It never ceases to amaze me... Take me out to the ball game...

Bikenut said:

Thank you for explaining your.... logic ... for supporting a business that bans guns and supports left wing politicians utbagpiper. I understand how some folks adjust their support for the RKBA according to their personal wants.

Click to expand...

logic or rationalization?

OC for ME said:

Seems there are three in WA; Near Auburn of of I-405 and WA-18, Renton off I-405, and on Aurora Ave. N. in Lake Forest Park (between Sheridan Beach, The Highlands and North City.

Click to expand...

All a couple hrs away. If traffic is bad even longer.

I go to Sams when in Hawaii, they have been great help to my families various business's over the years.

protias said:

I've been to Miller Park in Milwaukee (and a couple of other minor and major league stadiums) a few times. They don't even wand people coming into the stadium but have one of those magical signs out front.

Click to expand...

It's a force field don't ya know???

sudden valley gunner said:

Originally Posted by Bikenut

Thank you for explaining your.... logic ... for supporting a business that bans guns and supports left wing politicians utbagpiper. I understand how some folks adjust their support for the RKBA according to their personal wants.

Click to expand...

logic or rationalization?

Click to expand...

I say tomAHto....You say tomAto... ...:lol:

OC for ME said:

I too, do not check every aspect of a business owner's political leanings, or how they run their business.

Click to expand...

So you draw your line at a business making their views on guns known or applying those views to you as a customer. You're fine doing business with those who disarm their employees it seems.

You're not on pure enough ground to presume to look down your nose at me because I draw my line in a slightly different place than you do.

OC for ME said:

If they choose to exclude me from their property simply for the visible firearm on my belt I will honor their wishes and not patronize their business.

Click to expand...

A fine choice. I may honor his wishes by keeping my firearm legally out-of-sight.

OC for ME said:

I am not surprised that you ignore a property owner's wishes as to how he controls his property.

Click to expand...

I'm just not libertarian enough to believe a business should be permitted to chain their fire doors shut or disable fire sprinkler systems.

So long as a business owner cannot deny services based on race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc, I don't see any virtue in denying myself service based on an unenforced policy. If they make an active effort to enforce, I will have no choice but to look elsewhere to meet my needs or go unarmed while shopping there.

Now, if a homeowner or church doesn't want guns in their residence or sanctuary, I will fully comply one way or another. A man's home is his castle and I do my level best to respect holy ground (mine and others). It also turns out that in Utah, these two locations' private gun bans do enjoy force of law. And I comply with the law.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

A fine choice. I may honor his wishes by keeping my firearm legally out-of-sight.




I'm just not libertarian enough to believe a business should be permitted to chain their fire doors shut or disable fire sprinkler systems.

So long as a business owner cannot deny services based on race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc, I don't see any virtue in denying myself service based on an unenforced policy. If they make an active effort to enforce, I will have no choice but to look elsewhere to meet my needs or go unarmed while shopping there.

Now, if a homeowner or church doesn't want guns in their residence or sanctuary, I will fully comply one way or another. A man's home is his castle and I do my level best to respect holy ground (mine and others). It also turns out that in Utah, these two locations' private gun bans do enjoy force of law. And I comply with the law.

Charles

Click to expand...

How do you differentiate between a private business with a person's residence or church?

Bikenut said:

Thank you for explaining your.... logic ... for supporting a business that bans guns and supports left wing politicians utbagpiper. I understand how some folks adjust their support for the RKBA according to their personal wants.

Click to expand...

Then would you be so good as to explain how you rationalize patronizing businesses that disarm their employees and provide support to politicians across the spectrum who are hostile to RKBA?

Find me a major chain in this country that isn't hostile to RKBA when it comes to their employees.

Find me any major business that hasn't contributed money either directly or through some form of professional or trade association to a politician who has screwed over gun owners.

If you want to boycott Costco, 7-11/Citgo, Levis, or any other business for being too anti-RKBA, I won't quibble with you.

But if you think my patronage of Costco is having any more harmful effect than your patronage of your local Cable or Satellite TV company, chain pizza joint, chain auto parts store, cell phone company, auto manufacturer, etc, etc, etc, you're not dealing with reality. If your personal situation permits you to live as you desire while entirely avoiding all commercial interactions except with small mom and pop stores whose political and social views you find agreeable, congrats. You're one in a million.

For most of us, that simply isn't feasible.

Is it for you?

Charles

protias said:

How do you differentiate between a private business with a person's residence or church?

Click to expand...

The same way society, the laws of my State, the constitution, and several hundred years of anglo-American jurisprudence do.

The business is open to the public and invites in the public. It is subject all manner of anti-discrimination laws. Private gun bans have no force of law in Utah (and some other States). Commercial trespass laws in Utah make it difficult to get a conviction unless one breaks in when closed, or creates such a fuss as to interfere with business.

A home and a church are private. The owners may discriminate a they see fit. Defense of habitation laws give me far more latitude to use deadly force in my home than in the aisle of a business. In Utah, properly noticed gun bans in these locations do carry force of law. The 1st amendment and a long slew of SCOTUS rulings provide specific protections for religious conduct and property not afforded to commercial activity. Federal law provides exemptions to local zoning laws for churches.

How does anyone NOT properly differentiate between a man's castle and his holy ground vs a commercial enterprise open to the public?

Charles

utbagpiper said:

The same way society, the laws of my State, the constitution, and several hundred years of anglo-American jurisprudence do.

The business is open to the public and invites in the public. It is subject all manner of anti-discrimination laws. Private gun bans have no force of law in Utah (and some other States). Commercial trespass laws in Utah make it difficult to get a conviction unless one breaks in when closed, or creates such a fuss as to interfere with business.

A home and a church are private. The owners may discriminate a they see fit. Defense of habitation laws give me far more latitude to use deadly force in my home than in the aisle of a business. In Utah, properly noticed gun bans in these locations do carry force of law. The 1st amendment and a long slew of SCOTUS rulings provide specific protections for religious conduct and property not afforded to commercial activity. Federal law provides exemptions to local zoning laws for churches.

How does anyone NOT properly differentiate between a man's castle and his holy ground vs a commercial enterprise open to the public?

Charles

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree if a place is open to the public, they shouldn't be able to ban firearms. With that said, it is still private property.

protias said:

I wholeheartedly agree if a place is open to the public, they shouldn't be able to ban firearms. With that said, it is still private property.

Click to expand...

Should the state override your property rights and force you to use your property in a way you disagree with? The public can choose not to go there.

utbagpiper said:

For most of us, that simply isn't feasible.

Is it for you?

Charles

Click to expand...

No Charles..... for you it isn't feasible because you chose to take the route you consider convenient and beneficial for you.

Your talk of this business or that business is nothing more than a smoke screen you hope to use to take the spotlight off the fact that you are making an intentional decision to support an anti gun business that supports left wing politicians by shopping at Costco when you could simply decide to shop elsewhere.... but won't shop elsewhere because shopping at Costco is to your benefit. And what I find rather ... interesting... is your attempt to justify it by saying:

Originally Posted by utbagpiper
...for me, the benefits of Costco membership are too large to forego over a Corporate policy that has gone no further to actively attack my RKBA than to have an unenforced "no gun" policy in their stores and to support left wing politicians ... I believe the time and money I save shopping at Costco for the items they carry can be better applied to advancing RKBA than would be any benefit of denying Costco that money and spending more time and more money buying those items at other locations.

Should Costco move to using their profits to actively attack my RKBA, I would have to re-evaluate my calculations on this one.

Click to expand...

that the time and money you spend supporting a business that fights against the RKBA because you benefit from shopping there can be spent fighting for the RKBA. So you consider it Ok to support an anti gun business that supports left wing politicians because it saves you money and time that you can then spend to fight against anti gun businesses that support left wing politicians? That Sir... is a very interesting bit of convoluted reasoning to be sure.

Oh... and your attempt to move the discussion from your stance to what I do will not work because the issue I'm addressing is your stance... not mine.

I am satisfied that you have explained your beliefs quite well and I think everyone who has read your posts understands your position in regards to the RKBA.

sudden valley gunner said:

Should the state override your property rights and force you to use your property in a way you disagree with? The public can choose not to go there.

Click to expand...

If the business does not want guns in its store, they are free to install metal detectors and trespass anyone that tries to carry in the store.

Energy solutions arena in salt lake city is one business that did just this.

Bikenut said:

No Charles..... for you it isn't feasible because you chose to take the route you consider convenient and beneficial for you.

Your talk of this business or that business is nothing more than a smoke screen you hope to use to take the spotlight off the fact that you are making an intentional decision to support an anti gun business that supports left wing politicians by shopping at Costco when you could simply decide to shop elsewhere.... but won't shop elsewhere because shopping at Costco is to your benefit. And what I find rather ... interesting... is your attempt to justify it by saying:



that the time and money you spend supporting a business that fights against the RKBA because you benefit from shopping there can be spent fighting for the RKBA. So you consider it Ok to support an anti gun business that supports left wing politicians because it saves you money and time that you can then spend to fight against anti gun businesses that support left wing politicians? That Sir... is a very interesting bit of convoluted reasoning to be sure.

Oh... and your attempt to move the discussion from your stance to what I do will not work because the issue I'm addressing is your stance... not mine.

I am satisfied that you have explained your beliefs quite well and I think everyone who has read your posts understands your position in regards to the RKBA.

Click to expand...

I'm curious- are you saying you do not support any business in any way that supports left wing politicians or anti-gun stances?

For example, do you take the time to research out what hospitals you have in your area that do not have anti-weapon policy?

Would you condemn someone the same way you do charles if they voluntarily watched ESPN, (or 75 percent of TV channels, for that matter) movies with Sylvester Stallone or matt Damon in them?

Am I somehow not pro-rkba even though I watched the super bowl, even though they shot down the Daniel defense advertisement because of their "stance on guns"?

Where exactly is the line?

J_dazzle23 said:

If the business does not want guns in its store, they are free to install metal detectors and trespass anyone that tries to carry in the store.

Energy solutions arena in salt lake city is one business that did just this.

Click to expand...

Sure they are also have the authority by it being their property to simply ask you to leave or not come in.

My point to the other poster is we have private property rights or we do not. Just because someone chooses to operate a business were they sell to the public does not do away with that property right to decide who is or is not welcome on their property. Otherwise if the state gets to step in and tell you what you can or can't do it is socialistic and not private property and atrocious to liberty.

sudden valley gunner said:

Sure they are also have the authority by it being their property to simply ask you to leave or not come in.

My point to the other poster is we have private property rights or we do not. Just because someone chooses to operate a business were they sell to the public does not do away with that property right to decide who is or is not welcome on their property. Otherwise if the state gets to step in and tell you what you can or can't do it is socialistic and not private property and atrocious to liberty.

Click to expand...

Yeah- I get the point. Which in my state, the property owner gets to trespass you if they don't want you in the store for any reason. While yes, they have rights as the owner of the property, they are also open to the general public. And while idealogically I can totally agree with you, in actuality, if someone doesn't have to leave their religion, sexual orientation, race, or gender at the door, then why do I have to check my 2nd amendment rights at the door?

Don't get me wrong- I'm not disagreeing with your point. Just offering perspective.

J_dazzle23 said:

Yeah- I get the point. Which in my state, the property owner gets to trespass you if they don't want you in the store for any reason. While yes, they have rights as the owner of the property, they are also open to the general public. And while idealogically I can totally agree with you, in actuality, if someone doesn't have to leave their religion, sexual orientation, race, or gender at the door, then why do I have to check my 2nd amendment rights at the door?

Don't get me wrong- I'm not disagreeing with your point. Just offering perspective.

Click to expand...

Yep so lets attack the root cause of the destruction of property rights. The state shouldn't be involved in forcing people to serve those they disagree with. The open to the public thing is irrelevant, it leads people to conclude that the public, somehow has a say in how the private property should be ran and then they conflate private/public as in individual/state in having the state make the rules.

How the public has the strongest and only moral say on how a business is ran is by their dollars. I pay more to use UPS because I absolutely detest the post office. I pay more for coffee because I detest Starbucks. This doesn't mean I am a complete saint and don't do business with every business I disagree with. Pick and choose our battles thing.

sudden valley gunner said:

Yep so lets attack the root cause of the destruction of property rights. The state shouldn't be involved in forcing people to serve those they disagree with. The open to the public thing is irrelevant, it leads people to conclude that the public, somehow has a say in how the private property should be ran and then they conflate private/public as in individual/state in having the state make the rules.

How the public has the strongest and only moral say on how a business is ran is by their dollars. I pay more to use UPS because I absolutely detest the post office. I pay more for coffee because I detest Starbucks. This doesn't mean I am a complete saint and don't do business with every business I disagree with. Pick and choose our battles thing.

Click to expand...

I can roll with that punch. Way more than I can playing the "pick what rights I get to keep as a customer game" type of deal.

J_dazzle23 said:

I'm curious- are you saying you do not support any business in any way that supports left wing politicians or anti-gun stances?

For example, do you take the time to research out what hospitals you have in your area that do not have anti-weapon policy?

Would you condemn someone the same way you do charles if they voluntarily watched ESPN, (or 75 percent of TV channels, for that matter) movies with Sylvester Stallone or matt Damon in them?

Am I somehow not pro-rkba even though I watched the super bowl, even though they shot down the Daniel defense advertisement because of their "stance on guns"?

Where exactly is the line?

Click to expand...

I don't know where your line is but I now know where Charles' line is since he explained it quite well.

There are some businesses where I do not have much choice (hospital?) but to support them even if only temporarily but I do not use the circular logic that the money and time saved supporting an anti RKBA agenda will be used to fight the anti RKBA agenda as an excuse to justify intentionally supporting a business that has an anti RKBA agenda just because it is convenient or I can save some money. When I have the choice of which business to support I do not support the business with an anti gun agenda even though it is inconvenient, time consuming, and more expensive, to drive further in order to support the business with a pro, or at least neutral, gun agenda.

And quite frankly.... trying to frame fully supporting the RKBA as impossible because nearly all businesses are anti RKBA in some fashion is an attempt at redirecting the discussion from talking about intentionally supporting businesses known to have an anti gun agenda for the sake of convenience and/or saving money.

And looking at fully supporting the RKBA from the perspective as being impossible because nearly all businesses are anti RKBA in some fashion is to admit defeat. But consider this: How is it possible for those businesses to continue with an anti RKBA agenda? Could it be because some pro RKBA folks are helping them stay in business by willingly and intentionally supporting that anti RKBA business because it is convenient and/or saves them money?

Not to mention that looking at fully supporting the RKBA as impossible is a way of justifying supporting businesses with an anti RKBA agenda since... hey... every business is like that so it gives an excuse (soothes the conscience) to support anti RKBA businesses.

But then... perhaps I've been looking at this whole thing wrong right from the start and Charles has it right? Maybe I should start intentionally spending my money supporting businesses with an anti RKBA agenda. Then use the money and time I saved supporting the anti RKBA agenda to fight the anti RKBA agenda!

Originally Posted by utbagpiper
...for me, the benefits of Costco membership are too large to forego over a Corporate policy that has gone no further to actively attack my RKBA than to have an unenforced "no gun" policy in their stores and to support left wing politicians ... I believe the time and money I save shopping at Costco for the items they carry can be better applied to advancing RKBA than would be any benefit of denying Costco that money and spending more time and more money buying those items at other locations.

Should Costco move to using their profits to actively attack my RKBA, I would have to re-evaluate my calculations on this one.

Click to expand...

Increase in font size added by me for emphasis.......

utbagpiper said:

...

You're not on pure enough ground to presume to look down your nose at me because I draw my line in a slightly different place than you do.

Click to expand...

I respect the property rights of the owner (condition(s) for entrance) regardless of my opinion on the condition(s)...you do not. Exercising my RKBA is not welcome, I will honor their condition(s) and give them no money. Liberty demands that this is all I can do.

Looking down my nose? Identifying your hypocrisy.

A fine choice. I may honor his wishes by keeping my firearm legally out-of-sight.

Click to expand...

No guns is the desire, you carry a gun into that business, you do not honor his property rights (wishes).

I'm just not libertarian enough to believe a business should be permitted to chain their fire doors shut or disable fire sprinkler systems.

So long as a business owner cannot deny services based on race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc, I don't see any virtue in denying myself service based on an unenforced policy. If they make an active effort to enforce, I will have no choice but to look elsewhere to meet my needs or go unarmed while shopping there.

Click to expand...

Reworded hyperbole from 11 minutes ago, in the COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms Thread, Post # 30.

In UT how can Costco enforce their no gun policy given the below?

utbagpiper: 06-03-2015, 11:24 PM, Post #25, COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms Thread

Not in Utah. URS 76-6-206 sets a pretty high bar for trespass in a place of public accommodation that is open to the public. It requires that entry first be "unlawful" and there is nothing unlawful in Utah about carrying a gun legally but in violation of the policies of a business open to the public. Having entered or remained unlawfully, a person must then intend to cause problems or commit crimes of some sort. Furthermore there is an affirmative defense against a commercial trespassing charge if the property was open to the public and the person's "conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property".

Click to expand...

A respect for property rights seems the only mechanism, except in rare circumstances.

Now, if a homeowner or church ...

Charles

Click to expand...

Ironic, that it takes the threat of state action for you to respect a property owner's rights.

I'm just not libertarian enough to believe a business should be permitted to chain their fire doors shut or disable fire sprinkler systems.

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

Reworded hyperbole from 11 minutes ago, in the COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms Thread, Post # 30.
.

Click to expand...

It's not only hyperbole but an insult that insinuates libertarians believe people should hurt other people. It lacks any factual merit or honesty.