Banning Constitutional Rights

TheQ said:

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?

Click to expand...

We can talk about it here, there, or anywhere (maybe even with Green Eggs and Ham).

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.

malignity said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's where I'm coming from here

PDinDetroit said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly

Outdoorsman said:

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.

Click to expand...

If the person is breaking the law, ie causing a disturbance, then fine, if they are supporting the law, ie carrying lawfully, then no.

PDinDetroit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Yooper said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1 to every last word. Mind I use the words in this post in the future?

There is a big difference in a shoe and a gun. Just ask George W. Bush.

Outdoorsman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wait, hang on here.

It's okay that my McDonalds cannot discriminate against the 600lb guy in a wheelchair who wants to eat half my menu, but it's okay that they discriminate against the guy who's bringing his 6 year old in to play on the toys but has a gun on his hip?

You can't do one, so why be allowed to do the other? That's all I'm trying to say.

malignity said:

Wait, hang on here.

It's okay that my McDonalds cannot discriminate against the 600lb guy in a wheelchair who wants to eat half my menu, but it's okay that they discriminate against the guy who's bringing his 6 year old in to play on the toys but has a gun on his hip?

You can't do one, so why be allowed to do the other? That's all I'm trying to say.

Click to expand...

Because the government has overstepped its bounds. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 infringed on the rights of private property owners. I'm not a racist, nor do I play one on T.V., but if some boneheaded business owner wanted to keep potential sales out of his business solely based on the color of their skin, that should be his/her decision. Same goes with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

if someone unknown shows up armed on your front lawn while your kids are playing i bet you would have a right to be concerned and ask their intentions. it is private propery but you dont have a fence making it accessible to the public. if that person says he has a right to be there and carrying legally and says he isn't going to tell you why he is there and tells you it's none of your business - how are you going to react? say ok and go in the house?

You have an open sign at mcdonalds, inviting, and expecting perfect strangers to show up complete with their rights intact. Its normal and expected for them to show up there. It isnt normal or expected to have someone show up at your house around your kids, but if they are not on your property, they can be there carrying a gun or a TV news camera, and there isn't a whole lot you can do about it. But then again, that's just another reason to carry a gun.

Yooper said:

Because the government has overstepped its bounds. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 infringed on the rights of private property owners. I'm not a racist, nor do I play one on T.V., but if some boneheaded business owner wanted to keep potential sales out of his business solely based on the color of their skin, that should be his/her decision. Same goes with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Click to expand...

I agree that it was a stupid move to create the act. HOWEVER, since it's here, why not get gun owners added to the protected class of citizens as well? A constitutional right deserves to be protected.

malignity said:

Wait, hang on here.

It's okay that my McDonalds cannot discriminate against the 600lb guy in a wheelchair who wants to eat half my menu, but it's okay that they discriminate against the guy who's bringing his 6 year old in to play on the toys but has a gun on his hip?

You can't do one, so why be allowed to do the other? That's all I'm trying to say.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that if a guy comes in and yells at my employees, knocks over a display and urinates on the floor, that I have the right to tell him to leave and not come back. But I'm not going to throw him out because of skin color and religious beliefs.

Outdoorsman said:

What I'm saying is that if a guy comes in and yells at my employees, knocks over a display and urinates on the floor, that I have the right to tell him to leave and not come back. But I'm not going to throw him out because of skin color and religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Now there is a wonderful concept.... treat people according to their behaviors, not according to how a person (business owner?) "feels" about the person's rights.

But then that is common sense... something that is exceptionally uncommon now a days.

So, in your mind, carrying a gun is in the same category as someone peeing on the floor in a public building?

stainless1911 said:

So, in your mind, carrying a gun is in the same category as someone peeing on the floor in a public building?

Click to expand...

No, that was one of the protected rights that a person has that should not be grounds for removal. A legal action should not be cause for retaliatory actions. No, a person's rights should not and would not stop at my business door.

In other words... Guns Good , Urinating on floor bad.

stainless1911 said:

It isnt normal or expected to have someone show up at your house around your kids, but if they are not on your property, they can be there carrying a gun or a TV news camera, and there isn't a whole lot you can do about it. But then again, that's just another reason to carry a gun.

Click to expand...

I think his actions could fall under loitering, thus he could be arrested/ticketed if he has no good cause to be there. I dont think the argument of its public property i can be here if i want to holds water, its not a public park, and if there was a park on the other side of the street, he can hang out there. Just because he has a right to be there he does not have the right to infringe on my rights.

You see, you failed to mention the RIGHTS of the property owner who now because of this guy hanging around their property is no longer allowing them "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" because his creepy behavior is freaking them out!

Someone shows at my house goggling over my kids, staring at my wife, drooling at my pit-bull or any activity that creeps me out, armed or not, after I strap on my guns and make ONE ATTEMPT TO ASK HIM TO LEAVE, AND assuming he does nothing that looks like he plans on shooting me or the family, I am calling the cops to get his butt removed. He is now violating my right to the Pursuit of Happiness by making my wife nag me get get rid of him!:banana:

malignity said:

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.

Click to expand...

The reason that one may not ban people based on color is based upon legislation, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The US Constitution, as has been stated, limits the Government... not private individuals. There have been some 1st Amendment cases in California where a Mall, as a place where the public has access, is seen as a quasi-public entity.
(see http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/topic.aspx?topic=private_property )

Now, perhaps at some point in time, the Judge's opinion will be held to be valid but until such time, the Bill of Rights applies to actions of the government only.

Onnie said:

I think his actions could fall under loitering, thus he could be arrested/ticketed if he has no good cause to be there. I dont think the argument of its public property i can be here if i want to holds water, its not a public park, and if there was a park on the other side of the street, he can hang out there. Just because he has a right to be there he does not have the right to infringe on my rights.

You see, you failed to mention the RIGHTS of the property owner who now because of this guy hanging around their property is no longer allowing them "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" because his creepy behavior is freaking them out!

Someone shows at my house goggling over my kids, staring at my wife, drooling at my pit-bull or any activity that creeps me out, armed or not, after I strap on my guns and make ONE ATTEMPT TO ASK HIM TO LEAVE, AND assuming he does nothing that looks like he plans on shooting me or the family, I am calling the cops to get his butt removed. He is now violating my right to the Pursuit of Happiness by making my wife nag me get get rid of him!:banana:

Click to expand...

I'll buy that.

stainless1911 said:

You have an open sign at mcdonalds, inviting, and expecting perfect strangers to show up complete with their rights intact. Its normal and expected for them to show up there. It isnt normal or expected to have someone show up at your house around your kids, but if they are not on your property, they can be there carrying a gun or a TV news camera, and there isn't a whole lot you can do about it. But then again, that's just another reason to carry a gun.

Click to expand...

If I see a person approaching me with a gun the he will have my direct attention until I have decided he is not a direct threat. Same thing with the guy and a camera. Neither an enemy until proven to be one, but not a friend either. Assumption IS the ABSOLUTE mother of all **** ups. I would prefer they both be friends, and probably are not BG's but I won't assume one way or the other. Hence my choice to be armed. Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.:exclaim:

kryptonian said:

if someone unknown shows up armed on your front lawn while your kids are playing i bet you would have a right to be concerned and ask their intentions. it is private propery but you dont have a fence making it accessible to the public. if that person says he has a right to be there and carrying legally and says he isn't going to tell you why he is there and tells you it's none of your business - how are you going to react? say ok and go in the house?

Click to expand...

If I find someone on my front lawn with a gun and not wearing a uniform my response would depend upon his behaviour and your damn right I would be concerned! And when I asked him to leave and he didn't then there would be a very big problem. But the problem with your above scenario is this.

My front lawn is decidedly diffrent than my store lobby. Even without a fence most people would know to not walk on someone elses property, and especially not approach a persons child uninvited:cuss:! A person walking into McDonalds knows he should be welcome so long as he is following the social contract of normal people. On my property with my kid near if I get the hint of something not right things will start moveing very fast in a predetermined direction and with plan already practiced and in place.:exclaim:

If this is going on in my McDonalds the only steps I would add would be asking the person to leave politely, and then if refused Calling the Police.

I wouldn't be so nice when on my property where I live and being refused by any one, Armed person or not.

Business private property is a little diffrent IMO. There I am inviting everyone one to Please come in and by/sell and help me make money to take care of the above! And there its a persons individual behaviour that will dictate my response to them, and I will give slightly more leeway there. I don't have to like everyone who comes through my Business doors and thats part of business.

Those who come to my home property, or even know where it is only get through my door because I like them already!

Bikenut said:

Now there is a wonderful concept.... treat people according to their behaviors, not according to how a person (business owner?) "feels" about the person's rights.

But then that is common sense... something that is exceptionally uncommon now a days.

Click to expand...

Agreed. :shocker: