Conceal Carry and Caution

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: redhorse

Why did the hoodie make you paranoid? You are obviously not comfortable in public if everyone in a hoodie makes you anxious. Body language is a much more clear indicator of people's intentions. Your husband's spidey sense was not triggered by the guys clothing or his body language, and the hooded fellow did not attack anyone. That tells me that his intuition is far better than yours. You should prob trust him a little more than this. It seems he is a reasonable rational person who didn't pull his gun out on a kid because of "clothes".

One question.... was the kid in the hoodie black?

He was not black.

My husband has already acknowledged that my "spider sense" as you call it is better than his. He was nervous and weird, and he didn't bother me that much. My take was 30 something, alone and didn't want people to know that he was watching Thor Ragnarok for the fifth time. What bothered me is that my husband was completely unaware that he was there at all. He didn't even make an assessment.

Oh and grey hoody dude was white. Just to repeat because that seems to be important to you.

If he were black, he would have fit the rampagy, angsty white guy shooting people for no reason profile less though. So, I guess I am a bigot after all.

Also (F*** you, you assumptive prick, trying to make things about race).

Also, just so folks know, "hood up" is very unusual here. It's considered rude. Most men don't wear a hat indoors, because it's rude and not socially acceptable in most situations. Although, there are exceptions, but a theater isn't one. It was weird.

a reply to: redhorse

Redhorse, there are many things that you must consider in regard to your concerns. Let's start with this PDF at handgunlaw.us specifically for Montana, which states:

Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?

“NO”

“Handgunlaw.us highly recommends that you not enter a place that is posted "No Firearms" no matter what the state laws read/mean on signage. We recommend you print out the No Guns = No Money Cards and give one to the owner of the establishment that has the signage." As responsible gun owners and upholders of the 2nd Amendment we should also honor the rights of property owners to control their own property even if we disagree with them.”

“No Firearm” signs in Montana have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

What this means is that Montana appears to have laws similar to many states, where the state leaves it up to the establishment if they want to prohibit firearms on their property--but the prohibition does not have the rule of law. What they CAN do is ask you do leave, and if you do not, you can be arrested for trespassing, amongst other possible things. However, your concern over him getting shot sound really hyperbolic to me, and is mostly dependent upon his behavior if/when he is ever confronted by a cop for trespassing after being asked to leave.

But, basically, he is not breaking any laws by carrying a firearm into an establishment with "No Firearms" signs posted, assuming they don't ask him to leave.

Now, with that said, Montana does have a list of prohibited places where carrying concealed firearms is illegal from the start, and it's contained with Montana Statute 45-8-328, which lists:

45-8-328. Carrying concealed weapon in prohibited place -- penalty.

(1) Except for legislative security officers authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the state capitol as provided in 45-8-317(1)(k), a person commits the offense of carrying a concealed weapon in a prohibited place if the person purposely or knowingly carries a concealed weapon in:

(a) portions of a building used for state or local government offices and related areas in the building that have been restricted;

(b) a bank, credit union, savings and loan institution, or similar institution during the institution's normal business hours. It is not an offense under this section to carry a concealed weapon while:


(i) using an institution's drive-up window, automatic teller machine, or unstaffed night depository; or

(ii) at or near a branch office of an institution in a mall, grocery store, or other place unless the person is inside the enclosure used for the institution's financial services or is using the institution's financial services.

(c) a room in which alcoholic beverages are sold, dispensed, and consumed under a license issued under Title 16 for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

(2) It is not a defense that the person had a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. A person convicted of the offense shall be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months or fined an amount not to exceed $500, or both.

So, as long as he refrains from carrying in these places, he's not breaking the law simply by carrying his EDC weapon on his person into these "No Firearms" places. The onus is on them to ask him to leave, not for him to necessarily give up his "great equalizer."

I hope that this helps you understand the legalities involved a bit better, at least. And it'd be good to share this with your husband so that he knows. A disregarding attitude of the law is not a healthy thing to have when someone takes on the responsibility to carry a concealed firearm, and it'd do him well to study the law and abide by it.

But, read through that handgunlaw.us PDF, as it's good stuff to know.

My personal opinion that you may not have asked for: I think that your husband is doing the right thing in carrying into these places with "No Firearms" signs, as long as he is prepared to go put it in your vehicle if he is asked to do so, or prepared to leave if asked. Here in KY, we have similar laws, so while I do notice the "No Firearms" signs when posted, I disregard them with the intent that I will leave or put my firearm in my car if asked.

Just rest assured that cops are generally well versed in concealed-carry laws, so I think that your concerns are greatly overblown concerning trigger-happy LEOs, unless there is a history of that in your area.

Best regards.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: redhorse

You painted an ineffective picture of the situation. Blaming your husband and even the hoody person and praising yourself for seeing the possible perp. Yet you saw the hoody guy, marked him as a possible bady and did not tell your husband. Some team player you are!

Suppose the hoody person had pulled a knife and slit your throat? What good was it to be aware of a suspicious person if you did nothing (which was fine given that he was not a mass murderer) but you were prepared for what.? That situation was exactly why your husband was carrying...for the unexpected. I treasure the old Zen saying: "Expect nothing. Be prepared for anything."

(In my state, if he carries into a establishment that does not have the proper state authorized gun ban posted per state rules, then he is not doing anything illegal. He may get asked to leave if discovered, but he is not doing anything illegal.)

I assumed that he saw the guy because he walked in, in front of us, with the lights on. It honestly did not even occur to me that he did not see him. I should have said something because he does tend to zone out in front of a screen though, so yes, that I could have definitely done better.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: redhorse

Redhorse, there are many things that you must consider in regard to your concerns. Let's start with this PDF at handgunlaw.us specifically for Montana, which states:

Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?

“NO”

“Handgunlaw.us highly recommends that you not enter a place that is posted "No Firearms" no matter what the state laws read/mean on signage. We recommend you print out the No Guns = No Money Cards and give one to the owner of the establishment that has the signage." As responsible gun owners and upholders of the 2nd Amendment we should also honor the rights of property owners to control their own property even if we disagree with them.”

“No Firearm” signs in Montana have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

What this means is that Montana appears to have laws similar to many states, where the state leaves it up to the establishment if they want to prohibit firearms on their property--but the prohibition does not have the rule of law. What they CAN do is ask you do leave, and if you do not, you can be arrested for trespassing, amongst other possible things. However, your concern over him getting shot sound really hyperbolic to me, and is mostly dependent upon his behavior if/when he is ever confronted by a cop for trespassing after being asked to leave.

But, basically, he is not breaking any laws by carrying a firearm into an establishment with "No Firearms" signs posted, assuming they don't ask him to leave.

Now, with that said, Montana does have a list of prohibited places where carrying concealed firearms is illegal from the start, and it's contained with Montana Statute 45-8-328, which lists:

45-8-328. Carrying concealed weapon in prohibited place -- penalty.

(1) Except for legislative security officers authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the state capitol as provided in 45-8-317(1)(k), a person commits the offense of carrying a concealed weapon in a prohibited place if the person purposely or knowingly carries a concealed weapon in:

(a) portions of a building used for state or local government offices and related areas in the building that have been restricted;

(b) a bank, credit union, savings and loan institution, or similar institution during the institution's normal business hours. It is not an offense under this section to carry a concealed weapon while:


(i) using an institution's drive-up window, automatic teller machine, or unstaffed night depository; or

(ii) at or near a branch office of an institution in a mall, grocery store, or other place unless the person is inside the enclosure used for the institution's financial services or is using the institution's financial services.

(c) a room in which alcoholic beverages are sold, dispensed, and consumed under a license issued under Title 16 for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

(2) It is not a defense that the person had a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. A person convicted of the offense shall be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months or fined an amount not to exceed $500, or both.

So, as long as he refrains from carrying in these places, he's not breaking the law simply by carrying his EDC weapon on his person into these "No Firearms" places. The onus is on them to ask him to leave, not for him to necessarily give up his "great equalizer."

I hope that this helps you understand the legalities involved a bit better, at least. And it'd be good to share this with your husband so that he knows. A disregarding attitude of the law is not a healthy thing to have when someone takes on the responsibility to carry a concealed firearm, and it'd do him well to study the law and abide by it.

But, read through that handgunlaw.us PDF, as it's good stuff to know.

My personal opinion that you may not have asked for: I think that your husband is doing the right thing in carrying into these places with "No Firearms" signs, as long as he is prepared to go put it in your vehicle if he is asked to do so, or prepared to leave if asked. Here in KY, we have similar laws, so while I do notice the "No Firearms" signs when posted, I disregard them with the intent that I will leave or put my firearm in my car if asked.

Just rest assured that cops are generally well versed in concealed-carry laws, so I think that your concerns are greatly overblown concerning trigger-happy LEOs, unless there is a history of that in your area.

Best regards.

I think you've been mostly fair here, and the information is good, so thank you very much for the response.

My bad experiences with law enforcement are not hyperbolic. I've just had the misfortune to run into some really nasty cops, and to be honest, cops don't like me. Almost instinctively. I set of bells and whistles in their heads. I am polite, respectful and nervous, so it may be that last bit.

Most cops are decent people, but it's that 2% that'll get you in trouble. And if you run into them (I have) they define ALL of your interactions from that point out.

a reply to: roadgravel

I don't carry to make everyone else feel safe. I carry so I feel safe.

If i don't see a sign that, at a quick glance, meets legal requirements Ill carry still.

a reply to: redhorse

"This profound lack of situational awareness is more common for him when he is carrying"

sounds like the gun has a 'safety blanket' effect for your hubby when carrying, insomuch as the mere fact he has it lessens his subconscious concern for his safety. 'the gun is looking out for me, i don't need to'

originally posted by: redhorse
I think you've been mostly fair here, and the information is good, so thank you very much for the response.

You're welcome--I try to make it my mission to educate people on gun laws, in hopes that knowledge alleviates concerns...plus, if someone carries concealed, they NEED to know these laws, period.

Most cops are decent people, but it's that 2% that'll get you in trouble. And if you run into them (I have) they define ALL of your interactions from that point out.

But that shouldn't be the case, because the 98% should set the bar for your expectations, not the 2%. I wouldn't worry about the aggressive or "bad" cops as a baseline approach to things like carrying a concealed firearm for your safety.

ETA: But I agree with others in this thread--your hubby does seem to have some major situational-awareness issues. And if it gets worse when he carries, that's not a good thing at all. When I'm carrying or when I'm not, I'm always attentive to what's going on around me, the body language and demeanor of people, etc...not to an obsessive degree, but more than the average person staring at their smart phone, for sure. This sounds like something that he should be working on.

Honestly, between the two of you, it sounds like it should be you who is carrying concealed...just saying.

a reply to: redhorse

Who is right here guys?

Trust me, the one time in all your lives he is forced to defend your life with that firearm you will be damn glad he has it. Or nagging him why he didn't, whichever.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: roadgravel

I don't carry to make everyone else feel safe. I carry so I feel safe.

If i don't see a sign that, at a quick glance, meets legal requirements Ill carry still.

That implies (from your point of view) he is ignoring signs that don't meet the law. I doubt that is the case.

I would think a person doesn't carry in a place where the owner doesn't want firearms. If not being armed is bothersome, go to a different establishment. One person's rights doesn't override some other person's.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The reason mass murderers choose certain establishments is because firearms aren't allowed.

If one guy with a gun had been in any of these, they could have, could have stopped the assailant. if I was one of the victims cowering in my seat I would be really glad they did. I would care less if the arm was legal or not.

a reply to: roadgravel

If its concealed, no one would know.

If the business cannot be bothered to know the law, why should that responsibility be dumped in my lap?

a reply to: redhorse
Let me give you a believable scenario here. What if the hoodie was a criminal, as your husband got a gun into the cinema a criminal would have no qualms about carrying one in and in those circumstances he would have no qualms of using it. So if the crim pulled his gun would you have liked your husband to be armed or not.
As been put, if the premises wanted no guns allowed they should search everyone on entering as it's not the legal carrier that's going to shoot someone it's the illegal ones.
Just explain to me why would police shoot a concealed carrier when they do not know they are armed? Yes if stopped and they saw the concealed gun they would be very suspicious. But whoever is concealed carrying and is stopped by the law they should immediately say they are concealed carrying to allay suspicion on the police's side. If they don't then that is a recipe for disaster.
Anyone with a hood up indoors immediately gives out negative vibes as if they are trying to hide, and if you hoodies can't see that then you will someday get the wrong end of someone, so don't cry that you are innocent.

a reply to: intrptr

I agree with you 100%, which is why I rarely don't carry somewhere other than specified places by law--and even then, I still have a "tactical" knife on me.

But even so, this is why I train in Krav Maga and other martial arts, so that even if I'm unarmed, I still have something that I may be able to do to protect myself and my family other than cross my fingers, close my eyes, and hope for the best.

Sadly, though, I work on federal property, and carrying even in my truck (although I've done it from time to time) could get me fired. I'm currently trying to get my congressman (Thomas Massie) to sponsor a bill that, at the least, allows employees on federal property to keep a firearm in their vehicle if they have a CCDW from the state.

I mean, I train with my firearm in different tactics, the state trusts me with one, and the Army trained me to use one, if needed, as a profession. Why all of this stops at a property line is beyond any logic that I've seen.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's true.

In Texas, isn't the signage for the defense of the carrier from having broken the law. If not marked in a certain way then it can be seen as unclear and a defense.

I agree with you, and wonder why you didn't marry a sissy instead. Sex would be a problem, but at least you wouldn't have to worrie about the gun. Guns are dangerous. You should probably divorce him. He loves his gun more then you

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: redhorse
Let me give you a believable scenario here. What if the hoodie was a criminal, as your husband got a gun into the cinema a criminal would have no qualms about carrying one in and in those circumstances he would have no qualms of using it. So if the crim pulled his gun would you have liked your husband to be armed or not.

In this scenario, the good guy with a gun didn't see the criminal at all, and by the time said criminal had pulled and trained his firearm on the good guy and his wife, there's zero chance in hell that the good guy can pull his weapon, aim, and fire from a seated position in time before the criminal pulls the trigger.

So, yes, it's great to have the firearm, but if you're not paying attention, it's just a pointless, inanimate object that does nothing.

Yes, there are innumerable what-if scenarios that could happen where the good guy would be able to get his firearm and use it to save the day, but in your scenario the most likely outcome is what I described.

Situational awareness is as important as real-world training if you carry concealed.

a reply to: redhorse

I guess hubby thinks possessing the weapon is security enough and can just sleep peacefully with it under his belt.
The responsibility necessary to carry a gun does not diminish, but increases exponentially.

If he's a drinker he is putting you at risk, put him in rehab. His brain is turning to mush.
Sorry about the drinking angle, it appears to me that he has a case of liquid courage (something) going on...

This is personal and I don't wish to have you divulge on the board whether right or wrong assessment, but encourage you where to turn to.

a reply to: roadgravel

Montana law gives no legal credence to said "No Firearms" signs--the best that can happen is the concealed-carrier can be told to leave. Ignoring the sign, in and of itself, is not against the law.

And on the flip side, I would think that if a person wants the most successful business that they can have, they should refrain from putting up signs based on ignorant fears over permitted concealed firearm carriers.

Why all of this stops at a property line is beyond any logic that I've seen.

First, I am pro 2nd.

People have the right to not have fire arms on their property. The federal property issue is a bit more odd though. The old non lawbreakers follow the law, criminals don't fallacy.

Despite buying, carrying and possible training, some people are screw ups with fire arms. People accidentally shoot people through negligence.

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: redhorse

Why did the hoodie make you paranoid? You are obviously not comfortable in public if everyone in a hoodie makes you anxious. Body language is a much more clear indicator of people's intentions. Your husband's spidey sense was not triggered by the guys clothing or his body language, and the hooded fellow did not attack anyone. That tells me that his intuition is far better than yours. You should prob trust him a little more than this. It seems he is a reasonable rational person who didn't pull his gun out on a kid because of "clothes".

One question.... was the kid in the hoodie black?

He was not black.

My husband has already acknowledged that my "spider sense" as you call it is better than his. He was nervous and weird, and he didn't bother me that much. My take was 30 something, alone and didn't want people to know that he was watching Thor Ragnarok for the fifth time. What bothered me is that my husband was completely unaware that he was there at all. He didn't even make an assessment.

Oh and grey hoody dude was white. Just to repeat because that seems to be important to you.

If he were black, he would have fit the rampagy, angsty white guy shooting people for no reason profile less though. So, I guess I am a bigot after all.

Also (F*** you, you assumptive prick, trying to make things about race).

Also, just so folks know, "hood up" is very unusual here. It's considered rude. Most men don't wear a hat indoors, because it's rude and not socially acceptable in most situations. Although, there are exceptions, but a theater isn't one. It was weird.

I think your husband panders to your self inflated sense of worth. His intuition was dead on and yours was way off. Your whole story shows that you are not only uncomfortable in normal public situations, but that you don't trust your husband for extremely irrational reasons. I feel bad for him. You should do something nice for him, for me. Also, send my condolences to him.