Shooters Sports in Racine on 6 mile road only allows OC if you are an LEO. No signs posted. Was informed by an employee that it is the owners policy.
It seems a better thread name may be "Businesses frightened by personal rights" or "Businesses against personal liberty" or "Businesses for bodily harm and rape"
Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Wisconsin Constitution, Article 1, Section 25
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
I choose the title because of those two statements.
OK. I don't agree that private property owners that operate business's that are open to the general public on said property can dissallow lawful activity which are constitutional protected. But the law says that I am wrong. Public Accomadation will be brought to the forefront of Gun Rights issues at some point.
As far as thread titles goes, since business owners still have a legal basis to either honor our constitutional rights or deny them, I vote for 'Stores that deny us our rights'
Why don't you agree that private property owners can control what happens on their property? Where would YOU draw the line on what the government says you can and can not do on YOUR property?
I personally believe that public accommodations are unconstitutional and violate the rights of private property owners.
The problem that I see it that any property, that is not owned by some governmental organization, is classified as private property. As far as I can tell from all the other times this has come up, without doing my own legal reasearch, is that from a legal standpoint, there is no difference between my private residence, the shop where my employees make the poduct and the store which is open to the public to come and purchase my product. I should be able to ban weapons on any property I own, except that which is open to the public.
Any business premises where only employees are allowed can ban weapons under employment agreement. Any business premises where a memebership is required to enter can ban wepons under a membership agreement. Any visitors, whether a sales person or contractor can be subject to the same rules. Any business that charges admission can ban weapons as a condition of admission.
Private Property? There is a huge difference between a private residence and a bussiness that is open to the general public.
IF you want, on any property you own, to deny someones basic human rights only affirmed by the Constitution, you can do so, but don't open it up to the public.
Private Property? There is a huge difference between a private residence and a bussiness that is open to the general public.
IF you want, on any property you own, to deny someones basic human rights only affirmed by the Constitution, you can do so, but don't open it up to the public.
Here's a thought,
I understand that you cannot deny admittance or acceptance based on race, creed, color, sex etc if you are renting property or for that matter any other business. It is my belief that you can't deny service to someone because of his "attributes".
How then can a business deny me entrance because of a belief that I need to protect myself? Do they not take on the entire responsibility of protecting me if they do not allow me to protect myself?
Just asking
The most obvious is to not go someplace where you cannot protect yourself. If you have choices, then the business owner who doesn't allow self-protection of clients loses the sales. If you don't have choices,well then you need to ascertain which is more important - your need for the product or service, or your need for self-protection. I don't like it, but until the business realizes the losses,they will continue to deny your access on your terms.
And of course, we can work for a change in the way people think and/or the law.
Same thread even! LOLI was asking rhetorically.
I think this is a deja vu moment. I remember a thread that had this same line of discussion - so I looked it up.
On 10-13-2010 12:07 PM
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...nfringe-upon-our-rights&p=1377878#post1377878
I thought this sounded familiar!! duh
I personally believe that public accommodations are unconstitutional and violate the rights of private property owners.
If that is true, then there is not point to debate the issue here. See ya over on the 'Private Property Rights' forum.
Also the Shooter's Shop in West Allis has a sign stating no OC in their store.Oh rreeeaallly? Well, thanks for the info - that's the last time I ever patronize THAT place! I'll have to let the owner know what I think of his policy, and tell him it's too bad they're going to lose customers because of it.
I thought they "allowed" unloaded OC? I haven't been in there for over a year.Also the Shooter's Shop in West Allis has a sign stating no OC in their store.
I'll have to check again. I may have missed the part about unloaded, I haven't been there since about March.I thought they "allowed" unloaded OC? I haven't been in there for over a year.
I thought they "allowed" unloaded OC? I haven't been in there for over a year.
That had me scratching my head when I read the sign.Of what use is "unloaded OC"? I might as well carry a rock.