They can do as they please
Don't misunderstand - I support the right of a property owner (merchant) to do what he pleases with his store. If he chooses to ban CC , or OC, his store - his right - his bottom line:banghead:. He can do as he pleases. What GALLS me is an elected official using tax dollars to simply publicize his name on a sign on the door, and get what he considers "good pub" by acting as if he's actually DOING something, when in reality, all he's doing is another libtard "feel-good" act. He knows good and well that CC and OC licensees are not the folks he really needs to worry about, but he's pandering to the left by acting as if barring them from CC or OC in stores is actually going to have one ounce of effect on public safety. Those of us on here know full well that actually, the very opposite may be true. Just look at the Aurora theater; Virginia Tech; Columbine; the list goes on and on. Banning guns from facilities merely gives free rein to the bad guy to come in and do as they please, knowing they are unopposed by anyone with the ability to do anything meaningful to stop them.
Ok I will try to be as nice as I can about this but the fact is this subject really burns my a.s.s..:banghead:
So your not alone with that comment "a buisness owner/merchant has the right to do as they please" in a business thats open to the public. This has been an issue for many people in many ways for a very long time, too long.
Let me ask some basic questions on this topic. So with this supposed right what would happen in todays time if a merchant denied or banned someone from entering their semi-private (privately owned but open to the public) business because of the color of their skin or their religious affiliations (if obvious because of an article of clothing), or because of their sex, or because a disability? Oh did I forget to mention it might offend or scare one of the other patrons.
Would that not start a host of roars from all over the spectrum? Well then how is it ok for them to deny/ban someone because they chose to take their own safety in their own hands by exercising a right not only given by the creator but also in the law of the land(2nd Admendment)? The only way I see that a business owner, merchant, employer should have the right to deny someone from entering or remaining on their property that is open to the public at large is if the person(s) are committing some criminal offense or if they are considered a private club requiring a membership (therfore no longer semi-private). Let us remember that discrimination is not only a wrong and an injustice but is just as hurtful as words can be not only to people but to the "rights" of all people. No matter what you sugar coat it with or try to paint it with a t.u.r.d is still a t.u.r.d and as long as you are willing to buy it someone will try and sell it to you.
Private property on the other hand that is not open to the public at large is a different story and I do believe the right to ban or disallow someone on or in is essential in maintaining our liberties. But we still have laws that tell people what they cannot do. One example in recent history is an ordinance in Norman telling people they can have only four hens and no roosters and the coop has to be 25 feet from the property line. So what happened to owners doing as they please, right? So someone can say yes you can but wait no you cant. Is there something in the water or some one with a stupid stick going around hitting people, because that sure sounds like a big piece of stupid to me. Its ok for you but not ok for him or its ok for me but not for you. I can crap where and when I want to but you have to wait and I'll tell you when and where.
I do agree with the pledge of alliegance in the statement "one nation under God with
Liberty and Justice for all". But if we are going to allow BS like this then something tells me we are in for a rude awakening. Where do we draw the line? So laws are no longer for telling us what we cant do but for telling us what we can.:question: If private land owners can be told they cant do something be it in city limits or in the country then business owners can be told they cant also. Oh wait they do get told they cant, they cant put up signs higher than x or closer to the street than x or they cant false advertise,etc., well that contradicts the do as they please part.:uhoh: But oh scary guns from scarry people who have a history of following the law, thats different it might scare off patrons.
Dont you know business and economics is far more important than civil liberties.
Or the best one I think I have heard so far is its a liability issuse, someone might try and sue me if someone else uses their gun for self defense and I just dont want to take that chance ( screw your safety). If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck odds are its a duck.:shocker: I just try to call it like I see it and I am calling their right to ban the right of the people to protect themselves at all times as one big steaming pile of crap with nuts included!
God bless and help us all.