Kay Jewelers Town Square

The Big Guy · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

Mudjack wrote:

I don't understand something...

Why all the to-do about carrying on private property? If someone, a store owner, home owner -- whoever, on his own private property does not want someone in that store or property for whatever reason -- carrying a gun or not -- concealed or open carry -- does not want you there, to my mind he has every right in the world to tell you to leave.

I don't see why law abiding citizens, like ourselves, should ever get into a fuss about that. Private property should be respected--to the hilt--at all times. This is part of our Constitutional Law and part of what we are fighting for in the Open Carry effort.

If a person does not want guns on his private property--he should be able to have it his way, like it or not, yes?

Is what you are describing truly private? Is a corporation with stockholders a truly "private" business? Isa large chain store the same as a mom and pop shop in this regard?Secondly, Judge Napolotano, who I admire very much, says that a business is a public place as the owners invite the public in to do business and can't require you to leave your rights at the door. Is a business who invite the public in the same as one's home for example? Could Wal Mart enact a rule that says you can't come in their store with an anti Obama T shirt on? Could they in this regard limit your right to express yourself? Could they require you to fill out a questionnaire and sign it waving your 5th amendment right? Could they require you to submit to a strip search to do business in their store? Not so clear is it? There is a line here, but where do you draw it?

TBG

Mudjack · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

It's not about where the property owner or the inhabitants thereof draw the line, it's about where I draw the line.

I would consent to none of the above and therefore would not enter that property under any circumstances.

Vegassteve · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

DVC wrote:

Vegassteve wrote:

Should they also ask them to leave if they are black? The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Either a store allowsALL civil rights are they allow none. I dont see why law abiding citizens like Rosa Parks ever made a fuss either then.

A home is another story.

Click to expand...

You are confusing Public and Private. The Bill of Rights -- and the natural rights -- only apply to Public, not to Private.

You are correct parks was a bad comaprison. You are correct the BOR is for public issues.

If they put up a sign that said no blacks do you think it would cause a stink?

Hell yes it would and people would be beating the door down to the joint demanding that they change. Somehow though when it comes to the 2nd we are to shut up and not make a stink. So why is that OK?

Mudjack · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

It doesn't make it OK. Whether it's OK or not is not here nor there. What matters is that the law provides for people to do with their own property as they wish. Just as you can tell people to come and go as you please in your own home, so, too, can any other owner of private property.

Now, on the other hand, if you don't like the rules, you can work to have them changed. You can make an appointment with the owner of the property in question and have a meeting or write a letter and explain what you feel so strongly about. It's much better than barging in wearing a gun knowing damn well they're going to ask you to leave and then starting a useless argument with them about your rights.

What about their rights as property owners? I open a business, and that means you can just come on in and do as you please?

Mudjack · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

And what about the sign at the door that says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"?

Aren't they violating my right to go around shirtless and shoeless if I feel like it?

The Big Guy · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

Mudjack wrote:

And what about the sign at the door that says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"?

Aren't they violating my right to go around shirtless and shoeless if I feel like it?

Don't know of any constituional law, State or Federal where it mentions the wearing of shoes and shirts.Your previous points have merit but I think that this oneis a bad example.

Mudjack · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

If there's no law for or against the wearing of shirts or shoes, this means I can walk into the ice cream shop and tell the owner to ram his no shirt no shoes no service sign and give me some ice cream?

The Big Guy · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

Mudjack wrote:

If there's no law for or against the wearing of shirts or shoes, this means I can walk into the ice cream shop and tell the owner to ram his no shirt no shoes no service sign and give me some ice cream?

No, just the opposite. The wearing of shirts and shoes, or lack thereof, is not a protected right.

TBG

Mudjack · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

Neither is walking onto someone else's private property with a gun without authorization from the owner(s) or the duly appointed representatives of the owner(s) of that property.

We-the-People · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

The whole argument revolves around how we treat property rights as a society. Unfortunately, legal precedents are widely varied on property rights depending upon the issue.

As a private property owner you are NOT allowed to barr people based on certain "protected classes". Race, gender, religious views, and disability are universally protected under the law, some jurisdictions include sexual preference, marital status, etc. These rules are applied to both "open to the public" commercial properties as well as private property that is not open to the public (such as a home that I rent out).

So if a Catholic family has a second home that they rent out, they can not lawfully prohibit a gay couple from renting it or they are in violation of the law (in jurisdictions with such statutes). Yet being gay isn't spelled out in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms on the other hand is!

There needs to be a distinction drawn, in law, that private property "open to the public" for business purposes can not discriminate against persons who are acting lawfully. At the same time, the private property owner needs to have the ability, by NOT opening his property to the public, to exclude whomever they want.

But that is not the way it is......YET

The Big Guy · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

The whole argument revolves around how we treat property rights as a society. Unfortunately, legal precedents are widely varied on property rights depending upon the issue.

As a private property owner you are NOT allowed to barr people based on certain "protected classes". Race, gender, religious views, and disability are universally protected under the law, some jurisdictions include sexual preference, marital status, etc. These rules are applied to both "open to the public" commercial properties as well as private property that is not open to the public (such as a home that I rent out).

So if a Catholic family has a second home that they rent out, they can not lawfully prohibit a gay couple from renting it or they are in violation of the law (in jurisdictions with such statutes). Yet being gay isn't spelled out in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms on the other hand is!

There needs to be a distinction drawn, in law, that private property "open to the public" for business purposes can not discriminate against persons who are acting lawfully. At the same time, the private property owner needs to have the ability, by NOT opening his property to the public, to exclude whomever they want.

But that is not the way it is......YET

Very well said...

TBG

Mudjack · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

Well said indeed.

Bump.

Vegassteve · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

Mudjack wrote:

Neither is walking onto someone else's private property with a gun without authorization from the owner(s) or the duly appointed representatives of the owner(s) of that property.

Really? Cite to law please as per the rules of this board.

Mudjack · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

There is no law for or against. Same as the shirt shoes service discussion. That's my point.

Vegassteve · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

Mudjack wrote:

There is no law for or against. Same as the shirt shoes service discussion. That's my point.

You made a statement as fact and law regarding getting permission to carry.

Do you ask each store you enter for permission? I didnt bring up no shirt no shoes, but in NV there may very well be a law regarding that. I dont know and the one who brought up should cite it as well.

We-the-People · Jun 24, 2010

imported post

In my last post I negelected to mention the "other option" and that would be that the law determines that private property open to the public CAN discriminate against individuals and groups which it doesn't like....such as open carriers....or (pick a religion)......or gays......or blacks......or females.....or....or

I don't think that would fly so.....the only other proper option is that they can't discriminate against any lawful individual if they want to invite the public to come onto their property.

I would go so far as to dissallow event promoters from barring those with lawful weapons (though recordings are illegal so you might have to leave your audio and video devices at home and chance a civil rights violation).

Nevada carrier · Jun 27, 2010

Heres the thing, If I owned a business and I opened that business to the public I would totally endorse someones right to freedom of speech, however I would like to be able to lawfully exclude those people who, while within their constitutional right to do so, are interrupting the smooth operation of my business. I'm just playing devils advocate here. If we tell a private business owner that they shall not refuse service to anyone who is lawfully exercising any or all of their constitutional rights while on my property, you would have to take the good with the bad. I should be able to kick a skin head out of my business for wearing a t-shirt with a swastika. If by rule of law a business owner is not permitted to refuse service to an open carrier, he would not be permitted to refuse service to the skin head who proudly displays racial images upon his body.

The solution is and can only be to grow the ranks of armed citizens to the point where it would be to costly for businesses to bar them from doing business with them. Right now is a good time to use the economic down turn to our advantage. Just the other day I was bowling at the Orleans Hotel Bowling Center. Security saw that I was armed, and their manager came to take a look. His reaction was that I was a paying customer who was not breaking the law or causing any disruption and they didn't want to alienate a paying customer. It's become so hard for some businesses to get customers that they are willing to accept our money even if they don't necessarily like us. If a Brady advocate owned a home theater store and hadn't had a customer all week, but on Friday 30 minutes before closing time a customer walks in ready to whip out a credit card and spend some money he may not be so anti gun.

The solution isn't to make more laws that force people to accept us, we just need there to be more of us.

LV XD9 · Jun 27, 2010

Well said.

Nevada carrier said:
Heres the thing, If I owned a business and I opened that business to the public I would totally endorse someones right to freedom of speech, however I would like to be able to lawfully exclude those people who, while within their constitutional right to do so, are interrupting the smooth operation of my business. I'm just playing devils advocate here. If we tell a private business owner that they shall not refuse service to anyone who is lawfully exercising any or all of their constitutional rights while on my property, you would have to take the good with the bad. I should be able to kick a skin head out of my business for wearing a t-shirt with a swastika. If by rule of law a business owner is not permitted to refuse service to an open carrier, he would not be permitted to refuse service to the skin head who proudly displays racial images upon his body.

The solution is and can only be to grow the ranks of armed citizens to the point where it would be to costly for businesses to bar them from doing business with them. Right now is a good time to use the economic down turn to our advantage. Just the other day I was bowling at the Orleans Hotel Bowling Center. Security saw that I was armed, and their manager came to take a look. His reaction was that I was a paying customer who was not breaking the law or causing any disruption and they didn't want to alienate a paying customer. It's become so hard for some businesses to get customers that they are willing to accept our money even if they don't necessarily like us. If a Brady advocate owned a home theater store and hadn't had a customer all week, but on Friday 30 minutes before closing time a customer walks in ready to whip out a credit card and spend some money he may not be so anti gun.

The solution isn't to make more laws that force people to accept us, we just need there to be more of us.

kootsoup · Jun 27, 2010

Nevada carrier said:
Heres the thing, If I owned a business and I opened that business to the public I would totally endorse someones right to freedom of speech, however I would like to be able to lawfully exclude those people who, while within their constitutional right to do so, are interrupting the smooth operation of my business. I'm just playing devils advocate here. If we tell a private business owner that they shall not refuse service to anyone who is lawfully exercising any or all of their constitutional rights while on my property, you would have to take the good with the bad. I should be able to kick a skin head out of my business for wearing a t-shirt with a swastika. If by rule of law a business owner is not permitted to refuse service to an open carrier, he would not be permitted to refuse service to the skin head who proudly displays racial images upon his body.

The solution is and can only be to grow the ranks of armed citizens to the point where it would be to costly for businesses to bar them from doing business with them. Right now is a good time to use the economic down turn to our advantage. Just the other day I was bowling at the Orleans Hotel Bowling Center. Security saw that I was armed, and their manager came to take a look. His reaction was that I was a paying customer who was not breaking the law or causing any disruption and they didn't want to alienate a paying customer. It's become so hard for some businesses to get customers that they are willing to accept our money even if they don't necessarily like us. If a Brady advocate owned a home theater store and hadn't had a customer all week, but on Friday 30 minutes before closing time a customer walks in ready to whip out a credit card and spend some money he may not be so anti gun.

The solution isn't to make more laws that force people to accept us, we just need there to be more of us.

Perfect example of how the free market can be used to protect the rights of others. I also feel that making new laws that spell out peoples rights is dangerous. It is wiser (and the authors of the Constitution knew this) to have guide lines that can/should be interpreted given various scenarios.

Mudjack · Jun 28, 2010

The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone for Any Reason

I would agree that spreading the word and using the economic downturn or whatever might be at our disposal to help our cause.

And, as always, as a business owner, I retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If I don't have that right, I have no business at all.

Kay Jewelers Town Square

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned