your public accommodations.

          Don’t like Democrats, go ahead and ban them.

          Don’t like red hats, ban them.

          Hey how about this, ‘no shoes, no shirt, no service!’

          Oh, that one’s already been done…

        2. avatar AD of the Hinterlands says:

          Miner, any owner who wishes to can eject a person from their property because they don’t like the look of someone’s face.
          That was not covered under CRA of 64. Now leave or be trespassed. Get it?

  16. avatar Prndll says:

    If I am to take NewYork doctors seriously then I would expect for them to allow people to defend themselves. Banning guns from more and more places means fewer and fewer people will have that ability. Parking lots are notorious for rape and murder.

  17. I believe this covers protection of the end Amendment…..

    §241. Conspiracy against rights
    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

  18. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Look at all the FUDDS gathering to debate if anyone has any “rights” on private property! The d-bag patrol, manipulated by left-wing influencers and SJW trolls to throw other citizens under the bus 🚌 to create another class of U.S. citizens that DON’T have any rights because THEIR on private property…Such as someone renting an apartment, or house…This isn’t just about big box retailers (who DON’T give a $!#t about ANYONE.) but where YOU live…Been here done that…Another Mob ruling over the internet via the Jerry Springer show! The [email protected] community NEEDS to get its house in order…Is the 2nd Amendment only for some special people who have rights, or is it everyone…No this, that or the other B.S. …

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      If you are going to put it in all caps, you should at least spell it correctly:

      “because THEIR on private property… “

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        @minor
        If you’re going to correct someone, correct them properly. It should be: THEY’RE (THEY ARE) not THEIR (belonging to them).

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Hey, it’s not my post, here’s what they posted and it’s spelled incorrectly, are you daft as well?

          “because THEIR on private property… “

          Once again, they spelled it THEIR when the correct spelling would be THEY‘RE.

          As I said, if they’re going to put it in all caps they should at least spell it correctly.

          English as a second language sure must be difficult for you folks…

        2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Damn you’re stupid!

  19. avatar . says:

    Property Rights dictated by decree.
    Domestic Violence, no legally owned firearms for life.

  20. avatar Mike H. says:

    A couple of years back, right up the street from my house, a man shot and killed his estranged wife in the parking lot of my local grocery store as she came out. He then drove across the street and sat for a donut while he watched the responders respond.

    When he was done with his donut, he drove to a local mall to shoot and kill his wife’s friend as she was coming out.

    Now, I’m not gonna say they would have lived if they’d been carrying, but I will say that the law failed at multiple points that underscore the stupidity of this WV law. This man already had a domestic violence restraining order and, by my state’s laws, should have turned in or had his (already registered) guns confiscated by LE. Didn’t happen.

    Perp ignored several laws to do what he did.
    Parking lots continue to be a point of vulnerability for the average citizen.
    Domestic violence isn’t just domestic.
    A lot of accommodating gun owners agree or comply with business rules and local laws and store their guns in their cars. Now they have to store them at home?

    …AND murder is still illegal.

    It’s all very puzzling because last I checked, WV was a constitutional carry state?

    1. avatar Prndll says:

      On the surface it all sounds like a winning idea that will save lives. But it doesn’t.

      The people making these laws, rules, and regulations are the same ones that are perfectly happy to sit back and let the criminals they release from prison or refuse to put into prison kill as many people as they want. They are the ones that do everything possible to insure innocent lives are left defenseless while lunatics have their way.

      It’s sick!

  21. avatar Michael Christensen says:

    I say let the case go to court. If they win though, make it so they are not excluded from being sued by a victim as an accessory to the crime for banning people from carrying a weapon in a parking lot for self defense because the business failed to protect people who were shopping at their business and need to be protected by the business if they are preventing people from protecting themselves. By restricting peoes rights to self protection puts more responsibility of protection on the business who restricted their rights.

  22. avatar El Duderino says:

    You may own a gun. But you cannot store it anywhere.

  23. avatar No says:

    Good lord that will be the great safe states next move one can only hope that the stupid fucks car gets jacked and the shit brain dies trying to stop it from happening or better yet they watch someone die in front of them!!! All bullshit

  24. avatar America, home of the 2A! How many guns does this judge have? says:

    Hahahahahahaha they don’t get to decide! Constitution says otherwise! Carry everyday, the life you save may be your own!

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email