Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Catfish Cove Moore Ok --Gun Buster Sign--

  1. #1
    Regular Member arc37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    okc
    Posts
    11

    Catfish Cove Moore Ok --Gun Buster Sign--

    Just drove of one of my favorite places to eat. Catfish Cove in Moore off of 19th. I have emailed and called this establishment and tactfully plead my case. She is supposed to email back with their descisions.

  2. #2
    Regular Member RugerP95DC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Board Of Directors OKOCA
    Posts
    154
    I really hope they change their mind, I love that place

  3. #3
    Regular Member arc37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    okc
    Posts
    11

    Thumbs up Catfish Cove Moore OK

    These ladies was a real pleasure and enjoyable to talk to and their sign is coming down YAAHOO.

  4. #4
    Regular Member RugerP95DC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Board Of Directors OKOCA
    Posts
    154
    awesome good job sir

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    suburban Nashville TN
    Posts
    58

    Gun Buster sign

    Was this another Joe Lester CCSO sign ?

    If so, just another reason to complain to the County Commissioners about his actions. His job is to enforce the law and apprehend violators, not to make a decision about where citizens should be PERMITTED to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and Oklahoma Statutes. Personally, I think he's got a lot of nerve going out doing this....

  6. #6
    Regular Member RugerP95DC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Board Of Directors OKOCA
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by docachna View Post
    Was this another Joe Lester CCSO sign ?

    If so, just another reason to complain to the County Commissioners about his actions. His job is to enforce the law and apprehend violators, not to make a decision about where citizens should be PERMITTED to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and Oklahoma Statutes. Personally, I think he's got a lot of nerve going out doing this....
    I don't believe so, I ate lunch there today and thanked the management for taking down their sign and as always open carried, food was great as usual!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by docachna View Post
    Was this another Joe Lester CCSO sign ?

    If so, just another reason to complain to the County Commissioners about his actions. His job is to enforce the law and apprehend violators, not to make a decision about where citizens should be PERMITTED to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and Oklahoma Statutes. Personally, I think he's got a lot of nerve going out doing this....
    Joe Lester CCSO?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Joe Lester CCSO?
    Joe Lester, Cleveland County Sheriff
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  9. #9
    Regular Member RugerP95DC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Board Of Directors OKOCA
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    Joe Lester, Cleveland County Sheriff
    Believe me, if that had been a CCSO sign I would have been all over it like stink on SH$%!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    And given this hate for Joe, what stunt exactly did he try to pull?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    And given this hate for Joe, what stunt exactly did he try to pull?
    Gunbuster signs started going up and they had his name on them as if he was endorsing them.

    Allegedly, he was taking them around to businesses in smaller cities and getting businesses to post them due to "public safety". From what I hear, he told one manager it was to protect unarmed patrons of the store just in case an armed citizen came in, had a mental breakdown and started shooting at people. Must be an open carry thing because that scenario would never have been able to happen with a CCer.

    His job is to enforce the law, not push his own beliefs. To top it off, some of the stores he got to post, did so against corporate policy. Thanks to Dustin's efforts, his signs have been coming down.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    suburban Nashville TN
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    And given this hate for Joe, what stunt exactly did he try to pull?
    If you're talking to me, I don't hate Joe Lester. I don't even know him. What I hate is public officials acting as if they're protecting the public by limiting the rights of citizens to engage in perfectly lawful activities, under the cover of "promoting safety". Law enforcement is supposed to protect the rights of ALL citizens. Three kinds of hell would break out if a county sheriff were to encourage merchants to prohibit entry to those citizens who chose to exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech in their store (not in a disruptive manner, simply exercising their right). However, for some reason, many seem to think that selecting those who exercise THIS right, and working to encourage merchants to exclude them from their stores, is just fine.

    Don't misunderstand - I support the right of a property owner (merchant) to do what he pleases with his store. If he chooses to ban CC , or OC, his store - his right - his bottom line. He can do as he pleases. What GALLS me is an elected official using tax dollars to simply publicize his name on a sign on the door, and get what he considers "good pub" by acting as if he's actually DOING something, when in reality, all he's doing is another libtard "feel-good" act. He knows good and well that CC and OC licensees are not the folks he really needs to worry about, but he's pandering to the left by acting as if barring them from CC or OC in stores is actually going to have one ounce of effect on public safety. Those of us on here know full well that actually, the very opposite may be true. Just look at the Aurora theater; Virginia Tech; Columbine; the list goes on and on. Banning guns from facilities merely gives free rein to the bad guy to come in and do as they please, knowing they are unopposed by anyone with the ability to do anything meaningful to stop them.

  13. #13
    Regular Member RugerP95DC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Board Of Directors OKOCA
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    And given this hate for Joe, what stunt exactly did he try to pull?
    I do not hate Sheriff Lester but I do have issues with his gun buster signs.

    https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=1&theater

  14. #14
    Regular Member Robert318's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Choctaw, OK
    Posts
    158

    They can do as they please

    Quote Originally Posted by docachna View Post
    Don't misunderstand - I support the right of a property owner (merchant) to do what he pleases with his store. If he chooses to ban CC , or OC, his store - his right - his bottom line. He can do as he pleases. What GALLS me is an elected official using tax dollars to simply publicize his name on a sign on the door, and get what he considers "good pub" by acting as if he's actually DOING something, when in reality, all he's doing is another libtard "feel-good" act. He knows good and well that CC and OC licensees are not the folks he really needs to worry about, but he's pandering to the left by acting as if barring them from CC or OC in stores is actually going to have one ounce of effect on public safety. Those of us on here know full well that actually, the very opposite may be true. Just look at the Aurora theater; Virginia Tech; Columbine; the list goes on and on. Banning guns from facilities merely gives free rein to the bad guy to come in and do as they please, knowing they are unopposed by anyone with the ability to do anything meaningful to stop them.
    Ok I will try to be as nice as I can about this but the fact is this subject really burns my a.s.s..

    So your not alone with that comment "a buisness owner/merchant has the right to do as they please" in a business thats open to the public. This has been an issue for many people in many ways for a very long time, too long.

    Let me ask some basic questions on this topic. So with this supposed right what would happen in todays time if a merchant denied or banned someone from entering their semi-private (privately owned but open to the public) business because of the color of their skin or their religious affiliations (if obvious because of an article of clothing), or because of their sex, or because a disability? Oh did I forget to mention it might offend or scare one of the other patrons. Would that not start a host of roars from all over the spectrum? Well then how is it ok for them to deny/ban someone because they chose to take their own safety in their own hands by exercising a right not only given by the creator but also in the law of the land(2nd Admendment)? The only way I see that a business owner, merchant, employer should have the right to deny someone from entering or remaining on their property that is open to the public at large is if the person(s) are committing some criminal offense or if they are considered a private club requiring a membership (therfore no longer semi-private). Let us remember that discrimination is not only a wrong and an injustice but is just as hurtful as words can be not only to people but to the "rights" of all people. No matter what you sugar coat it with or try to paint it with a t.u.r.d is still a t.u.r.d and as long as you are willing to buy it someone will try and sell it to you.

    Private property on the other hand that is not open to the public at large is a different story and I do believe the right to ban or disallow someone on or in is essential in maintaining our liberties. But we still have laws that tell people what they cannot do. One example in recent history is an ordinance in Norman telling people they can have only four hens and no roosters and the coop has to be 25 feet from the property line. So what happened to owners doing as they please, right? So someone can say yes you can but wait no you cant. Is there something in the water or some one with a stupid stick going around hitting people, because that sure sounds like a big piece of stupid to me. Its ok for you but not ok for him or its ok for me but not for you. I can crap where and when I want to but you have to wait and I'll tell you when and where.

    I do agree with the pledge of alliegance in the statement "one nation under God with Liberty and Justice for all". But if we are going to allow BS like this then something tells me we are in for a rude awakening. Where do we draw the line? So laws are no longer for telling us what we cant do but for telling us what we can. If private land owners can be told they cant do something be it in city limits or in the country then business owners can be told they cant also. Oh wait they do get told they cant, they cant put up signs higher than x or closer to the street than x or they cant false advertise,etc., well that contradicts the do as they please part. But oh scary guns from scarry people who have a history of following the law, thats different it might scare off patrons. Dont you know business and economics is far more important than civil liberties. Or the best one I think I have heard so far is its a liability issuse, someone might try and sue me if someone else uses their gun for self defense and I just dont want to take that chance ( screw your safety). If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck odds are its a duck. I just try to call it like I see it and I am calling their right to ban the right of the people to protect themselves at all times as one big steaming pile of crap with nuts included!

    God bless and help us all.
    Stay safe and God bless.

    Everyone will hate you because of me.
    But not a hair of your head will perish.
    Stand firm, and you will win life.
    (Luke 21:17-19 NIV)

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

    "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.",
    "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."Thomas Jefferson

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Robert, I both agree and disagree with what you're saying. I agree that if one were to discriminate based on those "protected" subjects that there would be a huge issue both legally and civilally. And as such I think that NO ONE should be able to be discriminated against (though don't confuse unqualified for the job as discrimination; talking about men that want to be hooters waitresses and similar situations). But I also don't agree with this (though it is the only fair way of doing things imo). If it is private property, even if it's open to the public, then they should be able to discriminate against people for whatever reason. That isn't to say that the people can't protest such actions, simply that the government shouldn't be able to dictate who they have to allow into their establishment.

    So, imo, either they should be able to discriminate against all or none. Get rid of the "special" groups.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    I'm going to go sleep in some store tonight. It's open to the public after all. The list goes on and on what a business can prevent people from doing, and unless you are going to go out and scream about how they can't do those things also then I think you're only being selective because you want special treatment. So much for wanting to be accepted if you want to be treated special.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk001 View Post
    I'm going to go sleep in some store tonight. It's open to the public after all. The list goes on and on what a business can prevent people from doing, and unless you are going to go out and scream about how they can't do those things also then I think you're only being selective because you want special treatment. So much for wanting to be accepted if you want to be treated special.
    His point is that they can't discriminate against various other rights, but yet we allow ourselves to be discriminated against for peacefully exercising our rights. Personally I think that they should be able to discriminate against anyone they choose for any reason they choose. Of course this wouldn't sit well with those that have gotten special treatment, but I feel that is the right of property owners.

  18. #18
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    His point is that they can't discriminate against various other rights, but yet we allow ourselves to be discriminated against for peacefully exercising our rights. Personally I think that they should be able to discriminate against anyone they choose for any reason they choose. Of course this wouldn't sit well with those that have gotten special treatment, but I feel that is the right of property owners.
    Are you saying that if a hotel refused to rent a room to someone because they are confined to a wheelchair, that's ok with you? Or if a restaurant refused to serve food to a family because they are Korean American? Would you support that? How about making black people ride in the back of a Greyhound bus? Denying a blind person the ability to fly on a commercial passenger airline because they use a service dog? Or how about an apartment manager refusing to show an apartment to someone because they attend a Catholic church? There is some discrimination that we as a society have decided is not acceptable. As I believe it should be.

    Owning a gun is not a protected class. It's not going to be a protected class, because you can choose not to carry it into a business where you have been put on notice that it's not welcome. In most cases, you can also choose to do business somewhere else that is more in line with what you believe.

    I don't think that we are harassing any businesses. That is not the intent of the OKOCA. What we are doing is to provide thoughtful and reasoned information on why we believe that limiting the self defense rights of their clientele is a bad idea. If they decide to see things our way, great. We reward them with our continued patronage. If they do not see things our way, and choose to continue with the victim disarmament zone nonsense, then we can choose to comply with their wishes, or to find someone else to spend our money with. Either way, we are honoring their private property rights as enumerated in Oklahoma state law.

    That's it. That's all. No rights are being violated, no harassment is happening.

    The issue with Cleveland County, is that we PERCEIVE that: 1) An official government agency is going around pressuring businesses to create fallacious victim disarmament zones, and 2)We believe that their signs are misquoting state law in order to create the illusion that their signs hold weight of law, when in fact, they may not.
    Last edited by okiebryan; 11-17-2012 at 10:41 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Robert318's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Choctaw, OK
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by okiebryan View Post
    Are you saying that if a hotel refused to rent a room to someone because they are confined to a wheelchair, that's ok with you? Or if a restaurant refused to serve food to a family because they are Korean American? Would you support that? How about making black people ride in the back of a Greyhound bus? Denying a blind person the ability to fly on a commercial passenger airline because they use a service dog? Or how about an apartment manager refusing to show an apartment to someone because they attend a Catholic church? There is some discrimination that we as a society have decided is not acceptable. As I believe it should be.

    Owning a gun is not a protected class. It's not going to be a protected class, because you can choose not to carry it into a business where you have been put on notice that it's not welcome. In most cases, you can also choose to do business somewhere else that is more in line with what you believe.

    I don't think that we are harassing any businesses. That is not the intent of the OKOCA. What we are doing is to provide thoughtful and reasoned information on why we believe that limiting the self defense rights of their clientele is a bad idea. If they decide to see things our way, great. We reward them with our continued patronage. If they do not see things our way, and choose to continue with the victim disarmament zone nonsense, then we can choose to comply with their wishes, or to find someone else to spend our money with. Either way, we are honoring their private property rights as enumerated in Oklahoma state law.

    That's it. That's all. No rights are being violated, no harassment is happening.

    The issue with Cleveland County, is that we PERCEIVE that: 1) An official government agency is going around pressuring businesses to create fallacious victim disarmament zones, and 2)We believe that their signs are misquoting state law in order to create the illusion that their signs hold weight of law, when in fact, they may not.
    Yes, I agree with that with one slight possible misunderstanding. Although gun ownership or the carry of a firearm is not a class, my understanding is like those various class of people being protected from discrimination under law the 2nd amendment under the bill of rights is also law. Therefore should also afford those that so chose to cc or oc should also be protected. However for whatever reasons it was specifically written that they can chose to ban lawful weapons in their buildings. And as I have said before though I may not agree with that right I do respect others and will respect their wishes and take my business elsewhere.

    Stay safe and God bless.
    Stay safe and God bless.

    Everyone will hate you because of me.
    But not a hair of your head will perish.
    Stand firm, and you will win life.
    (Luke 21:17-19 NIV)

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

    "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.",
    "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449
    The bill of rights only restricts Government from doing certain things to "the people". The 1st amendment protects people from being arrested for saying unpopular things. It does not protect you from all consequences for your speech. For instance, if a business owner publicly stated that they think child molestation should be legalized, I'd fully expect they would lose most, if not all of their customers. But they could not be arrested by the government for that. The 1st also protects people's right to believe in and worship their creator (or to believe nothing) without GOVERNMENT sponsorship or interference. The 1st amendment DOES NOT prevent you from being asked to leave Walmart for going around their store telling other customers how much Walmart sucks, or even how prices are better at Target.

    The 2nd amendment has not been forced on the states completely by the Supreme Court, like others have...that is hopefully happening now in regards to Chicago and Illinois. It does not guarantee you the right to go onto other people's private property while armed.

    Another example is the 4th amendment. It protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures BY THE GOVERNMENT and IT'S AGENTS. It does not protect you from your employer, or protect kids from their parents.

    I could go on, but the bottom line is that the bill of rights only limit the power of GOVERNMENT.
    Last edited by okiebryan; 11-17-2012 at 11:24 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member RugerP95DC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Board Of Directors OKOCA
    Posts
    154
    The issue with Cleveland County, is that we PERCEIVE that: 1) An official government agency is going around pressuring businesses to create fallacious victim disarmament zones, and 2)We believe that their signs are misquoting state law in order to create the illusion that their signs hold weight of law, when in fact, they may not.[/QUOTE]

    I agree with you, also there are other questions, who paid for these signs, how many were made, how were they dispersed, why is Sheriff Lester the only Sheriff in the state doing this.

    Norman PD, the largest law enforcement agency in Cleveland County has been very receptive to the new law, but yet, the chief law enforcement agency for the county posts thse signs, some in places where it is in violation of their company corporate policy????

    If deputies are passing these signs out to buisnesses during time which they should be on patrol, that is a whole other can of worms.

    I have no issue with a buisness posting a no firearms sign, my issue is with an elected official pushing a political opionion on a law he should be enforceing, and using tax payer money to do it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Robert318's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Choctaw, OK
    Posts
    158
    Ok I can understand the Walmart scenario but does that also include someone exercising there religious speech? Also I had the impression that when they wrote the SDA that were over stepping their authority by adding that wording.

    They wrote in the intent that;
    TITLE 21 § 1290.25 LEGISLATIVE INTENT
    The Oklahoma Self- Defense Act shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection. The provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act are cumulative to existing rights to bear arms and nothing in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall impair or diminish those rights.

    And then they also wrote;
    TITLE 21 § 1290.22 BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS
    A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self- Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.
    And therefore imo should read unlawful weapons.

    1290.22 seemed to contradict 1290.25 in that 1290.22 impairs or diminishes the right to bear arms.

    So what are the laws that prohibit owners from discriminating on race or religion etc if not the bill of rights? I know about the labor laws against such things but those are for employees not patrons. Also the disabilities act not only protects the labor side but also provides for accessibility to the property mind you that it's public accessible private property or rental property and not ones private residence that those laws are enforceable on. I'm not aware of any other law that specifically allows a business to say that can ban someone from praising God (1st amendment)in their store like 1290.22 says they can against lawful weapons (2nd amendment).

    Note that they titled it business owners not propery owners which also gives the impression of contradicting the intent to insure 2nd amendment rights. Now I also must say that it is not my desire to deny business owners or employers the right to protect their place or property nor is it my desire to deny the right for individuals the ability to protect themselves without having to endure undeserved hardships in that they have to sacrifice an otherwise good job or store just to ensure they can defend themselves should the need arise. But let's be realistic the banning of lawful weapons does not make anyone safer but more vulnerable and has the effect of denying our right to bear arms. Yeah we can shop somewhere else or go work somewhere else, but if they are the only supplier in the region or an employer can hang that over people's heads it has the effect of causing people to disarm or go jobless or pay higher prices to get the specialty items from farther away, how does that help business or economy or more importantly anyones safety?
    Stay safe and God bless.

    Everyone will hate you because of me.
    But not a hair of your head will perish.
    Stand firm, and you will win life.
    (Luke 21:17-19 NIV)

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

    "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.",
    "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."Thomas Jefferson

  23. #23
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449
    You asked a lot of questions. I'll try to address them one by one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert318 View Post
    Ok I can understand the Walmart scenario but does that also include someone exercising there religious speech?
    Your 1A freedom of speech only protects you from the government arresting you for the content of your speech. If you are on private property (ie Walmart) and are making a scene and are asked to leave and refuse to do so, you can be arrested for trespassing. Except for some very specific circumstances, generally you could not be legally forced to leave from a truly public place, like a city park or the steps of the state capitol for expressing religious or political speech.

    Also I had the impression that when they wrote the SDA that were over stepping their authority by adding that wording.

    They wrote in the intent that;
    TITLE 21 § 1290.25 LEGISLATIVE INTENT
    The Oklahoma Self- Defense Act shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection. The provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act are cumulative to existing rights to bear arms and nothing in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall impair or diminish those rights.
    All this means is that any existing gun owners rights that were in effect before the SDA were still in effect (ie, things that were allowed like having a gun in your home or business, like open carrying a rifle while hunting, etc)

    And then they also wrote;
    TITLE 21 § 1290.22 BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS
    A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self- Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.
    And therefore imo should read unlawful weapons.

    1290.22 seemed to contradict 1290.25 in that 1290.22 impairs or diminishes the right to bear arms.
    See what I wrote above... I think you are reading too much into the "intent of the legislature" part.
    So what are the laws that prohibit owners from discriminating on race or religion etc if not the bill of rights? I know about the labor laws against such things but those are for employees not patrons.
    Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in places of public accommodation, stating, ―[a]ll persons shall be entitled to
    the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
    accommodation . . . without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
    Also the disabilities act not only protects the labor side but also provides for accessibility to the property mind you that it's public accessible private property or rental property and not ones private residence that those laws are enforceable on.
    The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. It also applies to the United States Congress.

    To be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.
    I'm not aware of any other law that specifically allows a business to say that can ban someone from praising God (1st amendment)in their store like 1290.22 says they can against lawful weapons (2nd amendment).
    This isn't really a good analogy. I mean, Title II prevents denying someone service under public accomodation for their religion, but if you made a scene, you could be thrown out and trespassed if you refused to leave.

    Note that they titled it business owners not propery owners which also gives the impression of contradicting the intent to insure 2nd amendment rights. Now I also must say that it is not my desire to deny business owners or employers the right to protect their place or property nor is it my desire to deny the right for individuals the ability to protect themselves without having to endure undeserved hardships in that they have to sacrifice an otherwise good job or store just to ensure they can defend themselves should the need arise. But let's be realistic the banning of lawful weapons does not make anyone safer but more vulnerable and has the effect of denying our right to bear arms. Yeah we can shop somewhere else or go work somewhere else, but if they are the only supplier in the region or an employer can hang that over people's heads it has the effect of causing people to disarm or go jobless or pay higher prices to get the specialty items from farther away, how does that help business or economy or more importantly anyones safety?
    You keep comparing discrimination against people who have no control over their skin color, their handicap, or their (in most cases) religion... to people who can choose to disarm before coming in the store. I'm sorry, but while you do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, there isn't a court in the land who is going to say that you have a constitutional right to carry a gun into another man's privately owned place of business.

    All of the above is my opinion, and is worth what you paid for it. I've studied some of this extensively. I have a disability that qualifies me for some protection from discrimination under that ADA, so I made it a point to learn that law (and a lot of relevant case law) as much as I could. I like to make sure I know what I'm doing when it comes to laws. Now I just hope I nested all the quote tags properly...lol
    Last edited by okiebryan; 11-18-2012 at 04:09 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by okiebryan View Post
    Are you saying that if a hotel refused to rent a room to someone because they are confined to a wheelchair, that's ok with you? Or if a restaurant refused to serve food to a family because they are Korean American? Would you support that? How about making black people ride in the back of a Greyhound bus? Denying a blind person the ability to fly on a commercial passenger airline because they use a service dog? Or how about an apartment manager refusing to show an apartment to someone because they attend a Catholic church? There is some discrimination that we as a society have decided is not acceptable. As I believe it should be.

    Owning a gun is not a protected class. It's not going to be a protected class, because you can choose not to carry it into a business where you have been put on notice that it's not welcome. In most cases, you can also choose to do business somewhere else that is more in line with what you believe.

    I don't think that we are harassing any businesses. That is not the intent of the OKOCA. What we are doing is to provide thoughtful and reasoned information on why we believe that limiting the self defense rights of their clientele is a bad idea. If they decide to see things our way, great. We reward them with our continued patronage. If they do not see things our way, and choose to continue with the victim disarmament zone nonsense, then we can choose to comply with their wishes, or to find someone else to spend our money with. Either way, we are honoring their private property rights as enumerated in Oklahoma state law.

    That's it. That's all. No rights are being violated, no harassment is happening.

    The issue with Cleveland County, is that we PERCEIVE that: 1) An official government agency is going around pressuring businesses to create fallacious victim disarmament zones, and 2)We believe that their signs are misquoting state law in order to create the illusion that their signs hold weight of law, when in fact, they may not.
    No, I wouldn't support or agree with those things. But I also don't support or agree with using the government to force my views onto those establishments. I think that it is the responsibility of the local community and its citizens to get those people to change. As you said, we as a society have decided certain forms of discrimination is unacceptable. The difference is in some people being ok with using the government to enforce such views, while I personally don't agree with using the government in such a capacity.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Robert318's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Choctaw, OK
    Posts
    158
    Bryan,
    Well finally a little more clarity into this subject, until now everyone that I have asked similar questions or discussion on this has only ever offered me a that's just how it is or tried to justify their thoughts or views on some fictional or far fetched base of misinformation riddled with their on bias.

    Lol, that wouldn't be the first time I have been told that I ask a lot of questions. Not only was I taught that is the better way to learn in comparison to learning the hard way yourself but it is also my belief. If we always stand by and wait for someone else to ask we may never find the answers to the questions we neglect to ask ourselves. The only dumb question is the one you didn't ask.

    Thank you for understanding it is not my intent to be argumentative but to find factual information(the truth). I too seek more knowledge and insight of law not only for my own safety as to abide by the law but to be able to share with others who are misinformed.
    Stay safe and God bless.

    Everyone will hate you because of me.
    But not a hair of your head will perish.
    Stand firm, and you will win life.
    (Luke 21:17-19 NIV)

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

    "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.",
    "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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