Plain old discrimination

imported post

You know the more I think about these businesses that post no firearm signs , the more it seems like just plain discrimination. TheSCOUS has already ruled that the RTKBA is an individual right just like the 1stA, so if a business can deny you to carry in their building what is to keep them from saying , no Christians allowed or no African-Americans allowed. They may be privately owned but are opened to the general public unlike a private club where members only can enter. The Constitutionality of this escapes me , is the 2Anot just the same as the 1A in the way it should be should be protected.

imported post

That is true there is a long road for that statement. However I do respect a person's private property. I might not want Christians on my property. Except on Sunday's. JK But really I think that private ownership should be able to do whatever they want to alienate business away from themselves. Far be it from me to make them take my money.

imported post

So lawmaker are you saying it is legal for a business to deny entry based on race or religion?

imported post

Well, here is where "incorporation' comes in. The 1A has been ruled by SCOTUS as being "incorporated" at the state and local level, so discriminating on people because of religion isn't really possible. And the Federal Civil Rights act also has language in it to prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, or national origin.

The 2A, however, is just about the ONLY one of the first 10 amendments that HASN'T been ruled by SCOTUS as being incorporated at any level below the Federal Government, so businesses and state/local governments CAN discriminate based on it's exercise.

After McDonald V. Chicago rules in our favor (FOr incorporation) in March, this will change. It's going to take a LOT of subsequent lawsuits though to get everything sorted out, and force the states and municipalities to fall in line...

All that said, there ARE significant restrictions on the 1A that are in place on teh state and local level, including anti-posting laws, anti-leafleting laws, and laws that prohibit public speach, public distribution of printed materials, and the like, ESPECIALLY on state- or city-owned properties.

For instance, her in Washington NC, it is considered a "disruptive activity" to distribute printed material on the Public Library property without the express permission of the library board. (They also include carrying a firearm as a "disruptive activity). How weird is that? You can't exercise the 1A or th 2A in a freaking PUBLIC LIBRARY here. It's not a law, it's just a "code of conduct", and so they can't arrest (or even site) you for doing those things, but they CAN ask you to leave the property, and if you refuse, they can charge you with trespassing.

There are TWO sets of law here in the USA--one set of the the people who MAKE the laws, and another COMPLETELY different set for everyone else...

imported post

blindhog wrote:

So lawmaker are you saying it is legal for a business to deny entry based on race or religion?

Click to expand...

Is it legal? No there are laws preventing discrimination. My personal opinion is that a person should be able to do whatever they want with their own personal property and not have the government tell them that they have to accept certain people even if they choose not to. That is just like me owning a Christen Book Store. Some KKK folks come in full garb into my store. I dont want to allow them to come in. Most I can do is ask them to leave. I just think the Gov has it's hands in too much of personal property rights.

Disclaimer: I do not dislike Christians or KKK or any other group. I hate everyone the same. I am an equal opportunity hater.

imported post

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_75b/gs_75b-2.html



You can set clothing limitations on your business, you can send disruptive people out, but you can't kick them out for just anything.

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

Well, here is where "incorporation' comes in. The 1A has been ruled by SCOTUS as being "incorporated" at the state and local level, so discriminating on people because of religion isn't really possible. And the Federal Civil Rights act also has language in it to prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, or national origin.

Click to expand...

I don't know about NC, but Virginia's Constitution (on which much of the U.S. Constitution is based) pre-recognized the 2nd Amendment in Article I, Section 13.

It appears that Sect.30 of the NC Constitution pseudo-incorporates... but her Constitution (as it now stands) is the one forced on NC by the federal government in 1865-1868 and amended/rewritten numerous times since.

It hardly bears any resemblance to the original.

imported post

Like I have said before government should not be allowed to tell a business owner what they can or can't do. Prime example the new NO SMOKING law. If I want to let people smoke in my store so what? Don't like smoke, go somewhere else. It's that simple. If a store has up a no weapons sign I'll talk to the manager & try to change their mind.There is not one place anywhere that I just HAVE to shop at. Dollars speak loader than words.

imported post

I have to disagree with you Rex. I do agree that it should be that a business could let you smoke if they want to or not , but the point is smoking is not a Constitutionally protected right where TRKBA is. A businessor law saying I can't smoke in a public place is not denying me a enumerated right , where telling me I can't bear arms is.

imported post

It would only take one lawsuit to make them financially responsible for denying some ones right to self defense to get it changed.

imported post

I really hadn't thought about it that way. So yeah I guess you are right. They have a RULE where I work that says no weapons on the premises. This includes even in my car in their parking lot and the real kicker is they say they have the right to search my car anytime they want. But they are not responsible for anything that happens to my car while on their property. Hows that for having it both ways???? And of course if you do refuse a search you're fired. Private property can be a sticky situation.

imported post

Rex I know where you are coming from I am a State employee and the same rules apply to me as well. I have been fighting this recently and so far have gotten exactly no where but I will not stop trying. So at least feel some comfort that you are not alone.

imported post

Well anyway, welcome to the forum blindhog. BTW my son lives in Greensboro & works for the state also LOL. On weekends I'm in Greensboro or he's in reidsville & we both open carry everywhere we go on weekendsso maybe I'll run into you sometime.

imported post

The reason that a business can prohibit firearms is because the Constitution applies only to the government. The business owner has full control over his or her property. When you step onto private property, you play by the owners rules. The Constitution has no authority there. If the property is owned by the government, then the Constitution applies.

Some states have laws that require businesses to allow their employees to store firearms in their vehicles. I don't agree with that. The government shouldn't tell a business what they can and can't do. However, I'm all for laws that remove civil liability from employers that allow firearms to be stored in employees vehicles. I also would support laws that hold employers liable for anything that happens to employees while they are going to or from work if they are disarmed.

imported post

Adam I disagree with you on this. I work for the NCDOT, I can not have a weapon on me or in my car while at work. You can also not carry a firearm into a state park and many other places owned by the government. As far as private property goesI agree but I believe we are confusing private property with a private business open to the public. A business operating open to the public can not refuse your entry based on your religion or your skin color, the reason being, these things are protected by the Constitution. SoI would argue that at least some of the Constitution dose apply to a private business. My whole problem is if your 1A is being protected from private businesses then why isn't your 2nd ?

imported post

A business can prohibit a group from protesting on it's property. People don't have the right to petition a business for a redress of grievances. No court has applied the Constitution to a business. A business may not be able to keep someone out based on their skin color but this is because a law has prohibited this. It is not because the Constitution has been applied to the business.

As for the government prohibiting firearms in certain locations, those laws and/or regulations are in violation of the NC State Constitution. Those laws are still on the books because nobody has challenged them in court. If someone had the money or the time, they could challenge them in court, and I believe they would be successful. If I had the time (because I sure don't have the money), I would file a lawsuit challenging some on the laws and represent myself.

imported post

Adam if I wanted to walk into say Pete's coffee shop with a shirt on that said I support the 2a would they have the right to refuse me entry?

imported post

blindhog wrote:

Adam if I wanted to walk into say Pete's coffee shop with a shirt on that said I support the 2a would they have the right to refuse me entry?

Click to expand...

Yes. As there is nothing stating they can't kick you out for that reason.

imported post

Ok I agree they could. Now if I walked in the same place with a shirt on that said I'm a Christian could they then refuse me entry. I don't think so ,,,,right? I mean the law states no discrimination based onrace, creed, color, religion, sex ... so freedom of religion, a 1A right ,is protected from discrimination,,,, right? Religion is a personal decision ,,, that is something a individual chooses to believe in and participate in. The makers of the law for some reason decided to include freedom of religion in the discrimination laws. So the freedom of religion part of the 1A is protected and enforced against private businesses through a law. I guess what I'm getting at is there is some grounds to argue that the constitution at least in some part does apply to a private business , through law.

imported post

It is my understanding that they can refuse you service for said shirt. What law are you seeing that protects your right to practice freedom of religion on another's property? You have freedom to practice religion, but you may not be free to hold prayer in the lobby of a hotel. You have freedom of speech, but you may be removed for speaking too loudly in a theater. Businesses have the right to refuse you service.