-
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.
-
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.
south Sacramento oc'er, security concerned
- Thread starter leitung
- Start date
merle
Regular Member
imported post
So a guard (or owner) can ask a person OC'ng to leave. At what point is it wrong?
Can you refuse service to blacks? Women? Handicapped people? Juveniles? People wearing certain clothing?
The business has opened the doors to the public, and in essence created a public place. They should have no right to restrict who comes in as long as they let the public in.
A gun owner, exercising a fundamental right in CA shouldn't need to comply with a request to leave any more than a black man, simply because of their skin color or what they're carrying.
So a guard (or owner) can ask a person OC'ng to leave. At what point is it wrong?
Can you refuse service to blacks? Women? Handicapped people? Juveniles? People wearing certain clothing?
The business has opened the doors to the public, and in essence created a public place. They should have no right to restrict who comes in as long as they let the public in.
A gun owner, exercising a fundamental right in CA shouldn't need to comply with a request to leave any more than a black man, simply because of their skin color or what they're carrying.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
merle wrote:
I don't think it's the proper function of government to make life "fair." Governments only reasonable purpose (IMO) is to ensure the rights of the People, NOT infringe on rights. That means the right to decide who I allow on my private property, who I choose to contract with, who I associate with, etc.
Again, I don't think it's good business to do so, but each person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property in the fashion they choose. If you don't like the way they do business, shop elsewhere.
merle wrote:
I think business owners should be able to discriminate in any way they choose. I don't think it's a good business decision. The free market might allow such a business to exist, but competing businesses will do much better by not discriminating.
I don't think it's the proper function of government to make life "fair." Governments only reasonable purpose (IMO) is to ensure the rights of the People, NOT infringe on rights. That means the right to decide who I allow on my private property, who I choose to contract with, who I associate with, etc.
Again, I don't think it's good business to do so, but each person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property in the fashion they choose. If you don't like the way they do business, shop elsewhere.
imported post
demnogis wrote:
demnogis wrote:
You may want to inform BSIS that their nomenclature is incorrect and have them and the State Legislature change all the references to "Officer" in the BPC. After all, they must be wrong, according to you, if they use the term "Officer" to refer to anyone other than a "duly permitted, sworn and qualified individuals in service to the public.":banghead:
March Hare
Regular Member
imported post
merle wrote:
The store/business, although open to the public, is still private property.
The business has the right to refuse service to, or ask anyone they want to leave.
If the person doesn't leave, they're guilty of trespass.
-MH
merle wrote:
The store/business, although open to the public, is still private property.
The business has the right to refuse service to, or ask anyone they want to leave.
If the person doesn't leave, they're guilty of trespass.
-MH
demnogis
Regular Member
imported post
Old Timer wrote:
You're right. I should inform them. I forgot to include military personnel too. A plastic badge and taser does not an officer make.
Old Timer wrote:
You're right. I should inform them. I forgot to include military personnel too. A plastic badge and taser does not an officer make.
We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
March Hare wrote:
That's not entirely true. It is also dependent upon the REASON that they are asking someone to leave. As previously pointed out, you can't make them leave because they are a ________ (insert name of protected grouphere).
Protected: Race, gender, marital status, sexual orientation (in many jurisdictions), religious belief, etc.
You can not, on private property open to the public, trespass a black person because they are black. You'd better have a completely non biased "reason" to articulate to the police if you do try it.
March Hare wrote:
That's not entirely true. It is also dependent upon the REASON that they are asking someone to leave. As previously pointed out, you can't make them leave because they are a ________ (insert name of protected grouphere).
Protected: Race, gender, marital status, sexual orientation (in many jurisdictions), religious belief, etc.
You can not, on private property open to the public, trespass a black person because they are black. You'd better have a completely non biased "reason" to articulate to the police if you do try it.
imported post
merle wrote,
"The business has opened the doors to the public, and in essence created a public place. They should have no right to restrict who comes in as long as they let the public in."
Justice Scalia wrote in Nolan v. CA Coastal Commission that the essence of private property was the ability to restrict access to that property (paraphrased). If you can't restrict access, what good is owning private property?
The security guard (not a POST officer) needs to instruct his guards to call PD immediately if this person is detected flashing a badge and impersonating a LEO.
Be careful though, as a person flashing ID is not doing anything wrong. A person flashing a so-called badge that is labeled "Mark's Personal SecurityOfficer" is not doing anything illegal. In order for this activity to be illegal, the person needs toclaim to be a CA or federal peace officer and the badgeneeds to be a copy or close facsimile of anofficial PD badge. This person could be skirting the legal side of thelaw and trolling for a 4th A lawsuit.
just my2/10s of a cent!
markm
merle wrote,
"The business has opened the doors to the public, and in essence created a public place. They should have no right to restrict who comes in as long as they let the public in."
Justice Scalia wrote in Nolan v. CA Coastal Commission that the essence of private property was the ability to restrict access to that property (paraphrased). If you can't restrict access, what good is owning private property?
The security guard (not a POST officer) needs to instruct his guards to call PD immediately if this person is detected flashing a badge and impersonating a LEO.
Be careful though, as a person flashing ID is not doing anything wrong. A person flashing a so-called badge that is labeled "Mark's Personal SecurityOfficer" is not doing anything illegal. In order for this activity to be illegal, the person needs toclaim to be a CA or federal peace officer and the badgeneeds to be a copy or close facsimile of anofficial PD badge. This person could be skirting the legal side of thelaw and trolling for a 4th A lawsuit.
just my2/10s of a cent!
markm
imported post
demnogis wrote:
Maybe you better go read the BSIS website a bit more thoroughly. It uses the term "officer" over and over again refering to BSIS licensed personnel.
Maybe if you spent more time actually learning what you are talking about and less time running down good, hard working people, you would not make such a public fool of yourself.
demnogis wrote:
Maybe you better go read the BSIS website a bit more thoroughly. It uses the term "officer" over and over again refering to BSIS licensed personnel.
Maybe if you spent more time actually learning what you are talking about and less time running down good, hard working people, you would not make such a public fool of yourself.
demnogis
Regular Member
imported post
Old Timer wrote:
I'm talking about security guards not meeting the requirements set forth in PC § 830 and other Penal Code sections to be peace officers. What are you getting in a tissy about? If you want to show me the penal code where security guards are placed on that pedestal.
As it stands, "Police Officers" are a special class of citizens. Security Guards are not.
Old Timer wrote:
Easy there Old Timer! Who said anything about running down good, hard-working people?
I'm talking about security guards not meeting the requirements set forth in PC § 830 and other Penal Code sections to be peace officers. What are you getting in a tissy about? If you want to show me the penal code where security guards are placed on that pedestal.
As it stands, "Police Officers" are a special class of citizens. Security Guards are not.
imported post
demnogis wrote:
demnogis wrote:
Nobody claimed they do. Anyone who can read 832 or 830.1 already knows that.
Again, nobody made such a claim. YOU made the claim that a Security person could not be referred to as a "Security Officer" but must, according to you, be called a "Security Guard." That is FUD according to the BSIS web page that refers to security officers over and over again.
Yeah, we know. Quit trying to change the subject. The point was, and remains that it is perfectly correct to refer to security persons as "Security Officers" in spite of your incorrect assertions to the contrary.
merle
Regular Member
imported post
MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
There is a difference in private property open to the public and licensed, and private property not used for business.
Read up on the Unruh act which restricts the right of a business to discriminate on a variety of grounds including "The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs" which should cover things like OC'ng.
MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
There is a difference in private property open to the public and licensed, and private property not used for business.
Read up on the Unruh act which restricts the right of a business to discriminate on a variety of grounds including "The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs" which should cover things like OC'ng.
We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
merle wrote:
CITATION PLEASE
Okay so I didn't do a major reseaerch project on it but from what I did check the Unruh Act ONLY protects against discrimination based on the following:
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation
I don't see PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (not the same as national origin), PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES (while a disability CAN be a physical attribute, it could also be a mental disability which is not a "physical attribute". Everyone has physical attributes and we're all somewhat different, hence we don't all look the same), and I don't see INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS.
merle wrote:
CITATION PLEASE
Okay so I didn't do a major reseaerch project on it but from what I did check the Unruh Act ONLY protects against discrimination based on the following:
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation
I don't see PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (not the same as national origin), PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES (while a disability CAN be a physical attribute, it could also be a mental disability which is not a "physical attribute". Everyone has physical attributes and we're all somewhat different, hence we don't all look the same), and I don't see INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS.
imported post
We-the-People wrote:
"CITATION PLEASE
Okay so I didn't do a major reseaerch project on it but from what I did check the Unruh Act ONLY protects against discrimination based on the following:
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation
I don't see PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (not the same as national origin), PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES (while a disability CAN be a physical attribute, it could also be a mental disability which is not a "physical attribute". Everyone has physical attributes and we're all somewhat different, hence we don't all look the same), and I don't see INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS."
I concur with We-the-Poeple.
Merle,
Have you seen the signs that say: "No shirt,no shoes, no service?"By yourmischaracterization of the Unruh act, a business owner could not restrict nudists from entering theirestablishments.
Forthe record,beautiful women should be allowed togo anywhere at anytime while wearing no clothes.We shouldmake it aConstitutional right! Which Amendment would that be? This amendment should explicitly exclude the "equal protection clause" as men are NOT beautiful. Slovenly women would have to be emphaticallyexcluded from this creator granted right.
Sorry, that was OT. And don't worry, my wife takes very good care of me.
markm
We-the-People wrote:
"CITATION PLEASE
Okay so I didn't do a major reseaerch project on it but from what I did check the Unruh Act ONLY protects against discrimination based on the following:
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation
I don't see PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (not the same as national origin), PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES (while a disability CAN be a physical attribute, it could also be a mental disability which is not a "physical attribute". Everyone has physical attributes and we're all somewhat different, hence we don't all look the same), and I don't see INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS."
I concur with We-the-Poeple.
Merle,
Have you seen the signs that say: "No shirt,no shoes, no service?"By yourmischaracterization of the Unruh act, a business owner could not restrict nudists from entering theirestablishments.
Forthe record,beautiful women should be allowed togo anywhere at anytime while wearing no clothes.We shouldmake it aConstitutional right! Which Amendment would that be? This amendment should explicitly exclude the "equal protection clause" as men are NOT beautiful. Slovenly women would have to be emphaticallyexcluded from this creator granted right.
Sorry, that was OT. And don't worry, my wife takes very good care of me.
markm
merle
Regular Member
imported post
MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/civilrights/01CRhandbook/chapter4.php
What I quoted from is the very first paragraph on the AG's web site. Here it is in it's entireity and I'll emphasize the portion I quoted.
"The Unruh Civil Rights Act[suP] (76)[/suP], or Unruh Act, as discussed in the housing chapter of this publication, applies to all business establishments of every kind whatsoever which provide services, goods, or accommodations to the public. Businesses subject to the Unruh Act include bookstores, gymnasiums, shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels and motels, and condominium homeowners associations.[suP] (77)[/suP] The Unruh Act prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination, and not just discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability or medical condition.[suP] (78)[/suP] The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs. For example, the arbitrary exclusion of individuals from a restaurant based on their sexual orientation is prohibited.[suP] (79)[/suP]"
Which includes the quote I used and covers individual beliefs.
Now, I'll also admit my research in this was pretty limited to the AG's site, but by this paragraph, OC seems to be protected under "individual beliefs".
I have seen those signs and those type of signs are protected under the 1st amendment. It does not mean the business can refuse service based upon those grounds. There is a big difference between what you can POST and what you can ENFORCE.
What got me thinking about this was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeEfrom another poster.
MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/civilrights/01CRhandbook/chapter4.php
What I quoted from is the very first paragraph on the AG's web site. Here it is in it's entireity and I'll emphasize the portion I quoted.
"The Unruh Civil Rights Act[suP] (76)[/suP], or Unruh Act, as discussed in the housing chapter of this publication, applies to all business establishments of every kind whatsoever which provide services, goods, or accommodations to the public. Businesses subject to the Unruh Act include bookstores, gymnasiums, shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels and motels, and condominium homeowners associations.[suP] (77)[/suP] The Unruh Act prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination, and not just discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability or medical condition.[suP] (78)[/suP] The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs. For example, the arbitrary exclusion of individuals from a restaurant based on their sexual orientation is prohibited.[suP] (79)[/suP]"
Which includes the quote I used and covers individual beliefs.
Now, I'll also admit my research in this was pretty limited to the AG's site, but by this paragraph, OC seems to be protected under "individual beliefs".
I have seen those signs and those type of signs are protected under the 1st amendment. It does not mean the business can refuse service based upon those grounds. There is a big difference between what you can POST and what you can ENFORCE.
What got me thinking about this was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeEfrom another poster.
We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
It looks to me like the AG site is reaching (big time) with itsadditional language as teh act itself doesn't have those extra statements.
I'm pretty sure case lawhas well established thatprivate businesses can"discriminate" over items which are not prohibited.
If theoffered connection between "individual beliefs" and "open carry" was indeed made, the AG office would be in the untenable position of having to foce places like Peets Coffee, CalifPizza Kitchen, and CostCo, among others to allow OC. I believe they would also have to take thebrady bunch to task for advocating civil rights violations.
Now that's a situation I surely wouldn't mind seeing, but the Unruh Act isn't going to do it.
It looks to me like the AG site is reaching (big time) with itsadditional language as teh act itself doesn't have those extra statements.
I'm pretty sure case lawhas well established thatprivate businesses can"discriminate" over items which are not prohibited.
If theoffered connection between "individual beliefs" and "open carry" was indeed made, the AG office would be in the untenable position of having to foce places like Peets Coffee, CalifPizza Kitchen, and CostCo, among others to allow OC. I believe they would also have to take thebrady bunch to task for advocating civil rights violations.
Now that's a situation I surely wouldn't mind seeing, but the Unruh Act isn't going to do it.