Booted from Cottonwood Mall

Desert Dweller said:

So then how do they ban smoking on private property? I understand what you are saying, just still seems to me that it is a double standard. I am not a smoker, but I do carry.

Click to expand...

They do it under the guise of public safety. And I agree with you that in some ways it is in fact a double standard. People aren't forced to go somewhere that allows smoking.

But the fact remains that the law is the law. Private property owners not allowing CC or OC does not violate the law, and the law specifically allows for it.

A bit of a rant....

I find it interesting that folks who complain about the government making laws that infringe upon the right to bear arms would advocate having the government make laws that infringe upon the private property owner's right to control who does, and who does not, have access to his property.

Whether folks like it or not a business that is open to the public is still private property. The owner has not issued an open invitation to anyone and everyone... he has only invited those members of the general public who agree to abide by his rules. Those who do not agree to abide by the rules are not invited. Those who abide by his rules have his permission to be there. Those who do not abide by the rules do not have the owner's permission to be there.

Y'all do understand that each and every law that protects a class of citizen by denying the private property business owner the ability to exercise his private property right to deny entrance to someone is just as much an infringement upon a right as are the laws that deny the individual the ability to carry a gun are an infringement on the right bear arms?

Please consider... gun carriers who want others to give up their property rights and anti gunners who want others to give up their right to bear arms are both wanting the same thing.... someone to give up their rights just because they don't like the other guy's rights.

End rant.

Bikenut said:

A bit of a rant....

Click to expand...

And an excellent one at that. Thanks for taking the time to post.

Bikenut said:

A bit of a rant....

I find it interesting that folks who complain about the government making laws that infringe upon the right to bear arms would advocate having the government make laws that infringe upon the private property owner's right to control who does, and who does not, have access to his property.

Whether folks like it or not a business that is open to the public is still private property. The owner has not issued an open invitation to anyone and everyone... he has only invited those members of the general public who agree to abide by his rules. Those who do not agree to abide by the rules are not invited. Those who abide by his rules have his permission to be there. Those who do not abide by the rules do not have the owner's permission to be there.

Y'all do understand that each and every law that protects a class of citizen by denying the private property business owner the ability to exercise his private property right to deny entrance to someone is just as much an infringement upon a right as are the laws that deny the individual the ability to carry a gun are an infringement on the right bear arms?

Please consider... gun carriers who want others to give up their property rights and anti gunners who want others to give up their right to bear arms are both wanting the same thing.... someone to give up their rights just because they don't like the other guy's rights.

End rant.

Click to expand...

The owner has not issued an open invitation to anyone and everyone... he has only invited those members of the general public who agree to abide by his rules.

Click to expand...

Actually they have. That is the precise definition of "Open to the public".

Those who do not agree to abide by the rules are not invited

Click to expand...

May be asked to leave.

Those who abide by his rules have his permission to be there.

Click to expand...

Remain

Those who do not abide by the rules do not have the owner's permission to be there.

Click to expand...

Remain

Bike Nut,
I am not advocating laws that restrict private property owners rights, quite the contrary. I have the right not to go there if they ban might right to self defense.

I honestly dont like it on any law that "infringes on private business rights". However, in this case, I think that we should be seriously pushing for just that for open carrying of firearms. Me having a firearm on a business property is not "harming" anyone. But they act as if it does. We should be arguing that a citizens SAFETY (I love using this word against the antigunners), is that they are UNSAFE to have to leave their firearm at home, or in their vehicle, merely because they are going about their daily lives.

So the customer then has to rely on a business providing "protection" for them. Of course we know that almost NO business is going to have an armed guard there to protect the customers, any more than a cop will be posted in every business. They are there to protect the business owner's property, not their patrons lives. In a shootout, most will run away, leaving the now disarmed citizens to fend for themselves.

It also deals with equal protection under the law. Forcing a citizen to not have a gun, while allowing the business, or a police officer to have a gun, smacks of a 14th amendment violation (because its a 4th degree felony under NM law for a citizen to be there).

If anything, the Clackamas mall shooting should be used as a prime example of making a felon out of an otherwise law abiding citizen, who used his gun to stop a mass shooting. In NM, the citizen would had been "wrong" under the law, would had lost his gun rights forever, and perhaps 5-10 years of his life in jail. I feel that businesses should not be playing with our lives, by not allowing people to have the means to protect themselves.

NMOCr said:

It also deals with equal protection under the law. Forcing a citizen to not have a gun, while allowing the business, or a police officer to have a gun, smacks of a 14th amendment violation (because its a 4th degree felony under NM law for a citizen to be there).

Click to expand...

Over a year later and you're posting the same thing again.

This is just one of the serious flaws in your argument- no is FORCING you to disarm to enter someone else's private property (the store). No one is FORCING anyone to do anything. You are free to choose to enter, or not enter. You are free to choose to go elsewhere to spend your money.

More restrictive laws- in this case suggesting they restrict the rights of private property owners- are not the solution.

It also deals with equal protection under the law. Forcing a citizen to not have a gun, while allowing the business, or a police officer to have a gun, smacks of a 14th amendment violation (because its a 4th degree felony under NM law for a citizen to be there).

Click to expand...

A 4th degree felony only when it comes to liquor establishments. Non-liquor establishments would fall under normal criminal trespass, a misdemeanor. But that's really beside the point. A private property owner is not violating equal protection and is not violating your 14th amendment rights. You do know that this type of thing only applies to the government, yes?

This is just one of the serious flaws in your argument- no is FORCING you to disarm to enter someone else's private property (the store). No one is FORCING anyone to do anything. You are free to choose to enter, or not enter. You are free to choose to go elsewhere to spend your money.

Click to expand...

The same can be said of the handicapped and those of different races and religions.

"If that store won't accommodate your wheelchair, you're free to shop at a store that does".

"If that store doesn't serve "your kind", you're free to shop somewhere that does.

Yet we all agree that kind of discrimination is wrong. Your right to self defense should not stop because you entered a place that invited you in.

xd shooter said:

The same can be said of the handicapped and those of different races and religions.

"If that store won't accommodate your wheelchair, you're free to shop at a store that does".

"If that store doesn't serve "your kind", you're free to shop somewhere that does.

Yet we all agree that kind of discrimination is wrong. Your right to self defense should not stop because you entered a place that invited you in.

Click to expand...

No cigar, not even a tiny one.

The American Disabilities Act does not afford anyone the protection that would allow them to carry a gun.
https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

A private property owner MAY discriminate/choose to restrict those who wear a red shirt......or carry a gun.

If you are going to discuss the nuances of a law, it is first important to understand which law is applicable.

Hint: It isn't the 2nd Amendment - that restricts/limits the government, not private property owners.

xd shooter said:

The same can be said of the handicapped and those of different races and religions.

"If that store won't accommodate your wheelchair, you're free to shop at a store that does".

"If that store doesn't serve "your kind", you're free to shop somewhere that does.

Yet we all agree that kind of discrimination is wrong. Your right to self defense should not stop because you entered a place that invited you in.

Click to expand...

About the part of your post I put in bold...

Please do not confuse the issue.... your right to self defense was not stopped... you still have the right to defend yourself but you will have to use something other than a gun (if you are honoring the property owner's wishes) because the property owner is not allowing people who carry guns on/in his property.

And I wish folks would understand that as distasteful as discrimination is the private property right to control the owner's property means exactly that... the right to control how his property is used and who uses it in what way. As much as folks might think badly of discrimination ... all of the laws that forbid a property owner from not allowing in people who are handicapped, or people of a certain race, or people of a certain religion, are as much an infringement upon the right of the property owner to control his property as are all the gun control laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms.... because in both cases it is the government putting restrictions upon the ability to exercise the right.

Grapeshot said:

No cigar, not even a tiny one.

The American Disabilities Act does not afford anyone the protection that would allow them to carry a gun.
https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

A private property owner MAY discriminate/choose to restrict those who wear a red shirt......or carry a gun.

If you are going to discuss the nuances of a law, it is first important to understand which law is applicable.

Hint: It isn't the 2nd Amendment - that restricts/limits the government, not private property owners.

Click to expand...

But, the arguably unconstitutional ADA, could very easily include Red shirts and firearms. :uhoh:

notalawyer said:

But, the arguably unconstitutional ADA, could very easily include Red shirts and firearms. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

You could be right, but...........it does not.

Grapeshot said:

No cigar, not even a tiny one.

The American Disabilities Act does not afford anyone the protection that would allow them to carry a gun.
https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

A private property owner MAY discriminate/choose to restrict those who wear a red shirt......or carry a gun.

If you are going to discuss the nuances of a law, it is first important to understand which law is applicable.

Hint: It isn't the 2nd Amendment - that restricts/limits the government, not private property owners.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, that's what the ADA does, it RESTRICTS business from discriminating. As does the civil liberties act. The point is, that some here don't seem to be getting, is the government CAN AND DOES tell a business (read private property) what and how they can or cannot conduct business; so the notion of "private property rules" isn't the case.

Yes, you're right, that's how the law is today. What some are trying to suggest is that the right to self defense SHOULD be made just as discrimination proof as race and disability.

BTW, I own a small business myself, I am VERY aware of the rules and laws pertaining to it.

xd shooter said:

...

Click to expand...

If congress passes a law along the lines of the ADA wrt how a private property owner can or cannot restrict firearms in their business, then people will have to take that into account. If the state of NM decides to address it, same thing. But until then- private property owners may tell people they cannot bring their firearms onto their property, with no legal repercussions. That's just the way it is.

I fail to see how people do not understand this, and why some people take such offense that not all businesses want to allow them in their establishments with their guns. I like to have mine with me all the time, but I understand that not all people are the same. I accept it, and move on rather than fret over it.

And please let us not use the leftist tactic of inflaming or lending an air of nobility to the issue with talk about losing the right to self defense. A business that bans guns is not taking away anyone's right to self defense.. they are banning people who carry guns... period. All of the patrons who aren't carrying guns still have the right of self defense... they just can't use a gun (because they don't have one) to defend themselves but they can still use fists/feet/grocery carts/melons/ carrots (can a carrot to the eye be fatal?)/ink pens/whatever to defend themselves.