• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fox News - Judge Napolitano on Gun Rights

P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Opening a New Thread with the VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE&feature=player_embedded

Here's the theory, as I have researched. I do not necessarily agree that a firearm owner is a protected status, but it does make some sense. I am just stating the theory. It completely depends on if we are to think that the ACT of Carrying a Firearm is so protected an sacred that we can enter any PUBLIC place with it.

PLEASE NOTE WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC PLACES / PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS

If we are to recognize the right to bear arms as a Constitutionally protected right and PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION can not prevent gun owners from entering. We are only talking about PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.

A public accommodation, according to the theory is a business that has asked to leave the status of a private accommodation serving only its members, or membership base (or members of a household) and serve the public. They are asking that the general public enter, and that they will not arbitrarily harass members of society. As the Judge has said a public accommodation has ASKED THE PUBLIC to come onto its property.

Remember, any business has the option of not being a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION and then limiting who they allow it. You can open a private restaurant, a private hotel, a private anything -- it's 100% allowed and constitutionally protected. There are many examples of this, and tons of private clubs and private hotels in major metro areas. However, when you ask for the GENERAL PUBLIC to come in, you are entering into an agreement with the people.

The theory goes that since they have declared themselves a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, they MUST allow all members of the public in. That if having a gun is a protected class, they must allow gun carriers into the facility.

PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE THAT PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS DO NOT HAVE TO ALLOW ANYONE IN. While some people may very well think this, the law in this country is well established about this. It is also off topic to opencarry.

The topic is: Must Public Accommodations, as the law stands, if we win in the Supreme Court, allow OPEN CARRY. I believe Judge Napolotano is correct.
 
SemperFiTexan

SemperFiTexan

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
68
Location
, ,
imported post

The "Public Accomodation" argument is not one I've heard before and yet it is a very compelling one. If the USSC comes down in total support of the 2nd Amendment you can be sure that this argument will be heard in courtrooms across the land.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Well, the great thing about what has happened in the last few years is the affirmation of 2A. It would mean all public spaces would have to recognize this right.

Please remember, we are not talking about private places or violating the right of congregation/assembly, etc. We are only talking about public spaces and accommodations.

One_Shot wrote:
The "Public Accomodation" argument is not one I've heard before and yet it is a very compelling one. If the USSC comes down in total support of the 2nd Amendment you can be sure that this argument will be heard in courtrooms across the land.
Click to expand...
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

"Public Accommodation" is a bit of legal silliness invented to get around the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of assembly. Just because a business is licensed or invites the public to do business does not relieve the government from the restrictions of freedom of assembly.

Of course, unconstitutional restrictions of freedom often make it through the legislatures and the courts--and into the minds of those so willing to forfeit a basic freedom for some lesser ideal.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Not at all! It's just the complete opposite -- in fact Public Accommodation affirms the right of anyone to assemble, any group whatsoever in a public area.

If you are making the argument about freedom of association, that option is completely open. Anyone can open a PRIVATE establishment that has rules and regulations to their membership. We are not talking about that.

When someone applies to be a public accommodation, they are making a decision to waive that right to be a private only place.

When a restaurant says "I want to be PUBLIC" they have waived the right to be "PRIVATE". They can always decide to go back to be private if they want, but most places have decided that its not good business to be a private place. I can tomorrow open a business that is restricted to my membership only and make any decision of what my membership is, based on any arbitrary reason whatsoever. There are tons of private restaurants and clubs throughout the US, and they are allowed to exist.

However, we are only talking about restaurants that have already decided to waive that right and no longer be private. They have told the public at large and the government that they do not wish to be private and be a public space and follow public laws.









eye95 wrote:
"Public Accommodation" is a bit of legal silliness invented to get around the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of assembly. Just because a business is licensed or invites the public to do business does not relieve the government from the restrictions of freedom of assembly.

Of course, unconstitutional restrictions of freedom often make it through the legislatures and the courts--and into the minds of those so willing to forfeit a basic freedom for some lesser ideal.
Click to expand...
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

A private business is not a public area. It is that insistence that promotes taking their freedom of assembly!

Your rights do not exist at the expense of the rights of others.
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
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/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

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

:celebrate :celebrate :celebrate :celebrate :celebrate


ive been following this around several states,,,,watch the judge vidio,, then read the article...
with incorporation it starts to make more sense!
 
Washintonian_For_Liberty

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
A private business is not a public area. It is that insistence that promotes taking their freedom of assembly!

Your rights do not exist at the expense of the rights of others.
Click to expand...
I think if you look at this with a more defined eye, you might understand the distinction.

A restaurant which only paying members can go to has the same private property rights as any other private property. Member only access makes this restaurant NOT public.

A restaurant which opens its doors to everyone cannot arbitrarily block some people from coming in while allowing others to come in. They cannot ban you just because you have the Obama symbol shaved into your hair or you're wearing a T-Shirt they don't like... we're talking about a social contract that people enter into when it comes to public accommodations.

The person opening a restaurant knows that if he makes his restaurant public access, he has to let anyone in. However, his rights are not trampled on because he also has the choice to make his restaurant a "members only" establishment giving him full "private property" protections. I think that restaurants that require a reservation for seating fall under the "private property" protections so can and do say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service". But if we're talking a Denny's which allows anyone in, then I think you have no expectation of private property protections other than your deed of ownership and the right to open and close the property when you want. What is SO hard to understand about that?
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Of course they can deny entry to anyone they wish (or, at least, should be able to). It is their business, their property, their risk, etc.

I understand the principle you are advocating. I just disagree with it with every fiber of my being. I submit that the Founders would too. You are restricting the freedom of one group in the incorrect assumption that it increases the freedom of another. It only increases the freedom of the others to restrict the freedom of the one group.

If Schmo's Coffee shop won't let you carry, you go to Starbuck's. If you force Schmo's to allow people to carry, you have restricted their rights without really protecting the carrier's rights.

Don't advocate the protection of your rights at the expense of others'. That can be turned back on you pretty fast these days.
 
SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
Opening a New Thread with the VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE&feature=player_embedded

Here's the theory, as I have researched. I do not necessarily agree that a firearm owner is a protected status, but it does make some sense. I am just stating the theory. It completely depends on if we are to think that the ACT of Carrying a Firearm is so protected an sacred that we can enter any PUBLIC place with it.

PLEASE NOTE WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC PLACES / PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS

If we are to recognize the right to bear arms as a Constitutionally protected right and PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION can not prevent gun owners from entering. We are only talking about PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.

A public accommodation, according to the theory is a business that has asked to leave the status of a private accommodation serving only its members, or membership base (or members of a household) and serve the public. They are asking that the general public enter, and that they will not arbitrarily harass members of society. As the Judge has said a public accommodation has ASKED THE PUBLIC to come onto its property.

Remember, any business has the option of not being a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION and then limiting who they allow it. You can open a private restaurant, a private hotel, a private anything -- it's 100% allowed and constitutionally protected. There are many examples of this, and tons of private clubs and private hotels in major metro areas. However, when you ask for the GENERAL PUBLIC to come in, you are entering into an agreement with the people.

The theory goes that since they have declared themselves a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, they MUST allow all members of the public in. That if having a gun is a protected class, they must allow gun carriers into the facility.

PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE THAT PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS DO NOT HAVE TO ALLOW ANYONE IN. While some people may very well think this, the law in this country is well established about this. It is also off topic to opencarry.

The topic is: Must Public Accommodations, as the law stands, if we win in the Supreme Court, allow OPEN CARRY. I believe Judge Napolotano is correct.
Click to expand...
The concept of "protected class" is anathema to Americans and as such, is also unconstitutional. There are no group rights in this country since rights are passed to individuals as natural rights.

All of this nonsense regarding protected persons or classes is an insult to our liberties.
 
N

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Don't advocate the protection of your rights at the expense of others'. That can be turned back on you pretty fast these days.
Click to expand...
I don't. I advocate for all people's right to be alive and not be forced to be a victim with the excuse of "it's private property, that means if the owner wants anarchy, IT'S ANARCHY and the government can't intervene". If you're open to the public, then you don't get to tell criminals "green light" and everyone else "come in and die".

When criminals and their protectors rights are more protected than law-abiding citizens, we're all screwed.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Eye95, I don't think you are getting the difference here.

A public establishment has decided already that they do not want to have those protections of a private establishment. They are saying "when you come into my place, it's a public arena, everyone welcome."

If you open a business tomorrow that the general public is NOT welcome, you can ban anyone you want, for any reason.

Again, please note the difference and think about it. These are places that have already elected to not be PRIVATE. They have decided that they want to be public. They could elect to not be public, be private.

You are advocating something that no political group advocates, including my party the libertarians, that we FORCE public establishments to NOT be able to elect to waive the freedoms of being private. Part of being free is being able to personally elect to waive freedoms for a variety of reasons. It would be like telling a person that they MUST carry a firearm! It's their choice, if they want to waive the right to carry, that is their choice. If a private establishment wants to waive the right to be private, that is also their choice.

Anarchy: Yes it is. You are advocating that a restaurant could do "whatever" it wants, even if it harm the general public.





N6ATF wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Don't advocate the protection of your rights at the expense of others'. That can be turned back on you pretty fast these days.
Click to expand...
I don't. I advocate for all people's right to be alive and not be forced to be a victim with the excuse of "it's private property, that means if the owner wants anarchy, IT'S ANARCHY and the government can't intervene". If you're open to the public, then you don't get to tell criminals "green light" and everyone else "come in and die".

When criminals and their protectors rights are more protected than law-abiding citizens, we're all screwed.
Click to expand...
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

You are taking the ultra-liberal definition of protected class.

The more traditional term means any classification that the Constitution specifically gives rights to that the government can not discriminate on. That those classes are "protected" from discrimination by the government. It's refers to protected "classifications" that the Government can not use in making decisions.

It does not refer to a GROUP class, but a PERSONAL classification.

For example, the government could not pass a law that says "A Jew gets speeding tickets at $50, while Christian at $10"

The idea of gun owners being a protected class is that the Constitution gives specific right of identifying gun ownership as being protected from infringement, as it does to people of any religion, etc.

It does not mean you get special privileges, which unfortunately for a while in this Country was proposed. (BS!) There have been radicals who have proposed that certain groups should get benefits because of their class. (BS!)


SouthernBoy wrote:
The concept of "protected class" is anathema to Americans and as such, is also unconstitutional. There are no group rights in this country since rights are passed to individuals as natural rights.

All of this nonsense regarding protected persons or classes is an insult to our liberties.
Click to expand...
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Not really true. A restaurant can make dress codes, and enforce them equally. That is why you can do no-shoes, no service signs, and jacket and tie rules.

A public restaurant can not say "No Blacks" for example. A private restaurant can.



Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:


A restaurant which opens its doors to everyone cannot arbitrarily block some people from coming in while allowing others to come in. They cannot ban you just because you have the Obama symbol shaved into your hair or you're wearing a T-Shirt they don't like... we're talking about a social contract that people enter into when it comes to public accommodations.
Click to expand...
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Pace, I get the distinction. I have a brain. I contend it is an unconstitutional distinction. It is still PRIVATE property. It is still a PRIVATELY owned business. It was still built by the sweat equity of the owner. He, in a free society, should be able to throw his doors open to everyone--or to anyone he chooses.

Don't you get that? Oh, wait. It's condescending and rude to imply that the person you are talking to doesn't "get" something.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

I am a member of the CATO institute, I am probably one of the most strictest believers in business rights and I don't even agree to this, because you are denying the right of a business to make its own decisions. I argue about private businesses being able to hire whomever they want, do business with whomever they want, and so on. We are not talking about that.

A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION RESTAURANT has already decided that they want to LEAVE THE REALM of being private and being public. They have made that decision themselves, they have elected that they no longer want to be private, that they want to be public.

Any business has a right to waive their protection, and in these cases they have. You know when you are arrested, you are told "YOu have the right to remain silent." You can elect to talk all you want, even thought you have the right.

Restaurants that have elected to be PUBLIC have decided to enter into a contract with the people of their community to be PUBLIC.

eye95 wrote:
Pace, I get the distinction. I have a brain. I contend it is an unconstitutional distinction. It is still PRIVATE property. It is still a PRIVATELY owned business. It was still built by the sweat equity of the owner. He, in a free society, should be able to throw his doors open to everyone--or to anyone he chooses.

Don't you get that? Oh, wait. It's condescending and rude to imply that the person you are talking to doesn't "get" something.
Click to expand...
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

You make it sound as if a business is incapable of choosing to serve a portion of the public. Such an assumption is, on its face, unnecessarily restrictive of the freedom of the business owner.

The legal construct of a "public accommodation" is anti-freedom and, IMNTBHO, unconstitutional. I understand that current court opinions see it differently. I just think that those opinions run counter to true freedom.
 
P

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

I agree that within the legal construct of PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION there are many overreaching laws, including the ADA which hurt the public and private at large.

Any business that is engaged as a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION has the option of not being. If they want to restrict customers, they can choose to and become a private business.

Public Businesses choose to do it, and most business organizations support the idea and proposed the idea to get the quasi-official benefits of being a public organization.

You make valid points however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top