Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Kicked out of Wal Mart

  1. #1
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Post imported post

    I was kicked put of walmart tonight in Lake Delton, seems not all of the Walmart employees kmow the policy

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Plover, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Not surprising as of late, you can start by reading this...

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/40600.html

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    758

    Post imported post

    Guess It's a good thing I carried in the Tomah wal-mart tonight... But, I go to the lake delton one 99.9% of the time. Hope this gets sorted out.
    "I don't really care for "cream cheese"..."

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Walmart cannot legally kick you out as they are open to the public as a public accomodation. Anyone who is legally shopping even while legally armed is allowed to enjoy the accomodation under the law.

    A law suit for deprivation of civil rights is in order.

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1983 Prev | Next §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights How Current is This? Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen 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, 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.




  5. #5
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Walmart cannot legally kick you out as they are open to the public as a public accomodation. Anyone who is legally shopping even while legally armed is allowed to enjoy the accomodation under the law.

    A law suit for deprivation of civil rights is in order.

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1983 Prev | Next §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights How Current is This? Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen 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, 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.
    So, JG... do you think this makes it illegal for someone to stop another person from carrying a firearm into a government building or a handgun into a bar or through a school zone?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    so how does this work with "no firearms signs"??? so if a business puts up no firearms signs, wouldn't that also be deprivation of civil rights???

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Walmart cannot legally kick you out as they are open to the public as a public accomodation. Anyone who is legally shopping even while legally armed is allowed to enjoy the accomodation under the law.

    A law suit for deprivation of civil rights is in order.

    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1983 Prev | Next §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights How Current is This? Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen 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, 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.
    So, JG... do you think this makes it illegal for someone to stop another person from carrying a firearm into a government building or a handgun into a bar or through a school zone?
    The question would be more of whether or not it is constitutional.

    In the words of the great Judge Napolitano:

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

    I think he would know the law much more than you or I.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    scorpio_vette wrote:
    so how does this work with "no firearms signs"??? so if a business puts up no firearms signs, wouldn't that also be deprivation of civil rights???
    That would be discrimination.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    After the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, then the issue of it as a civil right will have to be separately addressed. And then armed citizens will have to fight for protected class status.

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    In the words of the great Judge Napolitano:

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

    I think he would know the law much more than you or I.
    I would HOPE, although not necessarily think that he would know more about the law than you or I.

    In this instance he is wrong. He says that Starbucks could not prohibit guns because they are a "place of public accommodation." The federal public accommodations law only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Wisconsin also has a public accommodations law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.

    If he is correct, then where is there an instance of a successful lawsuit against the many private businesses that will not allow firearms?


    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  11. #11
    Regular Member Hostilefreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    28

    Post imported post

    Well the Lake Delton Wal-mart is usually full of tourists but not this time of year. I'd be very and I mean VERY weary of where you carry around this area. No one really knows the firearm laws that well here. I remember shooting a movie for school with fake guns and everytime we got the cops called on us. The people here a paraniod about every little thing. I don't know what to tell you.:? Maybe if we can get Doyle out and someone from the Right in office we wouldn't have this problem.
    "Silence means death. Stand on your feet. Inner fear your worst enemy."

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote: I would HOPE, although not necessarily think that he would know more about the law than you or I.

    In this instance he is wrong. He says that Starbucks could not prohibit guns because they are a "place of public accommodation." The federal public accommodations law only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Wisconsin also has a public accommodations law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.

    If he is correct, then where is there an instance of a successful lawsuit against the many private businesses that will not allow firearms?

    Who has tried ? Oh thats is right. This is one of the principles on which the Gonzales suit stands if I am not mistaken. Deprivation of civil rights.
    Telling someone to leave simply because they are lawfully and legally armed is no different than telling them to leave because they are black, white or blue.

    The US code is very specific,

    " Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen 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, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity"

    If you ask me Open Carry is a Right secured by the constitution, both U.S and Wisconsin. By demanding you leave the store simply because you are armed legally and lawfully, they are discriminating against you because you are exercising a right.

    Now I am not a lawyer, maybe I am wrong on this but I do not think so. Maybe if some that are here are attorneys could tell me if I am wrong about this.

    Judge Napolitano is a Civil Rights advocate and has dealt with these issues for years. It would be interesting to find out for sure if he is right or wrong. Personally I lean toward him being right. But that is just my .02.

  13. #13
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote: I would HOPE, although not necessarily think that he would know more about the law than you or I.

    In this instance he is wrong. He says that Starbucks could not prohibit guns because they are a "place of public accommodation." The federal public accommodations law only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Wisconsin also has a public accommodations law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.

    If he is correct, then where is there an instance of a successful lawsuit against the many private businesses that will not allow firearms?

    Who has tried ? Oh thats is right. This is one of the principles on which the Gonzales suit stands if I am not mistaken. Deprivation of civil rights.
    He filed against a private business because it's a place of public accommodation? I don't think so! There's no private businesses involved in the suit, is there?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote: I would HOPE, although not necessarily think that he would know more about the law than you or I.

    In this instance he is wrong. He says that Starbucks could not prohibit guns because they are a "place of public accommodation." The federal public accommodations law only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Wisconsin also has a public accommodations law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.

    If he is correct, then where is there an instance of a successful lawsuit against the many private businesses that will not allow firearms?

    Who has tried ? Oh thats is right. This is one of the principles on which the Gonzales suit stands if I am not mistaken. Deprivation of civil rights.
    He filed against a private business because it's a place of public accommodation? I don't think so! There's no private businesses involved in the suit, is there?
    While Walmart may not be listed in the suit, as of yet, The reason there even is a suit is because he was deprived of his rights. Could Walmart be listed as a defendant? I would think so. Though I think the focus is on the arrest and detainment of property instead.

    IMHO, until Wally World is listed as a defendant in a case this BS will go on forever. There is such a high turnover in employees at Wally World that every time you deal with a store the employees are new and are not aware of the policy. Some one needs to force their hand and make them educate their employees on their own policy.

  15. #15
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Meanwhile, I'll patiently wait for someone to cite verifiable examples of a private business, as a place of public accommodation, being successfully sued for the deprivation of a civil right because they prohibited their customers from carrying firearms.

    "Judge" Napolitano sounded very confident in his statement. Yet we all know there are many such places of public accommodation that have a policy prohibiting firearms by customers. Why hasn't the EEOC been flooded with complaints from all over the country?

    Could Napolitano have just been blowing smoke on national TV? :what:Impossible!

    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    If you ask me Open Carry is a Right secured by the constitution, both U.S and Wisconsin. By demanding you leave the store simply because you are armed legally and lawfully, they are discriminating against you because you are exercising a right.
    I-ANAL either. Alan Gura is a good one, did he waste the Court's time with MacDonald?

    What is Judge Napolitano's jurisdiction, please?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Yet we all know there are many such places of public accommodation that have a policy prohibiting firearms by customers.
    SC ST SECTION 23-31-230. Carrying concealed weapons between automobile and accommodation.
    Notwithstanding any provision of law, any person may carry a ... weapon from an automobile or other motorized conveyance to a room or other accommodation he has rented and upon which an accommodations tax has been paid.


  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    "Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. While on the bench from 1987 to 1995, Judge Napolitano tried more than 150 jury trials and sat in all parts of the Superior Court—criminal, civil, equity and family. He has handled thousands of sentencings, motions, hearings and divorces. For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. Judge Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year. Judge Napolitano has written three books: Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws; a New York Times bestseller, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land; and A Nation of Sheep. His writings have also been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The New York Sun, The Baltimore Sun, The (New London) Day, The Seton Hall Law Review, The New Jersey Law Journal and The Newark Star-Ledger. He lectures nationally on the constitution and human freedom.
    Judge Napolitano received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1972, and received his Juris Doctor from University of Notre Dame in 1975."

    Here is the Judges contact link, you could differ you questions to him as I am not authorized to speak on his behalf.

    http://www.judgenap.com/contact.php

  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    "Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. While on the bench from 1987 to 1995, Judge Napolitano tried more than 150 jury trials and sat in all parts of the Superior Court—criminal, civil, equity and family. He has handled thousands of sentencings, motions, hearings and divorces. For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. Judge Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year. Judge Napolitano has written three books: Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws; a New York Times bestseller, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land; and A Nation of Sheep. His writings have also been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The New York Sun, The Baltimore Sun, The (New London) Day, The Seton Hall Law Review, The New Jersey Law Journal and The Newark Star-Ledger. He lectures nationally on the constitution and human freedom.
    Judge Napolitano received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1972, and received his Juris Doctor from University of Notre Dame in 1975."

    Here is the Judges contact link, you could differ you questions to him as I am not authorized to speak on his behalf.

    http://www.judgenap.com/contact.php
    Why should I contact him? He's your authority, not mine. I say he's wrong and I'm waiting for someone to provide a shred of evidence to support the opinion he expressed in that video clip.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  20. #20
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Shotgun wrote:
    Yet we all know there are many such places of public accommodation that have a policy prohibiting firearms by customers.
    SC ST SECTION 23-31-230. Carrying concealed weapons between automobile and accommodation.
    Notwithstanding any provision of law, any person may carry a ... weapon from an automobile or other motorized conveyance to a room or other accommodation he has rented and upon which an accommodations tax has been paid.
    You are making a point? Relevance?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    "Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. While on the bench from 1987 to 1995, Judge Napolitano tried more than 150 jury trials and sat in all parts of the Superior Court—criminal, civil, equity and family. He has handled thousands of sentencings, motions, hearings and divorces. For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. Judge Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year. Judge Napolitano has written three books: Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws; a New York Times bestseller, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land; and A Nation of Sheep. His writings have also been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The New York Sun, The Baltimore Sun, The (New London) Day, The Seton Hall Law Review, The New Jersey Law Journal and The Newark Star-Ledger. He lectures nationally on the constitution and human freedom.
    Judge Napolitano received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1972, and received his Juris Doctor from University of Notre Dame in 1975."

    Here is the Judges contact link, you could differ you questions to him as I am not authorized to speak on his behalf.

    http://www.judgenap.com/contact.php
    Why should I contact him? He's your authority, not mine. I say he's wrong and I'm waiting for someone to provide a shred of evidence to support the opinion he expressed in that video clip.
    And you are afraid of receiving a shred of evidence from the judge himself?
    Why? Because he may prove you wrong?

    Hmmm, A judge -v- Shotgun

    I think I have to side with the judge.

  22. #22
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Afraid of being proven wrong? No. I have an open mind and never fear the truth.

    But why should I do your homework? You're using the authority of the judge to support your position. I'm not.

    Go ahead. Ask him to cite which federal public accommodations law says private businesses have to allow firearms. Ask him to cite any federal court case or EEOC complaint that have been successful in forcing a private business to allow customers to bring firearms onto their premises. Ask him why so many businesses have policies prohibiting firearms on their premises if it so clearly illegal for them to do so? Ask him why Starbucks' lawyers didn't simply respond to the Brady Campaign that their hands are tied and that they have no choice in the matter.

    Lawyers are expected to have a general knowledge of law, just like physicians have a general knowledge of medicine. But no lawyer is an expert on every aspect of law just as no doctor is an expert on every branch of medicine. That's why they specialize. When I worked for the state we had lawyers calling constantly asking for help in understanding the laws we worked with and telling us that they had never heard of those laws (which had been on the books since the 1930's.)

    The "judge" says that these businesses cannot prohibit customers from bringing firearms into the business because they are places of "public accommodation." As I stated earlier, there ARE federal and state public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination-- BUT they prohibit discrimination only for a small number of things, such as race, religion, etc. There is NOTHING in the federal (or Wisconsin) public accommodations law that has any relevance to the bearing of arms. You might want to take a look at this synopsis of the federal public accommodations law before going any further. Then tell us what you read in there that has anything to do with being denied the right to bear arms by a private business.

    http://public.findlaw.com/civil-righ...-overview.html
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Afraid of being proven wrong? No. I have an open mind and never fear the truth.

    But why should I do your homework? You're using the authority of the judge to support your position. I'm not.

    Go ahead. Ask him to cite which federal public accommodations law says private businesses have to allow firearms. Ask him to cite any federal court case or EEOC complaint that have been successful in forcing a private business to allow customers to bring firearms onto their premises. Ask him why so many businesses have policies prohibiting firearms on their premises if it so clearly illegal for them to do so? Ask him why Starbucks' lawyers didn't simply respond to the Brady Campaign that their hands are tied and that they have no choice in the matter.

    Lawyers are expected to have a general knowledge of law, just like physicians have a general knowledge of medicine. But no lawyer is an expert on every aspect of law just as no doctor is an expert on every branch of medicine. That's why they specialize. When I worked for the state we had lawyers calling constantly asking for help in understanding the laws we worked with and telling us that they had never heard of those laws (which had been on the books since the 1930's.)

    The "judge" says that these businesses cannot prohibit customers from bringing firearms into the business because they are places of "public accommodation." As I stated earlier, there ARE federal and state public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination-- BUT they prohibit discrimination only for a small number of things, such as race, religion, etc. There is NOTHING in the federal (or Wisconsin) public accommodations law that has any relevance to the bearing of arms. You might want to take a look at this synopsis of the federal public accommodations law before going any further. Then tell us what you read in there that has anything to do with being denied the right to bear arms by a private business.

    http://public.findlaw.com/civil-righ...-overview.html
    HUH? I am not using anything. Nor do I have any homework to do. I simply passed on what the"JUDGE" said. Nothing more. I didn't ask you for any answers. It is you who questions the judge. Therefore, it is you who has homework.

    Why is it when someone passes on some credible information that you do not believe it suddenly becomes our responsibility to prove you wrong?

    If you are the all knowing then why don't you prove the judge wrong?
    I mean, you make it sound so easy. So what's the problem?

    I would enjoy a debate between you and the judge.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Just to follow up on the link that you offered.

    Find Law.

    "Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:
    • Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
    • Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings
    Government-owned/operated facilities and services. Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government. Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance).
    Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

    Laws Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Accommodations: Race, Color, Religion, and National Origin
    Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. If you think that you have been discriminated against in using such a facility, you may file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or with the United States attorney in your area. You may also file suit in the U.S. district court.
    There are also state laws that broadly prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, and national origin in places of public accommodation. To determine whether your state has such a law, you should contact your state or local human rights agency, your state attorney general's office, or speak to a Civil Rights attorney in your area.
    Laws Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Accommodations and Disability Discrimination
    At the federal level, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in a wide range of places of public accommodation, including facilities that offer lodging, food, entertainment, sales or rental services, health care and other professional services, or recreation. State and local governments must eliminate any eligibility criteria for participation in programs, activities, and services that screen out or tend to screen out persons with disabilities, unless the government can establish that the requirements are necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity. In addition, public facilities must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from services, programs, or activities because buildings are inaccessible.
    There are also state laws that broadly prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation. To determine whether your state has such a law, you should contact your state or local human rights agency, your state attorney general's office, or speak to a Civil Rights attorney in your area.
    Some content from the U.S. Department of Justice



    Find law does not dictate the law it only is used to give explainations of the law. However, these example listed above are just that, examples. Now show me where the law states that an individual can not file a suit for deprivation of civil rights for being discriminated against for exercising ones lawfully and constitutionally protected right.
    Just because this form of discrimination is not listed on the find law page does not mean it could not be occurring. It also does not mean that an individual could not file suit for such an occurrance.
    The U.S Code states:
    TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > §1983 Prev | Next §1983.
    Civil action for deprivation of rights.
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen 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, 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.

    I think the U.S.Code is more reliable then Find Law and it is very clear here as it states any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws.

    There, now I have done your homework for you.

  25. #25
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    HUH? I am not using anything. Nor do I have any homework to do. I simply passed on what the"JUDGE" said. Nothing more. I didn't ask you for any answers. It is you who questions the judge. Therefore, it is you who has homework.

    Why is it when someone passes on some credible information that you do not believe it suddenly becomes our responsibility to prove you wrong?

    If you are the all knowing then why don't you prove the judge wrong?
    I mean, you make it sound so easy. So what's the problem?

    I would enjoy a debate between you and the judge.
    You're not using anything? It looks like around your third post on this thread you used the video clip of the "judge" to support your earlier statements. If not, then what was your purpose in posting that clip?

    The information from Napolitano was not credible. I don't claim to be all-knowing. But I do know something about public accommodations law. And I am skeptical of Napolitano's statement about what sort of discrimination is prohibited for places of public accommodation. It is I who posted credible information. You don't think Findlaw is credible? You will find the exact same information that is in the Findlaw article on the US Department of Justice and the EEOC websites. Or are they not credible? The fact is there are only a limited number of types of discrimination that are prohibited for "places of public accommodation." I have listed them. Those are not just "examples" as you suggest. That is the complete list. Show me that I'm wrong.

    Why don't you attempt to answer my question: Why didn't Starbucks take the easiest way out and simply state "Our hands our tied, under federal law, as a place of public accommodation we couldn't prohibit firearms even if we wanted!" Instead they said "Please leave us out of it." Apparently Napolitano's interpretation of public accommodations law is news to the nearly 1.2 million other lawyers in the country.

    If Napolitano is correct, then not only Starbucks, but all places of public accommodation (including state and local government agencies) cannot prohibit firearms on their premises. If Napolitano is correct, then the Nazi's could exercise their right to assemble and right to free speech and hold their next rally inside your local mall, and there's nothing the mall could do about it. Hell, they could do it armed, right?

    Finally, regarding your favorite section of Title 42, Chapter 21..... How does that apply to places of public accommodation? Apparently you do not understand what the phrase "under color of law" means. Let me give it to you:

    "UNDER COLOR OF LAW When a person acts or purports to act in the performance of official duties under any law, ordinance, or regulation"


    To put it simply: it applies to PUBLIC OFFICIALS. It does not apply to private individuals such as the people who run Wal-Mart or Starbucks.


    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •