• 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.

Kicked out of Wal Mart

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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.
:question: You are making a point? Relevance?
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/public-accommodation-civil-rights-more/public-accommodation-discrimination-overview.html
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
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-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/public-accommodation-civil-rights-more/public-accommodation-discrimination-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. :cool:
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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. :cool:
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.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

For your reading enjoyment, here is the text of the federal public accommodations law:

Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter II, §2000a

§2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
(a) Equal access [/b] All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments [/b] Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A) (i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

Hmm, I don't see a word about denying free speech or the right to bear arms or all those other constitutional rights.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug, you found the section that pertains to discrimination based on disability. I didn't want to unnecessarily lengthen the post with basically redundant material.

But there is nothing about constitutional rights of free speech, bearing arms, etc. in there either, is there?
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
A Right is a Right and all Rights are protected. Let the court hash it out.

Well, wishful thinking. Hey, Doug, what are you fond of repeating about wishing? :) Might want to chime in here again on that.

I agree with the first half of your first sentence JG, since it is a tautology and cannot be false; however your statement "all Rights are protected" is not true without considerable qualification. Yes one can sue anyone for anything. But not necessarily with success if there is no basis in law to support it.

Meanwhile in the real world-- You have the right to free speech, right? Well, go to your boss and tell him that you think he's an asshole and that you're exercising your first amendment rights and there's nothing he can do about it. See how well your right to free speech is protected in that instance.

Publish things on here that are in violation of the forum rules and if you get booted off, sue OCDO for violating your rights and see how well your rights are protected.

You need to realize that the Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, not necessarily what private individuals can do. The 2nd Amendment hasn't even been made to apply to the states (yet) so it is a long long way from being made to apply to the private individual.

Admit it, Napolitano's "public accommodations" argument is bogus and without legal basis. I've written to Fox News and told them they ought to either have him justify his statement with citations or to provide a correction.

The plain language of the public accommodations law is posted above for all to read and draw their own conclusions.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
A Right is a Right and all Rights are protected. Let the court hash it out.

Well, wishful thinking. Hey, Doug, what are you fond of repeating about wishing? :) Might want to chime in here again on that.

I agree with the first half of your first sentence JG, since it is a tautology and cannot be false; however your statement "all Rights are protected" is not true without considerable qualification. Yes one can sue anyone for anything. But not necessarily with success if there is no basis in law to support it.

Meanwhile in the real world-- You have the right to free speech, right? Well, go to your boss and tell him that you think he's an @#$% and that you're exercising your first amendment rights and there's nothing he can do about it. See how well your right to free speech is protected in that instance.

Publish things on here that are in violation of the forum rules and if you get booted off, sue OCDO for violating your rights and see how well your rights are protected.

You need to realize that the Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, not necessarily what private individuals can do. The 2nd Amendment hasn't even been made to apply to the states (yet) so it is a long long way from being made to apply to the private individual.

Admit it, Napolitano's "public accommodations" argument is bogus and without legal basis. I've written to Fox News and told them they ought to either have him justify his statement with citations or to provide a correction.

The plain language of the public accommodations law is posted above for all to read and draw their own conclusions.
Can't wait to see the outcome of that.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
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?

Shotgun, I was starting to think the Mater Doug high-jacked your moniker.

We do not need to be a protected class of citizens for public accommodation. We have Constitutional 2nd Amendment Rights. That alone gives us public accommodation. It does not NEED to be written into law. Just as OC is legal in WI because it's NOT illegal. We need to assert our public accommodation. IF we are denied it, then we need to take it to court and have it AFFIRMED, not given. It is ours and we need to expect it. Just as an exercised right will be lost. We need to expect and assert our public accommodation that the 2nd Amendment gives us. or we will never have it. The 2A does not tell us where we can or cannot exercise. It is our right to exercise everywhere. Yes, there are unconstitutional laws to deal with. There may be laws that restrict the 2A, but they are unjust and unconstitutional.

I should assume that I am preaching to the choir. But my opinion is that your stance on public accommodation gives the other side ammunition.
 

jrm

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
190
Location
, ,
imported post

There seem to be some misunderstandings in this thread pertaining to civil rights and public accommodations.

As a general matter, civil rights are rights of the people as against the government. For the most part, there are no such things as "private" civil rights. I can eject you from my property because of your speech, your race, your nationality, or the fact that you're wearing a gun. As long as I'm not "acting under color of state law" (i.e., a government actor), you have no "civil right" protection against my actions.

The 14th Amendment, however, gave congress broad enforcement powers. Congress has used (some might say abused) that power to regulate certain private conduct to redress certain ills. This is where the "public accommodation" bit comes in. Congress has prohibited what it calls a 'public accommodation" from discriminating on certain bases. "Public accommodations" are places like restaurants and hotels that hold themselves out as open to the public. A public accommodation is a place, not a right or entitlement, as one poster implied.

As I mentioned, congress only banned discrimination by public accommodations on certain bases. Those bases tend to be ones which are inherent in a person, such as race, nationality, gender, etc. While congress perhaps could have banned public accommodations from discriminating based on the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right, it has not done so. So, a public accommodation is free to eject people for their speech or their carrying of firearms. Judge Napolitano is wrong when he suggested otherwise.

You can no more sue Walmart for kicking you out of the store for carrying than you can sue me for kicking you out of my house for carrying.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

Well said.

Master Doug Huffman wrote: [/b]
http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.us/county_depts/da/DA_Opinion-Clarification_Open_Carry.pdf
Private Business Prohibitions
Constitutional rights are checks on government power, not private entities. Accordingly, any private business, whether a minimart, a grocery store or a factory, etc., may prohibit firearms on their property and in their buildings. Failure to comply with such a private business prohibition may result in trespass or disorderly conduct charges.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

BROKENSPROKET wrote:
Shotgun, I was starting to think the Mater Doug high-jacked your moniker.

We do not need to be a protected class of citizens for public accommodation. We have Constitutional 2nd Amendment Rights. That alone gives us public accommodation. It does not NEED to be written into law. Just as OC is legal in WI because it's NOT illegal. We need to assert our public accommodation. IF we are denied it, then we need to take it to court and have it AFFIRMED, not given. It is ours and we need to expect it. Just as an exercised right will be lost. We need to expect and assert our public accommodation that the 2nd Amendment gives us. or we will never have it. The 2A does not tell us where we can or cannot exercise. It is our right to exercise everywhere. Yes, there are unconstitutional laws to deal with. There may be laws that restrict the 2A, but they are unjust and unconstitutional.

I should assume that I am preaching to the choir. But my opinion is that your stance on public accommodation gives the other side ammunition.
I am confident that Doug has no interest in high-jacking my moniker. As for "my" stance on public accommodation, it's not a stance as much as it is a statement of my understanding of public accommodations law-- something I do know a bit about professionally.

Incidentally, I've gotten no response from Fox News.

Thanks for the confirmation jrm!
 
Top