Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: So businesses actually do not have the right to ban people from carrying afterall??

  1. #1
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    So businesses actually do not have the right to ban people from carrying afterall??

    I have heard this before but thought it was just a position that someone who was very pro-gun had taken. It's interesting to hear this from a judge. Yes, I know who this judge is and yes, I also know that he is a frequent contributor on Fox News (has his own show, even). But it is interesting to hear his take on the issue, nevertheless.

    http://www.truthbehindpolitics.com/2...ndment-videos/

    BTW: I don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest or cause heated debate on this topic. My intent is only to show how someone in the legal profession who has held a judgeship sees the issue.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    One former judge's opinion based on a particular viewpoint of "public accommodation".

    There's pretty much no way you can avoid heated debate on the issue. There are three sides, none of which sees any validity to the other two. Asking folks to look at the fact that there is one person's opinion out there as a physical phenomenon, without commenting on it one way or another, is a great leap of faith that I fear will not yield the results you ask for.

    As this judge is offering a generalized opinion, is not representing anyone as a client, is not serving as your attorney, and has not made any binding assurances to both go your bail and represent you in any criminal proceedings, I would urge caution in acting in reliance on his opinion.

    stay safe.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It is "The Judge's" unofficial opinion that the theory of "public accommodation" extends to protecting fundamental rights against infringement by private entities whom the courts have designated "public accommodations." Current case law only supports the prohibition an banning people for membership in "protected classes."

    I can't overstate how repugnant to Liberty the whole "public accommodation" idea is, even though its original intent was to stop racial discrimination. The point remains that the idea has not been used in the way The Judge implies.

    The argument I would put forth to the SCOTUS were it to consider extending the "public accommodation" theory in the way The Judge proposes would be:

    Does that mean that a store owner must allow a person to stand in the middle of his store and advocate for a candidate with whom the proprietor vehemently disagrees, not necessarily in a way that interferes with the business of the store, but in a way that owner would prefer not to subject the customers of his business? If the concept of "public accommodation" is extended in this way, it will.

    Remember, this is the opinion of one person (a well-respected, educated, and informed person, to be sure), but not the current opinion of the law. He is essentially putting forth the argument he'd like to see made in court.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    As I was the one who started this thread and I emphasize that I intended absolutely no friction or heated discussions but rather a take from a judge, I will offer my opinion on this issue.

    I tend to defer to the rights of private individuals' property (businesses and otherwise), when doing just about anything (perhaps an exception or two). I was raised and taught to respect those things which people own and that respect for property naturally evolved into respecting other people. So while I see the judge's position, I would defer to the side of private property rights. Believe me, I do not wish to be the poster child for a trespassing test case while arguing there is nothing the owner can do to me.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 10-21-2010 at 12:17 PM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Current case law only supports the prohibition an banning people for membership in "protected classes."
    Talk about repugnant. The concept of "protected class" is not only discriminatory in the extreme, it flies in the face of everything that is American.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Talk about repugnant. The concept of "protected class" is not only discriminatory in the extreme, it flies in the face of everything that is American.
    I agree.

    I object to the ideas of "public accommodation," "protected class," and denying service to someone based on race or national origin.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705
    The judge has an interesting theory, but I am not at all sure it should or would hold water.

    I firmly believe in my father's "My Roof, My Rules" argument.

    I hold the same idea for my property.

    If someone is on my property (in my livingroom, garage, or even my back yard) he is only allowed to be there with my permission, and my permission is granted only so long as that person abides by my rules.

    Refuse to follow my rules and you are out.

    I feel the same applies to all property, whether owned by an individual or a corporation: Their roof, their rules.

    Don't like their rules, don't enter their property.

    "Public accommodation" adds a slight wrinkle to that, but I still feel, bottom line, that "My Roof, My Rules" applies, even if that is the roof over my one-man business and therefore, open to the public.

    It is open to the public only so long as that public follows house rules. If I insist that one must wear a blue shirt to enter, that's what one must do. Don't like it? Don't enter.

    Once again, my dad was right in his very simple and direct statements.
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I agree.

    I object to the ideas of "public accommodation," "protected class," and denying service to someone based on race or national origin.

    Also the notion of a "protected class" could be in violation of the equal protection clause.
    (for the states anyway.)
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  9. #9
    Regular Member Publius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northern California Now NH soon
    Posts
    67
    Private Property Rights > My Rights

    While our Government thinks otherwise, I will still recognize this principle of Natural Law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Consider this for example:

    A resident of an apartment complex invites a few friends over to grill out in a common, shared, and unreserved part of the complex, adjacent to the complex pool. According to the complex rules, the resident is allowed to keep and carry his firearm in his unit and around the complex, in accordance with local laws. He invites over three individuals who are also carrying firearms. The property is marked "no trespassing" at the front gate.

    I am inclined to believe that as an invitee at a function that an authorized resident invited the general public to, that I have a right to bear arms in the defense of myself.

    What say the rest of you?
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Don't confuse our private property rights with the requirements with running a business.

    In your home, pure private property you retain the right to exclude whomever you want. And no one will dispute that.

    However when you choose to operate a business, and get a license, then you have chosen to abide by an additional set of rules. Don't like it, don't run the business, and there is no fundamental right to run a business.

    Hence, run a business that is open to the public then you abide by the rules. Don't like it, change the rules or don't open shop.

    Kooks come in, blacks, handicapped, kids and open carriers - serve them equally or get your doors shut.

    Again, this is not simply a private property issue, but a business issue. Imagine food producers, restaurants and medical services denying access to inspectors because of property rights. Absurd.

  12. #12
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirbinator View Post
    Consider this for example:

    A resident of an apartment complex invites a few friends over to grill out in a common, shared, and unreserved part of the complex, adjacent to the complex pool. According to the complex rules, the resident is allowed to keep and carry his firearm in his unit and around the complex, in accordance with local laws. He invites over three individuals who are also carrying firearms. The property is marked "no trespassing" at the front gate.

    I am inclined to believe that as an invitee at a function that an authorized resident invited the general public to, that I have a right to bear arms in the defense of myself.

    What say the rest of you?
    Generally in apartment complexes and common areas when there is a sign posted, it is usually the case to say something along these lines;

    Access to and use of this (pool/common area/club house) us limited to residents and their guests. All other persons must present themselves to the (.....) before entering.

    In your example, the "No Trespassing" sign is not complete. It will probably include some sort of conditions because otherwise, almost no one could enter the property I would think. Assuming there is more information regarding trespassers and the people in question do not meet the trespassing test, the fact that it does not specify that firearms are prohibited would seem to indicate that they are allowed on the premises. That would be my take.

    There was a bit of discussion a while back about apartments and whether or not they could ban firearms from residents' dwellings. I have only lived in three apartment complexes in my adult life and I don't recall any of them that banned residents from having firearms on the property... any of the property. Hard to imagine there would be any such place like that in Virginia but one never knows. I've never heard of such a restriction.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 10-22-2010 at 09:15 PM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Publius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northern California Now NH soon
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    ...
    However when you choose to operate a business, and get a license, then you have chosen to abide by an additional set of rules. Don't like it, don't run the business, and there is no fundamental right to run a business.

    Hence, run a business that is open to the public then you abide by the rules. Don't like it, change the rules or don't open shop.
    ...
    Logical fallacy, appeal to common practice. Just because people have prostrated themselves for decades to the Government when deciding to start a business, doesn't make such a practice moral or effective.
    Last edited by Publius; 10-22-2010 at 09:34 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431
    I would have to agree with the Judge on this one. The Business Owner has to accept that if he opens his doors to the public he can not discriminate in any form to whom he sees fit to enter.

    If the Business owner wants to make it a pricate busniess, Such as Memberships to enter, well then you have a different story!

  15. #15
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirbinator View Post
    Consider this for example:

    A resident of an apartment complex invites a few friends over to grill out in a common, shared, and unreserved part of the complex, adjacent to the complex pool. According to the complex rules, the resident is allowed to keep and carry his firearm in his unit and around the complex, in accordance with local laws. He invites over three individuals who are also carrying firearms. The property is marked "no trespassing" at the front gate.

    I am inclined to believe that as an invitee at a function that an authorized resident invited the general public to, that I have a right to bear arms in the defense of myself.

    What say the rest of you?
    What if another resident (who has just as much legal control over the property as the one inviting the public) doesn't want you to have your gun there? Who wins that argument?

    What if the property owner (the actual one) or manager is okay with you having a firearm there (as seems to be the case when you consider the complex rules you mentioned)?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Publius View Post
    Logical fallacy, appeal to common practice. Just because people have prostrated themselves for decades to the Government when deciding to start a business, doesn't make such a practice moral or effective.
    Are the rules regarding safety issues (e.g. OSHA, USDA and FDA) an "appeal to common practice"? No. Because we have rules which dictate safety and conditions for a business - which a business owner signs up for when they obtain a license to operate.

    The rules and guidelines published by the USDA are highly effective. Do not forget how meat was processed, stored and distributed before refrigerators and the understanding of bacteria and temperature.

    In addition you cannot refuse access because you don't like the person or whom they work for (e.g. USDA inspectors, fire marshal, health inspector, etc)? Safety comes into play, the safety of your customer/consumer, and they do have the right to be safe and healthy.

    When there are conflicts in rights, the governments role is to step in hence business rules and regulations.

    Hence, certain business rules do have a purpose and are effective. This nullifies your "appeal to common practice" position. In addition, your statement of "doesn't make such a practice moral or effective" is also shown to be incorrect.

    Anyhow, maybe you want to refuse access to only specific customers? Maybe you want to refuse service to specific customers? Your position has no standing without specifics as me showing one case of "effective" can negate your entire specious position.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdonalk View Post
    What if another resident (who has just as much legal control over the property as the one inviting the public) doesn't want you to have your gun there? Who wins that argument?

    What if the property owner (the actual one) or manager is okay with you having a firearm there (as seems to be the case when you consider the complex rules you mentioned)?
    It doesn't matter what the other tenant/resident desires. As long as the rules allow the first resident to carry a weapon (e.g. gun, bat, sword) and/or to be there then they cannot be asked to move on.

    Well, they can be asked, but they're free to refuse. Same as with a "threat" to call the cops.

    When the lease is/was signed, the landlord agreed to grant access to certain aspects of the property, contractually. Because the leasee hasn't violated any part of that contract, the landlord can't do anything, not even enforce a trespass provision (you can't trespass if you've been granted permission, and according to the lease w/o restrictions based upon a firearms clause) because the leasee does have written permission to be there.

    Certain leases do restrict time/place and have other covenants, and you can be 'trespassed' for violating these aspects (e.g. can't use the swimming pool after 10P).

    However, the landlord (and tenant) can break the lease (always a provision in leases to break a lease w/ XXX days warning) and evict the tenant for whatever reason at a later time. This may be a/the reason, but it's always best to give no reason whatsoever.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Publius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northern California Now NH soon
    Posts
    67
    ------------
    Description of Appeal to Common Practice

    The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

    X is a common action.
    Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
    The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.
    ------------

    So, while a common practice could be correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc, simply stating something has always been done so it must be correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc, is a logically fallacious argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    Are the rules regarding safety issues (e.g. OSHA, USDA and FDA) an "appeal to common practice"? No. Because we have rules which dictate safety and conditions for a business - which a business owner signs up for when they obtain a license to operate.
    But why should anyone have to give up their rights in order to freely exchange products or services to willing buyers? Why should you be FORCED to give away your rights in order to make a living? Once again I am not saying that OSHA, USDA and FDA are not effective (they may or may not be), merely that they are immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    In addition you cannot refuse access because you don't like the person or whom they work for (e.g. USDA inspectors, fire marshal, health inspector, etc)? Safety comes into play, the safety of your customer/consumer, and they do have the right to be safe and healthy.
    If people do not believe your business is safe then they have every right not to purchase products from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by merle View Post
    Anyhow, maybe you want to refuse access to only specific customers? Maybe you want to refuse service to specific customers? Your position has no standing without specifics as me showing one case of "effective" can negate your entire specious position.
    I wouldn't refuse to do business with anyone who had money, but I would not want the government to force people into doing business with me if they didn't want to because of my race, religion, hair style, height, gender, the fact that I OC, et cetera. The only moral way to hurt a business for doing something you don't like is to stop buying from that business, not use a proxy to put a gun to their head and say "do as we like or else!"

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Well said. You do Publius proud! Especially in the pistol proxy that is the government.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Personally, I think this judge is out of line in saying that.

    I do not want a judge, lawmaker, cop or anyone else telling me what I can or cannot do with, in or on another persons private property, unless of course the matter is decided by the private property owner.

    Private property rights are the only thing that should supersede the constitution during privileged times of conditional access. Costco is a great example. Your rights to carry still exist while there, but if you go, which no ones telling you to, you forfeit them while there until you leave, because going there is part of conditional and contractual access as set by the property owner.

    If we the freedom driven minority manage to vastly lose sight of the fact that the founders wanted all rights to be property based, and for good reason, I hold little hope for the future generations, because it will be the final nail in the coffin of freedom when even we begin to have no issues with the government controlling private property. In falling for that nonsense, we would stand to rapidly sink into some socialist totalitarian system of big government with very few personal choices. We're close enough to there already. I strongly believe always keeping this in mind is of the utmost importance.
    Last edited by Michigander; 10-23-2010 at 01:24 PM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Citizens' Rights to Public Accomodation vs Private Property Owners' Rights

    The concept of "public accomodation" developed in response to discrimination based on race, sex, and religion. As you can read in the FindLaw article, found here:

    "Federal law prohibits privately owned facilities that offer food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."

    Additionally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 extended the concept of "public accomodation" to people with disabilities, but in order to qualify, they must have a disability as defined by either statute.

    Public accomodation has also long been held by the courts, including the Supreme Court to extend to matters involving the First Amendment's protection of free speech, as well as it's derivative derived in case law, freedom of expression. These extensions have not been carte blanche, however, and some restrictions remain. For example, while businesses cannot prohibit access to the girl with purple hair, or a guy with tatoos, certain businesses, such as a fine dining establishment, can require customers to wear "proper attire." Most golf courses prohibit jeans/denim, and require customers to wear a shirt with a collar, whle most pools prohibit cut-offs.

    The reason these restrictions were allowed by the courts is that part of what these businesses offer their customers is a certain atmosphere, or ambience. Allowing unlimited extension of First Amendment rights under the concept of "public accomodation" erodes that ambience and undermines the business' livlihood. In cases of pools prohibiting cutoffs, it's more practical, as the strings from cut-offs tend to wrap themselves around pump shafts next to the seals, and destroy the seals.

    Meanwhile, when it comes to Second Amendment issues, both statute and case law, again up to and including at the Supreme Court level, has upheld the rights of private property owners against tresspassing, including the restriction of 2A rights of others on their property, by acting commensurate with local and state laws, namely by simply posting a notice at the entrance or asking someone to leave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Private property rights are the only thing that should supersede the constitution.
    Nothing should supercede our Constitution, except for the only provision allowed by the Constitution itself: A properly ratified Amendment. There's a reason our Constitution is called "The Law of the Land."

    Any attempt to undermine or supercede our Constitution by any other means, including case law (where judges can make rulings based more on their opinion instead of statute) opens wide the door for the erosion of the one document upon which our country rests, the cornerstone of our society. It opens wide the door to the erosion of our rights, which may be "superceded," for example, by a UN/EU-sponsored and US government-signed prohibition against handguns.

    That is neither acceptable nor is it negotiable. Our Constitution must remain inviolate, as the Law of the Land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    If we the freedom driven minority manage to vastly lose sight of the fact that the founders wanted all rights to be property based, and for good reason, I hold little hope for the future generations, because it will be the final nail in the coffin of freedom when even we begin to have no issues with the government controlling private property. In falling for that nonsense, we would stand to rapidly sink into some socialist totalitarian system of big government with very few personal choices. We're close enough to there already.
    We're in agreement, here!
    Last edited by since9; 10-26-2010 at 06:42 PM. Reason: spelling; clarity
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Publius View Post
    Private Property Rights > My Rights

    While our Government thinks otherwise, I will still recognize this principle of Natural Law.
    Private Property Rights ◄ My Rights

    Read "◄" as "is a subset of." Actually, property rights are one of the two foundations of all other rights. The rights we cherish essentially exist to protect our lives and property from other people and from government.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Publius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northern California Now NH soon
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Private Property Rights ◄ My Rights

    Read "◄" as "is a subset of." Actually, property rights are one of the two foundations of all other rights. The rights we cherish essentially exist to protect our lives and property from other people and from government.
    Right, which is want I was attempting to say only you said it better

  24. #24
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    As I was the one who started this thread and I emphasize that I intended absolutely no friction or heated discussions but rather a take from a judge, I will offer my opinion on this issue.

    I tend to defer to the rights of private individuals' property (businesses and otherwise), when doing just about anything (perhaps an exception or two). I was raised and taught to respect those things which people own and that respect for property naturally evolved into respecting other people. So while I see the judge's position, I would defer to the side of private property rights. Believe me, I do not wish to be the poster child for a trespassing test case while arguing there is nothing the owner can do to me.
    While I tend to believe in business owner's rights to control their premises quite strongly, I also believe in my right to protect myself and family. In accordance with those beliefs I tell those business owners that I object to those policies and refuse to give them any monetary support whatsoever.

    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    While I tend to believe in business owner's rights to control their premises quite strongly, I also believe in my right to protect myself and family. In accordance with those beliefs I tell those business owners that I object to those policies and refuse to give them any monetary support whatsoever.

    And, that, sir, is precisely how Liberty should work for all!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •