Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Owning stock in a publicly-traded company, change in your rights?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520

    Owning stock in a publicly-traded company, change in your rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy
    ...A publically held company who is open to the general public should not have the right to ban me from possessing my right to self-defense. What if I am a stock holder?...
    TBG mentioned this on another thread, and I missed it at the time. I'm surprised I've not seen other discussions on this.

    If I own stock in Apple, and I OC at their store, what can they do? Does the manager (who works for the shareholders, right?) outrank me in this regard?

    Or am I now actually bound by company policy regarding employees maybe, and am worse off than before?

    Am I somehow seeing a false premise, or is this a really good question?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  2. #2
    Regular Member Frantic84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    TBG mentioned this on another thread, and I missed it at the time. I'm surprised I've not seen other discussions on this.

    If I own stock in Apple, and I OC at their store, what can they do? Does the manager (who works for the shareholders, right?) outrank me in this regard?

    Or am I now actually bound by company policy regarding employees maybe, and am worse off than before?

    Am I somehow seeing a false premise, or is this a really good question?
    In my opinion I would say that generally on the IN STORE level you are more a customer and should abide by the private property rights of said company. That said if you are a stock holder do you have a vote? if so bring it up and seek change for exemption or better yet to allow as a company OC to everyone.
    remove handgun registration in Clark County,NV

    2nd amendment in modern English: The people have the right to own and carry firearms, and it may not be violated because a well-equipped Militia is necessary for a State to remain secure and free.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    Opinion:

    Being a stockholder doesn't put you above company policy, it just allows you to vote on company policy (if you have voting shares).

    Does it make you different than a regular customer? No. Stockholder!=Employee.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

  4. #4
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Even more than do you have rights as a shareholder, does a corp. have the same rights as an individual? Unfortunately, wrongly in my opinion, SCOTUS said that Corporations are people too. I believe that the Bill of Rights was written for individuals specifically NOT the many. How can a Corporation be bestowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator? This is exactly why we have a republic and not a democracy. The individual MUST be protected from the whims of the many. The rights of a board of directors DO NOT trump my rights!

    Ask yourself this. We pretty much all agree that we have a right to carry in a public building donít we? One owned by the citizens and they have no right to interfere with that right. Why? because the rights of the individual are NOT trumped by the many (the state). Isn't it the same thing with a corporation who is owned by perhaps thousands or millions of citizens and who open their doors to the general public? How can this corporation require me to leave my rights at the door? There is a BIG difference between private personal property (Mom & Pop) and a publically held corporation. Corporate property that is open to the general public is not the same thing as my personal property rights. If we bestow individual rights on corporations on the same level as the individual, how far are we from bestowing those same rights upon government?

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Peoples Republic of North Las Vegas
    Posts
    109
    IANAL, but multiple Supreme Court decisions have ascertained that private property owners have the right to establish their own rules on their property whether publicly traded or not as long as they don't violate federal or state laws. The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms, NOT the right to violate other peoples private property rules. Same as free speech and yelling fire falsely in a crowded theater. Personally I think it sucks, but the hoplophobes don't understand the real world

    I am all for not shopping at NO GUNS stores, but I don't want to "force" my views on any private store.

    I want to "boil" the frog slowly before it is too late for them.

    1. Write letters to the local store manager

    2. No change to the rules, write the corporate headquarters

    3. No change, have the "Forum Owner" send a letter to CEO and show we have put you on a NO GUNS=NO SHOPPING list and have distributed your name to all our forum members and asked them to pass it on to all their friends, neighbors, military fraternities and relatives and to other pro 2nd amendment sites because we feel it is unsafe to shop at your store.

    4. Go to the store, buy hundreds to thousands of dollars of items and when you get to the checkout counter and BEFORE they start to ring up items ask to see the manager. When the manager comes, explain that your spouse/wife/friend just informed you that there was a NO GUNS sign at the front of the store and you have changed your mind and don't feel safe in a store that would allow criminals who don't care what your sign says to come in and shoot innocent people in a robbery. While waiting for the manager, take a picture of your purchases and send to the CEO with a letter of why you declined to complete your purchases.

    5. Write letters to the LVRJ and explain how unsafe YOU personally felt in XXX store by name and address as they think it's OK for criminals to come in to their store weapons but have no problem leaving you defenseless as they prohibit you a non criminal to defend your self.

    Enough people do that it will SLOWLY change as WE are trying to turn around a ship that has been heading in the wrong direction since 1964 when America started going to hell in a hand basket. They ONLY understand the bottom line. That's why the LEFT is so successful.

    NAVYBLUE
    Last edited by NAVYBLUE; 07-23-2012 at 03:49 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    To TBG's Argument about public Corps owned by Citizens and the Govt. owned by Citizens This "due Proccess" Claim has had some success particularly after the CIvil war. The big problem, or saving grace is The Constitution does not bind the arms of Corporations. It restricts the Government only. The recent SCOTUS case you brought up, Shows how important that becomes.

    * If Corps are held to the same constitutional limits as the Govt.
    * A decision making individuals and Corps. the same in entity, would have a very limiting effect on the rights of the people.
    * Remember if we limit ourselves, To the federal govt. level, the state excercises the rest of the power. You will correct me and say we the people are included in with the state. not if we Consent we are not, just look at human history.
    As for the cite on Civil war era, Check out the Cruishank (sp) and slaughterhouse cases.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    Even more than do you have rights as a shareholder, does a corp. have the same rights as an individual? Unfortunately, wrongly in my opinion, SCOTUS said that Corporations are people too.
    Agreed. I know a lot of righties were in support of this decision because it allowed corps to support political campaigns, but it was a bad decision for the US. It will be bad on so many levels for decades to come. The unintended consequences shall be many, not few.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    The rights of a board of directors DO NOT trump my rights!

    Ask yourself this. We pretty much all agree that we have a right to carry in a public building donít we? One owned by the citizens and they have no right to interfere with that right. Why? because the rights of the individual are NOT trumped by the many (the state). Isn't it the same thing with a corporation who is owned by perhaps thousands or millions of citizens and who open their doors to the general public? How can this corporation require me to leave my rights at the door? There is a BIG difference between private personal property (Mom & Pop) and a publically held corporation. Corporate property that is open to the general public is not the same thing as my personal property rights. If we bestow individual rights on corporations on the same level as the individual, how far are we from bestowing those same rights upon government?

    TBG
    Good point. I had to think about this. So if I understand your point here, it is to identify a publicly traded corporation (PTC) as something different than a private company, right? So a private company can exercise private property rights, but a
    PTC can't because it is publicly traded?

    Hmm.. No, I don't think I can accept that. The way I come to this conclusion is to try to find a way to be my own devils advocate. Lets say it is NOT 2a, but instead 1a that someone wants to exercise in the Apple Store. Should they have the right to picket in the showroom? I don't think so. I think (both constitutionally and philosophically) the PTC has the right to trespass them from the property. Can they picket outside, on the sidewalk? You bet. In fact, please do. In fact, exercise your 1a about your 2a outside on the sidewalk.

    As for the slippery slope argument of allowing corporations to deny me 2a while on their property turning into the government doing the same, I just don't see the path. Government is us. PTC's are not, although I understand your argument that by being PTC's, they are similar. I get that, but I don't think it is enough to force their hand on something like this. SEC requirements of Open Records? Sure, but that is there to protect investors from scams and such. Not really a constitutional argument, more of a mechanism to keep the whole PTC concept viable.

    I think the answer to this (and the CO incident is a good example of this), is Tim's answer. They can choose to not permit firearms, but they do so at their own peril/liability. In other words, if every one of the families and patrons of the theater that night sued the theater for denying them their ability to defend themselves, and making them defenseless victims, failing to provide a safe environment, etc, I think that is the proper approach. Leverage liability. Hell, the reason that they deny OC/CC in the first place is probably a fear of liability. So that just needs to be balanced against an equal liability. If the liability for disarming your patrons is the same as leaving well enough alone, then it's a wash. The crazy part is that I can't see anyone making an argument of liability on the part of the theater if they didn't deny OC/CC. In other words, they don't have to PERMIT it. It's already constitutionally protected. Like Walmart, the right policy is no policy.

    Now, I am not naive enough to think that Cinemark would just acquiesce and allow OC/CC. No, they would try to put in metal detectors. But there are multiple problems with that. First, it will reduce ticket sales. Nobody likes going through security. We do it at the airport because we have little choice. But at the theater? **** that. I'll wait for DVD. Also, guns aren't the only hazard that patrons are potentially exposed to. There are plenty of things that would pass through a metal detector. But a gun still has a chance of stopping the assailaint.

    I think the message that we need to stick to on this front is this:

    1. The best policy is no policy.
    2. If you disarm me, I will not do business with you if I can help it.
    3. If you disarm me, and I DO choose to do business with you anyway, you are on the hook for my safety.
    4. I will actively seek out business that respect my rights, and I will let them know that I chose them, at least in part, based on that.

    I am open to the topic, but I am unconvinced as of yet. But you did get me thinking about it in a way I had not previously considered.

  8. #8
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    The Constitution does not bind the arms of Corporations. It restricts the Government only. The recent SCOTUS case you brought up, Shows how important that becomes.

    .
    You are correct when you say that the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, does not bind the arms of corporations, but neither does it grant them life. A corporation is an artificial (read: manmade) entity and therefore not endowed with our unalienable rights.

    You are correct when you say it binds the hands of government but it also acknowledges those individual rights that the government may not usurp. As stated in our Declaration of Independence how can an artificial entity enjoy the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

    I realize that corp. rights are the law of the land but I on a personal level find it reprehensible. I am a man, I have life and I do not bow before anything man made.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    I realize that corp. rights are the law of the land but I on a personal level find it reprehensible. I am a man, I have life and I do not bow before anything man made.

    TBG
    Nod. +1

  10. #10
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post

    Lets say it is NOT 2a, but instead 1a that someone wants to exercise in the Apple Store. Should they have the right to picket in the showroom?
    First let me say one quick thing about the 1A in general. The free speech portion of the Constitution is in regard to the sharing of ideas, redress of grievances (government), and freedom of the press. It is not about being able to say anything you want, anyplace you want, anytime you want, anyway you want.

    In answer to your question, No. Do you have a right to picket in the chamber of your local city council? You will be tossed out. Protest in that manner, in that place would disrupt the right of other people (Individuals) to conduct their business. In that instance you would have other, better avenues to get your message accross.

    Let's look at it this way. I go into that same Apple store with a "T" shirt that says "ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE IRS". Can they tell me I can't shop the store while wearing that shirt, hell no! In this regard I am exercising my sharing of ideas without disrupting the commerce of other of my fellow citizens. My rights are preserved without stomping on someone else’s.

    Though I feel strongly about this issue, let me also say that with the world in the shape it's in, the issues facing us, this is at the bottom of my list of things to spend too much time on. In other words it's a good discussion topic but I would not be writing my representatives about it.

    TBG
    Last edited by The Big Guy; 07-24-2012 at 04:36 PM.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    First let me say one quick thing about the 1A in general. The free speech portion of the Constitution is in regard to the sharing of ideas, redress of grievances (government), and freedom of the press. It is not about being able to say anything you want, anyplace you want, anytime you want, anyway you want.

    In answer to your question, No. Do you have a right to picket in the chamber of your local city council? You will be tossed out. Protest in that manner, in that place would disrupt the right of other people (Individuals) to conduct their business. In that instance you would have other, better avenues to get your message accross.

    Let's look at it this way. I go into that same Apple store with a "T" shirt that says "ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE IRS". Can they tell me I can't shop the store while wearing that shirt, hell no! In this regard I am exercising my sharing of ideas without disrupting the commerce of other of my fellow citizens. My rights are preserved without stomping on someone elseís.

    Though I feel strongly about this issue, let me also say that with the world in the shape it's in, the issues facing us, this is at the bottom of my list of things to spend too much time on. In other words it's a good discussion topic but I would not be writing my representatives about it.

    TBG
    If you are correct, the "NO SHOES NO SHIRTS NO SERVICE" signs at the 7-11 are unconstitutional? Or am I mistaken?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Frantic84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    If you are correct, the "NO SHOES NO SHIRTS NO SERVICE" signs at the 7-11 are unconstitutional? Or am I mistaken?
    If I remember correctly that is a health/safety /insurance issue
    remove handgun registration in Clark County,NV

    2nd amendment in modern English: The people have the right to own and carry firearms, and it may not be violated because a well-equipped Militia is necessary for a State to remain secure and free.

  13. #13
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    If you are correct, the "NO SHOES NO SHIRTS NO SERVICE" signs at the 7-11 are unconstitutional? Or am I mistaken?
    I don't know of any one of the bill of rights that would cover that. I can't imagine given the time the Constitution was written that the framers could have ever thought anyone would think that was ok. They I'm sure would not have thought porn was a protected method of free speech either and could never have comprehended otherwise.

    Same with the size and scope of modern day international corporations. They did however fear the coroprate state.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    [QUOTE=Frantic84;1794323]If I remember correctly that is a health/safety /insurance issue.

    Can't they all? If I have an apple store, with a black employee, and TBG walks in with a KKK support shirt, can I construe that as a safety issue?

    He sees the first amendment. He would be OK if it were on property occupied by a political subdivision of the govt. It is a property issue! you have no right to someones elses property!

    Since the first ammendment was brought up, can someone point out where it is stated thaat the people, are beholdinfg to it?

  15. #15
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    [QUOTE=DON`T TREAD ON ME;1794374]
    Quote Originally Posted by Frantic84 View Post
    If I remember correctly that is a health/safety /insurance issue.

    Can't they all? If I have an apple store, with a black employee, and TBG walks in with a KKK support shirt, can I construe that as a safety issue?

    He sees the first amendment. He would be OK if it were on property occupied by a political subdivision of the govt. It is a property issue! you have no right to someones elses property!

    Since the first ammendment was brought up, can someone point out where it is stated thaat the people, are beholdinfg to it?
    With regard to the KKK shirt, no, not without some overt action by the person so wearing it.

    With regard to "you have no right to someone elseís property". It is not a taking. It is simply using property for a commercial purpose after being invited in.

    Who is this someone? "Someone" by my limited definition is a person. Giving human rights to an entity created by government on paper is disturbing to me.

    Where do property rights end? Carrying it to the ridiculous extreme, can I say you have no right to your life while on my property? Can I say you can't breathe while on my property? Can I say wheelchairs or crutches are not allowed because you might trip someone? Blind people are not allowed because they may run into another customer while in my store? What about a young black male that looks like he may be a gang banger? "His presence scares other customers in my store and I don't know if he is going to pull a gun and rob the place in spite of my NO FIREARMS allowed sign".

    My question is, are property rights the be all end all of rights? Do property rights trump all other rights?

    My answer is, if it is private, meaning personal property, mostly yes but even that has limits. If it is corporate property, only when it comes down to the activity or presence is a direct interference or imminent danger to other people so using that property.

    It is a dilemma to us mere mortals that we have a hard time delineating where the line is, but it is good that reasonable men and women can ponder it in the light of day.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    Here's a thought on another way to look at this:

    If I understood correctly, you support the private property rights of an individual, right?

    So how is a corporation different than an individual, for this particular case? In other words, a corporation is just a collection of people, who have elected to have their collective wishes acted out by a board of directors, etc. When you get right down to it, a mom&pop is something of a 2-person corp, right? So at what point does the mom&pop lose their private property rights? When they bring their son into it? Or his friend? Or 3 million of their closest friends and neighbors?

    Now, with that said, this example does not extend to voting for political offices and such (and by extension, campaign support), because the individuals that make up the corp get 1 vote, and it is direct, not proxied.

    Corporations are not people, but they can carry out the will of their ownership.

    I'm not really disagreeing with your philosophy, more just spitballin' different angles to the discussion.

  17. #17
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    Here's a thought on another way to look at this:

    If I understood correctly, you support the private property rights of an individual, right?

    So how is a corporation different than an individual, for this particular case? In other words, a corporation is just a collection of people, who have elected to have their collective wishes acted out by a board of directors, etc. When you get right down to it, a mom&pop is something of a 2-person corp, right? So at what point does the mom&pop lose their private property rights? When they bring their son into it? Or his friend? Or 3 million of their closest friends and neighbors?

    Now, with that said, this example does not extend to voting for political offices and such (and by extension, campaign support), because the individuals that make up the corp get 1 vote, and it is direct, not proxied.

    Corporations are not people, but they can carry out the will of their ownership.

    I'm not really disagreeing with your philosophy, more just spitballin' different angles to the discussion.
    What makes you believe they are carrying out the will of the ownership (stockholders)? We can't even the gubment to do our bidding (joke, sort of).

    This is an example of where do you draw the line. Yes, Mom/Pop may be incorporated but for all general purposes it is wholly owned. A publically traded corporation is an animal unto itself.

    You put another wild thought into my pea size brain. If a publically traded corporation is bestowed the rights of a living breathing being with regard to one of our unalienable rights and they are treated as an individual with regard to property, by extension shouldn't they be afforded all of our individual rights?

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    If I remember correctly, in the campaign fund case that has you seeing red, The SCOTUS used a narrower criteria than "bestowing" living breathing rights on corps. the question asked and answered, as I remember was for the sake of donating money to a candidate, does a corporation perform the same role as a person who is the same as a sole proprieter.

    Remember that many people are tied to their businesses, and vice versa. should the structure of your business prevent or limit you from donating to the candidate of your choice?
    Scenario
    I cashed in my retirement,(which was based on publicly traded commodities,) and purchased a hot dog cart, as a sole proprieter. Paid the county for a license and worked a deal with the county to rent a piece of "easement" on a main street to put my hot dog cart on. Business goes good, so I buy a deluxe Dog cart, couldn't afford it all in one shot so I brought in an investor, the bank. Things are going good but I am getting "copy cats" springing up. In an effort to push back my competition, I take in a partner, change from sole proprieter to LLC and expand my business. The partner invested capital in my company and together we kicked butt on the competition, took over the town and started looking outward. We developed a franchise plan and implemented it, taking on investers/franchisees from all the states. Soon the formula was so succsessfull we were offered a position of trade with Dow Jones, we eventually accepted and grew evem more. Now Treads hot dog stands are everywhere, ......... My question is, at what point did I lose the right to not serve someone because I found them annoying?

  19. #19
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    If I remember correctly, in the campaign fund case that has you seeing red, The SCOTUS used a narrower criteria than "bestowing" living breathing rights on corps. the question asked and answered, as I remember was for the sake of donating money to a candidate, does a corporation perform the same role as a person who is the same as a sole proprieter.

    Remember that many people are tied to their businesses, and vice versa. should the structure of your business prevent or limit you from donating to the candidate of your choice?
    Scenario
    I cashed in my retirement,(which was based on publicly traded commodities,) and purchased a hot dog cart, as a sole proprieter. Paid the county for a license and worked a deal with the county to rent a piece of "easement" on a main street to put my hot dog cart on. Business goes good, so I buy a deluxe Dog cart, couldn't afford it all in one shot so I brought in an investor, the bank. Things are going good but I am getting "copy cats" springing up. In an effort to push back my competition, I take in a partner, change from sole proprieter to LLC and expand my business. The partner invested capital in my company and together we kicked butt on the competition, took over the town and started looking outward. We developed a franchise plan and implemented it, taking on investers/franchisees from all the states. Soon the formula was so succsessfull we were offered a position of trade with Dow Jones, we eventually accepted and grew evem more. Now Treads hot dog stands are everywhere, ......... My question is, at what point did I lose the right to not serve someone because I found them annoying?
    Where do you draw the line? In my mind, when you no longer were wholly owned and became publically traded. The company has gone from being your alter ego to a corporation with a corporate government (board of directors and executive branch) who are responsible to the citizens (stockholders) who the corporate govenment works for.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  20. #20
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Judge Napolitano sums things up nicely. I admire him very much. I don't completely agree with him as I think an individualís private property is sacred be it home or business. However he certainly makes me think about even my limited stand. If you've seen this, it is worth watching again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE

    I was thinking about the discussion on this thread. What comes to mind is that we are dissolving this nation as founded. In my opinion the turning point was when, and I can't put a finger on exactly when it happened as it is more of a slippery slope, we started to think less in terms of the individual and more about the collective. This was founded as a nation of sovereigns where the individual was of most importance. That old life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing. It continues to get worse as we stay this path. When we grant to the collective what once was reserved to us as free citizens then I believe this once great nation is lost. We became the greatest nation on earth not by the collective but by the individual.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    Hmm, you are right very well said. "Public accommodation" is a good way to explain it. So, I guess a way I can accept this would be to put it this way: A public accommodation (a store that is open to the general public) cannot deny a constitutionally protected individual right, as long as that right does not infringe upon the rights of other patrons.

    In other words, you still can't picket. :-)

    That's what I needed, you've changed my mind. :-)

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

  22. #22
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    Hmm, you are right very well said. "Public accommodation" is a good way to explain it. So, I guess a way I can accept this would be to put it this way: A public accommodation (a store that is open to the general public) cannot deny a constitutionally protected individual right, as long as that right does not infringe upon the rights of other patrons.

    In other words, you still can't picket. :-)

    That's what I needed, you've changed my mind. :-)

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    It was what I was trying to say all along but I just don't have the talent of communication that the Judge has. He of course believes ownership does not matter, private or corporation and of that I'm still not convinced but he does make me think. The only words I knew to use was "open to the public". Put another way, if you put your hook in the water you can't complain when you catch a carp. If you open your doors to the public, you have to take me as I am with all my rights intact.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    You are right about the individual decreasing and the collective increasing. Since I have own a business, I come from that angle, It seems like you yearn for the Mom and Pop store days on one hand, yet want to tell people who have mortgaged their home and future to take on a risk, who their clientele should be. That behavior disincentives people from taking the risk! Who wants to Open a sleepy little wine /martini cottage on the roadway back from the vineyard just to find out it is a good motorcycle road and the "patch clubs" decide they like your place more than you do and they will "exercise their rights" to ensure you serve them and their friends. (or vice versa)

    What happens here is the shift from interaction to "policy" This is another area that is problematic. You insert your rights and force the issue, take the shopkeeper out of play and then wonder ten years later why you are shopping in a "big box store" with little service and much Policy.

    Another example, Bob Irwins CCW class is free, and misleading. we have all heard stories of the misinformation that perpetuates there. If I renew my CCW, I choose to go see Mac. not try to change Bob. The fact is Every time you insist on making someone "respect" your rights there is a downside.

    1. The merchant is being told how to run their business.
    2. There is certainly another like minded merchant who is not getting business while we "convert" a merchant who is likely to smile in our face, while he contributes YOUR money to the Brady campaign.
    3. We force the decision makers out of business, the people who opened their doors as a "American dream" are pummeled everyday by regulations, from ADA to OSHA, and then they get told who they need to do business with?

    If someone (non government) does not like my firearm, I apologize, and leave. They do not receive a letter, or a reason to dislike me. My time is better spent in my book, looking for a business that caters to my needs. I am thankful, not resentful to the clerk who asks me to leave.

    1. He let me know that I was in a gun free zone, (dangerous area!)
    2. let me know that I was not supporting my cause. When I could be.

    Lets put the shoe on the other foot.
    So you mortgage your home and retirement. Open your retail store in the place you carefully chose to obtain the clientele that you selected to sell to, Get your occupancy and go through the Govt. alphabet soup of agencies, Get your OC friendly signs put up, just to have a couple of cats in Birkenstocks (with socks) and Peace T- shirts come in and tell you that they do not want to do business in your store because of your OC policy. Do you let them run your place? Will you try to "placate" them? Do you have bigger things pending? Would trhere time be better spent supporting the retailer of their choice, are they going to convince you that OC is bad?

    I think if a merchant opens the door and is willing to hear similar to what PT's did that's not a bad thing, and it went ok when we went there. But all night long we were down there pushing ourselves on PT's, while Magoo's who doesn't flinch and is supportive, went without all the money that could have gone to an established friendly.

    It might be better to have a OC friendly list than the usual "Anti" list.

  24. #24
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    I think if a merchant opens the door and is willing to hear similar to what PT's did that's not a bad thing, and it went ok when we went there. But all night long we were down there pushing ourselves on PT's, while Magoo's who doesn't flinch and is supportive, went without all the money that could have gone to an established friendly.

    It might be better to have a OC friendly list than the usual "Anti" list.
    By convincing PT's to get on board with us, it gives Magoo's less incentive to change their policy. In the end, we must strive to make forward progress with our cause. Yes we should patronize those establishments that honor our rights, but we have to move to see to it that more are brought on board. If we don't we will lose by attrition. The goal has to be to make OC the norm. To do that, we need more OC'ers and more places to carry in. When you guy's got PT's in line you did the cause a great service and helped assure our future.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487
    A similar example is Walmart. By Walmart having a documented policy of respect for local law, that puts every single one of their competitors on the hot seat. That goes the same for any other line of business.

    "I could take my money to x, y, or z, because they respect my rights. But I would like to take it to you, because you have good nachos, and today, I am in the mood for nachos."


    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •