• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The legality of non-government mandated gun-free zones

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
290
Location
Kahlotus, WA
I am curious as to how businesses (Costco, Simon Malls, AMC Theaters, etc.) are allowed to declare themselves to be gun-free zones, as the right to keep & bear arms is also classified as civil right, correct?

If that is the case, then shouldn't Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 effectively negate non-government mandated gun-free zones??

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

  • If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...
    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.​

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,859
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
(Costco, Simon Malls, AMC Theaters) Apples and oranges. Costco is not open to the public, it is private by membership only. The others are open to the public. This has been all spelled out by the USSC. In the context of the 2A Cosco and Sams are by invitation only.

The problem is getting a U.S. attorney to prosecute for the violation of your rights.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
I am curious as to how businesses (Costco, Simon Malls, AMC Theaters, etc.) are allowed to declare themselves to be gun-free zones, as the right to keep & bear arms is also classified as civil right, correct?

If that is the case, then shouldn't Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 effectively negate non-government mandated gun-free zones??

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

  • If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...
    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.​

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
The 2A applies to government, not individual property owners.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
946
Location
Kentucky
The 2A applies to government, not individual property owners.
That is the opposite of what the posted U.S. code says.
Read it again. States ANY right secured by the constitution. Not a word about "except in the case of private property owners".
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
That is the opposite of what the posted U.S. code says.
Read it again. States ANY right secured by the constitution. Not a word about "except in the case of private property owners".
The 2A gives us nothing- it tells government that this right, already existing, can not be infringed.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
946
Location
Kentucky
The 2A gives us nothing- it tells government that this right, already existing, can not be infringed.
I believe I've stated that several hundred times. The RTKABA existed before the 2a, and will still exist if the 2a were abolished.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
946
Location
Kentucky
They didn't declare themselves gun free zones.

They are asking that one doesn't open carry there.
Which is oppressing a right secured by the COTUS.

An open to the public place is NOT private, doesn't make a rip who owns it.

This crap of business owners making money by running an open to the public business , while trying to claim its a " private place" is and always has been hogwash.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Which is oppressing a right secured by the COTUS.

An open to the public place is NOT private, doesn't make a rip who owns it.

This crap of business owners making money by running an open to the public business , while trying to claim its a " private place" is and always has been hogwash.
Even "public places"are governed by rules of behavior and hours of operation. If you don't abide by them, you can be removed from the property. The "owners" in this case are the taxpayers who fund these facilities. Private businesses that "open their doors" to the public are not required to tolerate any unsuitable behavior by their patrons, and can and do make rules to define such behavior to ensure a reasonable experience on behalf of all patrons. Your "freedom" is to choose to comply or go elsewhere.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
946
Location
Kentucky
Even "public places"are governed by rules of behavior and hours of operation. If you don't abide by them, you can be removed from the property. The "owners" in this case are the taxpayers who fund these facilities. Private businesses that "open their doors" to the public are not required to tolerate any unsuitable behavior by their patrons, and can and do make rules to define such behavior to ensure a reasonable experience on behalf of all patrons. Your "freedom" is to choose to comply or go elsewhere.
Best I can tell , we are talking about rights , that are protected under the constitution. Not unsuitable behaviors.

Lets try something . Let the "private open to the public " business close its doors and become factually a private place. See how long it lasts.

If a place is open to the public, as in anyone can wander in off the street, for a fee or not, its in reality not a private place.

Business owners always,want to straddle the fence, do everything they can to get the PUBLIC to come in, yet whine about their private property rights because they claim to be a private place.

When they are,closed, they are,private, once they open up to the general public they are, in fact, a,public place.

Do I expect gov to prosecute a business,owner under this U.S. code?

No.
Should they be ,? Read the code. The plain answer is yes.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Best I can tell , we are talking about rights , that are protected under the constitution. Not unsuitable behaviors.

Lets try something . Let the "private open to the public " business close its doors and become factually a private place. See how long it lasts.

If a place is open to the public, as in anyone can wander in off the street, for a fee or not, its in reality not a private place.

Business owners always,want to straddle the fence, do everything they can to get the PUBLIC to come in, yet whine about their private property rights because they claim to be a private place.

When they are,closed, they are,private, once they open up to the general public they are, in fact, a,public place.

Do I expect gov to prosecute a business,owner under this U.S. code?

No.
Should they be ,? Read the code. The plain answer is yes.
Business owners always own the property, even during "business hours", meaning when "open to the public".
It sounds like you are saying that if the business owner can control your access (e.g. kick you out because you don't abide by the rules), your "rights" have been compromised, so you think that the government should intervene to "restore" you rights even against the wishes of the property owner. That smacks of government control of private business. I think they call that socialism.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,107
Location
White Oak Plantation
The statute would not apply to a sole proprietorship. Then again, those folks who respect a private property owner's rights when the doors are locked and do not when the doors are open are hypocrites.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,859
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Even "public places"are governed by rules of behavior and hours of operation. If you don't abide by them, you can be removed from the property. The "owners" in this case are the taxpayers who fund these facilities. Private businesses that "open their doors" to the public are not required to tolerate any unsuitable behavior by their patrons, and can and do make rules to define such behavior to ensure a reasonable experience on behalf of all patrons. Your "freedom" is to choose to comply or go elsewhere.
You are talking about trespass without saying it.
As I said before: Businesses operate in a state at the pleasure of that state. Businesses open to the public do not have unfettered authority to demand the state enforce their policies. To be trespassed the law requires only one of two things; 1) a crime is being committed or 2) loitering, being their without purpose. It is that simple.

What ever happened to the proposition that your rights end where my rights begin?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,859
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Per the FBI: "This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same)." https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes

Per the Justice Department: "Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime." https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights

If you can't get the gov. to enforce the violation of the law then you could bring a private action. But I don't think the lower courts will let you get to first base.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
946
Location
Kentucky
The statute would not apply to a sole proprietorship. Then again, those folks who respect a private property owner's rights when the doors are locked and do not when the doors are open are hypocrites.
Really?

Apple's to asteroids comparison.

If I'm in a business after it's closed and locked im not a hypocrite.
I'm breaking and entering. A criminal act.

Going into private property armed isn't A criminal act except in some socialist thinking states where the RTKABA in such a case is criminalized.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
946
Location
Kentucky
Per the FBI: "This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same)." https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes

Per the Justice Department: "Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime." https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights

If you can't get the gov. to enforce the violation of the law then you could bring a private action. But I don't think the lower courts will let you get to first base.
That and most don't have the money to spare in such an effort.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,107
Location
White Oak Plantation
Really?

Apple's to asteroids comparison.

If I'm in a business after it's closed and locked im not a hypocrite.
I'm breaking and entering. A criminal act.

Going into private property armed isn't A criminal act except in some socialist thinking states where the RTKABA in such a case is criminalized.
I did not mention closed, I mentioned doors locked. Sam's, to name but one private business from the OP's op, locks it doors to the general public during their normal operating hours. We enter at their pleasure and our 1A and 2A right is subordinate to their private property right. We can be asked to leave their property due to nothing more than our being armed, as is their right. To avoid these situations I only patronize businesses that acknowledge and respect our 2A guarantee. You hold a differing position regarding private property rights...no biggie.

I remain perplexed that individual liberty seeking, rights respecting citizens do not display consistency on this particular topic.
 
Top