Are anti-gun private businesses discriminating and violating our rights?

28kfps · Oct 27, 2014

Agree with, a person’s home is his castle. However an advertising business open to the public encouraging the general public in is not the same as ones home. Many are spending millions on advertising to all to come on in. The general public believing they are being encouraged and welcomed in as long as they are conducting themselves in a legal manner.
I understanding for the most part private property laws do not separate business from a home, however comparing home rights to open to the public business rights in my opinion is asinine.
An example a mom and pop business with their home attached to the business one is not going to just walk into their home as they would into the business.
Our government has already shown that private businesses are only allowed to have rules the government agrees with. Private property or not. Rules the government says is unconstitutional are not allowed in a private business. However, our government has decided that a constitutional protected right can be trumped by a rule. If gun rights were as popular as gay rights private business would not be allowed to stop open carried firearms.

The Big Guy · Oct 27, 2014

28kfps said:
Agree with, a person’s home is his castle. However an advertising business open to the public encouraging the general public in is not the same as ones home. Many are spending millions on advertising to all to come on in. The general public believing they are being encouraged and welcomed in as long as they are conducting themselves in a legal manner.
I understanding for the most part private property laws do not separate business from a home, however comparing home rights to open to the public business rights in my opinion is asinine.
An example a mom and pop business with their home attached to the business one is not going to just walk into their home as they would into the business.
Our government has already shown that private businesses are only allowed to have rules the government agrees with. Private property or not. Rules the government says is unconstitutional are not allowed in a private business. However, our government has decided that a constitutional protected right can be trumped by a rule. If gun rights were as popular as gay rights private business would not be allowed to stop open carried firearms.

Yup, and I'll add that a publicly traded company is not the same as a mom and pop operation. Again this boils down to SCOTUS deciding that corporations (publicly held) have the same rights as an individual. Utter B.S.

TBG

papa bear · Oct 27, 2014

Bikenut said:
Are you aware that all the laws that say a property owner cannot discriminate against certain persons are infringements upon the private property right to control who is, and who is not, allowed to be in/on said private property?

And those laws are just as much infringements upon the property owner's private property rights as are gun control laws infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms?

Just because an infringement upon the rights of someone else is in your favor doesn't mean they still are not infringements. It only means you agree with those infringements because you benefit from them.

***I used the terms "you" and "your" in the generic sense... they are not intended to be directed at papa bear personally.

Thanks BIKENUT, but i did not take them personally. just letting you know there are no private property rights in America. they were writing in to the first draft of the constitution but then were taking out. yes i know that natural rights were there before the constitution.
but the gist is that property is ruled by laws. also there is a difference of private property and open to the public business. we can say it is wrong all we want, but the law can be changed at a whim.

Bikenut · Oct 27, 2014

papa bear said:
Thanks BIKENUT, but i did not take them personally. just letting you know there are no private property rights in America. they were writing in to the first draft of the constitution but then were taking out. yes i know that natural rights were there before the constitution.
but the gist is that property is ruled by laws. also there is a difference of private property and open to the public business. we can say it is wrong all we want, but the law can be changed at a whim.

I'm glad you didn't take my comments personally papa bear.

Isn't the right to keep and bear arms also ruled by laws? Does that mean the right to keep and bear arms isn't a right? Or does it mean that because the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution but the right of the private property owner to control his property isn't specifically in the Constitution so it isn't a right? Or does it mean "we the people" have rights, many different rights, but the government is in control of who, how, where, why, and when, we are........ allowed..... to exercise them?

Of course the answer is the government uses laws to control who, how, where, why, and when, rights (all rights) are ... allowed ... to be exercised.

Each and every law that restricts who, when, where, why, and what kind of, is allowed to keep and bear arms is an infringement upon the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Each and every law that restricts the owner of private property to decree who, when, where, why, and what, isn't allowed on/in his property is an infringement upon the right of the owner(s) to control their private property.

And those laws are infringements simply because it is the government, State, Local, or Federal, that is doing the restricting.

But the sad thing is... "we the people" are the one's who have ... allowed... the government to have the power to make laws that infringe by falling for the line that an infringement is a "reasonable restriction", or is "appropriate for some", or is "acceptable because it seems reasonable and appropriate".

What, at least to me, is very dismaying is to see folks who rail against government infringements upon the right to bear arms stand in support of increasing the government's infringements upon the right of the private property owner to control his own property just because those who bear arms would benefit from such an infringement.

Bikenut · Oct 27, 2014

The Big Guy said:
Yup, and I'll add that a publicly traded company is not the same as a mom and pop operation. Again this boils down to SCOTUS deciding that corporations (publicly held) have the same rights as an individual. Utter B.S.

TBG

Why isn't a publicly traded company the same as a Mom & Pop operation? Are not both still owned by private individual human beings?

And, in my opinion, the SCOTUS made the correct decision since it doesn't matter if one person owns it or if several thousand person's own it... unless everyone owns it making it "property owned by everyone (the public/government)" it is "property owned by individuals (private property)".

And any laws that restrict who, when, where, why, and how, a property owner uses his property are just as much infringements upon private property rights as gun control laws are infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms.

skidmark · Oct 27, 2014

All y'all are aware, aren't you, that the Constitution discusses how the government will act with respect to both enumerated and unenumerated rights?

Civil rights laws regarding public accommodation are 99.9% public policy manipulation, and the rest setting out how the government intends to punish private citizens who do not bend to the public policy. Unless you are, on a regular basis, trying to get your Congresscritter and Senator to "do something" about it your moaning about how Mr. Private Business is "infringing" on or outright denying your right is just that - moaning.

My suggestion? Work on getting the 14th Amendment revised to include persons bearing arms in public - either directly by amending it or by passing laws that create a new protected class that falls under the 14th Amendment's provisions.

stay safe.

Bikenut · Oct 27, 2014

skidmark said:
All y'all are aware, aren't you, that the Constitution discusses how the government will act with respect to both enumerated and unenumerated rights?

Civil rights laws regarding public accommodation are 99.9% public policy manipulation, and the rest setting out how the government intends to punish private citizens who do not bend to the public policy. Unless you are, on a regular basis, trying to get your Congresscritter and Senator to "do something" about it your moaning about how Mr. Private Business is "infringing" on or outright denying your right is just that - moaning.

My suggestion? Work on getting the 14th Amendment revised to include persons bearing arms in public - either directly by amending it or by passing laws that create a new protected class that falls under the 14th Amendment's provisions.

stay safe.

About the part of your post I put in bold........

Wouldn't that be the same thing as anti gunners getting laws passed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms? Except it would be gun owners getting laws passed to infringe on the property owners private property rights?

twoskinsonemanns · Oct 27, 2014

Bikenut said:
About the part of your post I put in bold........

Wouldn't that be the same thing as anti gunners getting laws passed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms? Except it would be gun owners getting laws passed to infringe on the property owners private property rights?

agreed. A businesses right to exclude gun carrying patrons should not be stripped just because it bothers gun owners. As much as I dislike businesses who discriminate against me I won't support suppressing their rights. I would encourage them not to discriminate. But I despise those that would take my rights so I will not support taking anyone else's.

I could however be convince to support laws against discrimination against gun owners for business that accept government subsidies. :lol:

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Oct 27, 2014

Gun owners by definition are already a "Protected Class" While that may sound like I am trying to be funny... It may highlight part of the issue that we go back and forth about. The idea that a law can protect someone, from harm has been proven to be psychotic thought over, and over. Yet we still cling to these same laws as if they are supposed to be the answer, in the end however they are utilized to control us.

I have a legal argument that could be utilized to silence private property owners, making them accept guns in the very businesses they created, sacrificed to start, accept all risk, mortgaged their house for. (I guess many businesses are directly attached to the home after all.) It is compelling, well thought out, ties the Nevada, and US constitutions in with existing case law and written law. The main reason I do not put it on here and argue for the ability of gun owners to traverse unimpeded, the entire landscape is because morally, it is deficient. Additionally I have never been enlightened to the "authority" of these laws, (demands backed by state violence.)

Building a business owner, Is a process of creation. The notion that someone wanting to do business at my shop, can walk in off the street and dictate to the creator of the business, how the creator of the business will fundamentally change his creation, making it no longer his creation. essentially stripping the ownership of a business from a business owner. This is the definition of theft. Using government laws to force people to succumb to your views does not change the ugly face of it. Look to Westboro baptist church to see an example. They effectively hide behind the first amendment while distributing hatred. The law it seems has two sides. One side designed to diminish aggression, however to enforce the law takes force.... and interpretation. Here we have different views, putting the law into place clears up nothing, it merely gives each side the idea they can push their agenda on the other.

Imagine if their were no laws regarding this situation. Would your human nature take over? could you have a talk without threats? (Do as I wish or I will take my business elsewhere.) Is it even worth the conversation? As a business owner, could you make a cake for a gay couple? If not why so intolerant? We speak of freedom on this forum a lot, The word freedom is all encompassing. We cannot be pro freedom... When we are pushing our neighbor into doing something they do not want to do. (Why I stopped voting.) That behavior is wrong, no law or nod from the govt. will ever make aggressive behavior peaceful.

MAC702 · Oct 27, 2014

Bikenut said:
Why isn't a publicly traded company the same as a Mom & Pop operation? Are not both still owned by private individual human beings?

And, in my opinion, the SCOTUS made the correct decision since it doesn't matter if one person owns it or if several thousand person's own it... unless everyone owns it making it "property owned by everyone (the public/government)" it is "property owned by individuals (private property)".

And any laws that restrict who, when, where, why, and how, a property owner uses his property are just as much infringements upon private property rights as gun control laws are infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms.

I see a difference between a company controlled by a sole-prop or partners, and a corporation that is publicly traded on the stock exchange. ANYONE can buy shares in those companies, and that changes things. It could make sense if some "rights" are waived for the benefits in someone 'taking their company public.' Now, I won't pretend to be an expert in these matters, but I can see how there is a difference, even if I don't know what exactly it is.

28kfps · Oct 28, 2014

The Big Guy said:
Yup, and I'll add that a publicly traded company is not the same as a mom and pop operation. Again this boils down to SCOTUS deciding that corporations (publicly held) have the same rights as an individual. Utter B.S.

TBG

Yep SCOTUS is the deciding factor, regardless if the majority of Americans vote against an issue. Doesn’t matter if it has its own constitutional amendment protecting it. All of the guidelines must do and follow laws and rules so well debated on this thread means nothing. SCOTUS has shown private property rights, gun rights all go out the window if it does not fit into the political correctness need of the time, mainstream media agenda, big corporation profits.

papa bear · Oct 28, 2014

Bikenut said:
I'm glad you didn't take my comments personally papa bear.

Isn't the right to keep and bear arms also ruled by laws? Does that mean the right to keep and bear arms isn't a right? Or does it mean that because the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution but the right of the private property owner to control his property isn't specifically in the Constitution so it isn't a right? Or does it mean "we the people" have rights, many different rights, but the government is in control of who, how, where, why, and when, we are........ allowed..... to exercise them?

Of course the answer is the government uses laws to control who, how, where, why, and when, rights (all rights) are ... allowed ... to be exercised.

Each and every law that restricts who, when, where, why, and what kind of, is allowed to keep and bear arms is an infringement upon the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Each and every law that restricts the owner of private property to decree who, when, where, why, and what, isn't allowed on/in his property is an infringement upon the right of the owner(s) to control their private property.

And those laws are infringements simply because it is the government, State, Local, or Federal, that is doing the restricting.

But the sad thing is... "we the people" are the one's who have ... allowed... the government to have the power to make laws that infringe by falling for the line that an infringement is a "reasonable restriction", or is "appropriate for some", or is "acceptable because it seems reasonable and appropriate".

What, at least to me, is very dismaying is to see folks who rail against government infringements upon the right to bear arms stand in support of increasing the government's infringements upon the right of the private property owner to control his own property just because those who bear arms would benefit from such an infringement.

not arguing, just pointing out there are no property rights in America. except those covered by the 4th and 3rd. real estate is still ruled by laws. we can have laws on guns, it's just they can't deny the right to carry. i personally think the laws have gone too far on that

Ron_O · Nov 8, 2014

After catching up on the posts a bit, a few thoughts come to mind.

First, the courts have ruled that today's 'town square' can now be construed as shopping centers, in that you can have petitions signed outside of places like Costco whether or not Costco approves of it. I can dig for the cite if anyone needs to see it. We've done a lot of petitioning outside of Costco and similar places under the cover of said law.

So that pretty much blows our thoughts of our business property being under our own rule. Not that it matters. As others have mentioned, we have no say if we want to discriminate against protected classes, including gays in some jurisdictions. Do two wrongs make a right? No. But is there more to living in a community that strict interpretation may suggest? Probably. We have certain societal norms today that have become cornerstones in how we operate as a society, like it or not.

I was actually making two points, or thoughts, when starting this thread. The first being that if businesses are now forced to accept so many things that they may not agree with (ever had to comply with ADA regulations, building codes, or signage laws?), then why not fight for a fundamental right such as our RTKABA?

And the second thought is this. I see the 2nd A as a fundamental mainstay of our society, just as freedoms of speech, the press, religion, assembly, and others. I simply can't imagine any business owner feeling they had a right to exclude someone because they were Jewish, or Mormon, or (pick any religion), or because of their skin color, or because of their association with any particular group (don't wear your NRA hat while voting, however). In other words, I see this right as being like our guns are glued to us, part of our substance, the blood in our veins. No business should be able to exclude me for the color or substance of my blood.

I have friends who are world class experts in martial arts, one winning a world championship. These are bad-ass people when it comes to protecting themselves with or without the use of weapons. They can go wherever they please yet they are deadly. There are no signs prohibiting them from entering businesses or courtrooms. They have trained for years to gain such expertise. Their bodies are their weapons. I would argue that a firearm is no different; another way of using deadly force if needed, or as a deterrent.

And that's the difference in some of our approaches to this issue. We hand the gauntlet to them rather than refuse to separate it from our beings. It would be unconscionable for us to believe it should be OK to exclude people due to other factors mentioned above, so why do we acquiesce when it comes to carrying an inanimate object simply because it can be separated from us? I refuse to submit to this line of thinking.

When we allow our rights to be so easily stripped then it's no wonder we have tens of thousands of gun laws across the USA today. We've been losing battle after battle and it's time to start winning the war, and that starts by defining it.

Grapeshot · Nov 8, 2014

Ron_O said:
After catching up on the posts a bit, a few thoughts come to mind.

--snipped for brevity--

Well said Ron, but you are preaching to the choir. Tell it to the legislators and the courts - this is from where the control emanates. Get involved, stay involved, get others involved.

28kfps · Nov 8, 2014

Ron_O said:
After catching up on the posts a bit, a few thoughts come to mind.

First, the courts have ruled that today's 'town square' can now be construed as shopping centers, in that you can have petitions signed outside of places like Costco whether or not Costco approves of it. I can dig for the cite if anyone needs to see it. We've done a lot of petitioning outside of Costco and similar places under the cover of said law.

So that pretty much blows our thoughts of our business property being under our own rule. Not that it matters. As others have mentioned, we have no say if we want to discriminate against protected classes, including gays in some jurisdictions. Do two wrongs make a right? No. But is there more to living in a community that strict interpretation may suggest? Probably. We have certain societal norms today that have become cornerstones in how we operate as a society, like it or not.

I was actually making two points, or thoughts, when starting this thread. The first being that if businesses are now forced to accept so many things that they may not agree with (ever had to comply with ADA regulations, building codes, or signage laws?), then why not fight for a fundamental right such as our RTKABA?

And the second thought is this. I see the 2nd A as a fundamental mainstay of our society, just as freedoms of speech, the press, religion, assembly, and others. I simply can't imagine any business owner feeling they had a right to exclude someone because they were Jewish, or Mormon, or (pick any religion), or because of their skin color, or because of their association with any particular group (don't wear your NRA hat while voting, however). In other words, I see this right as being like our guns are glued to us, part of our substance, the blood in our veins. No business should be able to exclude me for the color or substance of my blood.

I have friends who are world class experts in martial arts, one winning a world championship. These are bad-ass people when it comes to protecting themselves with or without the use of weapons. They can go wherever they please yet they are deadly. There are no signs prohibiting them from entering businesses or courtrooms. They have trained for years to gain such expertise. Their bodies are their weapons. I would argue that a firearm is no different; another way of using deadly force if needed, or as a deterrent.

And that's the difference in some of our approaches to this issue. We hand the gauntlet to them rather than refuse to separate it from our beings. It would be unconscionable for us to believe it should be OK to exclude people due to other factors mentioned above, so why do we acquiesce when it comes to carrying an inanimate object simply because it can be separated from us? I refuse to submit to this line of thinking.

When we allow our rights to be so easily stripped then it's no wonder we have tens of thousands of gun laws across the USA today. We've been losing battle after battle and it's time to start winning the war, and that starts by defining it.

Well said. Trained fighter a great example.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Nov 12, 2014

The scenario of the martial arts guy is a good one. Yet it is situational. The most bad a$$ martial arts dude would have been no help at the Hollywood bank heist. Two armed men (They had two arms + guns) robbed the Smiths store where I shop, last week. While martial arts are good, They lack ballistics when it comes to a gunfight.

I think what it comes down to is this. Some people want to forcibly control other people. I do not! Bloomberg wants universal background checks, or put us in jail. I despise just as equally someone attempting to force Bloomberg to accept open carry in his business, as I do him, attempting to force us to accept gun control. Mechanically it is the same, We talk about rights in this forum a lot. What gives you the right to forcibly control another human. I would appreciate a Cite, with any answer.

The fact that the courts protect petition peddlers is only pertinent if you are attempting to forcibly control others. The courts and first amendment allow the Westboro baptist church to protest soldiers funerals in front of their family's.... Does that make it legal? Yup. Moral??? I see a different story. The idea that we should forcibly control others as a defense against being forcibly controlled is flawed!

twoskinsonemanns · Nov 12, 2014

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
... We talk about rights in this forum a lot. What gives you the right to forcibly control another human. I would appreciate a Cite, with any answer.

The idea is THEY want to control us so WE should control them back. This is the way of things. This is the reason people remain loyal to their respective big government party of choice.

Grapeshot · Nov 12, 2014

Logic vs Force

I'm sure that many (most?) are familiar with the options in crisis resolution. One may chose to use logic and discuss rational means to come to a conclusion or one may select to use some degree of force to settle the issue.

A hostage negotiator can listen, guide, sympathize, trade, explain to a BG, but the solution may rest in the hands of a skilled sniper.

Countries settle border disputes by talking through their different claims or by waging war - sometimes the mere threat of war is enough to settle the issue. Make no mistake though, the threat of physical intervention is within the parameters of Use of Force.

When a BG says give me your valuables or your life, you may discuss/communicate why this might be a bad course of action, but ultimately you either give in to his threat of force or trump it with your own Use of Force.

Bloomberg and his minions were put on notice by the Commonwealth of Virgina that any future straw purchases even in the name of "research" would result in the arrest and prosecution of all involved. This falls within the parameters of Use of Force.

I do not like using force. I am by nature a gentle man - live and let live in peace. Still I will reserve all of the tools in my kit bag for use as and when they are warranted by circumstances.

OC for ME · Nov 12, 2014

If a petitioner disrupts the business, by blocking (however that is accomplished) the normal comings and goings of customers there may be relief.

Private property certainly does not mean what it used to mean. If the business is anti-gun, they are anti-liberty and should be avoided if possible.

papa bear · Nov 13, 2014

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
The scenario of the martial arts guy is a good one. Yet it is situational. The most bad a$$ martial arts dude would have been no help at the Hollywood bank heist. Two armed men (They had two arms + guns) robbed the Smiths store where I shop, last week. While martial arts are good, They lack ballistics when it comes to a gunfight.

I think what it comes down to is this. Some people want to forcibly control other people. I do not! Bloomberg wants universal background checks, or put us in jail. I despise just as equally someone attempting to force Bloomberg to accept open carry in his business, as I do him, attempting to force us to accept gun control. Mechanically it is the same, We talk about rights in this forum a lot. What gives you the right to forcibly control another human. I would appreciate a Cite, with any answer.

The fact that the courts protect petition peddlers is only pertinent if you are attempting to forcibly control others. The courts and first amendment allow the Westboro baptist church to protest soldiers funerals in front of their family's.... Does that make it legal? Yup. Moral??? I see a different story. The idea that we should forcibly control others as a defense against being forcibly controlled is flawed!

UH, what's your point?

Are anti-gun private businesses discriminating and violating our rights?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Campaign Veteran

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member