Asked to leave Best Buy!

I respect property rights of others and fully believe that any business should be able to hire, serve, sell or not to anyone they wish. There are consequences to their actions though. If they choose to not allow shoppers to defend themselves we need to make a law that transfers all liability to those same stores owners that prevent people from defending themselves.

If I own a store and I don't employ armed security, I would think twice about disarming the customers (and employees) if I were held liable both civily and criminally if anything happened to one of my customers. How about the regents at VA Tech sitting in jail for banning firearms? How about the Superintendant and Board of Supervisors sitting in Jail for not protecting the students at Columbine? (probably more state and federal hold responsibility than local school staff)

If people are allowed to protect themselves, or choose not to, business would removed of all liability.

(Actually in my humble opinion, every state and federal representative that votes against allowing citizen self defense should be strung up. After all we only have so much room in jail!)

much string that would require.

Daylen said:

much string that would require.

Click to expand...

Rope is environmentally friendly and reusable!

flb_78 said:

None of us were born with a gun on our hip so it's not discrimination.

It's not a matter of civil rights, it's a matter of property rights.

Click to expand...

I do not agree that civil rights should overrule individual/property rights, unlike the right to defense, which IS inalienable!.

Rights don't override rights. They coexist.

The way that private property rights and the RKBA coexist is that the property owner exercises his Liberty in choosing to allow people to carry or not to carry on his property. The way the gun owner exercises his RKBA is to choose not to go onto anyone's private property who chooses not to allow carry.

Ain't Liberty (for all) wonderful?

eye95 said:

Ain't Liberty (for all) wonderful?

Click to expand...

Yep, especially for all of the imbeciles that want to deny us our inalienable right to defense!

Where it is acceptable for it to be denied regarding individual/private property, it is not for public places that are otherwise unrestricted!

We shouldn't have to argue the logic of this point.

I think you are referring to some private property as public.

Public property is property owned by some level of government.

Whether it is owned by an individual, a partnership, or a corporation, property that is not owned by the government is private property--and the owner has private property rights.

Mike said:

And, your followup call tot he store manager resulted in ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Click to expand...

+1

And to ad to the discussion, all rights are derived from property rights. The more the government infringes on your right to decide what ever you want with your property the more they are infringing on your rights. I include 'protected' classes in this.

Even if you are open to the public you can deny "rights" on your property. What I feel is wrong though is the denying of these rights to and fro from your property. And is why I feel even companies who ban it from being in vehicles are wrong, because now you are not just denying it on your property.

DmDick said:

Alright ive been openly carrying in the same Best Buy for about a year and a half and have never had any issues untill a week ago i was asked by an employee to leave for the safety of the other customers, no where is it posted that i cannot carry my firearm and when i asked the store manager she was unable to show me anywhere in the company policies stating that i couldnt be in there.

luckely this didnt involve the local authorities as i have had to deal with them on several other occasions.

My question is do these companies such as wal mart, target, best buy etc. have the right to bar us from the property or do they have to abide by state laws which allow us to openly carry in public... i know these are not state owned and operated companies but is there anything i can do to continue to carry in these places?

I dont want to boycott these companies just because one of one hundred employees feels uncomfortable by my presence with a firearm.

Click to expand...

Hate to break this to you, but you are on their private property and inside a business. They have the right to refuse service to any customer at any time without disclosing any reason. They can also tell you to leave the property without giving you a reason...refuse and you're then trespassing.

Though I disagree with that approach, it's the nature of businesses. They don't want to be liable for our injuries or if some BG comes into their establishment and injures us, but they also don't want us to protect ourselves. Seems like they've put themselves in a trap with no means of escape.

Sort of like this: Deny our right to carry (self-defense tools) and you assume any and all liability for criminal action that might injure myself and my loved ones.

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

Hate to break this to you, but you are on their private property and inside a business. They have the right to refuse service to any customer at any time without disclosing any reason. They can also tell you to leave the property without giving you a reason...refuse and you're then trespassing.

Though I disagree with that approach, it's the nature of businesses. They don't want to be liable for our injuries or if some BG comes into their establishment and injures us, but they also don't want us to protect ourselves. Seems like they've put themselves in a trap with no means of escape.

Sort of like this: Deny our right to carry (self-defense tools) and you assume any and all liability for criminal action that might injure myself and my loved ones.

Click to expand...

They are not opening themselves to any liability. If you choose to enter someones property and waive your rights to arms; then are attacked... thus are the consequences of your choices.

Yeah. I've never heard of a single case awarding damages to someone wounded of killed in a defense-free zone.

If there is such a case, I'd love to hear about it.

perhaps the victims of govt mandated ones should try bringing litigation against the govt...

they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. the business is private property. make a scene go to jail.

bnhcomputing has contacted the corporate office before and he said they follow state law.

Daylen said:

They are not opening themselves to any liability. If you choose to enter someones property and waive your rights to arms; then are attacked... thus are the consequences of your choices.

Click to expand...

I agree. Some States even have laws on the books that alleviate business owners from any liability if a criminal act is involved.

eye95 said:

Two things: You, as a person, are still free to enter the store. The gun cannot.

I disagree as completely with laws that force people to give up property rights under the guise of preventing discrimination against protected classes as I would with laws that force store owners to give up their property rights based on the carry status of a prospective customer.

Let me ask: If you owned a store, should you have to allow a person to stand in your store and campaign for a candidate you find loathsome? Of course not. But, wait, the person you want to kick out is just exercising his 1A rights.

Your rights end where others' begin. If we are honest about wanting Liberty, we must want Liberty for all.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. However, when one openly invites the public into a place a certain degree of respect for that public, logically, should exist. The term escapes me at the moment, but some states actually have a concept of 'quasi-public' property that covers precisely this matter. A sort-of extension of the notion that you cannot require women to have sex with you if they come to your store. Conditions of entry are not always absolute when a standing public invitation exists. I would hope that you don't pretend to be unaware of this just to make an argument...

.

ixtow said:

I tend to agree. However, when one openly invites the public into a place a certain degree of respect for that public, logically, should exist. The term escapes me at the moment, but some states actually have a concept of 'quasi-public' property that covers precisely this matter. A sort-of extension of the notion that you cannot require women to have sex with you if they come to your store. Conditions of entry are not always absolute when a standing public invitation exists. I would hope that you don't pretend to be unaware of this just to make an argument...

Click to expand...

"business of public accommodation",,, a place where civil rights must be allowed..
I/we are hoping the day will come soon, that the 2nd A right will be one honored also.

Some in this discussion are confused.... they have failed to take into consideration that while a business open to the public may be privately owned, it is NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY..... it is BUSINESS property.....

axeanda45 said:

Some in this discussion are confused.... they have failed to take into consideration that while a business open to the public may be privately owned, it is NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY..... it is BUSINESS property.....

Click to expand...

Can you cite anything that establishes the legal entity "business property"? Or, is that an expression of a legal theory that you'd like to exist?

I read law extensively, and I see numerous references to public property and private property. But, I have to say, I have never seen a single reference to business property.

It's somewhat hypocritical for the same group that screams "less government!" and carrys on day and night about how the federal government is impeding on their lives to be all for having the federal government tell a citizen what items he can and cannot allow in his or her private business. I really don't think you have the right to tell a citizen what "items" he must allow in his private business.

Anti-discrimination laws are based on the principle that people should not be punished for attributes they have no control over and that access to a business open to the public should not be denied based on the afore mentioned.

A Chinese person does not choose their ethnicity. You, however, choose to carry a firearm and are still capable of accessing the store by leaving the firearm behind. You are only "denied access" by your own choice, not by something you have no control over.

If I don't like kids walking into my business wearing pants that hang off their ass...I have the right to prohibit that style of dress in my private business. Same goes for someone who for whatever domb reason... doesn't want firearms in their store. If the government can tell a private citizen what "materials" he must allow customers to bring into their business....your opening a can of worms that could lead to the practical take over of private enterprise.

How would you like going out a to restaurant and have to look at a man carrying buckets of horse ****......well the government told the owner that he has to allow people to carry their horse **** into his restaurant because he can't take away their right to do so. Thats the door your opening with this garbage.

If you don't like a private business's policy, let them know they won't be getting any of your money and go somewhere else.........that is capitalism my friends.

Having the government tell citizens how to run their private business....that is socialism my friends.