Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Confused

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cadiz, KY
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Im sorry if this sounds stupid, but I'm confused. If it is our 2A right to OC and no one can tell us otherwise, how can some places and stores prohibit us to OC there and post signs? I have heard of some places calling LEOs on people OCing and kicking them out. I thought I have read somewhere that stores legally cant post? Im just confused. someone help me out. LoL

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Eagle-Six wrote:
    Im sorry if this sounds stupid, but I'm confused. If it is our 2A right to OC and no one can tell us otherwise, how can some places and stores prohibit us to OC there and post signs?
    The constitution creates and limits governmental powers; absent state action, there is no problem with banning guns.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    There's a thing called "Property Rights". A private business owner can set conditions for entry, as long as the conditions don't descriminate against something that cannot be readily changed, such as race, gender, religion, etc.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Eagle-Six wrote:
    Im sorry if this sounds stupid, but I'm confused. If it is our 2A right to OC and no one can tell us otherwise, how can some places and stores prohibit us to OC there and post signs? I have heard of some places calling LEOs on people OCing and kicking them out. I thought I have read somewhere that stores legally cant post? Im just confused. someone help me out. LoL
    Stores can and do post directives to disallow carrying of guns on their privateproperty. They have that right. We have the right to call attention to their disregard of our rights and begin shopping elsewherethen alerting others to do the same.

    It's a tangled web weweave and we must strive through correctness, politeness and a dash of law to bring these misguided Americans to the light.

    Personally, I believeeven though misguided beliefs form the backbone of theuneducated, we are starting to prevail.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post




    Kentucky Constitution


    Section 195


    Corporation property subject to eminent domain -- Corporations not to infringe upon individuals.


    The Commonwealth, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, shall have and retain the same powers to take the property and franchises of incorporated companies for public use which it has and retains to take the property of individuals, and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.

    Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.
    History: Not yet amended.



  6. #6
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    givemeliberty wrote:


    Kentucky Constitution


    Section 195


    Corporation property subject to eminent domain -- Corporations not to infringe upon individuals.


    The Commonwealth, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, shall have and retain the same powers to take the property and franchises of incorporated companies for public use which it has and retains to take the property of individuals, and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.

    Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.
    History: Not yet amended.


    OK. What does this mean in laymans terms?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Eagle-Six wrote:
    Im sorry if this sounds stupid, but I'm confused. If it is our 2A right to OC and no one can tell us otherwise, how can some places and stores prohibit us to OC there and post signs? I have heard of some places calling LEOs on people OCing and kicking them out. I thought I have read somewhere that stores legally cant post? Im just confused. someone help me out. LoL
    This is why we now have a "sticky" thread titled "Kentucky list of OC friendly or unfriendly businesses". The intent is to show new and existing open carriers where businesses readily allow or disallow OC or CC, so a person can decide if they want to do business there, or not.

    See http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum25/34707.html

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    givemeliberty wrote:


    Kentucky Constitution


    Section 195


    Corporation property subject to eminent domain -- Corporations not to infringe upon individuals.


    The Commonwealth, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, shall have and retain the same powers to take the property and franchises of incorporated companies for public use which it has and retains to take the property of individuals, and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.

    Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.
    History: Not yet amended.


    OK. What does this mean in laymans terms?


    The Commonwealth shall have the same powers to take the property and franchises of incorporated companies

    Means that an individual cannot protect his property from being taken by the state under the immenent domain principle by incorporating it. Any propertycan be taken by the state for public use/good whether it is owned by an individual or company.



    permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals

    A law allowing corporations to discriminate against certain people cannot be passed. For instance a law saying that a corporation employing less than 100 people cannot be exempted from hiring handicapped persons.

    Notice the date was 1891 and was primarily saying that laws permitting corporations to refuse to hire blacks were unconstitutional.

    Open to rebuttal.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Louisville KY, ,
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Bottom line, businesses and residences can ban anything they want on their property. If you choose to carry anyway, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, the cops can arrest you for trespassing.




  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    I thought the subject explained what the the law was about. Open Carry is recognized as a right in kentucky.

    Corporation property subject to eminent domain -- Corporations not to infringe upon individuals.

    I'm not sure were someone would interpid the quote below as corporations being able to restrict someones right to opencarry.

    and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    chris in va wrote:
    Bottom line, businesses and residences can ban anything they want on their property. If you choose to carry anyway, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, the cops can arrest you for trespassing.


    Are you telling me that a business can refuse service to black people just because there black. :shock:

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    givemeliberty wrote:
    chris in va wrote:
    Bottom line, businesses and residences can ban anything they want on their property. If you choose to carry anyway, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, the cops can arrest you for trespassing.


    Are you telling me that a business can refuse service to black people just because there black. :shock:
    He said ANYTHING not ANYONE. Your confusing civil rights with the second amendment.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Unfettered Might wrote:
    givemeliberty wrote:
    chris in va wrote:
    Bottom line, businesses and residences can ban anything they want on their property. If you choose to carry anyway, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, the cops can arrest you for trespassing.


    Are you telling me that a business can refuse service to black people just because there black. :shock:
    He said ANYTHING not ANYONE. Your confusing civil rights with the second amendment.
    Section 195 refers to equal right. Not to many years ago it was illegal for blacks to own a gun, along with many other things. The result of the civil rights movement granted equal rights to them. There for.


    and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.


    In this case the right to carry a gun in Kentucky is also an equal right. A corporation Is not permitted to infringe on the equal rights (opencarry) of individuals.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    givemeliberty wrote:
    Unfettered Might wrote:
    givemeliberty wrote:
    chris in va wrote:
    Bottom line, businesses and residences can ban anything they want on their property. If you choose to carry anyway, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, the cops can arrest you for trespassing.


    Are you telling me that a business can refuse service to black people just because there black. :shock:
    He said ANYTHING not ANYONE. Your confusing civil rights with the second amendment.
    Section 195 refers to equal right. Not to many years ago it was illegal for blacks to own a gun, along with many other things. The result of the civil rights movement granted equal rights to them. There for.


    and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.


    In this case the right to carry a gun in Kentucky is also an equal right. A corporation Is not permitted to infringe on the equal rights (opencarry) of individuals.
    How could corporations infringe on open carry? They already have the right to kick you off their property, and it's not considered an infringement.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    givemeliberty wrote:
    Unfettered Might wrote:
    givemeliberty wrote:
    chris in va wrote:
    Bottom line, businesses and residences can ban anything they want on their property. If you choose to carry anyway, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, the cops can arrest you for trespassing.


    Are you telling me that a business can refuse service to black people just because there black. :shock:
    He said ANYTHING not ANYONE. Your confusing civil rights with the second amendment.
    Section 195 refers to equal right. Not to many years ago it was illegal for blacks to own a gun, along with many other things. The result of the civil rights movement granted equal rights to them. There for.


    and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.


    In this case the right to carry a gun in Kentucky is also an equal right. A corporation Is not permitted to infringe on the equal rights (opencarry) of individuals.
    (sigh)

    I'm going to try this again.

    It's not an infringement on equal rights if they wont let ANYONE in with a gun. Now if they let Catholics but not Baptists or Americans but not Canadians in their stores with a firearm, then sir what you are quoting would apply. As that is not the case, your argument is null and void.

    Have a good day.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Unfettered Might wrote:
    givemeliberty wrote:
    Unfettered Might wrote:
    givemeliberty wrote:
    chris in va wrote:
    Bottom line, businesses and residences can ban anything they want on their property. If you choose to carry anyway, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, the cops can arrest you for trespassing.


    Are you telling me that a business can refuse service to black people just because there black. :shock:
    He said ANYTHING not ANYONE. Your confusing civil rights with the second amendment.
    Section 195 refers to equal right. Not to many years ago it was illegal for blacks to own a gun, along with many other things. The result of the civil rights movement granted equal rights to them. There for.


    and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.


    In this case the right to carry a gun in Kentucky is also an equal right. A corporation Is not permitted to infringe on the equal rights (opencarry) of individuals.
    (sigh)

    I'm going to try this again.

    It's not an infringement on equal rights if they wont let ANYONE in with a gun. Now if they let Catholics but not Baptists or Americans but not Canadians in their stores with a firearm, then sir what you are quoting would apply. As that is not the case, your argument is null and void.

    Have a good day.

    Aren't gun owners a minority group. I know equal rights don't just apply to race or religion.

    There is a law that permits businesses to restrict conceal carry.Can you show me a law that permits corporationsto restrict patrons fromopen carry?

    Why do people intrepid the law differently when it comes to guns.You can't have it both ways.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    givemeliberty wrote:
    Unfettered Might wrote:
    givemeliberty wrote:
    Unfettered Might wrote:
    givemeliberty wrote:
    chris in va wrote:
    Bottom line, businesses and residences can ban anything they want on their property. If you choose to carry anyway, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, the cops can arrest you for trespassing.


    Are you telling me that a business can refuse service to black people just because there black. :shock:
    He said ANYTHING not ANYONE. Your confusing civil rights with the second amendment.
    Section 195 refers to equal right. Not to many years ago it was illegal for blacks to own a gun, along with many other things. The result of the civil rights movement granted equal rights to them. There for.


    and the exercise of the police powers of this Commonwealth shall never be abridged nor so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the equal rights of individuals.


    In this case the right to carry a gun in Kentucky is also an equal right. A corporation Is not permitted to infringe on the equal rights (opencarry) of individuals.
    (sigh)

    I'm going to try this again.

    It's not an infringement on equal rights if they wont let ANYONE in with a gun. Now if they let Catholics but not Baptists or Americans but not Canadians in their stores with a firearm, then sir what you are quoting would apply. As that is not the case, your argument is null and void.

    Have a good day.

    Aren't gun owners a minority group. I know equal rights don't just apply to race or religion.

    There is a law that permits businesses to restrict conceal carry.Can you show me a law that permits corporationsto restrict patrons fromopen carry?

    Why do people intrepid the law differently when it comes to guns.You can't have it both ways.
    Equal rights apply to age, disability, national origin, race, religion, or gender, not gun ownership.

    A private property owner can have restrictions on their property otherwise, if you don't like it, you don't have to go there.

    The only one that's misinterpreting the law is you, what your suggesting would also be opening a Pandora's box on the right's of a private property owner.





  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    +1 Unfettered.

    Ever see signs that say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"? Those are definitely legal as well.

    If a business restricts guns, don't shop there. It's not an infringement if it's not your property or public property.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    +1 Unfettered.

    Ever see signs that say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"? Those are definitely legal as well.

    If a business restricts guns, don't shop there. It's not an infringement if it's not your property or public property.
    There is a law that a business can enforce a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy. Like you said "Legal"

    Corporations are bound by law just like everyone else. The big difference between corporations and individuals is that individuals have inerrant rights, corps don't.

    It's not a private property rights issue because corps don't have constitutional rights. In fact it all stems from property rights, or the loss of them.

    Here's the short of it. The individual at some point (through his inherentright to contract) gave his rights away for certain privileges, in this case to limit there liability. Corporations exists for two reasons 1. to make money 2. to separate ownership so the individual can't be sued. The corporation or any property it might have isn't private property because it's taxable and regulable by the owner (Government). There arealways strings attached.

    Definition of private property- unregulated nontaxable property. (Blacks law Dictionary)

    I've heard countless people say they should be able to run there business the way they want to. Sorry, Corps fall under Gov jurisdiction.

    Our founders saw the government as servant to the people, Lawfully unable to infringe on the rights of the individual. They also can't grant an artificial entity magical powers that infringe on the individual.

    Conclusion Revised- Artificial entities cannot beinfringe on the rights of the individual.Section 195 Kentucky State Constitution.Not that it doesn't happen.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    givemeliberty wrote:
    langzaiguy wrote:
    +1 Unfettered.

    Ever see signs that say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"? Those are definitely legal as well.

    If a business restricts guns, don't shop there. It's not an infringement if it's not your property or public property.
    There is a law that a business can enforce a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy. Like you said "Legal"

    Corporations are bound by law just like everyone else. The big difference between corporations and individuals is that individuals have inerrant rights, corps don't.

    It's not a private property rights issue because corps don't have constitutional rights. In fact it all stems from property rights, or the loss of them.

    Here's the short of it. The individual at some point (through his inherentright to contract) gave his rights away for certain privileges, in this case to limit there liability. Corporations exists for two reasons 1. to make money 2. to separate ownership so the individual can't be sued. The corporation or any property it might have isn't private property because it's taxable and regulable by the owner (Government). There arealways strings attached.

    Definition of private property- unregulated nontaxable property. (Blacks law Dictionary)

    I've heard countless people say they should be able to run there business the way they want to. Sorry, Corps fall under Gov jurisdiction.

    Our founders saw the government as servant to the people, Lawfully unable to infringe on the rights of the individual. They also can't grant an artificial entity magical powers that infringe on the individual.

    Conclusion Revised- Artificial entities cannot beinfringe on the rights of the individual.Section 195 Kentucky State Constitution.Not that it doesn't happen.
    Ok, your right.......

    Happy now

    Let us know how it goes in court.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •