• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Globe Gazette l: Counties, cities and businesses have right to restrict gun carry

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
US Citizens have right to spend our money at locations which respect our CONSTITUTION

Sure they do. Restrict themselves out of business, since more than 80% of us law-abiding US citizens won't do business with them.

Just saying, because, apparently, some business owners just don't get it.
 
Last edited:

hogeaterf6

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
381
Location
, ,
Lucky for me I dont stop for gas in Watterloo. Usually in Dyke or Cedar Rapids. If I do in the future, I guess I'll be a criminal.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
It's obvious from the article that the writer does not understand much about the issue, a gun-issues dilettante.
Private property rights do trump my desire to carry in a private business, and I'll continue to patronize gun-friendly businesses.

Texas preempted cities and counties, since there is so little reason to have a statewide law when every jurisdiction could restrict it.

I would also argue that no government should be permitted to take action which infringes on a right without due process and a compelling _public_ interest (not government self-interest.) And even at that, the reasonableness of a restriction can still be challenged.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Private property rights do trump my desire to carry in a private business, and I'll continue to patronize gun-friendly businesses.


So then, I assume you have no problem with a business putting up signs saying "No Jews Allowed", or "No Baptists Allowed", or "No Asians Allowed", or "No Irish Allowed", or "No Whites Allowed"...

Because under your "private property rights" argument, it's the same thing...

Civil rights are civil rights--the Bill of Rights is NOT a buffet, where we can pick and choose only the parts we like and leave the rest out. The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition--either you sign on to the "Social Contract", or you are an enemy of Freedom. You can't "half-ass" Liberty...

It really IS that simple...
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I agreee with you in principle, Dreamer, that carry ought to be a fundamental "carry anywhere" right the same as with any creed or religion. I cannot be denied service because I hold a particular belief.

Property law being what it is here in the U.S., however, balances the rights of consumers with the rights of property owners. If this weren't so, I fear my rights as a tenant, and those of my parents as land/home owners, would be subject to some serious erosion. Castle laws are a good thing, and while I don't agree with those who refuse service to me because I carry a firearm, I do respect it.

In contrast, in some other countries, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home or business, and in my mind that's too far in the other direction.

What I would argue is that a city or any other jurisdiction, whether incorporated or not, has a the responsibility of easement, that is, allowing people to pass transit its boundaries, while exercising our fundamental 2A rights.

We're clearly not there, yet!

As for private property (someone's home) I respect the rights of the private property owner to refuse entrance, period, bar none. I'm less inclined to agree that Wal-Mart, because of it's implied consent invitation to transit their property, should be able to deny me a fundamental Constitutional right.
 
Last edited:

billv

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
84
Location
Houston now, Asheville soon
I agreee with you in principle, Dreamer, that carry ought to be a fundamental "carry anywhere" right the same as with any creed or religion. I cannot be denied service because I hold a particular belief.

Property law being what it is here in the U.S., however, balances the rights of consumers with the rights of property owners. If this weren't so, I fear my rights as a tenant, and those of my parents as land/home owners, would be subject to some serious erosion. Castle laws are a good thing, and while I don't agree with those who refuse service to me because I carry a firearm, I do respect it.

In contrast, in some other countries, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home or business, and in my mind that's too far in the other direction.

What I would argue is that a city or any other jurisdiction, whether incorporated or not, has a the responsibility of easement, that is, allowing people to pass transit its boundaries, while exercising our fundamental 2A rights.

We're clearly not there, yet!

As for private property (someone's home) I respect the rights of the private property owner to refuse entrance, period, bar none. I'm less inclined to agree that Wal-Mart, because of it's implied consent invitation to transit their property, should be able to deny me a fundamental Constitutional right.

I tend to agree with both of you.

IMHO, I think there are two classes of private property - 1) personal, which includes all your possessions and your home, and 2) commercial, which includes that which business is conducted on.

I believe that one has a right to limit my transit on your private property and what I may bring and you control who and what comes onto your property. I assume that you will take on the responsibility of my defense and safety if you allow me onto your property. People get sued all the time for not doing so.

But for commercial property, which you mention "implied consent to transit" (I like that term), I think the business owner should not be allowed to infringe on my 2A rights, since there is less control over who can and cannot transit the property and what they bring with them, unless they can provide the same level of security. They don't necessarily take on the responsibility for my safety. If they do, it's only to limit their liability, after the fact. It's hard to sue them when your dead. And yes I do know that I can take my business elsewhere, and I do.

My employer bans firearms on their property. A friend and I were discussing why they would do this and we think it's to limit their liability. If an employee goes off the deep end, the company can say they violated company policy and they aren't liable. If they allowed firearms, and the same happened, then the victim's lawyers would have a field day. While I'd prefer to carry my firearm with me while at work, if my employer is going to ban carrying, then they should be required to provide secure lockers to store my firearm in while at work. Frankly, I'm less concerned about getting shot at work, but while out of the office at lunch and in transit to/from the office. And because of their policy I have no way to bring my firearm to the office for my self defense. I take a vanpool so I can't leave it there. And even if I drove to the office and left it in my car, I'd still be violation of company policy if I parked on their property.

There is a third class of property, public, owned by the government, on behalf of the People. I think the Government limits where I can carry firearms way too much on The People's property. Yes, some places are needed - jails, courts (perhaps), high security areas (what ever that might mean), etc. But other areas, like Post Offices, normal government offices, DMV, tax assessor, etc really don't need a firearm ban.

Just my opinion.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The circumstantial logic of saying that some property owners have full property rights and others do not is the same kind of logic used against the RKBA: In some circumstances, the right should not exist or be limited.

Bunkum.

Property owners have the right to deny access to carriers. We have the right to take our business elsewhere. That is Liberty. For all.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
The circumstantial logic of saying that some property owners have full property rights and others do not is the same kind of logic used against the RKBA: In some circumstances, the right should not exist or be limited.

Bunkum.

Property owners have the right to deny access to carriers. We have the right to take our business elsewhere. That is Liberty. For all.

+1
 

billv

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
84
Location
Houston now, Asheville soon
The circumstantial logic of saying that some property owners have full property rights and others do not is the same kind of logic used against the RKBA: In some circumstances, the right should not exist or be limited.

Bunkum.

Property owners have the right to deny access to carriers. We have the right to take our business elsewhere. That is Liberty. For all.

Point taken. I can and do take my business elsewhere, carrying or not.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Yours is a very well-reasoned argument! I'll try to reply in kind.

IMHO, I think there are two classes of private property - 1) personal, which includes all your possessions and your home, and 2) commercial, which includes that which business is conducted on.

Agreed, and as for the latter, such as exists in my apartment complex, I'd like to think of it as an implied easement, although I don't think legal precedent has been established for that, yet. I carry anyway, and as the manager and staff and I know one another, things seem to be ok, but at least one of the maintenance workers seems to have a fit every time he and I see one another.

Given the fact that moving can be very expensive, and Colorado law being what it is, if they tried to prohibit it, I'd sue, particularly as I cannot get to/from my vehicle to my personal without transiting joint property.

I think this argument alone should be sufficient to overturn the bans from a few places of joint use. All hail to the corporate lawyers of Wal-Mart, IHOP, Starbucks and similar places! A big F for the idiot lawyers at Kalifornia Pizza Kitchen. Sorry to "single you out," but I really didn't. That was your own doing, probably at the behest of Brady-loving corporate type. (rolls eyes)

You're not helping the crime issue, you know that, don't you? No? (rolls eyes again)

Sheesh.

I believe that one has a right to limit my transit on your private property and what I may bring and you control who and what comes onto your property. I assume that you will take on the responsibility of my defense and safety if you allow me onto your property. People get sued all the time for not doing so.

But for commercial proprty, which you mention "implied consent to transit" (I like that term), I think the business owner should not be allowed to infringe on my 2A rights, since there is less control over who can and cannot transit the property and what they bring with them, unless they can provide the same level of security. They don't necessarily take on the responsibility for my safety. If they do, it's only to limit their liability, after the fact. It's hard to sue them when your dead. And yes I do know that I can take my business elsewhere, and I do.

My employer bans firearms on their property. A friend and I were discussing why they would do this and we think it's to limit their liability. If an employee goes off the deep end, the company can say they violated company policy and they aren't liable. If they allowed firearms, and the same happened, then the victim's lawyers would have a field day. While I'd prefer to carry my firearm with me while at work, if my employer is going to ban carrying, then they should be required to provide secure lockers to store my firearm in while at work. Frankly, I'm less concerned about getting shot at work, but while out of the office at lunch and in transit to/from the office. And because of their policy I have no way to bring my firearm to the office for my self defense. I take a vanpool so I can't leave it there. And even if I drove to the office and left it in my car, I'd still be violation of company policy if I parked on their property.

There is a third class of property, public, owned by the government, on behalf of the People. I think the Government limits where I can carry firearms way too much on The People's property. Yes, some places are needed - jails, courts (perhaps), high security areas (what ever that might mean), etc. But other areas, like Post Offices, normal government offices, DMV, tax assessor, etc really don't need a firearm ban.

Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]
 
Top