Yea, that would require a gay cardOriginally Posted by HoneyBadger
Attachment 61147
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Yea, that would require a gay card
Attachment 61147
Maybe I should be clear up front this is not about open carry and I'm not asking for any new rights to be granted. This all about concealed carry and patrons with carry permits having the right to do just that. We as gun owners need to very cautious about who can by fiat take away any right we have won in hard fought battles. And that includes private citizens trying to take those rights.
Having said that, talk about a ridiculous statement! Nowhere in anything I said, would I give anybody the right to trespass, nor would I take away your right to keep someone out of your home armed or not. And what is a "God Card"? A CCW is a means that we as a society have put in place to control who can carry a concealed gun. It does not give you any other right beyond enhancing your ability for self defense.
Obviously you can see the difference, your home is not a facility open to the public. Entering a business as a patron that's open to the public is not trespassing during business hours. You don't have the right to keep gays out of your business, but if I understand you, if I have a permit and carry a concealed gun you can keep me out for that reason alone? How is one right protected and one not? It is no more harmful to your business and the general public for someone licensed to have a gun in there pocket than it is being gay, concealed means concealed. You say it's ok for the business to take away your right to self defense, while society tells you that you can't be trusted with the decision to keep people out that you may not like. And how does my right to self defense harm your business, unless I brandish? We have many rules in place governing a private business, but we can't make rules that go against constitutional rights as they pertain to a business.
Owning a business does not grant unlimited private property rights. Business owners already subordinate there rights to fire dept, health dept, liquor licensing etc. This is about a business owner not being allowed to take away my licensed right to self defense. As long as I have complied with the rules we as a society have in place, by obtaining a permit, I should be allowed my legal choice to defend myself. I also believe these rights should not be something that the owner of the business can take away from his employees.
And this is not about if I believe society even has the right to make rules about how I defend myself. Who ever you choose to be in your home is not being challenged here nor should it be challenged.
Life's hard when you're stupid
When the government came to take our guns, they knocked on the door. After our guns were gone, they never bothered knocking again - Holocaust Survivor
Dude, it's not about taking away rights. If you voluntarily enter someone else's private property, you cannot just do whatever you want. A store is some private citizen's property. Nobody is taking your rights away if you enter their property and remain on their property voluntarily. If they ask you to leave their property (BUSINESS HOURS DON'T MATTER) and you refuse, then you are trespassing.
Also, your argument about businesses already submitting to laws for liquor licensing and other business regulation is a separate and unrelated issue. If you want the government to force another individual to do something that you cannot legally force them to do yourself, YOU are the tyrant.
Just to make things even more clear, because this might be the root of the problem: You do not have the right to force someone to do business with you.
Last edited by HoneyBadger; 09-25-2015 at 16:06.
My Feedback
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." -Frederic Bastiat
"I am a conservative. Quite possibly I am on the losing side; often I think so. Yet, out of a curious perversity I had rather lose with Socrates, let us say, than win with Lenin."
― Russell Kirk, Author of The Conservative Mind
You've been gone a few. perhaps you missed the ruling against that cake maker.
The Great Kazoo's Feedback
"when you're happy you enjoy the melody but, when you're broken you understand the lyrics".
Oh right - I forgot! Our rulers decided that the principles of liberty that our country was founded upon don't exist if it makes gay people mad or hurts somebody's feelings.
My Feedback
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." -Frederic Bastiat
"I am a conservative. Quite possibly I am on the losing side; often I think so. Yet, out of a curious perversity I had rather lose with Socrates, let us say, than win with Lenin."
― Russell Kirk, Author of The Conservative Mind
Most businesses open to the public are private property with some limitations on the owners of that property.
The classic example is the restaurant where the owner decides that they will not seat or serve old people. The private property owner would be sued for discrimination and the private property owner would most likely lose. Private property such as a residence, that is not open to the general public, except by invitation, would give the property owner greater latitude in restricting who and what was permitted on their property.
Regardless, if you are asked to leave another person's property, the proper thing to do is leave peaceably. If you believe you have been wrongfully asked to leave, consult with an attorney who specializes in civil rights litigation and make a decision how you would like to address the perceived wrong.
The cake maker did not refuse service, just refused certain specific types of service. The conflict is which personal rights have greater standing, the right to be treated equally or the right to religious expression.
HB, It appears you are reading some of what I posted, however, not sure why you bring up other issues. In the spirit of discussion I will respond to your other issues. I totally agree a person, with or without a gun, is committing trespass if they don't leave your business if asked. I also agree no one should be allowed to "do whatever they want" in your business. Good issues that may deserve further discussion but they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about a gun legally in the pocket of a patron that nobody knows even exists. And if, this patron uses that gun to thwart an attack without firing a shot. I say that just because you own the business you should have no right to a legal remedy against a patron simply because they legally have a gun and you find out and don't like it. Simply owning a business and having a gun free sign does not afford someone the right to take another person's second amendment right to self defense. I know some business owners can and do wield that kind power over the minions but I believe in this country they should have never been given that authority. I believe we should not allow any citizen to have that control over another just because they have a business. There are many advantages to owning a business just not disarming legally armed citizens.
It appears to be your position as the owner of a movie theater, with "no guns" posted at the door, you could have somebody with a gun arrested for trespass because they popped James Holmes in the head before anybody else died. I believe that attitude is exactly why these shootings happen in the first place. People believing they have the right to create a gun spree zone without any responsibility for the consequences.
You have said nothing that convinces me that you as a business owner have the authority to disarm me in your business unless I'm doing something illegal with the gun. Carrying it in my pocket is not illegal with a permit nor should it be in your business. I believe the only right a business owner has would be to see a copy of my permit if he suspects I'm armed and if I'm asked I must be truthful about possession.
Life's hard when you're stupid
When the government came to take our guns, they knocked on the door. After our guns were gone, they never bothered knocking again - Holocaust Survivor
Yes it does. It's called private property rights. The Second Amendment forbids the GOVERNMENT from keeping you weaponless (with some exceptions that I hope will eventually be overturned). Your right to carry/speak/worship/etc. does not outweigh MY right to control what's happening on MY property. You have every right to not patronize my store or services. Now, if your piece is properly concealed, the property owner will never know unless/until you have to use it. At that point, the property owner can thank you for your action, ask you to leave their premises, ignore your actions, etc.
I get it, like so many liberals, you want to dictate what the business can do with its property and how it can regulate its clientele. I suppose next you will say restaurants have no right to post signs saying "No shirt, No shoes, No business" or that the gun stores that posted signs saying Obama voters were unwelcome had to do business with those cretins.
I believe the "no guns" attitude is foul and attracts miscreants like Holmes but it is their right to post those rules at a private business. They can't charge you with trespass unless/until you refuse to leave when asked but they don't give up their private property rights.
You seem to believe all businesses are public accommodations much like the ACLU and Obama do. Unfortunately for your point -- and fortunately for us -- most courts still seem to recognize most private property rights despite the infamous cake and photographer rulings.
Dude... NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT DISARMING ANYONE.
My Feedback
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." -Frederic Bastiat
"I am a conservative. Quite possibly I am on the losing side; often I think so. Yet, out of a curious perversity I had rather lose with Socrates, let us say, than win with Lenin."
― Russell Kirk, Author of The Conservative Mind
Ok, I'll give this one more try. It is my point that people regardless of how much money they have, should not be allowed to keep me from legally protecting myself. That has nothing to do with what our piece of shit president believes. And really you think "No shirt, No shoes, No business" is the equivalent to having something in your pocket that nobody can see. Having a gun in your pocket is like being gay, as long as no one knows, nobody is uncomfortable.
Having a legally carried gun is right that SHOULD not be revoked by any individual any more than being gay or black and walking into a public business can be revoked by an individual business owner. Being denied to CCW in a business is every bit as prejudice as preventing a gay from entering. While you here and we as a society don't currently want to allow CCW to be outside the purview of private property owners. So for the 35th time, I THINK IT'S WRONG. I know now you guys don't agree, but I don't think that my position makes me a liberal. This is all about my opinion, this not about me misunderstanding the existing law. I realize I'm going this position alone but it's what I believe.
Life's hard when you're stupid
When the government came to take our guns, they knocked on the door. After our guns were gone, they never bothered knocking again - Holocaust Survivor
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote