Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Banning Constitutional Rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273

    Banning Constitutional Rights

    If businesses are allowed to ban firearm carry, which is essentially banning the 2nd Amendment, are they also allowed to ban other Constitutional rights? Just a thought.

  2. #2
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    If businesses are allowed to ban firearm carry, which is essentially banning the 2nd Amendment, are they also allowed to ban other Constitutional rights? Just a thought.
    I believe the following video provides a very good discussion on such...


  3. #3
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    If businesses are allowed to ban firearm carry, which is essentially banning the 2nd Amendment, are they also allowed to ban other Constitutional rights? Just a thought.
    Why not? The constitution protects you from the Government -- rather it lays out what the Federal Government CAN do. It doesn't protect you from other citizens.

    Prior to 2001, private companies screened people prior to boarding an airplane -- 4A

    Movie houses ban talking - 1A

    Shall I go on?

    Private property and the rules setup by its private owners needs to be respected. Go ahead, flame away. Chances are I have the person who will flame this on ignore.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273
    Seems contradictory, doesn't it. Businesses seem to have the ability to kick us out, but yet no one is allowed to "interfere" with our Constitutional rights. I know they can "Refuse service to anyone", which is fine, but to remove a person from a business for the sole reason that they were exercising their rights seems against the law. I think our society is a little to "lawsuit happy", but maybe this is challengable in the courts? Since my Constitutional rights don't stop at the door, they shouldn't be able to get away with trampling on them. But they do.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    Seems contradictory, doesn't it. Businesses seem to have the ability to kick us out, but yet no one is allowed to "interfere" with our Constitutional rights.
    Cite this in law please. Where does it saw a private entity cannot interested with your constitutional right?

    Ever tried screaming random crap during the middle of a showing at the local cinema?
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  6. #6
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Cite this in law please. Where does it saw a private entity cannot interested with your constitutional right?

    Ever tried screaming random crap during the middle of a showing at the local cinema?
    I believe that the video I posted discusses these same issues very well...

  7. #7
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    I believe that the video I posted discusses these same issues very well...
    I watched it. Did I miss a law being cited?
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Cite this in law please. Where does it saw a private entity cannot interested with your constitutional right?

    Ever tried screaming random crap during the middle of a showing at the local cinema?
    I was referring to the video that PDinDetroit posted. Judge Napolitano said that, "they could not interfere..." when referring to businesses. All I'm saying is that businesses kick us out for carrying, but according to the Judge, it should not be allowed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101
    See, herein lies a problem; and I see your point exactly. If I own a McDonalds, I can't ban people because of the color of their skin, the color shoes they wear, dress, etc. Why? Because being dark skinned, wearing a towel on your head, etc, is a 'protected' right. I cannot refuse service to them, and if I do so, I can and will be sued by the ACLU.

    The question is, why is gun ownership not amongst those rights especially considering it is a CONSTITUTIONAL right? Either there should be an 'all or nothing' policy.

    Either I can ban whomever the hell I want from my McDonalds just because I can, or I should be not allowed to ban anyone. There should be no grey area. The fact that people believe there SHOULD be, in my opinion is the most fxcked up thing in the world to me.

    It needs to be an all or nothing thing. Why more people don't see this is beyond me. Grey areas are stupid. That's why we have problems.
    Last edited by malignity; 01-24-2011 at 10:27 AM.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  10. #10
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    I watched it. Did I miss a law being cited?
    I believe that the Constitution was being cited. That should be enough.

    The Rights are Unalienable. If a business is open to the Public, they cannot take away your Rights.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273
    Rarely is it "all or nothing". I don't believe in descrimination, but if I'm a store owner and there is a person who has/is causing problems in my business, I should have the right to tell them to leave and never come back. But for me to kick someone out because of their race, religion, Constitutional rights, etc., is wrong.

  12. #12
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    I believe that the Constitution was being cited. That should be enough.

    The Rights are Unalienable. If a business is open to the Public, they cannot take away your Rights.
    The Constitution, again, limits our Federal Government. It doesn't limit private individuals. Until the 14th amendment came along, it didn't even limit states.

    I'm sorry, my fellow patriot, your argument holds no ground in this regard.

    Where does the constitution say any rights are inalienable? I don't think it does. Perhaps you are thinking instead of a document written in 1776?

    1. That document holds no legal ground.
    2. It's a separate document.
    3. It doesn't enumerate RKBA as one of the inalienable rights.

    ETA: * I should note 13A is the only one designed to prevent individuals/private entities from doing something. Oddly enough, 16A makes us all slaves to the Federal Government
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  13. #13
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    Rarely is it "all or nothing". I don't believe in descrimination, but if I'm a store owner and there is a person who has/is causing problems in my business, I should have the right to tell them to leave and never come back. But for me to kick someone out because of their race, religion, Constitutional rights, etc., is wrong.
    +1.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    Rarely is it "all or nothing". I don't believe in descrimination, but if I'm a store owner and there is a person who has/is causing problems in my business, I should have the right to tell them to leave and never come back. But for me to kick someone out because of their race, religion, Constitutional rights, etc., is wrong.
    It may be wrong but I support a business owner's rights to remove someone from their business for any reason or no reason at all.

    If the same business has a policy or a habit of say, removing "brown" persons, I support their right to do so. I won't patronize their business either (I'm white, by the way), but I support their right to be a racist. Please don't confuse this and think me a racist myself, I'm not.

    Also, free speech, as I pointed out, is a right.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  15. #15
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    I think once again, gentlemen, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

    I wish you both well and withdraw from this discussion -- still holding my own beliefs and respecting yours -- so long as you don't force it on anyone.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  16. #16
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    The Constitution, again, limits our Federal Government. It doesn't limit private individuals. Until the 14th amendment came along, it didn't even limit states.

    I'm sorry, my fellow patriot, your argument holds no ground in this regard.

    Where does the constitution say any rights are inalienable? I don't think it does. Perhaps you are thinking instead of a document written in 1776?

    1. That document holds no legal ground.
    2. It's a separate document.
    3. It doesn't enumerate RKBA as one of the inalienable rights.
    The Right To Keep and Bear Arms has been held as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (READ: NATURAL). This is simply ENUMERATED, not GRANTED, so there is no document needed, legal or otherwise. Since this is a NATURAL RIGHT, it is UNALIENABLE from a PERSON.

  17. #17
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    I think once again, gentlemen, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

    I wish you both well and withdraw from this discussion -- still holding my own beliefs and respecting yours -- so long as you don't force it on anyone.
    You challenge but then leave, that is sad sir. We all learn from friendly discussions, which this so far has been.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    The Right To Keep and Bear Arms has been held as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (READ: NATURAL). This is simply ENUMERATED, not GRANTED, so there is no document needed, legal or otherwise. Since this is a NATURAL RIGHT, it is UNALIENABLE from a PERSON.
    Thank you for acknowledging your argument only had basis in Philosophy and not Law.

    Take care, my friend.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  19. #19
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    You challenge but then leave, that is sad sir. We all learn from friendly discussions, which this so far has been.
    I leave because I've been down this road of discussion before. It leads to nothing productively. It has been friendly (and I thank you for that), and I wish to leave it that way before certain people who are incapable of friendly debate arrive.

    Maybe you and I could discuss it over coffee some day, my fellow patriot?
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  20. #20
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Thank you for acknowledging your argument only had basis in Philosophy and not Law.

    Take care, my friend.
    Not a philosophical argument at all, but I do believe it is a FOUNDATIONAL BASIS Discussion.

    The FOUNDATION of your Point of View appears to be that it MUST BE IN LAW TO BE VALID. The FOUNDATION of my Point of View is that NATURAL RIGHTS NEED NO LAW TO BE VALID.

    If ALL POWER comes from We The People, which is clearly laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution, then so does ALL LAW. For NATURAL RIGHTS, there is no law that justifies them nor is any needed for justification. The true need for LAWS is for PROTECTION of NATURAL RIGHTS.

    BTW - My UPPER CASE is not for shouting here, it is to emphasize.

  21. #21
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    I leave because I've been down this road of discussion before. It leads to nothing productively. It has been friendly (and I thank you for that), and I wish to leave it that way before certain people who are incapable of friendly debate arrive.

    Maybe you and I could discuss it over coffee some day, my fellow patriot?
    We can talk about it here, there, or anywhere (maybe even with Green Eggs and Ham).

  22. #22
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    The Constitution lays out the frame work for the federal government, and limits its powers to those listed in it. The Bill of Rights is there to protect us from the FEDERAL government. Up until the 14th Amendment was passed, the states had NO restraint from the federal government on violating the Bill of Rights. Even today, not all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the states, which means, that the state government can still violate them without repercussions.

    Private property rights generally trump Constitutional or other rights. That is why forums, such as this can ban people who use language, or post topics that the administrators don't agree with. It doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. HOWEVER if it was a government run forum, then a 1st Amendment violation could be made.

    Another example is dress codes, while not specifically listed anywhere as a right, I have the "right" to wear shorts, sleeveless shirts, or pretty much whatever I want as long as my "private parts" aren't exposed. However a business can set certain dress standards if they wish. I went to a Dave & Busters where one person with me wasn't allowed in because they had a sleeveless shirt on. Their "right" trumps mine.

    A "no guns" sign is in all reality similar to a "No shoes, No shirt, No Service" sign. Nothing in law says I have to wear shoes, but as the owner of private property, the owner has the right to ask me to leave if I walk in without shoes.

    Do I wish every business allowed firearms? Of course, and I think we should work on getting those that do prohibit them to lift that restriction. However, I think it would be a big overstep of government to dictate what a private property owner allows, or disallows. Much like the smoking ban, I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, but I HATE that the government forced private businesses to go smoke free.
    Rand Paul 2016

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by malignity View Post

    The question is, why is gun ownership not amongst those rights especially considering it is a CONSTITUTIONAL right? Either there should be an 'all or nothing' policy.

    Either I can ban whomever the hell I want from my McDonalds just because I can, or I should be not allowed to ban anyone. There should be no grey area. The fact that people believe there SHOULD be, in my opinion is the most fxcked up thing in the world to me.
    That's where I'm coming from here

    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    I believe that the Constitution was being cited. That should be enough.

    The Rights are Unalienable. If a business is open to the Public, they cannot take away your Rights.
    Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    Rarely is it "all or nothing". I don't believe in discrimination, but if I'm a store owner and there is a person who has/is causing problems in my business, I should have the right to tell them to leave and never come back. But for me to kick someone out because of their race, religion, Constitutional rights, etc., is wrong.
    If the person is breaking the law, ie causing a disturbance, then fine, if they are supporting the law, ie carrying lawfully, then no.

    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    The Right To Keep and Bear Arms has been held as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (READ: NATURAL). This is simply ENUMERATED, not GRANTED, so there is no document needed, legal or otherwise. Since this is a NATURAL RIGHT, it is UNALIENABLE from a PERSON.
    Yes, this.

    The rights were here before the business opened. The business owner knew this before the business was opened. The peoples rights lives and safety are greater than the property rights than the business owner. Therefore, the fundamental rights of the individual are of more importance than the property rights of the business owner.

    Either rights, life, and safety are more valuable than property or they are not. If the law (constitution aside) then the law needs to be brought in line. This is the RESPONSIBILITY of the people.

  24. #24
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    The Constitution lays out the frame work for the federal government, and limits its powers to those listed in it. The Bill of Rights is there to protect us from the FEDERAL government. Up until the 14th Amendment was passed, the states had NO restraint from the federal government on violating the Bill of Rights. Even today, not all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the states, which means, that the state government can still violate them without repercussions.

    Private property rights generally trump Constitutional or other rights. That is why forums, such as this can ban people who use language, or post topics that the administrators don't agree with. It doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. HOWEVER if it was a government run forum, then a 1st Amendment violation could be made.

    Another example is dress codes, while not specifically listed anywhere as a right, I have the "right" to wear shorts, sleeveless shirts, or pretty much whatever I want as long as my "private parts" aren't exposed. However a business can set certain dress standards if they wish. I went to a Dave & Busters where one person with me wasn't allowed in because they had a sleeveless shirt on. Their "right" trumps mine.

    A "no guns" sign is in all reality similar to a "No shoes, No shirt, No Service" sign. Nothing in law says I have to wear shoes, but as the owner of private property, the owner has the right to ask me to leave if I walk in without shoes.

    Do I wish every business allowed firearms? Of course, and I think we should work on getting those that do prohibit them to lift that restriction. However, I think it would be a big overstep of government to dictate what a private property owner allows, or disallows. Much like the smoking ban, I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, but I HATE that the government forced private businesses to go smoke free.
    +1 to every last word. Mind I use the words in this post in the future?
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    There is a big difference in a shoe and a gun. Just ask George W. Bush.

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
  •