Tucson stores banning guns are whinning....

imported post

Not saying that there is a correlation between drinking coffee and guns but Starbucks always stuck me more as a liberal hangout than conservative. I really can't say because I have only been in a Startbucks once and almost got thrown out. The "Baristar" or whoevr it was behind the counter asked for my order and I said a large cup of coffee!!!!!!!!! What kind and what size? I said plain cafenated coffee and the biggest cup you have. That didn't go over well as I didn't want any added flavorings or whipped stuff.Just some troublemaker ordering plain coffee and didn't even know what size to order.

Most gun owners I know prefer rather get a whole pot of coffee for $2 at the General Store than a itty bitty cup for $4. They put more emphasis on the product than the atmoshere. My favorite pizza is canadian bacon and pineapple, now how does that classify me. :celebrate

imported post

azcdlfred wrote:

Entering this country without permission is a felony, staying here while armed is another felony, that might just be enough to justify a search under this new law.

Click to expand...

It's only a misdemeanor to enter the U.S. illegally (it is a felony in Mexico however).  It is also a Federal crime not to have one's "papers" if not a citizen. 

And, SB 1070 has nothing to do with armed illegals.  That's already covered under Federal and state laws for many years now - they are "prohibited possessors."  SB 1070 added nothing new in that regard.  It only deals with proving citizenship AFTER being stopped for something else (traffic stop, drug arrest, kidnapping, drunk driving, rape, murder - all the stuff that's normal for illegals to do).  Bear in mind that under Federal law, law enforcement does not need any reason to ask anyone for their papers if they think they are not a citizen.

Fred

Click to expand...

My mistake on the punishment for being in the country illegally.

SB1070 does address armed illegals.

H. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
(b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
(c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-105.
(d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.

Click to expand...

That is also covered under federal law in the "prohibited persons" defined in GCA68.

So, suppose a coffee vendor sees people that are armed in the store and calls the police being to scared to address the people alone. (It's happened many times before, idiots not knowing it's legal to open carry will call the police.) Once the officer arrives the officer can lawfully investigate and is now permitted, or perhaps even obligated, to verify the lawful presence of those involved. That would mean that if you do not have your ID while armed you are under the suspicion of committing a felony.

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Click to expand...

SB1070 just took your unlicensed open carry and flushed it down the toilet. All it did is replace one piece of paper with another.

If the Arizona legislature was to truly respect our right to self defense then it would not have put enhanced penalties for being armed. This creates cause to investigate since the suspicion of a misdemeanor has a higher threshold of being arrested or detained than the suspicion of a felony.

If the enhanced penalty for being armed was not in SB1070 then I would not have much to complain about and it would very likely be off-topic for this forum.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Not saying that there is a correlation between drinking coffee and guns but Starbucks always stuck me more as a liberal hangout than conservative.  I really can't say because I have only been in a Startbucks once and almost got thrown out.  The "Baristar" or whoevr it was behind the counter asked for my order and I said a large cup of coffee!!!!!!!!!  What kind and what size?  I said plain cafenated coffee and the biggest cup you have.  That didn't go over well as I didn't want any added flavorings or whipped stuff. Just some troublemaker ordering plain coffee and didn't even know what size to order.

Most gun owners I know prefer rather get a whole pot of coffee for $2 at the General Store than a itty bitty cup for $4. They put more emphasis on the product than the atmoshere.  My favorite pizza is canadian bacon and pineapple, now how does that classify me. :celebrate

Click to expand...

Those crazy people from Dubuque seem to have a taste for canadian bacon on their pizza. Some with pineapple, some with sauerkraut. The sauerkraut can be explained with the German ancestry of many in the area. That pineapple though boggles the mind as I don't think that grows in Ireland. Iowa is not known for having much tropical weather and so there are few here that migrated from such climates.

imported post

aadvark wrote:

Open Carry of a Firearm is not grounds for a Terry Stop.

Citizens should be free from Terry Stops, but Non-Citizens should be subject to them.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Just how do you propose determining that a person is not a citizen before being stopped and asked for "papers"?

One major problem with SB1070 is that it creates the atmosphere of "guilty until proven innocent" by assuming that a person an illegal alien until proven otherwise. It is precisely because of an illegal alien that "Mirandize" is now a common verb in our language. Our rights should not be dependent on our citizenship, and that includes the right of self defense.

imported post

I expect to see your case in court within the next few days because I know that you, as a responsible citizen, will do your best to take down what you feel is an unconstitutional law. Either that, or stay in IA and leave us to enjoy our state and it's laws that do not concern you. Or are you afraid that you'll be deported if you decide to visit our great state? Perhaps we can talk next about how stupid many of the IA laws are?

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

aadvark wrote:

Open Carry of a Firearm is not grounds for a Terry Stop.

Citizens should be free from Terry Stops, but Non-Citizens should be subject to them.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Just how do you propose determining that a person is not a citizen before being stopped and asked for "papers"?

One major problem with SB1070 is that it creates the atmosphere of "guilty until proven innocent" by assuming that a person an illegal alien until proven otherwise. It is precisely because of an illegal alien that "Mirandize" is now a common verb in our language. Our rights should not be dependent on our citizenship, and that includes the right of self defense.

Click to expand...

Oh schitt -- Here we go again....

imported post

mohawk001 wrote:

I expect to see your case in court within the next few days because I know that you, as a responsible citizen, will do your best to take down what you feel is an unconstitutional law.  Either that, or stay in IA and leave us to enjoy our state and it's laws that do not concern you.  Or are you afraid that you'll be deported if you decide to visit our great state?  Perhaps we can talk next about how stupid many of the IA laws are?

Click to expand...

First, I cannot bring a case in court since the law has not gone into effect and unless charged under the law I cannot take it to court.

Second, I took an oath to defend this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. No one has informed me that I have been relieved of this oath. I do what I can, when I can, to support the US Constitution. That includes pointing out violations of that constitution where ever I may find them.

Third, I do not fear being deported since the federal government has access to my Army files. They know who I am and that I am here legally. I do fear the precedent that this law could set and if not struck down soon for the infringements to our rights it creates then some other state might get the wrong idea and implement similar laws.

Fourth, If you wish to discuss the poor state of Iowa law then you are certainly welcome to join me in the Iowa section of this forum. I visit there quite often. Since the legislative session has closed in Iowa it has been quite slow in that sub-forum.

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

aadvark wrote:

Open Carry of a Firearm is not grounds for a Terry Stop.

Citizens should be free from Terry Stops, but Non-Citizens should be subject to them.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Just how do you propose determining that a person is not a citizen before being stopped and asked for "papers"?

One major problem with SB1070 is that it creates the atmosphere of "guilty until proven innocent" by assuming that a person an illegal alien until proven otherwise. It is precisely because of an illegal alien that "Mirandize" is now a common verb in our language. Our rights should not be dependent on our citizenship, and that includes the right of self defense.

Click to expand...

Oh schitt -- Here we go again....

Click to expand...

Agreed. If anyone wishes to continue this discussion then perhaps another thread would be appropriate.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Agreed. If anyone wishes to continue this discussion then perhaps another thread would be appropriate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could start that thread in the IOWA sub forum since Arizona Law really shouldn't concern you anyway? **Shrugs**

I don't know how many times I have seen people from outside AZ (Like WAY OUTSIDE) that have bitched and moaned about the law... Tell you what IA, come down and live on the AZ border for a little while and work one of the ranches and see first hand what goes on down there... I would be willing to bet, if you survive your stay, you probably won't complain about it then...:uhoh:

OK BACK ON TOPIC!

Great job on handing out the cards, I live on the border of AZ and NV (spend most of my time in Bullhead City, AZ) I haven't run into many places that don't allow guns yet but When I did... Even though I am not part of AZCDL, I did something about it (search "Store in Bullhead City" here on OCDO) They wanted to keep a sign up (because there are some idiots in BHC who like to pull out their guns and show them off while in the store :banghead: ) I could have just put them on a list to boycott or I could talk to the owner and get something done, I chose the latter... The sign no longer says NO GUNS it now says:



YES it is still a sign... but at least it no longer says NO GUNS... I believe if nothing else, it was a small step in the right direction!?

imported post

SCJeffro wrote:

YES it is still a sign... but at least it no longer says NO GUNS... I believe if nothing else, it was a small step in the right direction!?

Click to expand...

Now that is a sign that I like. Not only does it say that guns are not banned but should also say to people that they can expect to see guns but there should not be a problem with them. I say "should" as no matter what some people will still get freaked out no matter what and you can'tguarantee that everyone will keep their gun holstered.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

GWbiker wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

aadvark wrote:

Open Carry of a Firearm is not grounds for a Terry Stop.

Citizens should be free from Terry Stops, but Non-Citizens should be subject to them.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Just how do you propose determining that a person is not a citizen before being stopped and asked for "papers"?

One major problem with SB1070 is that it creates the atmosphere of "guilty until proven innocent" by assuming that a person an illegal alien until proven otherwise. It is precisely because of an illegal alien that "Mirandize" is now a common verb in our language. Our rights should not be dependent on our citizenship, and that includes the right of self defense.

Click to expand...

Oh schitt -- Here we go again....

Click to expand...

Agreed. If anyone wishes to continue this discussion then perhaps another thread would be appropriate.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should have started one instead of changing the topic. After all, you want to step on state rights by thinking you're a barracks lawyer. If you want to be stupid and claim you're not one, then stop acting as one perhaps. As for swearing to defend, I did also, for over 20 years. I guess that means I don't care about your excuse. You also fail to realize though, that means when ordered to do so and not as a vigilante. Either that, or you can say you are just doing your duty for shooting someone you don't like. Yes, a little extreme, but still the same in the end.

imported post

Now back to the topic...

If these business owners who insist on making their patrons helpless targetswhile on the premises (endangering them)then they deserve to lose business. When/if such business's can guarentee my safety while on their premises then I might consent to shop there unarmed. Since that's impossible I'll spend my $$$$ at places who dont infringe on my right to self defense.

The gun-rights advocates' position on this is clear to me, and I've got good sources explaining it. I'm curious if anyone in business or elsewhere is fighting them with pressure from the other side — i.e., if you don't prohibit guns, we'll stop patronizing you.

Click to expand...

The Brady Bunch didnt succeed with Starbucks so, IMHO,It's not likely that a few transplanted libs would succeed in a local area.

imported post

IN regard to teh article posted OP, I don't get where these businesses think they can be neutral on the issue. If they allow lawfully carried side arms into their establishments they ahve taken a pro stance, and if they don't allow carry in their establishments they are taking an anti gun stance.

There is no way to remain neutral.

What would be really comical is to hear them start whinning when the anti gun businesses start getting robbed while the pro gun businesses don't.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

IN regard to teh article posted OP, I don't get where these businesses think they can be neutral on the issue. If they allow lawfully carried side arms into their establishments they ahve taken a pro stance, and if they don't allow carry in their establishments they are taking an anti gun stance.

There is no way to remain neutral.

What would be really comical is to hear them start whinning when the anti gun businesses start getting robbed while the pro gun businesses don't.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct that there is no way for them to remain neutral no matter how much they want to or what laws are passed etc. The Startbucks situation is a good example of what can happen that they tried to remain neutral but was perceived by the public as being pro-gun. As a result their sales increased as pro-gunners chose to do business with them, probably some as reflected by some comments on the board, that had not before. This positive side overcame the negative from those where they lost business. Other businesses need to be made aware of what happened to Starbucks.

Yes we all want to be left out of arguments where we really don't have a part in, maybe between your brother and sister or two friends. You say leave me out of it but only wind up making both mad. Businesses will be drug into it kicking and screaming but just like between your two friends you have to be careful that when they decide to be friends again they are also friends with you. You take sides and may wind up being left out when the fighting is over.