It never ceases to amaze me... Take me out to the ball game...

[utbagpiper]

I respect the property rights of the owner (condition(s) for entrance) regardless of my opinion on the condition(s)...you do not. Exercising my RKBA is not welcome, I will honor their condition(s) and give them no money. Liberty demands that this is all I can do.

Good for you.

Looking down my nose? Identifying your hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? I've never claimed to support unfettered property rights to the extend you do, nor demanded than anyone support them to that extent.

Mere disagreement with you is not hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is pretending to be something you are not, "Do as I say not as I do" kind of thing.

No guns is the desire, you carry a gun into that business, you do not honor his property rights (wishes).

I do not recognize a property right to create a dangerous situation in a business open to the public. Disarming customers on the honor system increases the risk of customers being the victim of violent criminality.

Reworded hyperbole from 11 minutes ago, in the COSTCO Corporate Formally Bans Firearms Thread, Post # 30.

What hyperbole. Do you "respect property rights" enough to support a right to chain fire doors shut? Or do you have your own limits of where property rights should give way to public safety?

In UT how can Costco enforce their no gun policy given the below?

They could post metal detectors and deny entrance to anyone in possession of firearms. That is perfectly legal and our one major league sports venue does so. I decline to patronize that venue.

Ironic, that it takes the threat of state action for you to respect a property owner's rights.

Even if true, what would be "ironic" about it?

More importantly here, it is not the law, but my respect for truly private property that compels me to respect no gun policies at private residences and house of worship. The law, in this case, is simply a reflection of social mores and values.

I make no bone about not being a libertarian and certainly no anarchist. There are laws I think violate rights--or are just bad ideas--and should be repealed. But I play by the rules as they exist, not as I wish they did exist.

If we were living in Libertopia and Christians were able to decline services that promote events they find offensive, if bigots could be open about not hiring minorities, if we had no public-safety or anti-discrimination laws at all, I'd not suggest gun owners be permitted to carry in businesses contrary to the owners' wishes. But in the current situation, I'm not going to disarm and be defenseless, nor am I going to run all over town trying to replace the goods and services I can get at one, convenient, well-priced, good-quality stop, over some obscure, unenforced policy, the violation of which doesn't violate any laws.

I will be discrete in doing so. No need to cause a scene. But I will carry where legal without much concern for the private policies of businesses open to the public.

If that decision causes you great consternation, too bad. Live your life as you see fit. I'll do likewise on my end.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

It's not only hyperbole but an insult that insinuates libertarians believe people should hurt other people. It lacks any factual merit or honesty.

Clarify then. Do you believe businesses should be permitted to chain fire doors shut?

Or is it proper for the law to ban such conduct and impose penalties for violation even before the fire doors are actually needed?

Charles

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Clarify then. Do you believe businesses should be permitted to chain fire doors shut?

Or is it proper for the law to ban such conduct and impose penalties for violation even before the fire doors are actually needed?

Charles

How is this not a red herring?

Knowing whether or not it'd be justifiable to mandate installment of functional fire doors doesn't really bring us any closer to a conclusion on whether or not a no firearms policy might be justifiably by a property owner, now does it? (use of 'proper' is an obfuscation, we're talking about the use of physical force, not simply which would be preferable or more mannered)

Clearly not literally any action can be justified just by placing it under the guise of property rights. Are you trying to get someone to make that simple 'admission' so that you can try to pry them from there to whatever position you hold, possibly throughout 20 pages of stubbornly repeated red herrings, and by incessantly arguing degrees? I sure hope not, as that'd be a pretty boring and unbearable repeat performance.

The craziest part of this might be that 1. there's simple ways to get businesses to have functional fire doors without resorting to primitive coercion and 2. to imply that installment of functional fire doors should be mandated with punitive measures for violation is practically an insult to the intelligence of every member of your society, saying that they're too incompetent to use their power and freedom of free association to use businesses that provide a safe environment.

ETA, Ironically, aren't you the one that chooses to continue to patronize businesses that are anti-gun and/or have anti-gun policies?

 

[OC for ME]

...

What hypocrisy? I've never claimed to support unfettered property rights to the extend you do, nor demanded than anyone support them to that extent.
...

Again, rights are rights. property right only one of many. Your selective recognition of rights and the degree of respect for them is hypocrisy. It is a either you respect the peaceable exercise of rights, all of them, or you do not, kind of thing.

I do not recognize a property right to create a dangerous situation in a business open to the public. Disarming customers on the honor system increases the risk of customers being the victim of violent criminality.
...

If that decision causes you great consternation, too bad. Live your life as you see fit. I'll do likewise on my end.

Charles

Ironic, "truly private property" that disarms those invited to enter is just as unsafe, given your parameters, as a no so truly private property.

If there is the weight of law for residences and houses of worship you will abide by the law, not the inherent right of the property owner to peaceably control their property as they see fit.

OK.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Again, rights are rights. property right only one of many. Your selective recognition of rights and the degree of respect for them is hypocrisy. It is a either you respect the peaceable exercise of rights, all of them, or you do not, kind of thing.

+1

Ironic, "truly private property" that disarms those invited to enter is just as unsafe, given your parameters, as a no so truly private property.

If there is the weight of law for residences and houses of worship you will abide by the law, not the inherent right of the property owner to peaceably control their property as they see fit.

OK.

Yep if one understands how rights work then rights cannot overlap. I cannot morally or lawfully (natural law, if they do not fit in with natural law they are not laws) invite you into my property knowing you are in danger and not expect to suffer the consequences for causes harm to others due to my negligence.

The repeat of the anti liberty folks of that those of us who believe in full liberty believe property owners "should" be allowed to put others in danger is straight up dishonesty.

 

[utbagpiper]

My point to the other poster is we have private property rights or we do not. Just because someone chooses to operate a business were they sell to the public does not do away with that property right to decide who is or is not welcome on their property. Otherwise if the state gets to step in and tell you what you can or can't do it is socialistic and not private property and atrocious to liberty.

Your puerile and adolescent refusal to address or refer to me by my name or username notwithstanding, I actually largely agree with you on principle on the point that a business should be free to cater to whatever market they want. Let the market decide. I actually go so far on this principle that I'd be happy to see anti-discrimination laws repealed.

But I also live in the world we have and in that world, businesses open to the public have to live with certain restrictions. I see no reason my the lawful possession of a firearm should any more subject to discrimination in "places of public accommodation" than two dudes holding hands.

You speak of things as you believe they should be. And in this case, I mostly agree.

I live in the world of how thing really are and work to change things for the better as I can.

I don't believe we're going to repeal anti-discrimination laws anytime soon, and certainly not so long as they primarily benefit one side of the political spectrum at the expense of others. When the liberals have to let in guns just as the conservatives have to hire and provide services to the openly homosexual, we might have both sides willing to re-evaluate how much government control they want. If not, at least all minority groups will get equal protection.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

How is this not a red herring?

It is an analogy. It demonstrates that not every decision of a property owner is "peaceable" (at least not as one might justly define peaceable).

ETA, Ironically, aren't you the one that chooses to continue to patronize businesses that are anti-gun and/or have anti-gun policies?

Some of you keep using that word "ironic". I do not think it means what you think it means. Where is the irony in the fact that all of us patronize businesses with anti-gun policies (employment policies at least)?

Is the irony that those of you getting most uptight about my refusal to back down on my patronize of Costco have no qualms about patronizing businesses that have exactly the same anti-gun employment policies and whose lack of customer policies have the same effect as does Costco's non-enforced customer policy?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Again, rights are rights. property right only one of many. Your selective recognition of rights and the degree of respect for them is hypocrisy. It is a either you respect the peaceable exercise of rights, all of them, or you do not, kind of thing.

Sorry, that that is a piss poor and self-serving definition of hypocrisy. Under this definition, everyone is a hypocrite since we all have differing views of what are really rights. What you're really saying is that anyone who claims to support any right, must either support every right as you define it or he is a hypocrite.

Or, you yourself are a "hypocrite" for rationalizing that violating the private property rights of hospital owners is somehow less offensive than violating the private property rights of retail stores. Or is there a "sole provider" exemption in your rather flippant use of "hypocrite."

"Hypocrite" is one of those loaded words like "bigot". People these days tend to throw those words around to shut down all rational discussion.

When I tell you that I demand respect for my gun policy in my business, while I ignore the gun policy in another business, THEN I am a hypocrite.

When I tell you that Christian bakers must create and provide works of art that promote unions they find offensive, while other bakers should be free to refuse service if the message requested on their cakes offends them, THEN I am a hypocrite.

Agreeing with you larger on RKBA, while disagreeing about the extent of property rights does NOT make me a hypocrite. And there is nothing "ironic" about it either.

Ironic, "truly private property" that disarms those invited to enter is just as unsafe, given your parameters, as a no so truly private property.

Again, what is the "irony" of this obvious truth?

I never said anything about the safety of truly private property. I simply said that given the exalted legal, social, and constitutional status of such property, I feel compelled to give that property more deference than I give to places of public accommodation that are subject to anti-discrimination laws.

No irony. No hypocrisy. No hyperbole. Not even if you disagree with my rationale or decisions.

If there is the weight of law for residences and houses of worship you will abide by the law, not the inherent right of the property owner to peaceably control their property as they see fit.

OK.

No. Not ok.

Again, it is rather rude to declare my position for me contrary to what I've stated.

I respect the wishes of churches and homeowners regarding entry to their property whether there are laws or not.

I do NOT give any more respect to a "no guns" policy in a business than I would to a "no coloreds" policy. But where force of law is at play, I will respect the law while working to change it.

Simple enough?

Charles

 

[stealthyeliminator]

It is an analogy. It demonstrates that not every decision of a property owner is "peaceable" (at least not as one might justly define peaceable).



Some of you keep using that word "ironic". I do not think it means what you think it means. Where is the irony in the fact that all of us patronize businesses with anti-gun policies (employment policies at least)?

Is the irony that those of you getting most uptight about my refusal to back down on my patronize of Costco have no qualms about patronizing businesses that have exactly the same anti-gun employment policies and whose lack of customer policies have the same effect as does Costco's non-enforced customer policy?

Charles

What's ironic is that you are advocating coercion against private property owners to provide what might be considered standard safety measures in the name of peace, while there are peaceful methods that you intentionally and knowingly decline to participate in which result in businesses providing what's considered standard safety measures. It grows the irony that the specific safety measure that is the ultimate focus of the current exchanges, which is a policy that allows customers to carry firearms for purposes of self defense, is specifically the one that has not been provided to you and that you have declined to use peaceful methods to attempt to convince the store to provide. So, you're advocating coercive efforts, in the name of peace no less, which is basically ironic in and of itself, all the while you are knowingly and intentionally declining to participate in actually peaceful efforts. If it feels like I'm picking on you, I probably am. I mean no offense by it.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Hmm.

So if we can't have it equal, let's at least make it evenly unequal?

Teehee.

What I mean is, if we can't have equality, let's at least have even inequality?

We must understand that merely treating everyone evenly isn't treating them equally.

So, is it a legitimate strategy to make the inequality applied evenly so that all mistreated groups suffer the same and might be more willing to work together to oppose the underlying inequality?

*NOTE this is my interpretation of one of bagpiper's proposals above, NOT my own. Personally I think we hit a two wrongs don't make a right scenario with this proposal.

 

[utbagpiper]

What's ironic is that you are advocating coercion against private property owners to provide what might be considered standard safety measures in the name of peace,

Bzzztz. Where did I ever say, "in the name of peace?"

I'm advocating coercion against private property owners to provide standard safety measures. Period.

The only time peace comes up is when the libertarians and anarchists claim I am opposed to the "peaceful" control of private property. I do not consider it a "peaceful" use of private property to create or maintain unsafe working or shopping conditions.

As for non-coercive techniques, I suppose it is possible that non-coercive techniques might have eventually brought about the needed improvements of mine safety, child labor laws, and building codes to include fire escapes and sprinkler systems. But there are some things I think society is entitled to require of all members of society. I'm not an anarchist. I'm no longer a libertarian, though I once was. I'm not a fan of excessive regulation, but neither do I believe that zero regulation is any panacea. I'm here because I support RKBA and OC. That doesn't require me to support any particular social views in any other area. Nor do my own views require me to have a stringent consistency across all views: some things simply work in one area but not so well in what be rationally argued to be a parallel area. I make no bones about these things, but do appreciate when those who disagree remember where I'm coming from.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

So if we can't have it equal, let's at least make it evenly unequal?
...
We must understand that merely treating everyone evenly isn't treating them equally.

I trust your above statements rely on a particular definition of the word "equally." I'm not terribly interested in a semantics debate tonight and I think the crux of your argument is in the next paragraph anyway.

So, is it a legitimate strategy to make the inequality applied evenly so that all mistreated groups suffer the same and might be more willing to work together to oppose the underlying inequality?

A couple of propositions as examples (which may or may not represent my views, but are easy illustrations regardless). Let me know if you disagree.

Off duty and retired cops should not be afforded any more legal ability to carry guns than are LACs. If off duty and retired cops want to carry guns, they will just have to support the same legal ability for the rest of us.

Military spouse should not be given any special ability to buy guns outside their State of legal residency. If they want to be able to buy guns across State lines, they need to support that same legal ability for the rest of us.

Abused women with protective orders should not get any expedited handing of their carry permits. If a 90 day wait period is onerous for women with protective orders it is onerous for us all.

Or, should I surmise from your argument, that you'd be ok reducing infringements on RKBA for off-duty and retired cops, military spouses, and abused women with protective orders rather than treating them the same as all the rest of us are treated?

Turns out, in Utah, cops are subject to the same provisions for having a permit to carry yanked as are the rest of us. I know of a cop who recently (last 5 years) got his permit yanked for exactly the same low-level, non-violent crime that would get anyone else's permit revoked. The review board conceded that the cop was still going to be able to carry whenever he wanted under other provisions for off-duty cops. But they were not going to give him any special considerations on the laws governing permits. They treat all the animals the same.

Obviously, permits should not be required at all. But within existing reality, I believe everyone should be treated equally in these matters. Don't you?

Charles

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Bzzztz. Where did I ever say, "in the name of peace?"

It is an analogy. It demonstrates that not every decision of a property owner is "peaceable" (at least not as one might justly define peaceable).

Means that a property owner that doesn't provide certain safety measures is being unpeaceable, and thus coercing him into providing the safety measures establishes or restores the peace. I disagree. *Peaceably disagree

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I trust your above statements rely on a particular definition of the word "equally." I'm not terribly interested in a semantics debate tonight and I think the crux of your argument is in the next paragraph anyway.

Yes, yes, I was playing with the various meanings to have fun. But, I was being serious about recognizing the difference between a worldview of equality of humans and things just being applied equally or evenly to everyone. Which I think you properly recognize below...

A couple of propositions as examples (which may or may not represent my views, but are easy illustrations regardless). Let me know if you disagree.

Off duty and retired cops should not be afforded any more legal ability to carry guns than are LACs. If off duty and retired cops want to carry guns, they will just have to support the same legal ability for the rest of us.

Military spouse should not be given any special ability to buy guns outside their State of legal residency. If they want to be able to buy guns across State lines, they need to support that same legal ability for the rest of us.

Abused women with protective orders should not get any expedited handing of their carry permits. If a 90 day wait period is onerous for women with protective orders it is onerous for us all.

Or, should I surmise from your argument, that you'd be ok reducing infringements on RKBA for off-duty and retired cops, military spouses, and abused women with protective orders rather than treating them the same as all the rest of us are treated?

Turns out, in Utah, cops are subject to the same provisions for having a permit to carry yanked as are the rest of us. I know of a cop who recently (last 5 years) got his permit yanked for exactly the same low-level, non-violent crime that would get anyone else's permit revoked. The review board conceded that the cop was still going to be able to carry whenever he wanted under other provisions for off-duty cops. But they were not going to give him any special considerations on the laws governing permits. They treat all the animals the same.

Obviously, permits should not be required at all. But within existing reality, I believe everyone should be treated equally in these matters. Don't you?

Charles

Good examples, and certainly a good challenge to someone that has opposed legislators making special privileges for themselves or their enforcers. It's certainly something for me to ponder. I will have to reconsider my position on some of those issues.

 

[utbagpiper]

Means that a property owner that doesn't provide certain safety measures is being unpeaceable, and thus coercing him into providing the safety measures establishes or restores the peace. I disagree. *Peaceably disagree

So nothing ironic at all? Or is every case of using force to restore peace, "ironic"?

Maybe one of the great ironies if Heinlein's claim that where force is most readily available to the most people, there is the lowest likelihood of anyone resorting to force?

 

[utbagpiper]

Good examples, and certainly a good challenge to someone that has opposed legislators making special privileges for themselves or their enforcers. It's certainly something for me to ponder. I will have to reconsider my position on some of those issues.

Note that one of my examples has nothing to do with government employees: it pertains to battered women with protective orders. One might easily imagine other groups of persons with some heightened risk or immediacy greater than the general populace: witnesses to criminal conduct, independent workers crossing a picket line, confirmed victims of stalking, etc.

I suppose the question is really one of how to apply principles.

Do we demand that all the animals be treated equally?

Or do we demand that infringements be loosened wherever we possibly can even if only a select group benefit?

Looked at pragmatically, do we use the most sympathetic cases to push our cause generally? (Consider how the pro-choice side focuses on "rape and life of the mother" even though these are only 5% of all abortions in this nation. That focus, helps keep the other 95% of purely elective abortion legal.)

Or do we get whatever we can, for whomever we can, as soon as we can, hoping that we can get more for additional groups later? (This might be considered a form of incrementalism, though I think it far less effective than the alternative above.)

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

... What you're really saying is that anyone who claims to support any right, must either support every right as you define it or he is a hypocrite.

What I am saying is that I have a obligation to respect the desires of a property owner. What I am saying is that a property owner has absolute control over his property. What I am saying is that I do not have the prerogative to redine the property owner's claimed property rights.

Or, you yourself are a "hypocrite" for rationalizing that violating the private property rights of hospital owners is somehow less offensive than violating the private property rights of retail stores. Or is there a "sole provider" exemption in your rather flippant use of "hypocrite."

I don't carry into no gun zones where there is no alternative for a product or service. The definition of sole source.

I respect the wishes of churches and homeowners regarding entry to their property whether there are laws or not.

I do NOT give any more respect to a "no guns" policy in a business than I would to a "no coloreds" policy. But where force of law is at play, I will respect the law while working to change it.

Simple enough?

Charles

A church is a place open to the public. Its enshrinement in statute should be revoked given your parameters. Hypocritical, not working to change the statute on this point...and quite ironic.

Though, you do not consider a church a business...so, maybe in you view the "open to the public" criteria does not apply.

 

[OC for ME]

Simplicity itself, if the ball park (private property) is a no gun zone, don't go to the ballpark. Stay home and watch it on TV.

 

[decklin]

Ditch Costco and patronize Sam's Club.

For example, there are nine Costcos in UT, from Provo to north of SLC. Eight Sam's Clubs in approximate locations.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?80576-Sams-Club-Ask-to-leave-or-secure-gun-in-car

Sam's Club follows state law.

I did just that until this past fall. I frequented the Auburn Sams Club you mentioned until they told me guns weren't allowed. I spent months dealing with corporate and several other managers before being told they would stand behind the club managers decision to not allow firearms.
There is an entire thread in the Washington section.
Sams club does not follow the law. They do whatever they want. Just like costco.
The reason they said no firearms allowed is because they are attached to a mall that doesn't allow firearms. The club is a private entity with its own entrance. It does NOT have a common area of ingress or egress with the mall but that was their reasoning.
I'll never shop there again.

 

[OC for ME]

I did just that until this past fall. I frequented the Auburn Sams Club you mentioned until they told me guns weren't allowed. I spent months dealing with corporate and several other managers before being told they would stand behind the club managers decision to not allow firearms.
There is an entire thread in the Washington section.
Sams club does not follow the law. They do whatever they want. Just like costco.
The reason they said no firearms allowed is because they are attached to a mall that doesn't allow firearms. The club is a private entity with its own entrance. It does NOT have a common area of ingress or egress with the mall but that was their reasoning.
I'll never shop there again.

That's tough. Not the case here in MO, even in the Sam's Clubs in STL County. Different managers it seems.