Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Detroit police unions urge NFL to drop stadium handgun ban for the elite Only Ones

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    Detroit police unions urge NFL to drop stadium handgun ban for the elite Only Ones

    Leaders of Detroit’s three police unions have penned a letter to the NFL demanding it lift its 2013 stadium gun ban in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris.

    “This policy is ill-advised and should be rescinded,” said a draft of a letter, penned by leaders of the Detroit Police Officers Association, Lieutenants and Sergeants Association and the Command Officers Association,

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...p-stadium-han/

    Detroit cop unions challenge NFL handgun ban

    “Law enforcement officers often carry a weapon while off duty not only for their own personal protection but to provide a critical response when circumstances call for immediate police action,” said the letter, which had not been sent to the league yet Friday evening as the unions finalize it.

    “Current events, not least the unconscionable acts of terrorism we have recently experienced, only add to the desirability of having readily available armed law enforcement officers even if they are not officially ‘on duty.’ ”
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    "The Ohio FOP has reached out to the owners of the Bengals and the Browns to try and get them to rescind this policy that acts contrary to common sense," said president of the FOP of Ohio Jay McDonald. "Law enforcement officers should be able to help defend themselves and the lives of their fellow citizens in large scale events like an NFL game."

    Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Neil stated that agrees with the proposal to allow all off-duty officers and CCW carriers to have weapons inside Paul Brown Stadium.

    "A weapon in a trained hand is a deterrent for those who want to do harm," said Neil.
    http://www.fox19.com/story/30590080/...-all-nfl-games

    Ohio, Cincinnati and the county sheriff is also telling the NFL they are wrong.

    I hope the tide is turning and these politicians are figuring out they need us more than we need them. Somebody please wake me up!!!!!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Great ... drunk cops with their guns. Nothing will ever go wrong there.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    It's not the individual groups, it's all of them combined. More of a whole FOP thing. What a joke.

    Unless they're going to allow ALL properly licensed citizens to carry, then this is nothing more than another piece of BS. Like Mcbeth said, drunken cops....
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  5. #5
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    More of: we are the elite, you must do as we say & not as we do...
    I do agree that the pistol bans are foolish, however wouldn't it be much more of a effective deterrent, if all honest citizens were allowed to protect themselves?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    One answer is for LACs to avoid patronizing locations where they cannot legally, practically, carry their self defense. Certain practical concessions may be required including when air-travel is necessary, or attending to business in an RKBA hostile territory. But pure recreation?

    I predict tens of thousands of sheep will willing pay large sums of money for the privilege of being disarmed and their privacy invaded all for the appearance of security (not to be confused with real or practical security). Of course, should something happen to this relatively soft target or its attendees either at the venue or while coming or going, it will be not just the sheep or the NFL paying the bills.

    Another answer would be to codify into civil statutes that venues that disarm their patrons or employees must shoulder the liability of leaving people defenseless.

    Or, we might someday recognize that disarming law abiding persons is akin to chaining fire doors shut....it isn't a real problem until there is a fire. But it poses such a serious and entirely preventable risk to life and limb that property rights are subordinated to the greater claim on life. With the rarest of exceptions (eg near MRI machines or in aluminum processing plants), gun bans in public venues whether taxpayer funded or privately owned, should be outlawed just as we've legally mandated various aspects of building codes for such venues.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    262
    Therein lies part of the problem though, how many businesses/facilities are capable of successfully defending their patrons when SHTF? How many malls have been targets for active shooting events, yet all the Mall Security can do is effect a citizen's arrest as they are not armed nor have the necessary training really to handle an armed assailant.

    In most places that are posted "Gun-Free Zones", the capabilities are limited when stopping an active shooter as either they have no real security or the security that is present do have have the appropriate training/equipment to deal with it.

    With more of these mass shootings, there may be an influx of businesses saying they're "gun-free zones", how can an LAC even do their daily routines if almost everywhere they turn they are disarmed?

    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    One answer is for LACs to avoid patronizing locations where they cannot legally, practically, carry their self defense. Certain practical concessions may be required including when air-travel is necessary, or attending to business in an RKBA hostile territory. But pure recreation?

    I predict tens of thousands of sheep will willing pay large sums of money for the privilege of being disarmed and their privacy invaded all for the appearance of security (not to be confused with real or practical security). Of course, should something happen to this relatively soft target or its attendees either at the venue or while coming or going, it will be not just the sheep or the NFL paying the bills.

    Another answer would be to codify into civil statutes that venues that disarm their patrons or employees must shoulder the liability of leaving people defenseless.

    Or, we might someday recognize that disarming law abiding persons is akin to chaining fire doors shut....it isn't a real problem until there is a fire. But it poses such a serious and entirely preventable risk to life and limb that property rights are subordinated to the greater claim on life. With the rarest of exceptions (eg near MRI machines or in aluminum processing plants), gun bans in public venues whether taxpayer funded or privately owned, should be outlawed just as we've legally mandated various aspects of building codes for such venues.

    Charles
    Last edited by mnrobitaille; 11-30-2015 at 09:29 PM.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I will not support elitism. Disarm like everyone else, or watch the game somewhere else, like everyone else. Screw you and your elitism.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    ...

    Or, we might someday recognize that disarming law abiding persons is akin to chaining fire doors shut....it isn't a real problem until there is a fire. But it poses such a serious and entirely preventable risk to life and limb that property rights are subordinated to the greater claim on life. With the rarest of exceptions (eg near MRI machines or in aluminum processing plants), gun bans in public venues whether taxpayer funded or privately owned, should be outlawed just as we've legally mandated various aspects of building codes for such venues.

    Charles
    Again, you post a false comparison. As MAC702 rightly states "...or watch the game somewhere else."

    Your continuing efforts to inflict upon private property owners your definition of what "rights" a private property owner is entitled to. Your continuing efforts to use government to compel private property owners to control their property as you deem appropriate.

    Reasonable citizens would note a "chained fire door" and then decide to either patronize that establishment or leave.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ...Your continuing efforts to inflict upon private property owners your definition of what "rights" a private property owner is entitled to. Your continuing efforts to use government to compel private property owners to control their property as you deem appropriate. ...
    Agreed. One can hardly call it private property any more, and the creation of the term "public accommodations" was the has had many undesirable consequences on formerly private property.
    Last edited by BB62; 12-01-2015 at 08:26 AM.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    That said, many stadiums are quasi public property in some way. I'd wager most were built with taxpayer assistance. They should be sued for not granting carry rights to all. The cops should be championing OUR rights, not their elitism.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Therein lies part of the problem though, how many businesses/facilities are capable of successfully defending their patrons when SHTF? How many malls have been targets for active shooting events, yet all the Mall Security can do is effect a citizen's arrest as they are not armed nor have the necessary training really to handle an armed assailant.
    Precisely. As many around here are quick to point out, a monetary settlement after damages have been inflicted hardly makes up for the loss of rights. No where is this more true than if life or limb have been lost. Making my heirs wealthy after my untimely and preventable death doesn't do much to make up to me the loss of my life.

    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    With more of these mass shootings, there may be an influx of businesses saying they're "gun-free zones", how can an LAC even do their daily routines if almost everywhere they turn they are disarmed?
    And there is the real rub. How do we go about our daily lives able to defend our lives if we are routinely required to disarm?

    The issue of gun bans at places of public accommodation can be seen in two important and interacting lights.

    1-As public safety hazards comparable to chaining fire doors shut or disabling fire control sprinklers.

    2-As discriminatory that prevents LACs from living their daily lives accessing services open to the general public.

    The libertarians and atheists chafe at any suggestion that private businesses be subject to requirements not to ban guns, or not to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc. They are generally unwilling to directly address safety issues like fire escapes.

    But I believe that sensible people can recognize that gun bans at businesses open to the general public are both a public safety hazard and discriminatory.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Again, you post a false comparison.
    No. Gun bans are directly comparable to chaining fire doors shut. Both are a public health hazard inflicted with near zero material benefit to the property owner while causing grave risk to patrons and employees. You as much as concede the comparison is valid in your closing sentence when you suggest that citizens should react the same way to a chained fire door as to a gun ban by simply deciding to take their business elsewhere. So we both agree the comparison is valid, we simply disagree over the proper response.

    I make no bones about being ok with businesses being subject to certain laws for public safety.


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Your continuing efforts to inflict upon private property owners your definition of what "rights" a private property owner is entitled to. Your continuing efforts to use government to compel private property owners to control their property as you deem appropriate.
    Since neither of the above is actually a properly formed English sentence I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than to use pejorative terms for my social and political stance that it is appropriate for larger society, via government, to impose some workplace and business safety laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Reasonable citizens would note a "chained fire door" and then decide to either patronize that establishment or leave.
    And such "reasonable citizens" would somehow magically notice that the building had not been build to minimum seismic nor even structural requirements and was subject to collapse on them. They would somehow discern that the sprinkler system was disabled or that fire extinguishers had not been serviced for many years. Such "reasonable citizens" would never send their children to work in textile plants or coal mines. Even adults would never choose to work in mines lacking proper safety features. Surely "reasonable citizens" would notice that certain meat processing plants had a bad habit of turning out tainted meat that made them sick and stop buying poison. Or maybe, just maybe, we have a much better society, a materially more free society, because we have accepted a few limits on supposed and claimed "property rights" in favor of protecting human life and limb.

    From where we are today I could and would happily walk a long ways down the road toward more libertarian government and society. Even workplace safety laws and OSHA regs have gone too far in some cases. But when someone makes clear that he opposes basic public safety laws like functioning fire doors, he makes clear that he is more interested in slavish devotion to some political theory than to any sense of reality in having a functioning society.

    Yes, I'll impose my will on others when it comes to fire doors and similar basic safety building codes. I haven't claimed any dogmatic devotion to libertarian ideals in over a decade and so I'm free to support what I believe works.

    Get bent out of shape over that, or accept that there is some social and political diversity among RKBA supporters.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Agreed. One can hardly call it private property any more, and the creation of the term "public accommodations" was the has had many undesirable consequences on formerly private property.
    It also had many desirable consequences in terms of diminishing the kind of overt discrimination that prevented blacks and other political minorities from being able to actually fully interact throughout society.

    The cost to business owners of fire doors and similar safety features are very minimal compared to the risk imposed to the public if such things are neglected.

    I've spent just enough time in nations without public safety regs to experience the joys of having to carefully select menu items knowing that raw fruits and veggies (and even some after they are cooked) carry a high risk of causing serious illness. I've been in businesses that had zero chance of safely evacuating customers and employees in the event a fire started.

    There are many laws and regulations I find onerous and undesirable and I'll happily work to reduce and remove these.

    But there are laws that are beneficial. Life and limb trump mere convenience or property rights.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    no i shan't comment to the worldly traveled mate and his musings of health and safety aspects of this country's infrastructure or analogies of chained doors equating to GFZs and other building mandates; nor their observations once again on their perception of private property owners rights and how he ignores them to suit his personal whim.

    however, has anybody given a thought that just perhaps other nation's perceptions to death is a bit different than ours. similar to the aftermath of 9/11 where the military gathered and buried their dead, treated their wounded and moved on with life. all the while some are still trying to decide what kinda of tribute to put up or if a mosque can be located within xyz of said tribute.

    bottom line, this country's treatment of our dead and their being held in awe for indeterminate periods of time all the while trying to correct whatever defect(s) which caused their death, all the while spending tens of thousands of dollars in towards corrective action(s) w/o succeeding is absolutely amazing.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That said, many stadiums are quasi public property in some way. I'd wager most were built with taxpayer assistance. They should be sued for not granting carry rights to all. The cops should be championing OUR rights, not their elitism.
    Correct, if the FOP, and the PBA ever expect to get public support from non LEO gun carriers they need to knock off the elitism. Before anybody claims that is lumping them against rules, they are lumping themselves. They as a group have proven that they are anti 2A, it is time the individuals of these groups speak up loud, and clear.

    FTR I was a member of the FOP, and then the Teamsters later.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    No. Gun bans are directly comparable to chaining fire doors shut. Both are a public health hazard inflicted with near zero material benefit to the property owner while causing grave risk to patrons and employees. You as much as concede the comparison is valid in your closing sentence when you suggest that citizens should react the same way to a chained fire door as to a gun ban by simply deciding to take their business elsewhere. So we both agree the comparison is valid, we simply disagree over the proper response.

    I make no bones about being ok with businesses being subject to certain laws for public safety.

    Since neither of the above is actually a properly formed English sentence I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than to use pejorative terms for my social and political stance that it is appropriate for larger society, via government, to impose some workplace and business safety laws.

    And such "reasonable citizens" would somehow magically notice that the building had not been build to minimum seismic nor even structural requirements and was subject to collapse on them. They would somehow discern that the sprinkler system was disabled or that fire extinguishers had not been serviced for many years. Such "reasonable citizens" would never send their children to work in textile plants or coal mines. Even adults would never choose to work in mines lacking proper safety features. Surely "reasonable citizens" would notice that certain meat processing plants had a bad habit of turning out tainted meat that made them sick and stop buying poison. Or maybe, just maybe, we have a much better society, a materially more free society, because we have accepted a few limits on supposed and claimed "property rights" in favor of protecting human life and limb.

    From where we are today I could and would happily walk a long ways down the road toward more libertarian government and society. Even workplace safety laws and OSHA regs have gone too far in some cases. But when someone makes clear that he opposes basic public safety laws like functioning fire doors, he makes clear that he is more interested in slavish devotion to some political theory than to any sense of reality in having a functioning society.

    Yes, I'll impose my will on others when it comes to fire doors and similar basic safety building codes. I haven't claimed any dogmatic devotion to libertarian ideals in over a decade and so I'm free to support what I believe works.

    Get bent out of shape over that, or accept that there is some social and political diversity among RKBA supporters.

    Charles
    You will impose your will, via the force of government, on those private property owners who exercise their right to deny you entry due only to your gun. It is ironic that this hypothetical private property owner may/would willingly and gladly meet all of your public safety requirements, even if there were not any government mandates to meet these public safety requirements.

    It is noted that you, again, claim to be the arbiter of what is, or is not, a material benefit to a private property owner.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Again, you post a false comparison. As MAC702 rightly states "...or watch the game somewhere else."

    Your continuing efforts to inflict upon private property owners your definition of what "rights" a private property owner is entitled to. Your continuing efforts to use government to compel private property owners to control their property as you deem appropriate.

    Reasonable citizens would note a "chained fire door" and then decide to either patronize that establishment or leave.
    UHMM- Where does the money to build the foolsball stadiums come from???

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b002d5c077b8ac

    I would not call anything built with taxpayer $$$$ "private property"!

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You will impose your will, via the force of government, on those private property owners who exercise their right to deny you entry due only to your gun. It is ironic that this hypothetical private property owner may/would willingly and gladly meet all of your public safety requirements, even if there were not any government mandates to meet these public safety requirements.

    It is noted that you, again, claim to be the arbiter of what is, or is not, a material benefit to a private property owner.
    It is noted again that you appear to be casting my political and social views into the most pejorative light possible.

    Yes. Let's shout it from the housetops lest there be any confusion (and begging the indulgence of the owners/mods for this potential rules infraction on font size):

    I support laws mandating basic safety requirements in building codes and the operation of a business including functional fire escapes and sprinkler systems. I support basic workplace safety laws including mine safety and safety in textile factories. I support laws mandating minimum health and safety in the slaughter, butchering, and other handling of meat and in the preparation of food for public consumption. TB tests and legal requirements to wash hands for food service workers, and to store chemicals, poisons, and food well away from each other and properly labeled are appropriate and are not an infringement on any property right that I recognize.

    In like fashion, I do not believe a business owner has any "right" to either discriminate against a man for lawfully carrying a gun (especially not a discretely carried gun) nor to create a hazard for his customers or employees by banning the lawful, peaceful, private possession of firearms. For better or worse, this nation has long since decided that business owners don't get to discriminate based on race, religion, or other characteristics, and now quickly adding sexual orientation to that list. We've also long since decided that life and limb trump pure property rights such that safety requirements are legally imposed. I see no reason why gun possession not be included.

    I support these laws and do not intend to be browbeaten into changing my views nor silenced into not expressing them. So you can either learn to deal with our differences of opinion on these issues, or you can continue to make me an enemy despite our 95%+ agreement on RKBA and OC. Your choice. But I trust my position is clear.

    Go on in the purity of your principles if you wish. I wish you no ill.

    But know that I will do what I can to add lawful possession of firearms to either anti-discrimination ordinances and/or to safety laws similar to building codes or OSHA requirements. In this day (especially in light of all laws currently on the books and not going anyway), a man should no more have to sacrifice his personal self-defense in order to shop or work (or receive medical care--I note that you have your own exceptions for when you'll ignore the property rights you claim to respect) than he should be expected to have to disavow his religion or change the color of his skin or hide his sexual orientation.

    Charles


    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You will impose your will, via the force of government, on those private property owners who exercise their right to deny you entry due only to your gun. It is ironic that this hypothetical private property owner may/would willingly and gladly meet all of your public safety requirements, even if there were not any government mandates to meet these public safety requirements.

    It is noted that you, again, claim to be the arbiter of what is, or is not, a material benefit to a private property owner.
    There have been several instances in history where a person's will has been imposed on private property owners. Look at everything a business open to a public cannot discriminate against (age, race/creed, gender, disability, etc.), yet in the past, businesses open to the public were able to discriminate against what are now protected classes. Those protected classes were created because of a few imposing their will against a private property owner's right to refuse service to anyone. In anything Civil Rights related, which RKBA is considered, the force of government was used either by lawsuit or legislative/executive decree.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    ...

    I would not call anything built with taxpayer $$$$ "private property"!
    Nor do I. Based on the data contained in this document for NFL facilities there appears to be only one football stadium that is private property. This document listes MLB ball parks. Granted, MetLife stadium is located in one of the most anti-liberty states in the country so the point highlighted in the op may be (is?) moot.

    Private property owners must be given deference when they exercise their right to peaceably control their property as they see fit regarding the carry of a handgun, by their fellow citizens, on their property. I make no distinction between a private home, private business, or church sanctuary (church buildings) as to when I respect, or do not respect, the private property owner's wishes.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    There have been several instances in history where a person's will has been imposed on private property owners. Look at everything a business open to a public cannot discriminate against (age, race/creed, gender, disability, etc.), yet in the past, businesses open to the public were able to discriminate against what are now protected classes. Those protected classes were created because of a few imposing their will against a private property owner's right to refuse service to anyone. In anything Civil Rights related, which RKBA is considered, the force of government was used either by lawsuit or legislative/executive decree.
    I've stated previously that immutable characteristics, gender, color (ethnicity), age, and sexual orientation must not be subject to discrimination. I will not use the state to harm a bigoted private property owner, I believe that market forces will eventually deliver a bigoted private property owner his just due.

    If I use government to compel a private property owner to grant me entry, or else, simply because I carry a handgun then I am not working to restore individual liberty, I am working to expand the tyranny of the state.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    It is noted again that you appear to be casting my political and social views into the most pejorative light possible.

    ...

    Charles
    If, in your opinion, highlighting your lack of respect for a private property owner's peaceable exercise of his property rights by banning your gun, but not you, equates to me casting your political and social views (large bold letters) "into the most pejorative light possible" then there is not much left to for either of us discuss no matter the topic.

    I've not browbeaten you to change your position on the items listed in large bold letters. I certainly am not calling for your posts to be moderated to silence you. You inserted the large bold letter items into our discussions to justify why you will not respect the right of a private property owner to ban guns because of the inconvenience it will place upon you to "shop" elsewhere. You will choose to use the state to compel a property owner to grant you entry on to his property for your convenience. I will, every time the opportunity presents itself, highlight where a fellow citizen advocates for the state to be used to infringe upon a law abiding citizen's peaceable exercise of his private property rights.

    I choose to respect his property right and "shop" elsewhere even though it may place some inconvenience on to me, because I expect the same courtesy in return.

    There are many examples here on OCDO of members engaging private businesses to change their no gun policy, sometimes the business is convinced to respect individual liberty and they rescind their no gun policy, sometimes they do not. But in each instance listed here on OCDO, that I am aware of, the state was not called upon to compel that business to change their policy.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I've stated previously that immutable characteristics, gender, color (ethnicity), age, and sexual orientation must not be subject to discrimination. I will not use the state to harm a bigoted private property owner, I believe that market forces will eventually deliver a bigoted private property owner his just due.

    If I use government to compel a private property owner to grant me entry, or else, simply because I carry a handgun then I am not working to restore individual liberty, I am working to expand the tyranny of the state.
    Well said.

  25. #25
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    It is noted again that you appear to be casting my political and social views into the most pejorative light possible.

    Yes. Let's shout it from the housetops lest there be any confusion (and begging the indulgence of the owners/mods for this potential rules infraction on font size):

    I support laws mandating basic safety requirements in building codes and the operation of a business including functional fire escapes and sprinkler systems. I support basic workplace safety laws including mine safety and safety in textile factories. I support laws mandating minimum health and safety in the slaughter, butchering, and other handling of meat and in the preparation of food for public consumption. TB tests and legal requirements to wash hands for food service workers, and to store chemicals, poisons, and food well away from each other and properly labeled are appropriate and are not an infringement on any property right that I recognize.
    (NOTE: bold and larger font removed)

    This would all be interesting if the "government" would apply ALL of those same laws/regulations upon itself, but it does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    In like fashion, I do not believe a business owner has any "right" to either discriminate against a man for lawfully carrying a gun (especially not a discretely carried gun) nor to create a hazard for his customers or employees by banning the lawful, peaceful, private possession of firearms.
    Here is another rub...there should NOT be any laws about who can and who cannot carry a weapon to defend themselves. If someone is a danger to society, they should NOT be walking free. If they have previously committed some crime, been imprisoned, and then released, they should have EXACTLY the same rights to carry as anyone else. No licenses, no laws, no background checks.

    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    For better or worse, this nation has long since decided that business owners don't get to discriminate based on race, religion, or other characteristics, and now quickly adding sexual orientation to that list. We've also long since decided that life and limb trump pure property rights such that safety requirements are legally imposed. I see no reason why gun possession not be included.
    Not entirely true, especially when you consider the government itself.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •