Detained at Pick N Save

imported post

The observation 'That's not right. It's not even wrong.' escapes our correspondents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Origins

The phrase was coined by the early quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. Peierls (1960) writes of Pauli, "... a friend showed him the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'That's not right. It's not even wrong.' " In science and philosophy, it is known as the principle of falsifiability.

Click to expand...

imported post

apjonas wrote:

Wow! Go away for a few days and the excrement collides with the air rotator. There would be so much clean up to do on this thread that I propose we have a "do-over" The only points that I would like to make:

1. Section 1983 provides a device to use against state and local governments. Other uses are practically non-existent and suits against private persons other then when acting in an official capacity are not covered.

2. A good portion of my education came from Warner Brothers. As one astute person noted, "maroon" was a favorite of a certain B. Bunny. I did not call anybodythat name. I merely noted what I thought the reaction might be.

3. Rosa Parks could not have used 1983 since she was the defendant (in the original incident) and I believe that other federal law was used in subseqent proceedings although the case of RP ignited the bus boycott, which probably had more impact.

4. Now let's all hockey handshake (Barney hug optional) and move on.

Of course, if you think I am incorrect on anything said here, please feel free to (politely and cogently) explain why.

Click to expand...

OK, politely then,

please give!
--> TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1983 Prev | Next §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person (this means exactly what it says, no exceptions except for judicial officers as stated below)who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, (this even includes the trespass statute) custom, or usage (Custom or usage means Store or company policy even though it may be customary), of any State (even in Wisconsin)or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected (by having them removed or arrested by the police), any citizen (to include grocery shoppers, even armed grocery shoppers)of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, (wait for it, there it is) shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

The funny thing here is, I am not arguing what a land owners rights are. I guess I am totally lost as to where a person open carrying in the store violates the owners rights. I am not arguing that maybe they feel uncomfortable but how is this a rights violation? I am only arguing the FACT that having some one removed from the store for legally and lawfully open carrying is as stated above a rights violation and is grounds for a civil suit in equity as clearly stated above.
It also states," or other proper proceeding for redress" which is basically what happened in DC changing the laws in general and does not involve equity. Either way is a win situation.

I was taught in Constitutional Law and Criminal Law not to over read the statutes or Codes. just read them as they are.

imported post

Its more important to me that a private property owner have their civil right to private property than it is important to me that "I" be allowed to exercise my civil right to have a firearm on their property.

What would a court decide? Who knows. Courts are abused and bastardized by people for decades. Courts aren't always correct. Even our supreme court gets it VERY wrong from time to time. I'm not about to define right and wrong SOLEY based upon court decisions.

Could I sue pick n save for denying my right to carry. Perhaps. Could I win... Perhaps... But I would never think of suing them for that mere fact because I refuse to use the courts to force my will upon them when I believe their right to private property trumps my right to carry a gun, when I have alternatives where I can exercise my rights, and wherei have a choice to go in the first place and was made fully aware of that choice before entering. STILL doesn't mean I support their policy. I just would never leverage government to change it.

I hope to use EVERY means at my disposal to get pick n save (and anyone else) to WILLFULLY support my rights on their private property, but I refuse to leverage the law to do so, and if I can'tget the to willfully change their policy, I'll shop elsewhere.

We all know that all rights end where they infringe on someone elses. When rights collide, I personally consider what is MORE important.

I believe people should be able to decide what happens on THEIR property, but that of course is not absolute. If I am sitting in your house (invited) and having a drink, being on your private property doesn't give you the right to punch me in the face.

So the rights to, and of private property are pretty high on my list, but not absolute.

For ME personally, carrying a firearm on your property is not AS important as your right to private property. As such I'd never expect or leverage the law to force that upon you. Why is your private property right trumping my right to carry (which is for defending my life) because I can CHOOSE not to go on private property and I don't have to put myself in the position of being unarmed.

When I consider what rights trump what rights and/or WHEN some rights trump other rights... I consider what is more important, what are alternatives, who has a choice and who doesn't, etc.

imported post

I guess I am totally lost as to where a person open carrying in the store violates the owners rights. I am not arguing that maybe they feel uncomfortable but how is this a rights violation?

Click to expand...

When it comes to private property, I think you should be able to ask someone to leave because you don't like the color of their shoe laces. its private property. I don't think open carrying in a store violates the owners rights UNLESS the owner doesn't want you in there.

Kicking someone out for their shoelaces? Silly? yes... Rediculous? yes... Petty? yes... But I think on private property you as an owner have the right to be silly, rediculous and petty and that trumps just about everything else. (doesn't give the owner the right to shoot you on sight just cause they want you out) you'd have to be given some kind of notice and/or asked to leave. (cause private property rights shouldn't trump the right of a person to be free from a blind assault that they had no reason to expect coming etc)

imported post

And I agree with you, you can always go some where else. I was only arguing that the civil suit is possible.
If some over zealous cop came into the store and tackled me while I was shopping and over stepped the boundaries of his authority I would definitely file suit against him. I was not speaking of the store owner although he or she could be sued as well.

imported post

I was only arguing that the civil suit is possible.
If some over zealous cop came into the store and tackled me while I was shopping and over stepped the boundaries of his authority I would definitely file suit against him.

Click to expand...

I agree. If I was in a store that had no visible obvious signs posted, hadn't been asked to leave, was just going about my business and a cop came in and tackled me, i'd want to sue the f out of him. (wether i'd decide it was worth my time/money is another story) but...

But if I was just asked to leave a store, i don't care wether a civil suit is possible or not. I think a civil suit on just being asked to leave a store is assinine and abusing the legal system for petty personal whim.

imported post

Right, if asked to leave just leave, I agree.

imported post

Man, I feel sorry for the real activists in WI. It seems that some want to do nothing "unless", others want to pursue a (unproductive) legal course, and others just want to do nothing.

A damn shame.

imported post

Hmmm, and how is Wisconsin different then Ohio in that regards?

imported post

There is that thing called "statutory interpretation." No sense in going back and forth. While the text often provides the answer, law libraries are filled with shelf after shelf of reporters relating what the court said the law means. For better or worse, 1983 cannot be used against a private person acting in a private capacity. If you find such an occurrence, please post it. And thank you for being polite.

imported post

Ok, if a private citizen cannot be named in a denial of rights suit, what about this scenario;

A chain stores policy is to follow state law in regards to firearm posession, but a manger for a store location has a hair up his/her ass and does not think that the RKBA should apply to individuals. he then calls the police to have a law abiding patron removed from the store for no other reason then that patron legally possessing a firearm. The manager has not asked the patron to leave or remove their firearm before summoning the police. The officer removes this person at the request of this manager and may charge them with tresspassing, or may fraw their firearm during contact.

Now lets say the manager alsofabricated a story about the person with his/her firearm, and stated to law enforcement that they were threatening other patrons. The O-C'er gets charged with multiple offenses even though they have done nothing illegal, Store security video shows a totally opposite story of what this manager stated. but in the meantime the O-C'er has basically been treated as "Guilty until he proves his innocence"

I feel that somehow this manager should be liable for initiating the violation of the patrons rights.

A store that is open to the public is way different than a private propery owner that does not draw people to their property.

imported post

I feel that somehow this manager should be liable for initiating the violation of the patrons rights

Click to expand...

Well of course the manager would be in violation of the law. You "fabricate" a story and get police involved. Yeah, thats illegal. I don't know if that would be considered falsifying a police report or perjury or what, but its illegal.

I'm certain the manager would face criminal and civil liabilities.

imported post

I am glad finally some one understands what I am saying. This is exactly the type of incident I was trying to address. I guess you put the words together a little better then I did.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Now lets say the manager alsofabricated a story about the person with his/her firearm, and stated to law enforcement that they were threatening other patrons. The O-C'er gets charged with multiple offenses even though they have done nothing illegal, Store security video shows a totally opposite story of what this manager stated. but in the meantime the O-C'er has basically been treated as "Guilty until he proves his innocence"

Click to expand...

I feel that somehow this manager should be liable for initiating the violation of the patrons rights

Click to expand...

Well of course the manager would be in violation of the law. You "fabricate" a story and get police involved. Yeah, thats illegal. I don't know if that would be considered falsifying a police report or perjury or what, but its illegal.

I'm certain the manager would face criminal and civil liabilities.

Click to expand...

And probably facing some jail time. The officers would most likelyretain their qualified immunity and could not be sued.

Nutczak wrote:

A chain stores policy is to follow state law in regards to firearm posession, but a manger for a store location has a hair up his/her ass and does not think that the RKBA should apply to individuals. he then calls the police to have a law abiding patron removed from the store for no other reason then that patron legally possessing a firearm. The manager has not asked the patron to leave or remove their firearm before summoning the police. The officer removes this person at the request of this manager and may charge them with tresspassing, or may fraw their firearm during contact.

Click to expand...

If they ask the person to leave at the request of the manager it would be just like the manager had asked. However; you couldn't be charged with trespassing unless you refused to leave. If they were to take your firearm, they are the ones that are liable. I imagine it would be very similar to Parabellums Menards adventure.

Nutczak wrote:

A store that is open to the public is way different than a private propery owner that does not draw people to their property.

Click to expand...

I don't agree that it's "way" different. In either situation your being there is a privillege and not a right. The only real difference is that you can come onto the store property without asking. It is implied that you can come there and do anything that is otherwise legal on the store property unless prohibited by a sign or what have you. The very second that a manager would ask you to leave, you lose that privillege.

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

It is implied that you can come there and do anything that is otherwise legal on the store property unless prohibited by a sign or what have you. The very second that a manager would ask you to leave, you lose that privillege.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree.

imported post

BB62 wrote:

Man, I feel sorry for the real activists in WI. It seems that some want to do nothing "unless", others want to pursue a (unproductive) legal course, and others just want to do nothing.

A damn shame.

Click to expand...

J.Gleason wrote:

Hmmm, and how is Wisconsin different then Ohio in that regards?

Click to expand...

A fair question. My answer is that after watching WI activities (or lack thereof) for a long time, including this thread, it seems that NO ONE (except possibly yourself) is willing to make the rubber hit the road.

Unresponded call after call has been made to the store/management in question, yet what is the status - status quo?

Add to that the talk of lawsuits against a private entity for barring persons of non-protected status... ROFL!


Come on WI - get out there!!

imported post

And what would an Ohioan do in this situation?

Nutczak
Regular Member


Joined:Mon Dec 1st, 2008 Location:The Northwoods, Lakeland Area, Wisconsin USA Posts:504 Status: Online Posted: Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 09:08 pm QuoteReply Ok, if a private citizen cannot be named in a denial of rights suit, what about this scenario;

A chain stores policy is to follow state law in regards to firearm posession, but a manger for a store location has a hair up his/her ass and does not think that the RKBA should apply to individuals. he then calls the police to have a law abiding patron removed from the store for no other reason then that patron legally possessing a firearm. The manager has not asked the patron to leave or remove their firearm before summoning the police. The officer removes this person at the request of this manager and may charge them with tresspassing, or may fraw their firearm during contact.

Now lets say the manager alsofabricated a story about the person with his/her firearm, and stated to law enforcement that they were threatening other patrons. The O-C'er gets charged with multiple offenses even though they have done nothing illegal, Store security video shows a totally opposite story of what this manager stated. but in the meantime the O-C'er has basically been treated as "Guilty until he proves his innocence"

I feel that somehow this manager should be liable for initiating the violation of the patrons rights.

A store that is open to the public is way different than a private propery owner that does not draw people to their property.

imported post

*

imported post

You may see it that way, but others certainly don't. For some, our right to be free and defend our freedom (and life) is very important.

Click to expand...

I think you are on the slippery slope to be honest. Of course, I agree others don't see it the same way. Thats why we now have government telling bar and restraunt owners what can and can't happen on their property (no smoking)

They use the same logic 'public place' and suddenly the rights go to the people going in, not the right of the person who owns the joint.

I think thats wrong. Your mileage may vary.

imported post

Pointman wrote:

You may see it that way, but others certainly don't. For some, our right to be free and defend our freedom (and life) is very important.


When a business opens its doors to the public, they must accept the law-abiding public "as-is." You can't pose a health risk (no shoes), disturb the peace (use profanity), not pay for goods and services (theft), just stand around (loitering), but you can walk in with your American flag shirt and a cross on a chain around your neck, hold a conversation about government and religion with a friend while shopping, have curly hair, and even be downright ugly (like me!). I don't see how having a lawfully possessed, holstered weapon is any different.

Click to expand...

Pointman, your whole post can be explained away by one simple fact:

"If you don't like it, you aren't being forced to go there."

If you don't feel safe going somewhere, don't go there. What you are saying isn't any different from an anti saying that they don't feel safe with any guns around. In this context anway:

For some, our right to be free and defend our freedom (and life) is very important.

Click to expand...

If you are forced to go someplace; you may well have an argument, but until then, it's a moot point.

When a buisiness opens it's doors to the public they can accept the public under whatever premiss they so choose. It is only implied that the public can do anything that is otherwise lawful outside the business, inside the business. That stops as soon as it is known that the owners policy prohibitssomething (ie; a sign or an agent telling you so) They could certainly allow you to come in shirtless If they'd like. A strip joint would be pretty boring if there was some sort of shirt wearing regulation. They could alsokick you out for talking about politics if they'd like.

A private property owner can pretty much discriminate against anything he/she wants and if he couldn't, I wouldnt want to live in this country. Like Nik said, what you are advocating is a very slippery slope. As soon as you start eroding private property rights, all the others are soon to follow. For the good of the children of course.

The Constitution and BOR protects against the goverment, not against private property owners. Goverment laws AFAIK, only protect in issues of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, familial status, and disability. "protected classes"

Everything else is fair game.