• 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.

Banning Constitutional Rights

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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...

[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE[/video]
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.
 

Outdoorsman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Genesee County, Michigan, USA
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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...
 

Outdoorsman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Genesee County, Michigan, USA
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.
 

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
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:

Outdoorsman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Genesee County, Michigan, USA
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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 :(
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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. :D
 
Top