Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: A Way To Get No-Guns Signs/Rules Taken Down?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    A Way To Get No-Guns Signs/Rules Taken Down?

    http://volokh.com/2011/09/26/english...-bible-verses/

    I'm going to need you to go there and read not only the base article but all the links to cases of "hostile public accommodation" that are listed there.

    Then I am going to ask you to consider how Heller and MacDonald ought to play out using the same arguments and tactics for the Second Amendment as the "hostile public Accommodation" cases played out for the First Amendment. I think there are parallels so close that the courts might be forced to actually apply the same standards to the gun-owners as they do to folks based on race, creed, national origin, and sexual orientation.

    This is no longer "the rights of private property owners" vs. "our right to self defense". It's out and out discrimination against our right and the gobvernment's obligation to prevent that from happening. The government has done all the heavy lifting in the First Amendment cases, and now all we have to do is transfer it from the First to the Second Amendment using the exact same arguments.


    Please do the required reading and then see if you can pick apart the thesis presented.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 09-26-2011 at 05:22 PM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    At least from what I saw I would say that one could apply the same arguement to the 2A. But I would also say that the government has overstepped and infringed on the 1A issue and it is this infringement on the 1A that would allow the anti-discrimination of the 2A to hold any water. Also so long as the whole "hostile work environment" stays as broad as it is one could end up with a reverse case of someone complaining about how allowing OCers to be there makes it feel like a hostile workplace.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Aknazer -

    Everything you say was used in the First Amendment arguments that led finally to "hostile public accommodation" rulings. Firearms owners/carriers have a right that is being not only ignored but trampled by business owners.

    How many people in 1964 (10 years after Brown v Bd. of Ed.) actually believed that people from one race had the "right" to sit and eat, or sit and watch a movie, or sit and (_fill in the blank_) wth people from another race? But somehow Congress became convinced of that notion and since then the courts have added other criteria to it.

    I'm not saying it will happen overnight. But if we don't try it, it will never happen.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    And I'm saying that logically it should work, but that I think the basis of the arguement is unconstitutional. I understand that it has worked in the past and that there is precedence for it and all, but I think that even all of that was unconstitutional. Do I think there should have been laws that forced segregation and other anti-race laws? No, but PRIVATE businesses should have been allowed to choose (places such as schools that got public money should not have been allowed to force segregation onto people). And no I'm not for segregation or anything like that, but just because I'm against it doesn't mean that the government should have gotten as involved as it did in regards to private property. Government Anti-Race Laws=wrong/illegal/unconstitutional (and thus applies to businesses that use government money to operate). Private Property Choices=Constitutional regardless of how dispicable they might be.

    By all means I'm not against us trying to use the arguement to further our cause. After all what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm simply stating that I feel the arguements that were originally used for the anti-discrimination/hostile work environment are fundementally flawed and unconstitutional given how broad they are, even if they meant well. And as we would be using that fundementally flawed base for our arguement it would make our arguement also flawed; but of course the courts would be hard press to suddenly backtrack on something that could have huge ramifications and potentially undo years of legal precedence...or they could just say that because it's the 2A and involves weapons it gets a special exemption to all of the legal precedence regarding anti-discrimination and thus doesn't qualify.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Claiming the "property rights dodge" for allowing businesses to prohibit lawful carry on their premises is like a business not allowing someone to patronize their establishment because they are wearing a specific religious emblem on a necklace, or they have a specific skin color, or they are of a certain sex.

    Businesses cannot discriminate against the lawful, non-disruptive exercise of OTHER fundamental human rights. They should NOT be allowed to discriminate on the grounds that they don't like guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens--because those are the ONLY guns that signs keep out. The thugs and criminals are going to carry wherever they want--regardless of Statute, Law, or some silly sign on the door.

    Signs ONLY act to disarm the law-abiding and the honest, and to create target-rich "Victim Zones" for criminals...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    The initial article was chilling! Reminds me of this thread.

    Regarding the NY Journal of Law and Liberty article on Hostile Public Accomodations:

    - Why didn't English fight it in court?

    - The article mentions the rules being used against both businesses as well as patrons. If so, it could easily be construed that since some people find firearms "alarming," they'd take the next step and enact legislation that says carrying a firearm is a hostile act. Oh, not out and about, mind you. But in any business.

    - I cannot find myself sympathizing with the measures against businesses for their creation of a "hostile" environment. Most of the cases read like normal life, yet these owners are having to pay big bucks simply because some customer chooses to construe the businesses free speech as "hostile" and these commissions are backing up the uber-sensitive.

    As a result, I can't support using similar tactics to keep business owners at bay with respect to forcing them to respect our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, I believe the best approach is to simply label them as disrespectful of our Second Amendment rights and refuse to do business with them.

    Regarding Prof Volokh's article, I like the tone of his article a lot better. He comes right out against these un-Constitutional limitations against free speech. The first article, however, does state the cure: Getting these conflicts into the federal courts, which have a history of strongly backing Constitutionally-protected speech.

    Volokh's second article goes further into the dangers of allowing any inroad against free speech. Any erosion of our First Amendment rights would lead to similar erosions of our Second Amendment rights.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Claiming the "property rights dodge" for allowing businesses to prohibit lawful carry on their premises is like a business not allowing someone to patronize their establishment because they are wearing a specific religious emblem on a necklace, or they have a specific skin color, or they are of a certain sex.
    It's not a dodge. Property rights are just important as us wanting our right to carry.

    Businesses cannot discriminate against the lawful, non-disruptive exercise of OTHER fundamental human rights. They should NOT be allowed to discriminate on the grounds that they don't like guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens--because those are the ONLY guns that signs keep out. The thugs and criminals are going to carry wherever they want--regardless of Statute, Law, or some silly sign on the door.
    You're right. They can't. But they should be able to. Protected groups? Bah! I should have the right to keep anyone out for ANY reason I want to. Don't like it? Don't come to my store. (Thank God I don't have a store. lol)

    Signs ONLY act to disarm the law-abiding and the honest, and to create target-rich "Victim Zones" for criminals...
    This is true but the owner of the property has the right to be ignorant if he/she wants too. We can't jump on other people's rights to get to ours. The owner of the store might let the public in to shop but it's still "his private property".

  8. #8
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Shall not be infringed....

    The Second Ammendment to the Constitution does not say: Congress shall pass no law... or that The States shall pass no law or that property owners have the priviledge to infringe, it says "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I am all for personal property rights, but my possesion of a firearm should be irrelevant to any property holder. If he objects to my presence, then I am trespassing and must leave. If my presence is otherwise not objectionable to him, then my self defence tool of choice (firearm) should not be a factor. As long as I am not using the firearm in any way that is distressing or threatening, it is not their business whether I am armed or not. A God given Right is not surrendered.
    Last edited by The Wolfhound; 09-28-2011 at 05:11 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The contention is that by not permitting guns on their property the proprietor is discriminating against gun owners. Yet he has a responsibility to ensure that patrons are not "harmed" by other patrons creating the claimed hostile environment with their gun. You may have a very hard time trying to convince a judge that OC is the same as non-targeted speech, especially when CCW is available. Just as a patron can leave to avoid what they think creates the hostile environment.

    .....man, this slope is getting really slippery.

    Gun owners, who carry, are not a protected class now and will not be in the future, in the private sector. Anyone who wants this will not get any help from me, in fact I will work against this.

    My feet work just fine and my wallet follows me wherever I go. I'll leave a proprietor to run his business the way he sees fit, it is his property.
    I agree with this. I don't think the right way to use our 2nd amendment rights are to trample on someone else right to private property. There's already to much of that.

    Let the marketplace decide; properly used, it will eventually work.

    My .02.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
    We can't jump on other people's rights to get to ours.
    Nice summary!

    Corollary: Others shouldn't jump on our rights to get to theirs.

    Ancillary: One must distinguish the difference between rights, needs, desires, and fears. Food is a need. Freedom from the presence of firearms is not. One might desire to be free from firearms, but it's not even close to being a right. One might be afraid of heights, so the response is to outlaw all heights and air travel? Don't think so! The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT. The law of our land says this right shall not be infringed. There is no contrary right enumerated anywhere in our Constitution....

    ...at least not in public. Private property, whether it's someone's home or Walmart, is not public property.

    Infringment, however, can take many forms. I feel very strongly that signs in the library prohibiting the public display of firearms infringes on my right to keep and bear arms, for one simple reason: It doubles or even triples my reaction time. That puts me at serious risk should I ever find myself in a situation justifying the reason I carry in the first place.

    That disadvantage is a serious infringement!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Too often, it seems to end up that 'laws' and 'rules' and 'ordinances' are drafted by civilians, and non-lawyers. If you don't understand the law it's easy to pervert it, with colloquial language which might even mean the opposite.

    In the no shirt, no shoes no service - they might say 'OC, and come on in, but we won't serve you'.

    (facepalm)
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No shirt, No shoes, No service.

    This is discrimination against those folks that choose to not wear shirts or shoes.
    But is saying nothing about NOT wearing pants/shorts!
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  13. #13
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    And, keep writing nice, polite letters of protest to the business owners!
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No shirt, No shoes, No service.

    This is discrimination against those folks that choose to not wear shirts or shoes.
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    But is saying nothing about NOT wearing pants/shorts!
    As I was reading this thread, I had the same thought. Would they refuse me service if I had a shirt and shoes but no pants? What if the shirt was down to my knees? That's longer than many women's dresses.

    Yeah, I know - goofy thought.

    My point, however, is if you're following the letter of the law and they don't like it, who's to blame? You for doing something out of the ordinary? Or the store owner for lack of foresight when he penned his sign?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •