"No talking with strangers" rule at mall ruled unconstitutional

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/14/state/n104706D01.DTL&tsp=1

There are obvious parallels here. If owners of private property cannot restrict people's fundamental right to freely speak, then surely they cannot restrict people's fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Wow really wow now thats just pushing, placing a rule saying you have to submit a form to talk to random people? That must really suck for the younger generations to approach each other lol

I expect there will be a 2A lawsuit regarding common areas in malls soon. If an unfenced yard isn't private property, the same should apply to malls.

Whats the phrase? The BOR is not a chinese takeout menu?

What in the name

of John Wayne's ass are these people thinking about. My God, don't they have better things to do than come up with these idiotic rules. They kind of remind me of the politicians in Sacramento. They just don't have any common sense. What they need are some glass stomachs so they can see where there going, cause the have their heads so far up their ass.
KAISER-MAN

Wow. It's a shame public flogging is no longer in vogue....

Seems to me the nor-cal UOC'ers just found their next meetup location.

could the OCDO forum ever go more off topic???

HOW could the freedom of speach ever be important enough
to intrude into our little 2nd amendment forum????

:idea::idea::idea::idea:

1245A Defender said:

HOW could the freedom of speach ever be important enough
to intrude into our little 2nd amendment forum????

:idea::idea::idea::idea:

Click to expand...

We could be talking about kittens and knitting and Star Trek and Dungeons and Dragons...

Allow me to be the first to connect the dots for you;

The first and second amendments are the first two of the Bill of Rights. This package of rights apply to all of us in the United States and most particularly in public venues. Open carry is a demonstration of both the first and second amendments-- on one hand you are carrying a firearm which you are entitled to under the second... on the other you are carrying very clearly worded sign that says "Please don't "F" with me, I have the capability to defend myself with lethal force."

I would discourage those who really want to test this out from doing this just yet. In order to take this to fruition, we must have the funding, the correct plantiff and an attorney prepared to move this forward. If not, the results may be like going OC without a recorder and other necessary preparations.

thanx for the schoolin Conditionthree!!

from the thread "reason behind your screen name"



Regular Member

i studied the hell out of wash, calif, and mich for a month before i signed in!

1245A Defender said:

from the thread "reason behind your screen name"



Regular Member

i studied the hell out of wash, calif, and mich for a month before i signed in!

everything was always 2A this and 2A that,
but some of the old hands would keep ragging, about the other rights, not just 2A!
they made it clear that the 2A was the only right that had teeth.
they made it clear that without the 2A, the 1st, the 4th, and the 5th, could be nullified.
they made it clear that without the 1st, the 4th, and the 5th, the 2nd, could be nullified!
i think that these four rights are the Key to preserving, protecting, and defending,
the Constitution of the United States!
i think these four rights depend on each other for support,
and we need to support these four rights equally, as they are
Necessary to the Security of a Free State!
​

Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...
All power is inherent in the people,
it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!!

maybe you didnt notice my sarcasm....

​

Click to expand...

I agree

*rolleyes*
Sometimes I wonder if OCDO's members menstrual cycles line up....

heliopolissolutions said:

*rolleyes*
Sometimes I wonder if OCDO's members menstrual cycles line up....

Click to expand...

I go to the menstrual hut in 2 weeks.

Make no mistakes ladies and gents... while this decision might help us further our agenda to be armed everywhere we go, it is a direct threat to liberty.

Let me spell it out for you: the government has just told yet another person what they may do with their property.

If you're a true lover of liberty, you should be saddened and angered that property owners are going to continue to be bullied into complying with rules set for ONLY to restrict THE GOVERNMENT.

If I own a mall, I should be able to turn away anybody I want for any reason I want. If those things happen to be race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, the color of your shirt, etc (you get the idea), well then that's part of the market I'm choosing not to profit from.

As much as I abhor bigotry, I believe the bigots are entitled to doom their business to failure. If I run my mall like a Nazi, open up your own and watch all the disgruntled consumers flock to your more friendly business.

The free market is the solution; government intervention is the problem.

Are you comfortable forcing your fellow man to do it your way, knowing it's ultimately at the point of a gun? Are you comfortable knowing government thugs will take his property and liberty from him for disagreeing with you?

I'm not... This is just another sad day for liberty. I want my gun rights, but not at the sacrifice of other people's property rights.

The toughie is even contemplating the idea that one right could be more important than another. As with everything, TANSTAFL, and someone always gets the short end of the stick.

When you have a conflict of rights, which one trumps the other. Homeowners vs business owners? Mall owners rights vs store owners rights. Example, Starbucks ok with the 2 A. Mall owner isn't. One would need the wisdom of Solomon to sort it out.

Do I lose my 1A rights when I enter a store? How about my 4A or 5A rights? I think not (yes I realize their are limitations, but not a total loss of the right...FIRE!). Then why would I completely surrender my 2A rights? Now, could we draw a distinction between someone's home and their public place of business? Sure. A place of business is still "out in public", which clearly doesn't apply to someone's home. I would rather err on the side of liberty and protecting that liberty, than err'ing on the side of tyranny. Somehow the tyranical liberty monster seems less frightening to me than the plain old tyranical monster.