OC for ME
Regular Member
Tangential to OC?
I suspect this is aimed at private business property. It is the breast feeding version of racial civil rights. Under current law, a business open to the public cannot decide that a black man is not welcome on the property simply because he is black.
Similarly, under this bill, I would guess that a business could not decide a breastfeeding mother (interesting that it limits it to "mothers", so much for wet nursing) is not welcome simply because she is breastfeeding.
There is no enumerated right to breastfeed.
Obviously on public property, government cannot properly presume to ban breastfeeding, even under indecency laws.
The real question is whether government has the proper power to force private business owners, whose businesses are generally open to the general public to grant access and/or services to breastfeeding women.
I believe government has exactly the same amount of proper authority to force that, as it does to force private businesses to provide access and services without regard to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or the lawful possession of a firearm.
In principle, it has zero authority.
In practice, so long as it exerts authority to benefit any of these groups, there is no reason why gun owners should be left out in the cold. Why is it any less humiliating for me to have to go find a restaurant or hotel willing to serve "my kind" than it is for a black man, a Jewish man, or homosexual man or couple to have to do likewise?
Yup. When push comes to shove (and it often does eventually), public opinion matters.
The media (including news, TV, movies, etc) has been and is very sympathetic to blacks, homosexuals, women, and nursing mothers. They have been and remain hostile to gun owners.
Charles
Tangential to OC?
Normally, your walkway to your front door is an open invitation to the public. You can have a regular "no trespassing" sign but this has little legal effect of an area where you invite the public.
So why would no gun signs be any different IMO?
If there is in fact it does not need to be enumerated.
As a matter of fact [the government] can [ban public breastfeeding].
So maybe we need to hire a new PR ffirm?
Disagree.
Racial discrimination in public accommodation was lawful/constitutional for almost 100 years. The change came about (according to the legal reasoning) because African American African-American Blacks had no alternative to being that. All of them (tinker, tailor, Indian chief) were stuck and folks started agreeing that it was not fair to discriminate against them.
Breastfeeding mothers can change, and they have alternatives to suckling their infant that still provides breast milk. It's often a royal PITA, but there are alternatives. Breastfeeding mothers are not stuck until weaning takes place.
... "I may disagree with their policy, but I will support to the death their right to ban my gun from their property..." Yeah, OK, that last one is a little bit sarcastic, but we all know it's not far off from how some people actually feel...
The problem is that this completely ignores the inherent wrong perpetrated by that property owner to deny another human individual the right to defense of life, a right that most of us claim to be "endowed by their Creator" ... yes, even an "unalienable Right." ...
Unless we want it to recognized without question. That is the benefit of enumerated rights. The question has been settled. ....
Alright, let's hash this one out. Pop some popcorn.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the RKBA movement is the unmerited worship of property rights. Many, if not most supporters of gun rights draw the line at the personal property boundary. "If they don't want my gun, then they won't get my money..." "I may disagree with their policy, but I will support to the death their right to ban my gun from their property..." Yeah, OK, that last one is a little bit sarcastic, but we all know it's not far off from how some people actually feel...
The problem is that this completely ignores the inherent wrong perpetrated by that property owner to deny another human individual the right to defense of life, a right that most of us claim to be "endowed by their Creator" ... yes, even an "unalienable Right."
Do we need to refresh our minds on the definition of unalienable? From Google: "Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."
So what's the deal with SB 1427? It's not about the right to keep and bear arms... but another right that is just as inherent to the human race, just as important, and an excellent example of what we, who claim to be gun-rights proponents, should be striving for:
§ 32.1-370. Right to breastfeed.
A mother may breastfeed in any place where the mother is lawfully present, including any location where she would otherwise be allowed on property that is owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth in accordance with § 2.2-1147.1.
This individual right will soon be protected by state law to exist "in any place where the mother is lawfully present."
I'll guarantee you that there do exist people in this world who find breastfeeding in public more offensive than a lawfully carried firearm. This bill passed both the House of Delegates and the Senate unanimously! Not one single vote against this bill which grossly intrudes upon the rights of property owners. How could that possibly happen? Is the breastfeeding lobby that much more powerful than VCDL, or the NRA?
"In any place where the citizen is lawfully present" should be the ultimate goal of every gun-rights organization, with only VERY few exceptions.
We all need to learn from this excellent bill, and understand what it really means to be a proponent of an "unalienable right."
TFred
Where is the laugh so hard I pee my pants, get splinters from rolling on the floor smiley?
(Do I really have to explain why I'm laughing?)
There are many restrictions on private businesses that invite the public that differ from those for you in your home: zoning, construction standards, fire prevention, seating capacity, even how many bathrooms and which way ingress/egress doors swing.As an ardent, vociferous, belligerent supporter of the 2nd Amendment that wants no limits to carry anywhere, my property is sacrosanct. If I don't want someone on my property wearing a hat from their alma mater, that is my right. Period. Might sound a bit ridiculous, but it's an example. Take a look at the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution. Government can't quarter troops on your property "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law." So are you saying that the 2nd Amendment trumps property rights? I understand that a PRIVATE business allows the PUBLIC in, but the owner dictates what is, and isn't allowable. Not you, not me.
Breastfeeding mothers can change, and they have alternatives to suckling their infant that still provides breast milk. It's often a royal PITA, but there are alternatives. Breastfeeding mothers are not stuck until weaning takes place.
I'm still in the corner of favoring a "Quasi-public" designation. That being those privately owned retail establishments who invite the general public (no membership requirements) shall accept all persons of legal majority who are not otherwise restricted by law.
Have had some interesting discussions on this subject.
Since when? How much does that cost vs breastfeeding?
It cost more to wear clothing, but I didn't know that was the determining factor.
Feeding ones child is an unalienable right.
Regardless of the age of the child being breast fed? Yes, I am serious.
Forcing one to feed their child in an other than natural way is abhorrent to Natural Law.
Pity the poor mothers that cannot produce sufficient milk or who cannot nurse for other reasons.
Would you suppose to allow such mothers to bring cows or goats with them?
Laws passed to criminalize breastfeeding is abhorrent to the Constitution.
It cost more to wear clothing, but I didn't know that was the determining factor
Regardless of the age of the child being breast fed? Yes, I am serious.
Pity the poor mothers that cannot produce sufficient milk or who cannot nurse for other reasons.
Would you suppose to allow such mothers to bring cows or goats with them?
Since when? How much does that cost vs breastfeeding?
Feeding ones child is an unalienable right.
Forcing one to feed their child in an other than natural way is abhorrent to Natural Law.
Laws passed to criminalize breastfeeding is abhorrent to the Constitution.
Since when? How much does that cost vs breastfeeding?
Feeding ones child is an unalienable right.
Forcing one to feed their child in an other than natural way is abhorrent to Natural Law.
Laws passed to criminalize breastfeeding is abhorrent to the Constitution.