Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    judge napalitano on fox new argues for our RKBA in public accomidation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE

    an article in support of our RKBA agreeing with the judge.

    http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equa...refuse-service

    how does this stuff sound to you? im thinkin they are pursuasive arguements

    :celebrate :celebrate :celebrate :celebrate :celebrate
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  2. #2
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    Great interview. I've always thought that what the judge is saying is how it should be. The company is private property, but they open themselves up to public accomidation. Wow, what a great next step for us.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    I have said this in many of my posts since I joined the board. I believe once McDonald is decided in our favor, there will be lawsuits that will have to allow for the 'public accomodation' doctrine to the 2nd Amendment. Your first Amendment rights do not end when you enter the mall and neither should your 2nd. It make take a little time, but I believe that with incorporation this will happen.
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    I have said this in many of my posts since I joined the board. I believe once McDonald is decided in our favor, there will be lawsuits that will have to allow for the 'public accomodation' doctrine to the 2nd Amendment. Your first Amendment rights do not end when you enter the mall and neither should your 2nd. It make take a little time, but I believe that with incorporation this will happen.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    I'm very torn with this issue. I think it is too slippery of a slope. If we grant 2Am rights to people when they enter a private business, thereby revoking the private business right to do what they choose with their business, including the right to refuse service and the right to tell people to get off their property/premisis, then I think you're opening a can or worms. The precedent would be set and then you have anyone arguing for their rights granted under the constitution be imposed on another person.

    My constitutional rights shall not be infringed upon, and that includes by someone else' constitutional right to bear arms.

    Please don't get me wrong, I'm for the right to bear arms just about anywhere, but I cannot ask the rights of a private individual to be infringed upon because I want to carry my gun in his/her place of business.

    My 2 cents. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise.

    Edit: Dang it, forgot to hit spell check...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Myquestion is why does it take a law suit to end these illegal laws and actions? All this does is put money in lawyers pockets. Does not the High Court'sdecision pretty much actlike a state preemption law, making all these laws null and void? If it doesn't, it damn well should.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    that kind of guy wrote:
    I'm very torn with this issue. I think it is too slippery of a slope. If we grant 2Am rights to people when they enter a private business, thereby revoking the private business right to do what they choose with their business, including the right to refuse service and the right to tell people to get off their property/premises, then I think you're opening a can or worms. The precedent would be set and then you have anyone arguing for their rights granted under the constitution be imposed on another person.

    My constitutional rights shall not be infringed upon, and that includes by someone else' constitutional right to bear arms.

    Please don't get me wrong, I'm for the right to bear arms just about anywhere, but I cannot ask the rights of a private individual to be infringed upon because I want to carry my gun in his/her place of business.

    My 2 cents. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise.

    Edit: Dang it, forgot to hit spell check...
    While I understand your perceptions of a private business, I think that most of us on open carry need to take a look at this. There is a long legal history of what rights are included in public accommodation.

    Think of it this way, can a public business(which is voluntary, they need not go into business but they choose to open their business to the general public) ban blacks? I think we all understand jurisprudence in the matter of race and the general consensus is that they can not ban you based on your race.

    Can a business ban someone who wears an Obama shirt into there business (again, only business that open their doors to the general public) jurisprudence in this area says they can not. Free speech wins in this case. Most cases that SCOTUS has reviewed have to do with religious groups, signature gatherers using free speech as a method to be on their property. I am generalizing here but for the most part you have that right and the court uses very strict rules when limiting speech.

    I know that we want to talk about private property rights but we need to understand that when a business voluntarily opens to serve the general public they must abide by certain rules. There property rights are not absolute, just like the other rights are not absolute.

    There will be a long line of lawsuits to decide issues like this, just has there has been with the 1A and public spaces and private property.

    (edited to add: you private property rights of your home or business not open to the general public are much different)
    Live Free or Die!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs:

    Point taken. I'm inclined to agree with you. I would even more so agree with companies that are publicly held/traded. Those are no longer "private" entities in a manner of speaking.

    However, I still think this is a slippery issue to wrestle with. For example, say an individual comes into your restaurant OC, starts up an loud argument with the people at the table next to him. Because he's making a scene and disturbing the rest of your customers, you politely ask him to leave.

    The next day you get served with papers that he is suing you for discrimnation because he was OC. The table he was arguing with end up having to testify in court that he was indeed carrying, they were not, and they were not asked to leave either even though they were arguing with him (therefore creating the distinction that the customer was not asked to leave because he was arguing or making a scene, but because he was carrying).

    Ok, this may sound a little ridiculous at this point, but we all know how ridiculous our litigious society has become.

    So who's right? The owner for asking the guy to leave, hopefully protecting his rights as a business to refuse service to someone, or the guy OCing, because he has constitutionally protected rights?

    Again, haven't decided where I stand on this issue, but just discussing to vet all the angles.

    Thanks.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    In retail I deal with the loud arguing customer a few times a year. I ask them to calm down, to not use profanity. Most cooperate, a few do not. Some accuse me of being racist or whatever. No one in 20 years has sued for discrimination. Not that it doesn't happen, surely it does.

    That is the price to pay in a free society. We must accept that. Cameras installed will help as the person would be asked to leave for disturbing the peace not for OC. Or for intimidation, but not for an object on their belt.
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Good gun guy, lets look at the idea of the private business. Microsoft is a publicly traded business, yet, because of the nature of their business, they can ban all guns from their property... why? Because Microsoft is not a public access type business like a restaurant or a shopping mall. So not all privately owned businesses have to allow open or conceal carry on their premises, only those that don't allow public access to their business should be able to ban anything they want.

    I've come to a conclusion much like Judge Napalitano came to and I believe that using his argument, you could defeat a trespass charge in court based on this. Of course, there is going to have to be someone who gets arrested to make this happen and right now... that isn't going to be me.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    While I understand your perceptions of a private business, I think that most of us on open carry need to take a look at this. There is a long legal history of what rights are included in public accommodation.
    It's good to know that two wrongs finally do make a right, that past wrongs can be used to justify future wrongs.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    "lets look at the idea of the private business. Microsoft is a publicly traded business, yet, because of the nature of their business, they can ban all guns from their property... why? Because Microsoft is not a public access type business like a restaurant or a shopping mall. So not all privately owned businesses have to allow open or conceal carry on their premises, only those that don't allow public access to their business should be able to ban anything they want."

    I think that would be the argument that seals it for me there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. May the play should not be waiting for someone to get arrested, but for someone to file a discrimination suit? By extension, if the suit was successful, then business would have to allow carrying. No need for getting arrested, just wait until a business asks you to leave/refuses you service.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    This whole "rights are limited" argument has always been B.S.

    There was no need to "limit" the right to "free speech" when it comes to shouting 'fire' in a theater, because such a vocal ejaculation ultimately serves as an act of aggression against the right of contract of the theater proprietor and the patrons. Thus it was never within the realm of "free speech" to begin with, thus unable to represent an example of free speech being found to be "not absolute".

    This argument is literally identical to suggesting that the RKBA is not absolute because you don't have a right to draw and shoot people randomly whenever you please.

    In fact, we all ought to recognize that initiatory force in the form of randomly shooting someone is never a function of any "right", thus there is no need to "limit" a right in order to apply penalty to the random shooting of strangers. Quite the contrary, the right to keep and bear arms is defined by its consisting of non-aggressive behavior, and thus according to definition it is (and ought to be considered by law) "absolute".

    If you look at the philosophical origin of the concept of 'right', a the limit and extent of 'right' is defined by those actions which do not infringe upon the ability of another to exercise his own equivalent 'right' peacefully (yes, it may be recursive like that).

    Thus, while I never have the right to aggress against another, I do possess the right to speak in any manner I see fit so long it doesn't constitute an act of aggression.

    This right is not "limited", whatever some court may say (in the same way that every human possesses a right to bear arms, although many governments prohibit it).

    Indeed, every valid example of a "limited" right is in fact an example of behavior well outside the defined boundary of 'right', behavior which never existed under the umbrella of 'right' to begin with.

    The only appropriate standard is aggression. Absent aggression, rights are absolute, even when they are infringed up by government in opposition to natural right.

    The non-right to aggress is equally absolute, and the boundary between right and non-right follows perfectly the boundary of aggressive behavior.

    So, let's think for a minute. We've already established that, regardless of what some judge said, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not within the purview of any 'right', by definition.

    What about property owners banning, say, shirtless males? Surely males have a 'right' to go shirtless as it does not constitute an act of aggression. However, against whom is a property owner aggressing by prohibiting shirtless patrons?

    What about the business which bans guns? What initiatory force does that act represent, in a world where the decision to cross the threshold onto private property is always a voluntary one?

  14. #14
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Myquestion is why does it take a law suit to end these illegal laws and actions?
    Because.


    Sorry, that's all I got.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    gsx1138 wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Myquestion is why does it take a law suit to end these illegal laws and actions?
    Because.


    Sorry, that's all I got.
    Oh, I actually know why. A very high dollar lawyer (hehad a couple of casebeforeSCOTUS even)friend explained it many years ago. Mainly it comes down to the ABA perverting the system for monatary gain of it's members.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, Washington, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    gsx1138 wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    My*question is why does it take a law suit to end these illegal laws and actions?
    Because.


    Sorry, that's all I got.
    LOL!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    This whole "rights are limited" argument has always been B.S.

    There was no need to "limit" the right to "free speech" when it comes to shouting 'fire' in a theater, because such a vocal ejaculation ultimately serves as an act of aggression against the right of contract of the theater proprietor and the patrons. Thus it was never within the realm of "free speech" to begin with, thus unable to represent an example of free speech being found to be "not absolute".

    This argument is literally identical to suggesting that the RKBA is not absolute because you don't have a right to draw and shoot people randomly whenever you please.

    In fact, we all ought to recognize that initiatory force in the form of randomly shooting someone is never a function of any "right", thus there is no need to "limit" a right in order to apply penalty to the random shooting of strangers. Quite the contrary, the right to keep and bear arms is defined by its consisting of non-aggressive behavior, and thus according to definition it is (and ought to be considered by law) "absolute".

    If you look at the philosophical origin of the concept of 'right', a the limit and extent of 'right' is defined by those actions which do not infringe upon the ability of another to exercise his own equivalent 'right' peacefully (yes, it may be recursive like that).

    Thus, while I never have the right to aggress against another, I do possess the right to speak in any manner I see fit so long it doesn't constitute an act of aggression.

    This right is not "limited", whatever some court may say (in the same way that every human possesses a right to bear arms, although many governments prohibit it).

    Indeed, every valid example of a "limited" right is in fact an example of behavior well outside the defined boundary of 'right', behavior which never existed under the umbrella of 'right' to begin with.

    The only appropriate standard is aggression. Absent aggression, rights are absolute, even when they are infringed up by government in opposition to natural right.

    The non-right to aggress is equally absolute, and the boundary between right and non-right follows perfectly the boundary of aggressive behavior.

    So, let's think for a minute. We've already established that, regardless of what some judge said, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not within the purview of any 'right', by definition.

    What about property owners banning, say, shirtless males? Surely males have a 'right' to go shirtless as it does not constitute an act of aggression. However, against whom is a property owner aggressing by prohibiting shirtless patrons?

    What about the business which bans guns? What initiatory force does that act represent, in a world where the decision to cross the threshold onto private property is always a voluntary one?
    Actually, I think the whole argument of "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" is bogus. Free speech isn't definable nor can it have any limits placed upon it. We each must be held accountable for the results of our speech, but we cannot be stopped from using that speech in general public areas. For example, if I were to yell fire in a crowded theater when no movie was showing, people look around and no one pays attention to me... no harm no foul. If I stand up in the middle of the movie and start yelling about anything... it does not matter if it is "FIRE" or "PENGUIN"... the owner can ask me to leave and have me trespassed off the premises by police if I refuse. Why? Because in one instance, I am not trampling on anyone's rights... and in the other, I am. As a society, we must move back to one that holds people accountable for their actions. If I yell fire in a crowded theater and no one listens and no one even cares... no harm, no foul... it is STILL free speech. On the other hand, if I yell fire in a crowded theater and people panic and run for the exits and people get hurt or die in the stampede, and there never was a fire, well then, the person who caused the panic must be held to account for infringing on other people's liberty and causing injury to them. You still have free speech EVEN if it kills someone.... but you must be held to account. Free speech is non-negotiable... you have it... it can be used for good or bad. Just because someone CAN cause injury with words by inciting panic or violence does not mean we ban speech because of it. Instead, we make it known that you WILL be held accountable for any actual harm you have caused. If no harm was caused... then banning the speech preemptively seems very wrong. The same can be said about Firearms laws and ordinances. Banning guns because someone MAY do something bad is like banning speech because someone MAY say something bad... preemptive laws and actions are usually always bad and wrong and we should avoid them as much as possible.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    That's essentially my argument.

    People can do whatever they please, but they will be held liable once their actions transgress against others.

    The reason they may be held liable is that such transgressions fall outside the purview of 'right'. This is by definition.

    I suspect that what I'm arguing is really very elementary to yourself, and so you're inclined to take it to the next stage. Which is fine, and I agree with you fully.

    I'm just trying to be clear on the semantical uses of "right" et al.

  19. #19
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    can i get an amen???:celebrate damn well said!! Washintonian_For_Liberty
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    That's essentially my argument.

    People can do whatever they please, but they will be held liable once their actions transgress against others.

    The reason they may be held liable is that such transgressions fall outside the purview of 'right'. This is by definition.

    I suspect that what I'm arguing is really very elementary to yourself, and so you're inclined to take it to the next stage. Which is fine, and I agree with you fully.

    I'm just trying to be clear on the semantical uses of "right" et al.
    What you guys are suggestting is totally counter to the PC doctrine in vogue now. You know "Big Brother will take care of everything and never allow anything bad to occur.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    That's essentially my argument.

    People can do whatever they please, but they will be held liable once their actions transgress against others.

    The reason they may be held liable is that such transgressions fall outside the purview of 'right'. This is by definition.

    I suspect that what I'm arguing is really very elementary to yourself, and so you're inclined to take it to the next stage. Which is fine, and I agree with you fully.

    I'm just trying to be clear on the semantical uses of "right" et al.
    What you guys are suggestting is totally counter to the PC doctrine in vogue now.
    Yes, it is. Hence my initial "It's good to know two wrongs finally make a right" remark.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Banning guns because someone MAY do something bad is like banning speech because someone MAY say something bad... preemptive laws and actions are usually always bad and wrong and we should avoid them as much as possible.
    OK, I missed this part.

    When it comes to a state ban, I agree completely. Mere possession of a firearm does not constitute an act of aggression, and so preemptive laws against it are invalid/immoral/contrary to right.

    But, does not the private property owner retain the discretion to trespass those who violate his own rules of conduct on his own property?

    Is it not equally preemptive to prohibit this discretion, instead of merely applying liability to said discretion the instant it results in harm?

  23. #23
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    That's essentially my argument.

    People can do whatever they please, but they will be held liable once their actions transgress against others.

    The reason they may be held liable is that such transgressions fall outside the purview of 'right'. This is by definition.

    I suspect that what I'm arguing is really very elementary to yourself, and so you're inclined to take it to the next stage. Which is fine, and I agree with you fully.

    I'm just trying to be clear on the semantic uses of "right" et al.
    What you guys are suggesting is totally counter to the PC doctrine in vogue now.
    Of course it is... but one must remember, a right not used is one that will soon be lost as those who hate all Liberty will perceive that no one cares about that right and they can then ban it. There are a good deal of control freaks in this country whose primary goal seems to be to get into some position of law making so they can impose their views on everyone else... these people are dangerous and should never be allowed to be in public office... but we have a long way to go to argue for true Liberty as most sheeple in this country have lost sight of what that truly is.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  24. #24
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    This is a great video, ceasefire says more guns more gun violence, Judge Andrew says More guns less gun violence, they just needed to show something tangible to the ceasefire guys to re-enforce that. I think thats one of the roadblocks and the media needs to force-feed the true statistics down the publics throat.Nice to see them list some places that allow OC. I don't think this denies any private establishment that caters to the public, from denying service to anyone who is deserving of being made to leave. If I am open carry, and someone does not like it and I am being civil unlike the oc guy at the starbucks meet, then I should be allowed to receive the service that is offered at the establishment. If someone says something and I partake of the argument instead of filing a complaint to the management, then I should be kicked out. The screaming and yelling is annoying.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Banning guns because someone MAY do something bad is like banning speech because someone MAY say something bad... preemptive laws and actions are usually always bad and wrong and we should avoid them as much as possible.
    OK, I missed this part.

    When it comes to a state ban, I agree completely. Mere possession of a firearm does not constitute an act of aggression, and so preemptive laws against it are invalid/immoral/contrary to right.

    But, does not the private property owner retain the discretion to trespass those who violate his own rules of conduct on his own property?

    Is it not equally preemptive to prohibit this discretion, instead of merely applying liability to said discretion the instant it results in harm?
    If you keep your property private, you are correct, However when you open it up to the public, as in a retail store, a sports arena. etc, then you have made your property public and you loose the private privilege.




Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •