• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Sign Of Disgust

2ndammendmentbrotha

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
40
Location
Hammond, Indiana, USA
This most distasteful and sign of oppression is posted at the flea Market at Clevland and 43rd in Gary. When I saw it I was offended and walked away. I had been a regular customer but no more.
 

Attachments

  • Gary Oppression.jpg
    Gary Oppression.jpg
    83.6 KB · Views: 332

TruxLupus

New member
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
9
Location
USA
Unfortunately privately owned businesses, even though they are open to the general public, are legally allowed to suppress and/or deny individual citizens their second amendment rights.

I don't forsee this being turned over any time soon, as even some of the most fervent second amendment activists will fight tooth and nail to allow property rights to reign supreme. This is a clashing point where I firmly believe the second amendment ought to outweigh property rights. If you are open to the general public you should not legally be able to deny someone entry on the grounds of a constitutionally protected activity.

As of now all we can really do is just take our business elsewhere. +1 for doing just that.
 
Last edited:

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
As Judge Napolitano has said, any business, open to the publlic cannot trump your right to self defense. Unfortunately, not everyone has figured that part out yet.

Sent from my LG-VM701 using Tapatalk 2
 

vermonter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
340
Location
, ,
I had read somewhere that Gary and East Chicago, IN are the only two jurisdictions that are exempt from having to honor Indiana LTCH? I think that equates to no carry if I remember. If that is not true what is the issue with the signs? Just ignore them and CCW since they have no force of law and can only trespass you if you ARE found out and refuse to leave...
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
There is no clashing point. Private property, whether open to the public or not, has one right - the right to make you leave.
It's not like they have the right to disarm you, that would be overstepping their authority and your right to be armed.

They have the right to not let you be on their property - that's it. If you choose to be on their property, you'll need to be mindful of their rules.
If you don't want to follow the rules of attendiong that property, take all of your intact rights with you when you leave.
You never had the right to be there, only an open invitiation (or an invitation with posted parameters as in your picture) which may be rescinded at any time for nearly any or no reason at all.

How is this a 2A issue?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
There is no clashing point. Private property, whether open to the public or not, has one right - the right to make you leave.
It's not like they have the right to disarm you, that would be overstepping their authority and your right to be armed.

They have the right to not let you be on their property - that's it. If you choose to be on their property, you'll need to be mindful of their rules.
If you don't want to follow the rules of attendiong that property, take all of your intact rights with you when you leave.
You never had the right to be there, only an open invitiation (or an invitation with posted parameters as in your picture) which may be rescinded at any time for nearly any or no reason at all.

How is this a 2A issue?

Private property rights do trump 2A rights.

RKBA does include to a lessor or greater degree both CC and OC and those private establishments that do not allow carry or restrict it in some form fall well within the parameters of OCDO.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
ATM said:
If you choose to be on their property, you'll need to be mindful of their rules.
... How is this a 2A issue?
TruxLupus said:
Unfortunately privately owned businesses, even though they are open to the general public, are legally allowed to suppress and/or deny individual citizens their second amendment rights.
So what if a privately-owned business put a sign on the door saying "no [insert your religion here]"?
Private property, right? They can refuse you entry, right?
If not, what makes 1A rights any more important than 2A?
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
I had read somewhere that Gary and East Chicago, IN are the only two jurisdictions that are exempt from having to honor Indiana LTCH? I think that equates to no carry if I remember. If that is not true what is the issue with the signs? Just ignore them and CCW since they have no force of law and can only trespass you if you ARE found out and refuse to leave...

LTC's were and still are valid in Gary and East Chicago. They were exempt from other laws before the retroactive preemption law passed last year. Not anymore.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
So what if a privately-owned business put a sign on the door saying "no [insert your religion here]"?
Private property, right? They can refuse you entry, right?
If not, what makes 1A rights any more important than 2A?

Private property inviting the public is impacted by Protective Classes laws. Unfortunately those exercising their rights under the Second Amendment are not included on that basis alone.

The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
The way I read the sign only police are allowed in period and they cannot have weapons or guns.
 
Last edited:

TruxLupus

New member
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
9
Location
USA
So what if a privately-owned business put a sign on the door saying "no [insert your religion here]"?
Private property, right? They can refuse you entry, right?
If not, what makes 1A rights any more important than 2A?

This. I would consider a matter of race/religion/national origin, etc, all that, to be a far more grievous situation, but it bears enough similarities. It's just not a protected class from a legal standpoint as was posted a little bit above.
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
Protected classes are based on people. I doubt it will ever be applied to physical objects people choose to carry.

Although this is certainly an appropriate topic of discussion here at OCDO, my claim was simply that there is no conflict in this case with the 2A.
A person's RKBA is maintained even if they are asked not to enter or asked to leave a place where they have no inherent right to be.
At such point, the choice to bear arms elsewhere (places you do have a right be) still remains.
Your invitation to be on this particular private property just encountered a condition, but the choice remains yours to meet such condition or leave.

How could conditional attendance to a privately owned property infringe on one's RKBA if their "right to be there at all" does not even exist?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Protected classes are based on people. I doubt it will ever be applied to physical objects people choose to carry....

People who have been mugged, injured, raped and murdered because they were required to be defenseless would disagree.

The 2nd Amendment should be recognized as a civil right, just like those protected by the 1st.

It matters not how "uncomfortable" you feel around black people or Mormons. You cannot ban them from a store that you have chosen to be open to the public. Those who recognize that the police are under no obligation (nor have the ability) to protect us individually, and carry a firearm in accordance with the law, should enjoy the same protection under discrimination laws.
 
Last edited:

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
People who have been mugged, injured, raped and murdered because they were required to be defenseless would disagree.

Which of those sentences could they possibly disagree with? A private property owner can't require me to be defenseless, the most he can do is give me conditions to abide by if I want to remain on his property. If I make the choice to disarm in order to use that property, the blame falls squarely on me when I need it and don't have it.

The 2nd Amendment should be recognized as a civil right, just like those protected by the 1st.

The 2A protects your RKBA. Neither it nor the 1A allows any special privilege to take items onto private property and not be ejected by the owner.
 
Top