Are No Gun signs dicriminatory?

[walt629]

The question is "Is the posting of No Gun signs discriminatory against a particular section of the population ,gun owners?"

Are we, as legal gun owners, being discriminated against simply because we choose to exorcize our 2A rights? Of course the answer is a resounding YES! It is discrimination!

Since, according to many of the arguments we've had, the gun is nothing more that an inanimate object, a tool if you will, and a walking cane, by definition, would fall into the same tool category, would it be okay for a shop owner to post a "No Cane" sign?

The cane analogy may not be the best one I could have chosen but I think you get the idea.

Would the discrimination against legal gun carrying citizens be the same as discrimination against a person because of the fact that they use a cane for their daily safety?

 

[chiefpropellerhead]

I see where you are going with this but I only half agree. The 2A right to "own" a gun has nothing to do with carrying it in public places. Our state laws provide us with the privelege of carrying concealed in most places and restricts our ability to carry in some places. Since the 2A right only covers gun ownership on our own property I am not sure that we can cry discrimination when a business owner decides he does not want anyone carrying a concealed weapon in his or her business. Some would argue that the 2A gives us a "right" to carry our firearms anywhere we so please. I do not get that interpretation when I read the 2A. I exercise my right to refuse to spend my hard earned cash in any business establishment that forces me to disarm myself.

 

[BC1]

I think forbidding a cane would be descrimination against the disabled, which is a prohibited act by law as they are a protected group. Persons carrying a handgun are not classified under the U.S. Civil Rights Act as a protected group.

One must understand that their right to free speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms and other protections end when they enter private property. For example, you can throw someone out of your house or business because they won't shut up, disarm, or disband an unlawful assembly. There is a long history of case-law surounding this. Places like the local mall are not public but rather are private property owned by a private corporation in the business of renting stores for a profit. They reserve (rightfully) the right to determine who may enter the premises, provided they aren't discriminating against any protected group.

I can't imagine a world where I can't decide who enters my private property or regulate the actions of those on my property. They are free to shop elsewhere.

 

[Bob in Bristol]

Yes, it is discrimination. The problem is the law provides for discrimination by deciding what, who or whom maybe discriminated against. In the mall example, they can not keep someone out because of appearance (long hair, tattoos, body piercing, etc.........). They usually only remove people that are disorderly. Walking through the mall CC`ing is not in itself disorderly. The law is what we let it be. For now we can still go shopping where we are not discriminated against, that`s what I do.

 

[BC1]

Yes, it is discrimination. The problem is the law provides for discrimination by deciding what, who or whom maybe discriminated against. In the mall example, they can not keep someone out because of appearance (long hair, tattoos, body piercing, etc.........). They usually only remove people that are disorderly. Walking through the mall CC`ing is not in itself disorderly. The law is what we let it be. For now we can still go shopping where we are not discriminated against, that`s what I do.

Yes, they absolutely can keep someone out for a tatoo, body piercing, an offensive T-shirt or any other reason they see fit so long as it does not violate the rights of a person classified under the United States Civil Rights Act. I can refuse to hire someone becuase they have a tatoo or body piercing. I can walk up to a customer and tell him he's too ugly to be in my place of business. Ugly people aren't a protected group. If he refuses to leave he's charged with criminal trespass. If I kick-out a crippled person because he keeps banging his wheelchair into my merchandise, I'm witin the law. He may file a charge that my actions were discriminatory but he loses as I don't have to allow damage to merchandise just because he's crippled. You have no constitutional right to carry a firearm on any private property anywhere in America. There is substantial caselaw on this topic.

 

[OpenCarryYes]

What does it mean to "keep and bear arms"? If, to bear an arm means to carry it then, how does this not violate the bill of rights

 

[Bob in Bristol]

Yes, they absolutely can keep someone out for a tatoo, body piercing, an offensive T-shirt or any other reason they see fit so long as it does not violate the rights of a person classified under the United States Civil Rights Act. I can refuse to hire someone becuase they have a tatoo or body piercing. I can walk up to a customer and tell him he's too ugly to be in my place of business. Ugly people aren't a protected group. If he refuses to leave he's charged with criminal trespass. If I kick-out a crippled person because he keeps banging his wheelchair into my merchandise, I'm witin the law. He may file a charge that my actions were discriminatory but he loses as I don't have to allow damage to merchandise just because he's crippled. You have no constitutional right to carry a firearm on any private property anywhere in America. There is substantial caselaw on this topic.

I would like to see some case examples where people have been removed from a mall on appearance alone, without them being disorderly. Offensive T-Shirts can be disorderly. They can not remove someone in a wheel chair, they must provide easy access for people in wheel chairs, but if you take your wheel chair and try to run people down and damage merchandise, that`s disorderly, and you stand a good chance you will be rolling out of the mall, and charges pending. When you open a store, you open to the public. Wisconsin State law provides CC, except in places set by Wisconsin or Federal laws (Police Stations, Court Rooms, bars while drinking, etc.....). Wisconsin and Federal laws allows CC in stores, but also allows the store owner to discriminate against CC`er, and the CC`er to discriminate against the store by not shopping there (my method of discriminating). I am using the literal definition of discriminate.

 

[BC1]

What does it mean to "keep and bear arms"? If, to bear an arm means to carry it then, how does this not violate the bill of rights

At no time in American history has there been a court ruling that equates or defines the terms "bear" and "carry" as one and the same. Even recent decisions in Heller and McDonald have refused to define them as one and the same. A fed court ruling in September 2011 ruled that any state may refuse to provide a permit to carry without violating the second amendment.

Society defines "bear" as "carry" based on literary use or Websters Dictionary but that is not applicable in law. All laws are defined not in a literary sense but rather based on interpretations through case law; prior decisions that define the meaning. At some point the high court will be forced to take on this issue. Until then it stands, not as we think it should but as the courts define it. One must also remember that at the time the second amndment was ratified (1791), people did not go about armed without cause. It wasn't an issue. There was little violent crime as we see today. It was a kinder, gentler society from a statistical perspective.

I'm gonna get flamed for this post but people must realize it isn't my opinion, it's simply historical fact.

 

[BC1]

I would like to see some case examples where people have been removed from a mall on appearance alone, without them being disorderly. Offensive T-Shirts can be disorderly. They can not remove someone in a wheel chair, they must provide easy access for people in wheel chairs, but if you take your wheel chair and try to run people down and damage merchandise, that`s disorderly, and you stand a good chance you will be rolling out of the mall, and charges pending. When you open a store, you open to the public. Wisconsin State law provides CC, except in places set by Wisconsin or Federal laws (Police Stations, Court Rooms, bars while drinking, etc.....). Wisconsin and Federal laws allows CC in stores, but also allows the store owner to discriminate against CC`er, and the CC`er to discriminate against the store by not shopping there (my method of discriminating). I am using the literal definition of discriminate.

Happens all the time... everywhere. In my town no one under 18 years old can enter the mall without a parent or gaurdian. You must show ID. Can't enter my bank with sunglasses, a hoodie or hat on. Can't eat in my favorite restaurant while wearing a hat. Yet guns are not forbidden in any of the places mentioned.

A business, such as a mall that is open to the public, is not defined as a public entity. It is a privately owned business that holds property. The rules on that property are not the same as on the public sidewalk but rather are set by the company. Anyone is free to challenge their policies but it's generally a no win situation. Many of our constitutional rights end where they impose on another's rights. For example, as a property owner / business owner I may be scared of guns. Therrefor I am not required to allow guns on my private property as this interferes with my rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Perhaps I'm not happy when people are armed around me. People are free to shop elsewhere and cannot impose their views on me.

Hell even NRA rules forbid anyone to posses a loaded firearm in the classroom of any NRA course. Including the instructor. Any instructor who violates this rule loses his/her NRA certifications.

When it came to my employees I put it to a vote. The majority felt they did not want their fellow employees carrying in the office. So the "no guns" policy went into effect. Now I'm a businessman. Those employees keep the business running. I'm not willing to lose them and adversly affect my profits just to let someone else carry a gun. The heat packers were free to seek employment elsewhere if they felt violated. But none did. We paid our employees very well. The policy went in the employee handbook but I never asked or actively enforced this policy so they may have continued to carry for all I know. If they were to violate the policy I would have merely warned them not to continue to carry. Continued violations would have warranted dismissal.

When considering this topic one must also remember that there is no U.S. constitutional right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. We're all one state election away from anti-gun officials who could strip carry rights without violating the constitution.

 

[walt629]

When considering this topic one must also remember that there is no U.S. constitutional right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. We're all one state election away from anti-gun officials who could strip carry rights without violating the constitution.

Care to shed some additional light on this statement for us? I guess I'm kind of confuse about what the 2A actually protects.

No being argumentative, I'm not sure I understand the statement. That's all.

 

[SGB]

 

[tattedupboy]

Let's look at the entire constitution, not just 2A. If someone uses language I don't like while patronizing my business, I absolutely can kick them out (1A). If I am an atheist, I have the right to make a rule banning anyone from trying to proselytize my customers inside my business (also 1A). I have the right not to allow the press in my business (also 1A). I have the right to drug test anyone who works at my business and can make their employment contingent upon it (4A). The point I'm making is yes, business owners have every right to decide whether or not guns are allowed on THEIR property, just as they have the right to decide on all the other matters I brought up as examples.

 

[nogods]

Care to shed some additional light on this statement for us? I guess I'm kind of confuse about what the 2A actually protects.

No being argumentative, I'm not sure I understand the statement. That's all.

you'll find a summary of the current case law here: Federal District Court Holds that 2A Does Not Apply Outside the Home

That article just expresses the law as it is today. Personally I think the SCOTUS will eventually rule that a complete prohibition on carry outside the home violates the 2nd, but I don't think the SCOTUS will ever rule that carry outside the home can't be regulated in some fashion.

Now here's the odd thing. All gun owners are going to end up being thankful that Chicago prohibited all firearm ownership because that extreme position lead to McDonald and the ruling that the 2A applies to the states.

We are also going to be thankful someday that Illinois prohibited all carry outside of the home because that extreme position will lead to a SCOTUS ruling that such a law violates the 2A, establishing 2A rights outside the home.

It will take decades to further define 2A rights outside the home after we get that first decision.

 

[BC1]

Care to shed some additional light on this statement for us? I guess I'm kind of confuse about what the 2A actually protects.

No being argumentative, I'm not sure I understand the statement. That's all.

The second amendment, as defined by the SCOTUS in the recent cases of Heller and McDonald, protects the individual right to own a firearm. It provides the right to own a handgun as such is particularly suited to home defense. It prohibits laws from being passed that are so restrictive in nature as to constitute a complete ban (ie; requirements to disassemble or lockup the gun as this prevents the gun from being readily available for the intended use of self-defense). The court fell short of defining the second amendment to include the right to carry a firearm, leaving the decision to the states, respectively. Thus the wide range of convoluted state laws. Considering there is no SCOTUS ruling on carry, any state may deny carry to all or any of its citizens. According to a U.S. District Court ruling in September 2011, denying the right to carry was not a violation of the second amendment. This issue is eventually headed to the SCOTUS.

Still, our constitutional rights are violated all the time.

Consider the first amendment. If I go to the mall and start lecturing on politics I can be sure mall security will ask me to cease. If I continue the police will arrive and ask me to cease. If I continue talking I'm arrested for criminal trespass. If at my arraignment I continue to talk I can be assured a charge of criminal contempt. If at trial I continue to exercise my first amendment rights the judge might have my mouth taped shut like Larry Flynt. If I won't stop talking in church I can be charged with disruption of a religious service. Same for city hall. And on and on.

Consider the second amendment. Same scenario at the mall. Security sees the gun printing and asks about it. Despite having the proper permit they tell you it's mall policy that no one may be armed. When the police arrive you stand on your second amendment right. You're arrested for criminal trespass. The gun had little to with it as you]re not being charged with a gun crime. The property owner has the right to remove persons he isn't comfortable with. Now if the guy carrying is in a wheelchair and packing a gun he can't use the handicapped defense to justify remaining at the mall armed and against their policy. He too may be arrested for trespass.

It even extends to our fourth amendment with incidents many thousands of times every day. People are stopped and searched by police on some B.S. probable cause and find nothing.

Even Abraham Lincoln subverted the constitution during the civil war. He suspended habeas corpus, kept thousands of Americans incarcerated without charges, derived the population the right to speedy trial. He shut down numerous news agencies and forced the railroads into government service. The end justified the means.

I think Obama feels the same way about his reshaping of America.

 

[BravoSierra2012]

They have the right to put the signs up as they please. I have the right to not spend my money there or to walk into the business, buy something, and leave without mentioning my firearm that's on my person. Personally I don't support them and let people I know that the business doesnt want firearms in their building. I've been told some of the issues come down to insurance premiums.

 

[walt629]

Decent explanation BC1 and Nogods, Thanks! Correct me if I'm wrong but the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of citizen from being trampled by the government but not trampled by another citizen.

If a civil rights march is stopped by Federal Marshals on a public street (not withstanding permits and such) that would be a violation of the Constitutional Right to freedom of speech. But if the same march crosses onto my property then I can stop it and not be in violation of their 1A. Hence the reasoning that a private property owner has the right to establish rules on their property that, at first blush, would smack of Constitutional infringement but still be completely legal. Yes?

 

[walt629]

They have the right to put the signs up as they please. I have the right to not spend my money there or to walk into the business, buy something, and leave without mentioning my firearm that's on my person. Personally I don't support them and let people I know that the business doesnt want firearms in their building. I've been told some of the issues come down to insurance premiums.

I've only spoken directly with the owner of a "no Gun" shop once. He also told me the reasoning was liability insurance reasons. He was straight forward with the explanation. When I told him this was the last time I'll be coming into his store, he just told me "it is what it is". I haven't gone back since.

 

[crowsnake]

IMHO if they can throw a bum out of a fancy store or have a not shirt no shoes no service rule. A dress code etc. then they have the same right with guns. Legally speaking.

Do I agree with the idea they can stop you from conceal carry. No cause unless you need 2 use it then they can't legally search you. Keep it concealed & if they get robbed don't help unless they actually start shooting people & your lifes in danger. Judged by 12 carried by 6 thing.

 

[tuts40]

I see where you are going with this but I only half agree. The 2A right to "own" a gun has nothing to do with carrying it in public places. Our state laws provide us with the privelege of carrying concealed in most places and restricts our ability to carry in some places. Since the 2A right only covers gun ownership on our own property I am not sure that we can cry discrimination when a business owner decides he does not want anyone carrying a concealed weapon in his or her business. Some would argue that the 2A gives us a "right" to carry our firearms anywhere we so please. I do not get that interpretation when I read the 2A. I exercise my right to refuse to spend my hard earned cash in any business establishment that forces me to disarm myself.

That kind of thinking is an insult to many people, of this I have no doubt. Please let me explain.

"...to bear arms shall not be infringed." It does NOT say "...shall not be infringed on your own property", or "government can infringe on your right to bear arms wherever it deems worthy. Geez, dude, I'm not even a lawyer!! Lawyers twist and interpret to further their own well being. Making the simple seem complicated not only ensures job security, but for those who are looking to poke holes in our Founding Documents it is the perfect way to elevate, so they feel, those documents "above the common man's understanding".

Let me assist you further:

"People" = Us, you and I.
"Bear" = to have, carry.
"Arms" = Guns
"Infringed" = limitations placed; complete freedom of reduced.

One more step in cleansing the lefty brainwash out:

"no guns" = Duh, can't believe any of this has to be explained.

 

[BravoSierra2012]

Had to revisit my earlier post. Just because I say they have a right to put up the sign doesn't mean I believe it is constitutionally correct. I live by the 12/6 rule. My own wife has glared me down for walking past a sign while carrying. Does that mean I made the "wrong" choice? I believe that the choice, the gamble, and possibly the life is up to the one carrying. Breaking a rule is not always bad. Intention is what causes situations to go wrong.