Chipotle caves...

[jmelvin]

ChristCrusader he didn't say "No Coloreds", he said "No Colors", as in "No Gang Colors". There's a big difference.

 

[ChristCrusader]

ChristCrusader he didn't say "No Coloreds", he said "No Colors", as in "No Gang Colors". There's a big difference.

I know, I was segueing while comparing

 

[Repeater]

Private property rights (where the public is not invited) still remain supreme. Not only is it the law, but it is my will to defend what is mine.

Remember, what's involved here is a public accommodation. Civil rights laws apply here.

So the real question ought to be, should federal civil rights laws be amended to protect the rights of armed citizens?

 

[grylnsmn]

Trespassing rules would still apply, if asked to leave, then one must leave.
But one wouldn't be able to be asked to leave just because they're keeping or bearing, or prohibit entrance because of keeping or bearing.

Cite? Virginia law does not require that you be asked to leave. For your edification and reading enjoyment:

§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.

If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian, or the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.

Note the parts that I bolded in red. If you go onto someone else's property without their permission after they posted signs specifically saying that you are not welcome, you are committing the Class 1 misdemeanor of trespass. That sign could be any restriction on you entering, from "No shirt, No shoes", to "No Guns", to "No solicitors", to "Keep Out".

A "No guns" sign that is placed where it may reasonably be seen is sufficient in and of itself to support a trespassing charge, even if you aren't asked to leave by a member of the staff.

You're either missing or obfuscating the point...

The Constitution's amendments are not/have not been devoid of influence over individuals or their private properties.

Any alleged private property right to discriminate against keepers and bearers was overwritten and superseded by keepers' and bearers' rights when the US2A and VA 1:13 were adopted by due process.

The 5th Amendment protecting property rights was ratified at the same times as the 2nd. The 14th Amendment (which further protects property rights) was ratified afterwards. On the basis of the 5th Amendment, at best the 2nd Amendment is of equal force. However, as the 14th Amendment is more recent, that would give it precedence over either the 2nd or 5th.

Here's a challenge for you: please cite a single authoritative source that supports your claim that the Second Amendment gets precedence over property rights. You can't just point to the Amendment itself, because (as I pointed out above) at best it is coequal with the property rights in the 5th Amendment.

Historically, property rights have been closely tied to self-defense rights. (That is a large part of the historical basis for the Castle Doctrine.) The Second Amendment didn't create some new right, but it codified the pre-existing right against government intrusion. That right was never understood to give you the right to come onto my property against my will. If I state that firearms are not permitted on my property, then no matter what other invitations I extend to the public in general, unless I explicitly tell you that the restriction does not apply to you you aren't allowed to bring a firearm onto my property. You are invited, but only if you follow the rules.

 

[Grapeshot]

Remember, what's involved here is a public accommodation. Civil rights laws apply here.

So the real question ought to be, should federal civil rights laws be amended to protect the rights of armed citizens?

Indeed, what a wonderful world it would be.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I believe so. Where is the logic of excluding RKABA from civil rights?

Carrying a arm is a choice protected from government interference, being a race, color, sex, or age is not a choice. And in that one cannot change those conditions to meet a public businesses demands. But let's not loose sight of the ball, Chipotle did not ban firearms, they made that clear in their statement. As I have said before, they can respectfully request that all females wear micro mini skirts, and IMO it just is not going to happen. They can ban micro mini skirts even though the wearing of provocative clothes is a first amendment right.

Disclaimer~~No micro mini skirts were harmed in the typing of this post. And further I have nothing against the proper wearing of such skirts on the proper body typed. Keep in mind though you so choose to wear them, I will stare.

 

[Repeater]

Carrying a arm is a choice protected from government interference, being a race, color, sex, or age is not a choice. And in that one cannot change those conditions to meet a public businesses demands.

Serving our country is a choice. Veterans are a protected class.

What I'm suggesting is that gun owners also be a protected class.

This is hilarious -- an informative:

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?

Bear in mind Virginia can provide its own civil rights protections for Virginia gun owners regarding employment, housing, and public accommodations ... if the General Assembly wanted to, that is.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Serving our country is a choice. Veterans are a protected class.

What I'm suggesting is that gun owners also be a protected class.

This is hilarious -- an informative:

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?

Bear in mind Virginia can provide its own civil rights protections for Virginia gun owners regarding employment, housing, and public accommodations ... if the General Assembly wanted to, that is.

Aww but being a veteran was at one time not a choice, or a choice made by a draft board. And once a person becomes a veteran they cannot change that choice to suit the whims of the public.

 

[Repeater]

Aww but being a veteran was at one time not a choice, or a choice made by a draft board. And once a person becomes a veteran they cannot change that choice to suit the whims of the public.

Religion is a choice; that is a protected class.

Bearing a child -- and a breast -- while carrying said child (A.K.A. breastfeeding) is a choice; that is a protected class in a few states.

 

[ChristCrusader]

Remember, what's involved here is a public accommodation. Civil rights laws apply here.

So the real question ought to be, should federal civil rights laws be amended to protect the rights of armed citizens?

I'd agree wholeheartedly, with the caveat that the US2A and VA1:13 already guarantee it, but the more places enshrined the better

Cite? Virginia law does not require that you be asked to leave. For your edification and reading enjoyment:Note the parts that I bolded in red. If you go onto someone else's property without their permission after they posted signs specifically saying that you are not welcome, you are committing the Class 1 misdemeanor of trespass. That sign could be any restriction on you entering, from "No shirt, No shoes", to "No Guns", to "No solicitors", to "Keep Out".

actually, a no guns sign says no guns; so if I'm caught on the property that has a no guns sign posted, then there's no law criminalizing with punishment, carrying a firearm where a no gun sign was posted (except places already prohibited by law, of course... jails, schools, post office, etc.) If they spelled it out as, "No entry allowed with firearms", then maybe.
If I may quote two excellent posts regarding "no guns" signs relating to trespassing:

Joe Jones: You are basing a sign for private property which no one has access too. We are discussing, while private property it is open to the public. When a business opens to the public they can make all the "rules" they want which law enforcement can not enforce. However, if you violate a "rule" they have the right to refuse you and ask you to depart. Until that happens you are one of the public they invited onto their private property and you are not required to look for signs. Once you are asked to leave private property which is open to the public, and refuse, you have finally crossed a legal threshold which can be enforced. Basically you are talking difference between a "rule" and a "law" .

Brian Reynolds: ...A sign cannot make or manifest a law where none exists (in Virginia).

The only possible hard pressed argument you would have under § 18.2-119, and this would be a long shot involving a very liberal pressing CA's office, is to for the business to have an extremely conspicuous sign which is not just No Guns Allowed or Gun Free Zone, yet actually incorporates the clear direction of No Trespassing, you are considered to trespass if you enter this establishment with [ ]... and perhaps an employee then confirming that you actually read and understood the sign. It would have to clearly pass the notification element.

Secondarily, while property rights do hold substantial weight for the property owner, business management, etc., you run into the other battle of a constitutionally created right and its discrimination akin to a sign on a door to a public business which would indicate, you are considered trespassing if you are Black or Asian. While not exactly on the same level, the argument could easily be bridged.

And, just like the US Constitution was created after and through much debate ironed out in what we know as the Federalist Papers, there is typically a great deal of background which drills down to intent for each local or state law. The intent of § 18.2-119 was for private, non-public property where no real, actual or inferred public invite for commerce was ever intended.

A "No guns" sign that is placed where it may reasonably be seen is sufficient in and of itself to support a trespassing charge, even if you aren't asked to leave by a member of the staff.

no, technically, I would just be breaking their no guns policy, and as their punishment, I could be asked/told to leave or face trespassing charges.

The 5th Amendment protecting property rights was ratified at the same times as the 2nd.

Partial quote from the 5th:
nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The US2A and VA1:13 were passed with due process.
The owner's keeping their property, and not being deprived of it, nor being taken for public use.
In the scenario I'm challenging, the owner's inviting the person, except for the keeping/bearing.

The 14th Amendment (which further protects property rights) was ratified afterwards. On the basis of the 5th Amendment, at best the 2nd Amendment is of equal force. However, as the 14th Amendment is more recent, that would give it precedence over either the 2nd or 5th.

Partial quote from the 14th:
...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

The right to keep and bear arms is declared to be a right, not a privilege, but might be considered an immunity...
The US2A and VA1:13 were passed with due process.
The owner's keeping their property, and are not being deprived of it.

Here's a challenge for you: please cite a single authoritative source that supports your claim that the Second Amendment gets precedence over property rights. You can't just point to the Amendment itself, because (as I pointed out above) at best it is coequal with the property rights in the 5th Amendment.

I've disputed your setting aside of the US2A, and reestablished it as preeminent.

Historically, property rights have been closely tied to self-defense rights. (That is a large part of the historical basis for the Castle Doctrine.) The Second Amendment didn't create some new right, but it codified the pre-existing right against government intrusion.

... and private prohibition/discrimination

That right was never understood to give you the right to come onto my property against my will. If I state that firearms are not permitted on my property, then no matter what other invitations I extend to the public in general, unless I explicitly tell you that the restriction does not apply to you you aren't allowed to bring a firearm onto my property. You are invited, but only if you follow the rules.

I think the expression and reference above to "public accommodation" adequately addresses/isolates this from someone's home, etc.
Akin to grapeshot's hybrid concept, "quasi-public - those commercial/retail establishments that invite the public to do business

 

[Repeater]

I'd agree wholeheartedly, with the caveat that the US2A and VA1:13 already guarantee it, but the more places enforced the better

Look, other than the first quote, none of those 'quoted' blocks are mine.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Religion is a choice; that is a protected class.

Bearing a child -- and a breast -- while carrying said child (A.K.A. breastfeeding) is a choice; that is a protected class in a few states.

Bearing a child is a god given right, that often is not a choice, and breast feeding is the only rational choice in the development of a child, as long as there are not medical concerns. You are way off base. BTW if a person has a child in a restaurant what do you expect them to do? Go outside and have it on the sidewalk. AND as far as I know a restaurant can ban the act of procreation or fertilization IN the restaurant.

So your choice is to let a baby starve, and allow sex in a restaurant?

 

[Repeater]

Bearing a child is a god given right, that often is not a choice, and breast feeding is the only rational choice in the development of a child, as long as there are not medical concerns. You are way off base. BTW if a person has a child in a restaurant what do you expect them to do? Go outside and have it on the sidewalk. AND as far as I know a restaurant can ban the act of procreation or fertilization IN the restaurant.

So your choice is to let a baby starve, and allow sex in a restaurant?

What base is that? Home base?

I'm showing how others groups have worked for, and obtained, protected class protection.

If you really think about it, carrying a loaded breast (full of milk) is not altogether different from carrying a loaded gun. Both can sustain life, and there should be a right for each to carry in public accommodations.

See how 'lactivists' deal with discrimination issues:

Lactivism Q&A

 

[ChristCrusader]

Look, other than the first quote, none of those 'quoted' blocks are mine.

My bad.
fixed/edited

 

[WalkingWolf]

What base is that? Home base?

I'm showing how others groups have worked for, and obtained, protected class protection.

If you really think about it, carrying a loaded breast (full of milk) is not altogether different from carrying a loaded gun. Both can sustain life, and there should be a right for each to carry in public accommodations.

See how 'lactivists' deal with discrimination issues:

Lactivism Q&A

Then work for class protection, but I disagree with it on any basis when it comes to a private business. But your clouding the issue of the privilege of carrying a gun into a business is the same as having sex, or feeding a baby, or any other attributes that have to do with the basics of life. Carrying a gun is a right, but it is not allowed to interfere with others rights, including property rights.

For the record if a business wants to ban children, infants, or breast feeding infants they should have the right to do so. IMO it is only the warped PC of society we have to thank for this twisted thinking. If you do not like a business request or demand, GO ELSEWHERE.

 

[Grapeshot]

Serving our country is a choice. Veterans are a protected class.

In the work place, but where else?
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/factsheets/vetrights.htm

 

[WalkingWolf]

In the work place, but where else?
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/factsheets/vetrights.htm

Grape thanks for reminding me I should double check. Certain members I trust their word is correct, and I do not ask for cites or research. To be honest I hate researching because it takes so much time and digging. I believe we should see citations for all the claims of so called rights for private business when it comes to breastfeeding. Not saying he is not correct, just that I want to see the citations.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces the affirmative action provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. This law, sometimes referred to as VEVRAA or Section 4212, requires employers doing business with the Federal government to take steps to recruit, hire and promote protected veterans. It also makes it illegal for these companies to discriminate against protected veterans when making employment decisions on hiring, firing, pay, benefits, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, and other employment related activities.

 

[grylnsmn]

actually, a no guns sign says no guns; so if I'm caught on the property with a no guns sign, then there's no law criminalizing with punishment, carrying a firearm where a no gun sign was posted (except places already prohibited by law, of course... jails, schools, post office, etc.) If they spelled it out as, "No entry allowed with firearms", then maybe.
If I may quote two excellent posts:

no, technically, I would just be breaking their no guns policy, and as their punishment, I could be asked/told to leave or face trespassing charges.

I'm sorry, but you would be trespassing. You are still violating the law because you have gone onto their property after being informed by a reasonably-placed sign that you were not welcome there at that time (i.e. while you are carrying a gun). It might be hard to prosecute, but you are still violating the law. The law that criminalizes it is the trespass law, which has no requirement that you be asked to leave before it can be enforced. (If you are going to claim that there is such a requirement, then please quote it exactly - I provided you the entire text of the law above.)

The US2A and VA1:13 were passed with due process.
The owner's keeping their property, and not being deprived of it, nor being taken for public use.
In the scenario I'm challenging, the owner's inviting the person, except for the keeping/bearing.

Except they are being deprived of their property rights.

Property rights encompass more than just ownership of property. They include the right to exclusive control of that property. By denying a person control over their property (i.e. requiring them to allow people or things that are not wanted onto the property) you are depriving them of that exclusive control over their property.

The right to keep and bear arms is declared to be a right, not a privilege, but might be considered an immunity...
The US2A and VA1:13 were passed with due process.
The owner's keeping their property, and are not being deprived of it.

Again, they are being deprived of control over their property.

However, your "due process" claim is very weak. Why? Because violations of property rights are usually held to rather high standards, often including strict scrutiny. Even then, if you are depriving someone of their property rights it is usually considered a "taking" under the 5th amendment and it requires "just compensation". If you don't meet that criteria, then you haven't followed the appropriate "due process".

I've disputed your setting aside of the US2A, and reestablished it as preeminent.

You have established nothing except to repeat your own baseless assertions.

... and private prohibition/discrimination

I think the expression and reference above to "public accommodation" adequately addresses/isolates this from someone's home, etc.
Akin to grapeshot's hybrid concept, "quasi-public - those commercial/retail establishments that invite the public to do business

The problem here is that you completely ignore the concept of a conditional invitation. There are all sorts of scenarios that happen on a daily basis where businesses invite the general public as long as they meet certain conditions. This includes "No shirt, No shoes, No service" as just one common example.

You might say that you want the law to force property owners doing business to allow you to carry on their property, but the simple fact that the law does not require that today. You have absolutely no right to carry a firearm on the property of another person or a business without their consent. If they express to you (by word, deed, or reasonably-placed signage) that they do not want firearms on their property and you bring a firearm there, you are trespassing under Virginia law and violating their rights. They, however, are not violating any statutory or constitutional rights that you have by refusing to allow you on their property with a gun, because you have no right to be there in the first place.

 

[ChristCrusader]

If you do not like a business request or demand, GO ELSEWHERE.

It's a mighty big presumption that the lib gun haters can't create huge swathes, if not entire geographic or political locations, that refuse keepers/bearers.
If choices narrow too much, then it can even skew free market controls, where we have fewer choices to price or quality shop.
If alternative options dwindle too much, it will in effect nullify our right to carry, and the firearm could be at home or in the vehicle too much of the time.
If the hoplophobes' dysfunction are enabled and celebrated, it could trigger a domino effect and make it easier and easier for them to lie and exaggerate about an event and plead for subsequent "common sense restrictions".
Or, the US2A and VA1:13 could be enforced as written, and reestablish that our right to keep and bear shall not be infringed

 

[WalkingWolf]

It's a mighty big presumption that the lib gun haters can't create huge swathes, if not entire geographic or political locations, that refuse keepers/bearers.
If choices narrow too much, then it can even skew free market controls, where we have fewer choices to price or quality shop.
If alternative options dwindle too much, it will in effect nullify our right to carry, and the firearm could be at home or in the vehicle too much of the time.
If the hoplophobes' dysfunction are enabled and celebrated, it could trigger a domino effect and make it easier and easier for them to lie and exaggerate about an event and plead for common sense restrictions.
Or, the US2A and VA1:13 could be enforced as written, and reestablish that our right to keep and bear shall not be infringed

Cite where they have created huge swathes? The only people enabling the hoplophobes are the gun owners who peeeee their pants every time this comes up, and gives the idiots their craved attention.