ARCHIVED
 |
Posted: 8/9/2012 8:56:35 AM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By KYVENOM:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Exactly. Accordingly, employers and/or business owners should be able to require that employees perform sex acts on demand to keep their jobs. Any male boss should be able to order any female to perform sex acts for him, without regard to her being anyone’s wife, mother, or sister. Shoot, they (any male boss) should be able to demand the same from any male employee. After, such is not addressed in the Bill of Rights. I mean, if the right to bear arms can be infringed, certainly anything else is fair game. Yes, I am deadly serious. Either there are no limits to what an employer or business can demand, or people have certain inalienable rights. Pick one or the other. The BoR protects people from the government, not people from other people. Try again. So it's a civil matter between citizens? Where does the one citizen get the idea his "gun free" signs have the punitive force of law over the other citizen? You're right, the BoR's protects citizens from stupid government. ftr, we don't need another law to counter the original lib "gun free sign" stupid law. Shall not infringe is good enough. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:28:45 AM
You "property rights" people are confusing the two points of private, open to the public, private property and private as in "my living room/bedroom" type private property and they are not the same.
Every time I get into one of these threads over the last 10 years, it's always the same. I'd venture to guess that most of you have never owned a business open to the public ever in your lives. The rules change drastically when you invite the general public onto property you have. It's very different. I'm not going to point out the difference because I doubt you'll want to understand anyway.
The ultimate power a property owner has is criminal trespass to remove unwanted people from the parcel.
I don't like more government interference either, but this may be a good point where we go on the offensive. People need to held accountable for their decisions, no matter how stupid they are. Then again, as gun owners we can't even agree on something so simple as to help our cause. Go figure.
I love my state. |
|
|
|
1srelluc
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2006  VA, USA
 Posts: 10014 Feedback: 100% (26) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:29:47 AM
Originally Posted By RR_Broccoli:
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
That is one of the stupidest fucking ideas for a law I have ever seen. Businesses should not liable for the actions of their customers (or non-customers). I agree. I swear some of the mouth-breathers are off the hook. My property, my rules. If you can't deal with that GTF off my property. Otherwise you assume the risk when you enter the property. What's next?....If I don't want you armed inside my home or on my property during a party where I'm serving booze and a uninvited intruder comes in and shoots you for banging his wife I should be sued? Hey Cletus you could have stayed the fuck home instead of showing up for the free booze. I have 0 obligation to protect you. Funny but in their heavy breath the same people will bitch about too many laws.....When said law does not suit them of course. 
What's wrong with wanting the laws to work for the citizens for once? What kind of sovereign citizen attitude is it that leads you to argue a business is the equivalent to a home? Sure, on private property of a residence "my property, my rules". No disagreement there. However, a retail outlet has permission from the state to exist. That permission, comes with a bunch of rules attached, designed almost exclusively to protect the interests of the public. This is a fact. It's part of the foundation our society is built on. Yet, you pick and choose this one point to focus on (guns on the property, and for some of you retards, smoking) to get all kevtchy about. The reality is, much more money could be made by ignoring other health rules and allowing roaches in food, or not bothering to rotate and dispose of rotten food, etc. If I didn't think you thought otherwise, I'd swear this was the argument of a gun grabber: "My property so you can't use this one thing (which happens to be a gun while ignoring thousands of other rules that must be abided to be allowed to run a business)" I hate to break it to you but the same "state" that allows a business to exist is the same "state" that extends you the privledge to carry (concealed or open) in public. Sure some states extend the privledge more freely than others but a privledge it remains. Sorry but your privledge to carry ends where my door begins (home or business) if I so decide. Don't like it or you are afeared for your safety then move on. Either you believe in property rights or you don't. There is really no middle ground. Pesky things those property rights ain't they. 
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12906 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:32:31 AM
Originally Posted By rtech:
You "property rights" people are confusing the two points of private, open to the public, private property and private as in "my living room/bedroom" type private property and they are not the same. Every time I get into one of these threads over the last 10 years, it's always the same. I'd venture to guess that most of you have never owned a business open to the public ever in your lives. The rules change drastically when you invite the general public onto property you have. It's very different. I'm not going to point out the difference because I doubt you'll want to understand anyway. The ultimate power a property owner has is criminal trespass to remove unwanted people from the parcel. I don't like more government interference either, but this may be a good point where we go on the offensive. People need to held accountable for their decisions, no matter how stupid they are. Then again, as gun owners we can't even agree on something so simple as to help our cause. Go figure. I love my state. Yup, and if you decide to enter a business that doesn't allow firearms, you should take responsbility for that decision. That's the point. You, as the consumer ultimately have a choice... just like entering an establishment that permits smoking. If you enter, knowing the risk, that's on you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:36:52 AM
Also, the "don't do business/inform the manager why you aren't spending money in his store" type protest doesn't work and has never worked. They simply don't care. I've been doing this since the better part of the 90's. Try it at Fry's Electronics see what they say?
I saw a sign on the door of a guitar shop I really wanted to see. I was open carrying. The sign said "NO GUNS ALLOWED IN MY STORE! GO BE PARANOID SOMEWHERE ELSE!" Since I'm LE, I could have just stuck my badge on my belt and went in anyway. But I told the guy he was an idiot and I hope he went out of business soon as there are tons of gun owning guitar players here. He flipped me off. It's time to go on the offensive and make them accountable for their actions. |
|
|
|
compuvette
Citizen Dickbag
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2002 IN, USA
Posts: 3011 Feedback: 100% (39) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:39:42 AM
Originally Posted By rtech:
You "property rights" people are confusing the two points of private, open to the public, private property and private as in "my living room/bedroom" type private property and they are not the same. Every time I get into one of these threads over the last 10 years, it's always the same. I'd venture to guess that most of you have never owned a business open to the public ever in your lives. The rules change drastically when you invite the general public onto property you have. It's very different. I'm not going to point out the difference because I doubt you'll want to understand anyway. The ultimate power a property owner has is criminal trespass to remove unwanted people from the parcel. I don't like more government interference either, but this may be a good point where we go on the offensive. People need to held accountable for their decisions, no matter how stupid they are. Then again, as gun owners we can't even agree on something so simple as to help our cause. Go figure. I love my state. You'd be wrong there. Yes, I have been part owner of a business open to the public and am well aware of all the crap that goes along with it. I think there is too much government intervention in private lives and business now. You guys seem to want more. Just because this is a law that would be good for us, doesn't mean I support more government telling citizens what to do. This takes me back to a discussion I had with a friend about the whole "Chik-fil-A" thing. She thought it was good that Rahm and all these other mayors were telling them they couldn't come to their cities. As soon as I mentioned "What if they were saying you couldn't come here if you supported gay rights?" she figured it out real quick. You gotta take the rough with the smooth. Just go ahead and keep giving more of your rights to the government. That's always been a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:39:58 AM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 9:40:57 AM by gsepper]
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
That is one of the stupidest fucking ideas for a law I have ever seen. Businesses should not liable for the actions of their customers (or non-customers). I agree. I swear some of the mouth-breathers are off the hook. My property, my rules. If you can't deal with that GTF off my property. Otherwise you assume the risk when you enter the property. What's next?....If I don't want you armed inside my home or on my property during a party where I'm serving booze and a uninvited intruder comes in and shoots you for banging his wife I should be sued? Hey Cletus you could have stayed the fuck home instead of showing up for the free booze. I have 0 obligation to protect you. Funny but in their heavy breath the same people will bitch about too many laws.....When said law does not suit them of course.
You got that right. Stupid law. If you shiver and quake in fear when you are without your trusty sidearm then don't go anywhere that requires you to remove it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:40:20 AM
Originally Posted By Strongbow: Yup, and if you decide to enter a business that doesn't allow firearms, you should take responsbility for that decision. That's the point. You, as the consumer ultimately have a choice... just like entering an establishment that permits smoking. If you enter, knowing the risk, that's on you. I'm done. Worse than trying to talk with a Brady Buncher. It looks like you are in the minority here and you are not helping the cause. I pray you don't hurt it any further, but sadly you will. |
|
|
|
compuvette
Citizen Dickbag
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2002 IN, USA
Posts: 3012 Feedback: 100% (39) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 9:47:59 AM
Originally Posted By rtech:
Also, the "don't do business/inform the manager why you aren't spending money in his store" type protest doesn't work and has never worked. They simply don't care. I've been doing this since the better part of the 90's. Try it at Fry's Electronics see what they say? I saw a sign on the door of a guitar shop I really wanted to see. I was open carrying. The sign said "NO GUNS ALLOWED IN MY STORE! GO BE PARANOID SOMEWHERE ELSE!" Since I'm LE, I could have just stuck my badge on my belt and went in anyway. But I told the guy he was an idiot and I hope he went out of business soon as there are tons of gun owning guitar players here. He flipped me off.
It's time to go on the offensive and make them accountable for their actions. Make them accountable for their actions, or yours? Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. This is something the libs haven't figured out, but I figured we had. I always pictured the gun owning community as an extension of the old rugged individualist. You know, rough and ready, take care of business, be responsible for yourself kind of person. Guess I was wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:01:36 AM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 10:05:58 AM by NCUrk]
Call me a Simpleton
What part is confusing? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. I don't see anything in there about concealed, open, or restrictions.... But I am sure some folks here will disagree. It is a RIGHT, not a privilege.... For the folks saying the First amendment has restrictions too, "You can't yell Fire in a movie theater". Sure you can, just be prepared for the responsibility of yelling it. I feel the same about carrying a firearm everywhere I go. If it is in its holster, what’s the problem? Now if I pull it out, wave it around and act like an idiot... Call the cops on me for being and idiot/terror to the public. Edited for terrible spelling. |
|
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
 
Posts: 15391 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:11:18 AM
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
That is one of the stupidest fucking ideas for a law I have ever seen. Businesses should not liable for the actions of their customers (or non-customers). You're right, however pronouncing a gun free zone is literally inviting the mass shooter because he knows that people there are not armed. It's been proven that they CHOOSE gun free zones. It's not about voting with your dollars or making the tired old argument "they didn't disarm you, you disarmed yourself." A business can put up whatever sign they want, it's their property it's their right, but when their sign causes a potential for danger to the public they are open to/serve/inviting in, they should be held liable. The old rule of yelling fire in a theater was shot down to mean if your free speach causes someone to do harm you can be held criminaly liable. The same principle should here. If not criminaly than at a minumum civilly liable. They aren't causing any additional danger. Criminals attack both gun free zones and areas with no firearm restrictions. You as the individual customer is the more at risk, not the other customers. Yelling "fire" in a theater (when there is no fire) is not comparable. That act is done to incite a panic and is done maliciously; there are clear victims. A business making an area gun free creates no victim. Any criminal that attacks the place creates victims; the business should not be held liable for the criminal's actions. |
|
|
|
1srelluc
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2006 VA, USA
Posts: 10015 Feedback: 100% (26) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:15:12 AM
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Yup, and if you decide to enter a business that doesn't allow firearms, you should take responsbility for that decision. That's the point. You, as the consumer ultimately have a choice... just like entering an establishment that permits smoking. If you enter, knowing the risk, that's on you. I'm done. Worse than trying to talk with a Brady Buncher. It looks like you are in the minority here and you are not helping the cause. I pray you don't hurt it any further, but sadly you will. Looks to me you are not too keen on other's property rights. Worse than trying to talk to a Socialist. 
|
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15392 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:18:52 AM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 10:20:54 AM by Renegade13B]
Originally Posted By NCUrk:
Call me a Simpleton What part is confusing? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. I don't see anything in there about concealed, open, or restrictions.... But I am sure some folks here will disagree. It is a RIGHT, not a privilege.... For the folks saying the First amendment has restrictions too, "You can't yell Fire in a movie theater". Sure you can, just be prepared for the responsibility of yelling it. I feel the same about carrying a firearm everywhere I go. If it is in its holster, what’s the problem? Now if I pull it out, wave it around and act like an idiot... Call the cops on me for being and idiot/terror to the public. Edited for terrible spelling. A theater can kick you out for cussing. A business can kick you out for having a gun. The BoR has nothing to do with how people treat other people. It has it do with what the government can do to people. You seem to be confused on that point. You want to talk about rights and privileges? Fine. You have no right to go to a theater; you have the privilege. As you don't have the right to be there, you don't have the right to force conditions of your being there on the owner. The owner has the right to not serve you. Because he has that right, he can place conditions on what you must do to receive services. |
|
|
|
Angelshare1
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2006 MN, USA
Posts: 13277 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:22:54 AM
I don't support this but for some reason I won't loose sleep if it passes.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:33:33 AM
How does the private property business owner enforce "no shirt no shoes no service?" By observation and trespass warrant. Most everyone agrees, Nothing wrong with.
The flash mob crowd and homicidal maniac crowd don't open carry into a lib "gun free zone" fiction, right? If the property owner allows even one citizen concealed firearms by not strictly enforcing their own "no gun zone rule" they cannot deny the rule abiding citizen to a fundamental right of lawfully bearing arms and self defense from the criminal mob crowd. |
|
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15394 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:40:30 AM
Originally Posted By beararms:
How does the private property business owner enforce "no shirt no shoes no service?" By observation and trespass warrant. Most everyone agrees, Nothing wrong with. The flash mob crowd and homicidal maniac crowd don't open carry into a lib "gun free zone" fiction, right? If the property owner allows even one citizen concealed firearms by not strictly enforcing their own "no gun zone rule" they cannot deny the rule abiding citizen to a fundamental right of lawfully bearing arms and self defense from the criminal mob crowd. Stop. A property owner is not denying anyone the fundamental right of self-defense. The property owner is refusing service and access to the property. Any disarmament is voluntary to the disarmed. |
|
|
|
RR_Broccoli
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2008 WI, USA
Posts: 4282 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:46:20 AM
Originally Posted By 1srelluc: Originally Posted By RR_Broccoli: Originally Posted By 1srelluc: Originally Posted By Renegade13B: That is one of the stupidest fucking ideas for a law I have ever seen. Businesses should not liable for the actions of their customers (or non-customers). I agree. I swear some of the mouth-breathers are off the hook. My property, my rules. If you can't deal with that GTF off my property. Otherwise you assume the risk when you enter the property. What's next?....If I don't want you armed inside my home or on my property during a party where I'm serving booze and a uninvited intruder comes in and shoots you for banging his wife I should be sued? Hey Cletus you could have stayed the fuck home instead of showing up for the free booze. I have 0 obligation to protect you. Funny but in their heavy breath the same people will bitch about too many laws.....When said law does not suit them of course. What's wrong with wanting the laws to work for the citizens for once? What kind of sovereign citizen attitude is it that leads you to argue a business is the equivalent to a home? Sure, on private property of a residence "my property, my rules". No disagreement there.
However, a retail outlet has permission from the state to exist. That permission, comes with a bunch of rules attached, designed almost exclusively to protect the interests of the public. This is a fact. It's part of the foundation our society is built on.
Yet, you pick and choose this one point to focus on (guns on the property, and for some of you retards, smoking) to get all kevtchy about. The reality is, much more money could be made by ignoring other health rules and allowing roaches in food, or not bothering to rotate and dispose of rotten food, etc.
If I didn't think you thought otherwise, I'd swear this was the argument of a gun grabber: "My property so you can't use this one thing (which happens to be a gun while ignoring thousands of other rules that must be abided to be allowed to run a business)" I hate to break it to you but the same "state" that allows a business to exist is the same "state" that extends you the privledge to carry (concealed or open) in public. Sure some states extend the privledge more freely than others but a privledge it remains. Sorry but your privledge to carry ends where my door begins (home or business) if I so decide. Don't like it or you are afeared for your safety then move on. Either you believe in property rights or you don't. There is really no middle ground. Pesky things those property rights ain't they. My state has right to carry written right in the Constitution. If concealed carry is not a right, open carry certainly is. That has been tested to the supreme court here. But, your comments do confirm my suspicions. You don't believe the state has the right to dictate stuff, for business or in home. Which, is basically the same anarchy put forth by so-called libertarians.
Your simplistic worldview simply does not fit reality. Our society is built on the middle ground you purport doesn't exist.
Your entire worldview is obviously, and demonstrably false. (In addition to being aligned with the gun-grabbers.) |
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12907 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:48:41 AM
Originally Posted By rtech:
Also, the "don't do business/inform the manager why you aren't spending money in his store" type protest doesn't work and has never worked. They simply don't care. I've been doing this since the better part of the 90's. Try it at Fry's Electronics see what they say? I saw a sign on the door of a guitar shop I really wanted to see. I was open carrying. The sign said "NO GUNS ALLOWED IN MY STORE! GO BE PARANOID SOMEWHERE ELSE!" Since I'm LE, I could have just stuck my badge on my belt and went in anyway. But I told the guy he was an idiot and I hope he went out of business soon as there are tons of gun owning guitar players here. He flipped me off.
It's time to go on the offensive and make them accountable for their actions. So, because you can't get what you want, you want the Nanny Government to step in and get it for you. Got it.  |
|
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1483 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:49:12 AM
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando: Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else.  You're not legally barring gun owners, the gun owners just can't bring their guns. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12908 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:50:46 AM
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Yup, and if you decide to enter a business that doesn't allow firearms, you should take responsbility for that decision. That's the point. You, as the consumer ultimately have a choice... just like entering an establishment that permits smoking. If you enter, knowing the risk, that's on you. I'm done. Worse than trying to talk with a Brady Buncher. It looks like you are in the minority here and you are not helping the cause. I pray you don't hurt it any further, but sadly you will. Boo Frickin' Hoo. I believe in being fucking consistent. If we want other people to respect OUR rights, we need to respect THEIRS. You do NOT have the right to carry on someone else's property. Period. And you are NOT obligated to enter any business where you feel you are compromising your safety. |
|
|
|
Jarhead08
Naval Gang-Bang Spotter Tier 2
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2010 MO, USA
Posts: 19582 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:53:37 AM
It's not the business that is disarming you for restricting guns, it's you disarming yourself by choosing to patronize that business.
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12909 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 10:57:45 AM
Originally Posted By NCUrk:
Call me a Simpleton What part is confusing? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. I don't see anything in there about concealed, open, or restrictions.... But I am sure some folks here will disagree. It is a RIGHT, not a privilege.... For the folks saying the First amendment has restrictions too, "You can't yell Fire in a movie theater". Sure you can, just be prepared for the responsibility of yelling it. I feel the same about carrying a firearm everywhere I go. If it is in its holster, what’s the problem? Now if I pull it out, wave it around and act like an idiot... Call the cops on me for being and idiot/terror to the public. Edited for terrible spelling. You should edit for ignorance. The Second Amendment applies ot the GOVERNMENT. As a property owner, you can ban firearms on your own property. If someone is carrying and you tell them to lose it or GTFO, and they dont, then you can declare them as tresspassing and get them removed by the police. Likewise, if I own a shop, and some idiot comes in and starts giving a pro-Obama speech, guess what? I can tell him to GTFO. That's how this works... |
|
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1484 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:00:41 AM
Originally Posted By KYVENOM: Laws restricting concealed carry does not violate your rights. Originally Posted By Strongbow: Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: Originally Posted By Strongbow: Originally Posted By rtech: Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits.
This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? That's sort of an apple/oranges argument, but to try and fit that scenario into the gun/no gun argument, you could only sue if they advertised a smoke-free environment and the cooks were all back in the kitchen smoking and you somehow didn't smell it over all the smells in the bar. If they didn't have a big sign saying NO SMOKING, then you couldn't sue. Edit: not that I would ever sue. If the establishment has a sign saying "no guns" and you voluntarily go in unarmed, then what's your case? You VOLUNTARILY entered the premises unarmed. The risk is on YOU. I agree. Of course I am also willing to open my own business and require everyone who works for me to performs sex acts to my desires if they want to keep their jobs. If they don't like it, they can get a job elsewhere. Isn't that they way it should be everywhere? Well, at least it certainly more reasonable than expecting people to give up the most basic of all rights. |
|
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1485 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:08:07 AM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 11:08:41 AM by Dunkelzahn]
Originally Posted By NCUrk: The Supreme Court has already said that state laws barring concealed carry does not infringe on the Second amendment. Call me a Simpleton What part is confusing? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. I don't see anything in there about concealed, open, or restrictions.... But I am sure some folks here will disagree. It is a RIGHT, not a privilege.... For the folks saying the First amendment has restrictions too, "You can't yell Fire in a movie theater". Sure you can, just be prepared for the responsibility of yelling it. I feel the same about carrying a firearm everywhere I go. If it is in its holster, what’s the problem? Now if I pull it out, wave it around and act like an idiot... Call the cops on me for being and idiot/terror to the public. Edited for terrible spelling. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:18:45 AM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By beararms:
How does the private property business owner enforce "no shirt no shoes no service?" By observation and trespass warrant. Most everyone agrees, Nothing wrong with. The flash mob crowd and homicidal maniac crowd don't open carry into a lib "gun free zone" fiction, right? If the property owner allows even one citizen concealed firearms by not strictly enforcing their own "no gun zone rule" they cannot deny the rule abiding citizen to a fundamental right of lawfully bearing arms and self defense from the criminal mob crowd. Stop. A property owner is not denying anyone the fundamental right of self-defense. The property owner is refusing service and access to the property. Any disarmament is voluntary to the disarmed. That's right. lawfully concealed means lawfully concealed. The property owner has as much power to refuse service to the unlawful mexican carry flash mob crowd and homicidal maniacs as they do to the lawful armed citizen. No law is broken except in gov enforced no gun zones. You are the crowd advocating gov enforced no gun zone statism. You said ...quote: The BoR protects people from the government, not people from other people. |
|
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15395 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:25:30 AM
Originally Posted By beararms:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By beararms:
How does the private property business owner enforce "no shirt no shoes no service?" By observation and trespass warrant. Most everyone agrees, Nothing wrong with. The flash mob crowd and homicidal maniac crowd don't open carry into a lib "gun free zone" fiction, right? If the property owner allows even one citizen concealed firearms by not strictly enforcing their own "no gun zone rule" they cannot deny the rule abiding citizen to a fundamental right of lawfully bearing arms and self defense from the criminal mob crowd. Stop. A property owner is not denying anyone the fundamental right of self-defense. The property owner is refusing service and access to the property. Any disarmament is voluntary to the disarmed. That's right. lawfully concealed means lawfully concealed. The property owner has as much power to refuse service to the unlawful mexican carry flash mob crowd and homicidal maniacs as they do to the lawful armed citizen. No law is broken except in gov enforced no gun zones. You are the crowd advocating gov enforced no gun zone statism. You said ...quote: The BoR protects people from the government, not people from other people. Nope. The government is enforcing trespassing laws; not gun laws. Enforcing trespass laws is a legitimate function of government, and not restricted by the Constitution. |
|
|
|
45FMJoe
Double clutches syncromesh gearboxes
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2003 USA
Posts: 18752 Feedback: 100% (47) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:29:39 AM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:40:24 AM
Originally Posted By Smashy:
They have a fetish and a rampant hatred of guns. It’s called ‘hoplophobia’—a morbid fear of guns. This so-called political problem is actually a medical condition. The anti-rights crowd is afraid that if they had a gun, they’d shoot someone. So, they psychologically project this fear onto everyone else. Because they don’t trust themselves, they don’t trust their fellow man.”
Nice summary. Not really, it is a broad brush. Maybe that describes some anti-gunners, but some are afraid of guns in other people's hands, without any projected self distrust. People can be scared of being assaulted without a projected fear that they will assault someone. As a concrete example, a woman may fear being raped without any fear that she may rape someone |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12910 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:42:41 AM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 11:43:33 AM by Strongbow]
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
Prohibiting a behavior is not dscriminating against a person. They prohibiting the behavior of carrying a gun. Don't like it? Don't go. |
|
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1487 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:47:35 AM
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe: Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination. But there is no discrimination when they say no guns allowed. You're free to enter the business, just without a gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:50:52 AM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
Prohibiting a behavior is not dscriminating against a person. They prohibiting the behavior of carrying a gun. Don't like it? Don't go. Wearing a pistol is a fundamental tenet of my religion. Can i prohibit people from wearing a cross? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 11:56:53 AM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
If you don't like what a business does, then don't fucking go there. Two can play your game. Should a business owner decide he doesn't agree with the government assigning liability to him should someone get hurt as a result of his exercising his right to prohibit firearms, he is free to sell the business, move to a state which does not have such a statute and open a business. No one is forcing him to remain in business in that state. I'm sure Illinois does not have such a statute since that state prohibits citizens from legally carrying firearms. You apparently have a problem with the government assigning liability, which is all the proposed statute would do. Bad news. It's one of the things which government does. That is not going to change. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:01:25 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By beararms:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By beararms:
How does the private property business owner enforce "no shirt no shoes no service?" By observation and trespass warrant. Most everyone agrees, Nothing wrong with. The flash mob crowd and homicidal maniac crowd don't open carry into a lib "gun free zone" fiction, right? If the property owner allows even one citizen concealed firearms by not strictly enforcing their own "no gun zone rule" they cannot deny the rule abiding citizen to a fundamental right of lawfully bearing arms and self defense from the criminal mob crowd. Stop. A property owner is not denying anyone the fundamental right of self-defense. The property owner is refusing service and access to the property. Any disarmament is voluntary to the disarmed. That's right. lawfully concealed means lawfully concealed. The property owner has as much power to refuse service to the unlawful mexican carry flash mob crowd and homicidal maniacs as they do to the lawful armed citizen. No law is broken except in gov enforced no gun zones. You are the crowd advocating gov enforced no gun zone statism. You said ...quote: The BoR protects people from the government, not people from other people. Nope. The government is enforcing trespassing laws; not gun laws. Enforcing trespass laws is a legitimate function of government, and not restricted by the Constitution. Then 30.06 signs or whatever you call them in Or are just a figment of imagination? Fl enforces private property rights with trespassing law. How do private property owners in Fl enforce their "no gun zone" business models without silly gov enforced "no gun signs" and the lib utopian no gun zone fallacy you defend? btw we absolutely do have private property owner non gov enforced no gun signs here in Fl and they actively enforce it equally against the flash mob crowd and the lawfully armed citizen. As free citizens, we all walk on equal ground. No secret honest injun no guns promise pass for the homicidal maniac, the flash mobs or the lawfully armed citizen. It's weird like that down here. Come on down. spend money. fishing is good. we love tourists and guns. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12913 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:01:32 PM
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
Prohibiting a behavior is not dscriminating against a person. They prohibiting the behavior of carrying a gun. Don't like it? Don't go. Wearing a pistol is a fundamental tenet of my religion. Can i prohibit people from wearing a cross? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:05:48 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
Prohibiting a behavior is not dscriminating against a person. They prohibiting the behavior of carrying a gun. Don't like it? Don't go. Wearing a pistol is a fundamental tenet of my religion. Can i prohibit people from wearing a cross? Fine. I am asking: are you saying a business can prohibit any behavior it wants to? No one with a tattoo since they didnt have to put that absurd tattoo on thier neck? |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12914 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:05:52 PM
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
If you don't like what a business does, then don't fucking go there. Two can play your game. Should a business owner decide he doesn't agree with the government assigning liability to him should someone get hurt as a result of his exercising his right to prohibit firearms, he is free to sell the business, move to a state which does not have such a statute and open a business. No one is forcing him to remain in business in that state. I'm sure Illinois does not have such a statute since that state prohibits citizens from legally carrying firearms. You apparently have a problem with the government assigning liability, which is all the proposed statute would do. Bad news. It's one of the things which government does. That is not going to change. Yeah, I do have a problem witht he government assigning liability in such a manner. It's the equivelent of government deciding bars are responsbile for drunk drivers who drank at their establishment. It's an attempt to remove reponsbility of a decision from the individual to the business owner. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12915 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:07:12 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 12:08:38 PM by Strongbow]
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
Prohibiting a behavior is not dscriminating against a person. They prohibiting the behavior of carrying a gun. Don't like it? Don't go. Wearing a pistol is a fundamental tenet of my religion. Can i prohibit people from wearing a cross? Fine. I am asking: are you saying a business can prohibit any behavior it wants to? No one with a tattoo since they didnt have to put that absurd tattoo on thier neck? You can't remove a tattoo, so not quite the same. However, a business could require an offensive tattoo to be covered, and I have seen them do so. And a business would be within its rights to require emplyees to have no visible tattoos. Dirty inkies have no rights. ;) |
|
|
|
1srelluc
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2006 VA, USA
Posts: 10017 Feedback: 100% (26) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:07:21 PM
Originally Posted By RR_Broccoli:
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
Originally Posted By RR_Broccoli:
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
That is one of the stupidest fucking ideas for a law I have ever seen. Businesses should not liable for the actions of their customers (or non-customers). I agree. I swear some of the mouth-breathers are off the hook. My property, my rules. If you can't deal with that GTF off my property. Otherwise you assume the risk when you enter the property. What's next?....If I don't want you armed inside my home or on my property during a party where I'm serving booze and a uninvited intruder comes in and shoots you for banging his wife I should be sued? Hey Cletus you could have stayed the fuck home instead of showing up for the free booze. I have 0 obligation to protect you. Funny but in their heavy breath the same people will bitch about too many laws.....When said law does not suit them of course.
What's wrong with wanting the laws to work for the citizens for once? What kind of sovereign citizen attitude is it that leads you to argue a business is the equivalent to a home? Sure, on private property of a residence "my property, my rules". No disagreement there. However, a retail outlet has permission from the state to exist. That permission, comes with a bunch of rules attached, designed almost exclusively to protect the interests of the public. This is a fact. It's part of the foundation our society is built on. Yet, you pick and choose this one point to focus on (guns on the property, and for some of you retards, smoking) to get all kevtchy about. The reality is, much more money could be made by ignoring other health rules and allowing roaches in food, or not bothering to rotate and dispose of rotten food, etc. If I didn't think you thought otherwise, I'd swear this was the argument of a gun grabber: "My property so you can't use this one thing (which happens to be a gun while ignoring thousands of other rules that must be abided to be allowed to run a business)" I hate to break it to you but the same "state" that allows a business to exist is the same "state" that extends you the privledge to carry (concealed or open) in public. Sure some states extend the privledge more freely than others but a privledge it remains. Sorry but your privledge to carry ends where my door begins (home or business) if I so decide. Don't like it or you are afeared for your safety then move on. Either you believe in property rights or you don't. There is really no middle ground. Pesky things those property rights ain't they.
My state has right to carry written right in the Constitution. If concealed carry is not a right, open carry certainly is. That has been tested to the supreme court here. But, your comments do confirm my suspicions. You don't believe the state has the right to dictate stuff, for business or in home. Which, is basically the same anarchy put forth by so-called libertarians. Your simplistic worldview simply does not fit reality. Our society is built on the middle ground you purport doesn't exist. Your entire worldview is obviously, and demonstrably false. (In addition to being aligned with the gun-grabbers.) Just where the heck is there middle ground on property rights? I'll tell you, it's where propertry rights have been supressed by state or fed laws that some group of idiots have had passed to get their way on property rights issues that are dear to them. It's idiots that happen to be gun owners this time that are after a piece of the supression of property rights pie. As far as I am concerned both groups are equally retarded and hate property rights. Hopefully common sense will prevail as it concerns the misguided proposed law. Damn, it's hard for me to fathom why anyone would want more laws further suppressing property rights more than they already are.
|
|
|
CasualObserver
It was long ago, and it was far away...
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2005 TX, USA
Posts: 6300 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:12:12 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By 03fxsti:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Apples and anvils. Second hand smoke may or may not cause harm, bullets on the other hand..........
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Ah, but in being armed, you may or may not be able to stop an active shooter. So long as voluntarily enter an establishment unarmed, YOU take the responsbility. Until this law is passed, then it's on the proprietor.  |
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12916 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:20:40 PM
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By 03fxsti:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Apples and anvils. Second hand smoke may or may not cause harm, bullets on the other hand..........
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Ah, but in being armed, you may or may not be able to stop an active shooter. So long as voluntarily enter an establishment unarmed, YOU take the responsbility. Until this law is passed, then it's on the proprietor. Hooray for more government!!! Big Government is GOOD as long as it's doing what I want it to!!!  |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17821 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:21:54 PM
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
If you don't like what a business does, then don't fucking go there. Two can play your game. Should a business owner decide he doesn't agree with the government assigning liability to him should someone get hurt as a result of his exercising his right to prohibit firearms, he is free to sell the business, move to a state which does not have such a statute and open a business. No one is forcing him to remain in business in that state. I'm sure Illinois does not have such a statute since that state prohibits citizens from legally carrying firearms. You apparently have a problem with the government assigning liability, which is all the proposed statute would do. Bad news. It's one of the things which government does. That is not going to change. This. Where are the states rights advocates? If Joe-business owner doesn't like the way government is being run, they are free to take their business to paragons of liberty like IL and CA where they only have to worry about the criminals carrying. If you don't want the liability but want to stay in the state, either continue to ban guns and take some reasonable step like hiring armed security; or better yet, just stay neutral on the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:22:07 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
Prohibiting a behavior is not dscriminating against a person. They prohibiting the behavior of carrying a gun. Don't like it? Don't go. Wearing a pistol is a fundamental tenet of my religion. Can i prohibit people from wearing a cross? Fine. I am asking: are you saying a business can prohibit any behavior it wants to? No one with a tattoo since they didnt have to put that absurd tattoo on thier neck? You can't remove a tattoo, so not quite the same. However, a business could require an offensive tattoo to be covered, and I have seen them do so. And a business would be within its rights to require emplyees to have no visible tattoos. Dirty inkies have no rights. ;) Oh, i don't really mind covering my offensive pistol. And yes, a pistol (cold dead hands notwithstanding) is easier to remove. But does it really come down to visibility and difficulty of removal? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:22:49 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 12:23:57 PM by POLYTHENEPAM]
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
If you don't like what a business does, then don't fucking go there. Two can play your game. Should a business owner decide he doesn't agree with the government assigning liability to him should someone get hurt as a result of his exercising his right to prohibit firearms, he is free to sell the business, move to a state which does not have such a statute and open a business. No one is forcing him to remain in business in that state. I'm sure Illinois does not have such a statute since that state prohibits citizens from legally carrying firearms. You apparently have a problem with the government assigning liability, which is all the proposed statute would do. Bad news. It's one of the things which government does. That is not going to change. Yeah, I do have a problem witht he government assigning liability in such a manner. It's the equivelent of government deciding bars are responsbile for drunk drivers who drank at their establishment. It's an attempt to remove reponsbility of a decision from the individual to the business owner. The government has been doing so for hundreds of years. Usually, it's done by the courts, after the fact. Do you think that's a superior way to resolve the problem? Or do you propose to eliminate all tort law which would eliminate all liability, which in turn amounts to assigning all risk to whomever it happens to fall on? Of course that would amount to assigning liability ... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:25:07 PM
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. OR....they can choose not to operate the business if this law (if passed) conflicts with their sensibilities. I am all for personal property right and the rights for people to run businesses as they choose, so long as their policies are not infringing on people's basic rights. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12917 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:32:05 PM
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
If you don't like what a business does, then don't fucking go there. Two can play your game. Should a business owner decide he doesn't agree with the government assigning liability to him should someone get hurt as a result of his exercising his right to prohibit firearms, he is free to sell the business, move to a state which does not have such a statute and open a business. No one is forcing him to remain in business in that state. I'm sure Illinois does not have such a statute since that state prohibits citizens from legally carrying firearms. You apparently have a problem with the government assigning liability, which is all the proposed statute would do. Bad news. It's one of the things which government does. That is not going to change. Yeah, I do have a problem witht he government assigning liability in such a manner. It's the equivelent of government deciding bars are responsbile for drunk drivers who drank at their establishment. It's an attempt to remove reponsbility of a decision from the individual to the business owner. The government has been doing so for hundreds of years. Usually, it's done by the courts, after the fact. Do you think that's a superior way to resolve the problem? Or do you propose to eliminate all tort law which would eliminate all liability, which in turn amounts to assigning all risk to whomever it happens to fall on? Of course that would amount to assigning liability ... I think liability should be decided on a case by case basis. Assuming an automatic liability makes absolutely no sense in this case. It would be essentially impossible to say that permitted weapons carry would prevent any specific injury. This is no different, in my view, from attempting to force businesses to prohibit smoking. We're seeing nothing more than pure emotion at work here. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12918 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:34:09 PM
Originally Posted By hhsmiley:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. OR....they can choose not to operate the business if this law (if passed) conflicts with their sensibilities. I am all for personal property right and the rights for people to run businesses as they choose, so long as their policies are not infringing on people's basic rights. One more time: You do not have a right to carry a weapon on private property and never have. |
|
|
|
Dunkelzahn
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2011 AZ, USA
Posts: 1488 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:35:46 PM
Originally Posted By hhsmiley: Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. OR....they can choose not to operate the business if this law (if passed) conflicts with their sensibilities. I am all for personal property right and the rights for people to run businesses as they choose, so long as their policies are not infringing on people's basic rights. Carrying a weapon concealed is not a basic right. |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17822 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:37:20 PM
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
But there is no discrimination when they say no guns allowed. You're free to enter the business, just without a gun. This business invokes it's property rights and is not ADA compliant. If you are a disabled person, you are free to patronize our business, but please leave your oxygen masks, crutches and wheelchairs in your car. Thank you –– the Management. |
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12919 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:43:08 PM
[Last Edit: 8/9/2012 12:43:25 PM by Strongbow]
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Dunkelzahn:
Originally Posted By 45FMJoe:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination.
But there is no discrimination when they say no guns allowed. You're free to enter the business, just without a gun. This business invokes it's property rights and is not ADA compliant. If you are a disabled person, you are free to patronize our business, but please leave your oxygen masks, crutches and wheelchairs in your car. Thank you –– the Management. Your point? I happen to think a business should be able to do that if they wish. A right doesn't cease being a right becuase one decides to be an asshole. |
|
|
|
45FMJoe
Double clutches syncromesh gearboxes
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2003 USA
Posts: 18760 Feedback: 100% (47) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/9/2012 12:49:52 PM
Originally Posted By kelone: Originally Posted By Strongbow: Originally Posted By 45FMJoe: Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC: It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con. I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a public business cannot discriminate. As another poster commented, I cannot open a public business and hang a sign in the door that says "No Jews." Discrimination is discrimination. Prohibiting a behavior is not dscriminating against a person. They prohibiting the behavior of carrying a gun. Don't like it? Don't go. Wearing a pistol is a fundamental tenet of my religion. Can i prohibit people from wearing a cross? I like where this is going.  |
|
ARCHIVED
