Business' Ability To Restrict OC/CC Valid

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 like the find. I hadn't heard this point of view before.

Looking around the Internet, I mostly only found reference to public accommodation not being denied on account of race, color, religion, or national origin. Basically, this was a private property exception carved out for the above "protected classes," which does not include gun owners/carriers.

That is the argument I have had for a long time.

I caught the segment when it first aired and was equally impressed. I too have wondered about the same thing but was not sure I wanted to be the test case.

The "public accommodation" interpretation of whether or not the US Constitution's Bill of rights applies to private business property is still sort of up in the air. It HAS been decided with regards to the 1A. Any rational person would, therefor by extension, admit that after McDonald, it applies to the 2A as well. But until someone brings a Civil Rights discrimination suit against a private business for banning handguns on their property and wins under the "public accommodation" interpretation, my guess is, businesses will remain "protected" to do what they will, just like an individual may do on "personal" private property...

McDonald was NOT the final nail in the coffin of the anti-gun movement. Quite the oppostite. The McDonald decision was actually more like the Battle of Lexington and Concord. It was a an opening volley in what should prove to be a successful rebellion against tyranny, lies, and enslavement. The battle will be long-it has just begun--and there will be a lot of pain, sorrow, and legal wrangling before it's all over and decided.

The ultimate victory of Liberty rests squarely on the shoulders of us--gun owners--and our willingness and ability to maintain our focus, resolve, and dedication to the cause of freedom.

Dreamer said:

The "public accommodation" interpretation of whether or not the US Constitution's Bill of rights applies to private business property is still sort of up in the air. It HAS been decided with regards to the 1A. Any rational person would, therefor by extension, admit that after McDonald, it applies to the 2A as well. But until someone brings a Civil Rights discrimination suit against a private business for banning handguns on their property and wins under the "public accommodation" interpretation, my guess is, businesses will remain "protected" to do what they will, just like an individual may do on "personal" private property...

McDonald was NOT the final nail in the coffin of the anti-gun movement. Quite the oppostite. The McDonald decision was actually more like the Battle of Lexington and Concord. It was a an opening volley in what should prove to be a successful rebellion against tyranny, lies, and enslavement. The battle will be long-it has just begun--and there will be a lot of pain, sorrow, and legal wrangling before it's all over and decided.

The ultimate victory of Liberty rests squarely on the shoulders of us--gun owners--and our willingness and ability to maintain our focus, resolve, and dedication to the cause of freedom.

Click to expand...

I see this as a double edged sword. The way it is versus the way it should be.

The way it should be is that a property owner, regardless of if it is a private dwelling or a business open to the public should be allowed to make damn near any rule he wants. Provided that no force is used to make those rules, anything should be good. If a business owner wants to put up a sign saying "all patrons must go topless" then that should be allowed. If you dont like it or dont want to go topless, dont enter.

The way it is vastly different. The real question is do we as gun owners and civil rights advocates by extension want to impose further expansion of he restrictions that a private business owner can make on his own property or not? Is sacrificing a bit more of a property owner's rights worth gaining the person right to bear arms on his property?

It is a very tough call.

It seems to me from a purely logical (not legal) point of view that if a private property owner wants to keep his property private and not invite the public in, he still will and should always have the right to make any rules he/she wants. When the decision is made to invite the public in (public accommodation) part of that decision must be to abide by the law of the land (constitution). If the private property owner can't live with that he/she should keep the property private and enforce any rules desired. IANAL your mileage may vary etc...

Recent posts seem concerned with what the law should be.

But, this operates from the premise that the government should be involved somehow. Government telling people by what actions some people will show respect for rights of others (while that same government has a horrible track record of respecting rights itself.)

Dare we ask government to abridge the property rights of anti-gun businesses? A government that has the mother of all anti-property rights decisions--Kelo--in its resume?

Government lately thrives on selling abridgements of the rights of some for political support from the beneficiaries of the abridgement.

Lets not give government more grist for their abridgement mill. If a business wants no guns, let them have it their way. Don't ask government, who regularly screws up most of what they touch, to get involved. Somehow, some way it will come back to haunt, to be regretted.

The great stumbling block for whether or not business which are open to the public--and dependent on such public access and patronization--are or are not bound by the Constitution, is the legal definition of what a "person" is.

Since the Federal government and the courts have all declared that "corporations" are legally the same as a "person", corporations have essentially the same rights and obligations as individual humans. And as such, they are not bound to the same laws as governmental institutions. As such, corporations are not bound by the Bill of Rights with regards to how they treat other individuals, and they enjoy the same broadly defined property rights as individuals.

Until we "de-personify" corporate entities, there can be no expectation that the courts will ever force businesses to follow the same laws that the government must.