Kicked out of Wal Mart

imported post

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

imported post

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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???

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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???

Click to expand...

That would be discrimination.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Well said Douglas. In the video the judge says the supreme court will give us a definitive answer on guns once and for all, then the host interupts the judge and I cannot make out whathe said:question:But I believe he was gonna say basically what you posted.

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.:idea:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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! :lol:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Yet we all know there are many such places of public accommodation that have a policy prohibiting firearms by customers.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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.