• 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.

Told by Extended Stay America manager firearms are not permitted in Durham, NC

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,728
Location
here nc
Gunshot is correct, a hotel is certainly a public accommodation with interstate commerce implications, which subjects the hotel to CRA1965 remedies for certain civil rights violations. The CRA of 1965 does not include, per se, any enforcement provisions for self defense rights.

Self defense rights, including gun rights, are part of the 1865 Civil Rights Act, and are recognized by the Federal Courts as Civil Rights. If you look at the cover sheet for Heller, you will see that the civil rights box is ticked.

According to the 14th A it is up to the legislative branch to enact laws to protect our civil rights. Congress has the power to protect our self defense rights with civil rights legislation, but has so far chosen not to.

Live free or die,
Thundar
Alas Thunder, et al., a review of the Civil Rights legislative items, past or recent, you and others have cited as gospel, I continue to fail to see absolutely anything whatsoever which would lend any credence to your statement the OP’s stated event in this thread is in any way, shape or remotely has anything concerning to self defence as an active component of these referenced congressional legislative action(s) instilling ‘...without discrimination or segregation on the ground or race, color, religion, or national origin.’ [42USC 2000a - Prohibition...Public Accommodation]

What did I miss in the point(s) you were making by quite absurdly spinning this scenario into a self defence & public accommodation civil rights incident?

Oh a minor sidebar, the legislation was passed in 1866 by Congressional veto.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,938
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
What did I miss in the point(s) you were making by quite absurdly spinning this scenario into a self defence & public accommodation civil rights incident?
The absurdity is that you would so brazenly misread and misdirect a post. I was absolutely not spinning the scenario by conflating civil rights aspects of self defense and public accommodation. The two are not connected. The point is that self defense is one of many civil rights, however the 1965 Civil Rights Act does not address self defense.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,728
Location
here nc
The absurdity is that you would so brazenly misread and misdirect a post. I was absolutely not spinning the scenario by conflating civil rights aspects of self defense and public accommodation. The two are not connected. The point is that self defense is one of many civil rights, however the 1965 Civil Rights Act does not address self defense.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar
humm, did you not post on this forum agreeing with gutshot's public accommodation posting was in fact included under CFR civil rights comment, then in the same sentence redirect the commentary by stating enforcement of self defense wasn't included in the 1965 CR act, then continue in the very next sentence self defense was in fact included in the CR act of 1866?


Then for good measure dawdle off into some statement about into the land of know where stating Heller's cover sheet having a check mark under civil rights?


yet have the audacity to say mis-read, darn Thundar you initially typed and posted your multiple convoluted thoughts and apparently are brazen enough to publicly state you seem to not understand what you wrote and state I am confused? good job!
 
Top