farkles
Regular Member
Okay, so I know there have been several discussions about whether a business can restrict you from carrying a weapon in their store, but I think Judge Napolitano took this issue to another level than I have seen discussed here.
I always have fallen on the side of "Private Property rights" and assumed the business does absolutely have the right to ban us from carrying there. I don't like that they ban us, and I will not shop there without my gun, but I felt like they had the right to restrict carry of weapons.
Certainly NC law says they may post a sign, so we are not debating that. We are debating the Constitutionality of the matter. Watch this video of Judge Napolitano and think about it again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE&feature=player_embedded .
When asked "does Starbucks have the right to say sorry, you have to check your gun in your saddlebag outside?", he answered "No, because Starbucks is a public accommodation, which means it invites the public to come on its property. When the public comes on its property, the public doesn't shed any of its Constitutional rights."
He follows up by saying "if someone is using their fundamental right, like to carry a gun, or express free speech to interfere with the purpose of the public accommodation: if I am pulling the trigger in Starbucks, or preaching my devotion to Ron Paul so loudly that people can't order their coffee, THEN Starbucks can stop me."
This sounds fantastic, is it backed up by case law at the district or SCOTUS level? Any way to take this to NCGA next year after McDonald v Chicago?
I always have fallen on the side of "Private Property rights" and assumed the business does absolutely have the right to ban us from carrying there. I don't like that they ban us, and I will not shop there without my gun, but I felt like they had the right to restrict carry of weapons.
Certainly NC law says they may post a sign, so we are not debating that. We are debating the Constitutionality of the matter. Watch this video of Judge Napolitano and think about it again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE&feature=player_embedded .
When asked "does Starbucks have the right to say sorry, you have to check your gun in your saddlebag outside?", he answered "No, because Starbucks is a public accommodation, which means it invites the public to come on its property. When the public comes on its property, the public doesn't shed any of its Constitutional rights."
He follows up by saying "if someone is using their fundamental right, like to carry a gun, or express free speech to interfere with the purpose of the public accommodation: if I am pulling the trigger in Starbucks, or preaching my devotion to Ron Paul so loudly that people can't order their coffee, THEN Starbucks can stop me."
This sounds fantastic, is it backed up by case law at the district or SCOTUS level? Any way to take this to NCGA next year after McDonald v Chicago?