B
Bikenut
Guest
Sounds like a right doesn't mean it is just as sounds like it shouldn't be a right doesn't mean it isn't. Please provide cites and links to where gay marriage is a right.
Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?
- Thread starter HappeScrapn
- Start date
- Status
corneileous
Active member
You gotta understand something, tho.
Bikenut thinks the store owners right to keep you from defensively carrying surpasses your right to carry arms.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inger19
New member
Do YOU think a store owner can refuse to let a woman wear hijab?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
B
Bikenut
Guest
And while people cannot be discriminated against due to religion because the law says so the private property owner's ability to deny entry to those who carry guns is also a right and the law doesn't say they can't. Gun owners/carriers are not a legally protected class like these:
Link Removed
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII, the federal law that prohibits most workplace harassment and discrimination, covers all private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions with 15 or more employees. In addition to prohibiting discrimination against workers because of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex, those protections have been extended to include barring against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment of employees.
corneileous
Active member
B
Bikenut
Guest
Incorrect.
Private property rights allow the owner to deny entry to people who carry guns regardless of why they carry a gun. Again, no one has any right to be on/in private property without permission from the owner whether they are bearing arms or not. The property owner uses posted rules/policies/signs as notification of which members of the public do not have his permission to enter. And when the owner says he doesn't want guns on/in his property he is denying permission to enter to those who carry guns. Doesn't matter why a person is carrying a gun. All that matters to the property owner is that folks who carry guns do not have his permission to enter his property.
mikestone967
Banned
There is no Constitutional Right to marry. Period.
Justice Kagan in 2009: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage' | The Weekly Standard
Link Removed
Justice Kagan in 2009: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage'
1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.
a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?
Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.
Emphasis added. Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one. Appropriately enough, your opinion of whether or not Kagan lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
corneileous
Active member
Well, if you wanna get technical about, be my guest. Before, gays couldn't get married. Now they can.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mikestone967
Banned
Because a group of ladies and guys in gowns decided that they have the power to create Rights.
Only the willfully ignorant can believe anything less.
corneileous
Active member
Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?
Well, I spose that's one more thing for you to be angry about, ain't it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, I spose that's one more thing for you to be angry about, ain't it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
corneileous
Active member
But anyways, to get back on topic, I'll leave this here...
https://www.google.com/amp/wizbangb...gun-signs-posted-in-stores/amp/?client=safari
Reads....
They are popping up all across the country, little stickers on the front doors of businesses, restaurants and retail outlets informing concealed carry holders that they are not welcome to carry their legal firearm inside. But if you are a concealed carry holder you should ignore these attempts to curtail your rights. If you are legally armed, feel absolutely free to enter and patronize those stores with your firearm no matter what these anti-Constitution store owners want.
First of all, these stores have no right whatever to tell you that you aren’t allowed to observe your Second Amendment rights inside their establishments. No mere shop owner has the capability or the right to prevent Americans from enjoying their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
This may sound like a contradiction for many conservatives. After all, most conservatives and gun owners are very supportive of rights in general and the right of private property owners to do what they want on their own property is no less important than our Second Amendment rights. So, how can conservatives and gun owners on one hand claim to support private property rights yet on the other feel it perfectly OK to tell the owner of that property that they cannot ban a CC carrier’s gun inside?
For one thing, the ship has sailed on the claim that owners of private property have free reign to do anything they want on their property. The Supreme Court has repeatedly, for instance, told business owners that they cannot discriminate against patrons based on their sex, race, creed et al. The law states that a mere store owner cannot hamper people’s civil and Constitutional rights just because they have private property rights. One right, in other words, does not trump all–or any single–other rights.
Therefore, it is perfectly logical to state that if a store cannot refuse to serve a gay or a person of a particular race or religion because this refusal violates their Constitutional rights, then a store owner cannot act to prevent a patron from observing their Second Amendment rights, either.
But, some may still be stuck on the whole idea that a private business has certain rights to say what they want allowed on their own premises. Here a quote from Thomas Jefferson reveals why a business has no right to summarily remove a patron’s Second Amendment rights.
In his Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following: “It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.”
In other words, if a shop owner says he isn’t curtailing your Second Amendment rights by just keeping you from carrying in his shop, he is not correct. For telling someone they cannot have the tools (the gun, in this case) to observe their right then they are essentially barred from having those rights. This, incidentally, is a good argument against ammunition restrictions, too.
There is also a safety issue to consider. The whole reason that every state in the union has enacted concealed carry laws was to give citizens the means to prevent crime. A cc holder carrying his gun is just as much for the safety of those around him as it is for himself. If a store, then, is telling patrons not to carry their firearms, that store is inviting criminals to prey upon their patrons.
Here it is apropos to note that a restaurant in Durham, North Carolina was recently robbed at gunpoint even though it had its little “no guns” signs on its front door. Note that the sign only prevented legal, law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. It didn’t stop any crime–in fact it may have invited it.
Then there is the whole point of a concealed carry license holder carrying a concealed weapon. A concealed weapon is not visible to those around the carrier. Therefore, if no one else even knows you are carrying, this cannot possibly hurt the store. This means a shop owner’s whining about your gun is nothing else but a political act and his political ideology does not trump your legal right to carry.
Speaking of legality, if the state says you are legally allowed to carry your firearm, how is it that a shop owner imagines he has the right to trump even state law?
Many store owners, though, are telling gun owners that this is no big deal. An easy solution, they say, is that gun owners should just leave their guns in their cars. This is an entirely dangerous thing to do. Leaving a gun unattended in a car invites break ins and theft. If my car gets broken into and my gun stolen while I am in Starbucks shouldn’t the coffee shop be held liable? After all, they insisted I leave my gun in may car before I went in for some coffee, didn’t they?
In the end, gun owners who are legally carrying their firearms should feel free to ignore these little no gun signs. These signs do not hold any legal restrictions over your right to carry. Certainly as a gun owner you may realize that these businesses are telling you that they do not want your business and you may just refuse to spend your money with them. But if you don’t care what these shop owners think and you like their wares, then feel free to ignore their powerless little signs and patronize them with your gun.
So, yes, dear store owner. Your little sign means nothing to me. It has no force of law and your little sign cannot trump my Constitutional rights. I will ignore your sign and carry my gun into your establishment whether you like it or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.google.com/amp/wizbangb...gun-signs-posted-in-stores/amp/?client=safari
Reads....
They are popping up all across the country, little stickers on the front doors of businesses, restaurants and retail outlets informing concealed carry holders that they are not welcome to carry their legal firearm inside. But if you are a concealed carry holder you should ignore these attempts to curtail your rights. If you are legally armed, feel absolutely free to enter and patronize those stores with your firearm no matter what these anti-Constitution store owners want.
First of all, these stores have no right whatever to tell you that you aren’t allowed to observe your Second Amendment rights inside their establishments. No mere shop owner has the capability or the right to prevent Americans from enjoying their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
This may sound like a contradiction for many conservatives. After all, most conservatives and gun owners are very supportive of rights in general and the right of private property owners to do what they want on their own property is no less important than our Second Amendment rights. So, how can conservatives and gun owners on one hand claim to support private property rights yet on the other feel it perfectly OK to tell the owner of that property that they cannot ban a CC carrier’s gun inside?
For one thing, the ship has sailed on the claim that owners of private property have free reign to do anything they want on their property. The Supreme Court has repeatedly, for instance, told business owners that they cannot discriminate against patrons based on their sex, race, creed et al. The law states that a mere store owner cannot hamper people’s civil and Constitutional rights just because they have private property rights. One right, in other words, does not trump all–or any single–other rights.
Therefore, it is perfectly logical to state that if a store cannot refuse to serve a gay or a person of a particular race or religion because this refusal violates their Constitutional rights, then a store owner cannot act to prevent a patron from observing their Second Amendment rights, either.
But, some may still be stuck on the whole idea that a private business has certain rights to say what they want allowed on their own premises. Here a quote from Thomas Jefferson reveals why a business has no right to summarily remove a patron’s Second Amendment rights.
In his Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following: “It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.”
In other words, if a shop owner says he isn’t curtailing your Second Amendment rights by just keeping you from carrying in his shop, he is not correct. For telling someone they cannot have the tools (the gun, in this case) to observe their right then they are essentially barred from having those rights. This, incidentally, is a good argument against ammunition restrictions, too.
There is also a safety issue to consider. The whole reason that every state in the union has enacted concealed carry laws was to give citizens the means to prevent crime. A cc holder carrying his gun is just as much for the safety of those around him as it is for himself. If a store, then, is telling patrons not to carry their firearms, that store is inviting criminals to prey upon their patrons.
Here it is apropos to note that a restaurant in Durham, North Carolina was recently robbed at gunpoint even though it had its little “no guns” signs on its front door. Note that the sign only prevented legal, law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. It didn’t stop any crime–in fact it may have invited it.
Then there is the whole point of a concealed carry license holder carrying a concealed weapon. A concealed weapon is not visible to those around the carrier. Therefore, if no one else even knows you are carrying, this cannot possibly hurt the store. This means a shop owner’s whining about your gun is nothing else but a political act and his political ideology does not trump your legal right to carry.
Speaking of legality, if the state says you are legally allowed to carry your firearm, how is it that a shop owner imagines he has the right to trump even state law?
Many store owners, though, are telling gun owners that this is no big deal. An easy solution, they say, is that gun owners should just leave their guns in their cars. This is an entirely dangerous thing to do. Leaving a gun unattended in a car invites break ins and theft. If my car gets broken into and my gun stolen while I am in Starbucks shouldn’t the coffee shop be held liable? After all, they insisted I leave my gun in may car before I went in for some coffee, didn’t they?
In the end, gun owners who are legally carrying their firearms should feel free to ignore these little no gun signs. These signs do not hold any legal restrictions over your right to carry. Certainly as a gun owner you may realize that these businesses are telling you that they do not want your business and you may just refuse to spend your money with them. But if you don’t care what these shop owners think and you like their wares, then feel free to ignore their powerless little signs and patronize them with your gun.
So, yes, dear store owner. Your little sign means nothing to me. It has no force of law and your little sign cannot trump my Constitutional rights. I will ignore your sign and carry my gun into your establishment whether you like it or not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reba
Sinner saved by grace
". . . Many store owners, though, are telling gun owners that this is no big deal. An easy solution, they say, is that gun owners should just leave their guns in their cars. This is an entirely dangerous thing to do. Leaving a gun unattended in a car invites break ins and theft...."
Not to mention, not every gun owning store customer has a car for locking up the gun. They could have arrived by taxi, a friend's ride, a motorcycle, a bicycle, the bus, subway, train, horseback, or on foot.
Just sayin'.
Not to mention, not every gun owning store customer has a car for locking up the gun. They could have arrived by taxi, a friend's ride, a motorcycle, a bicycle, the bus, subway, train, horseback, or on foot.
Just sayin'.
corneileous
Active member
mikestone967
Banned
As you should be as well, instead of treating it like it was legal and law...
B
Bikenut
Guest
So much confusion about the right to carry and entering private property that bans guns.
Folks with carry permits have the legal PRIVILEGE to carry since carrying concealed without that permit can result in being arrested for carrying without the permit (if caught). Not for carrying the gun but for carrying the gun without the government's permission slip called a permit. That is State gun law. There are nuances of these laws in some States as to when concealed carry permit law can be enforced. Most are concerning where a person can not carry concealed even with a permit.
Folks who carry their gun into/onto private property in violation of a property owner's no guns rule can be arrested for entering the property for trespass (if caught). Not for carrying the gun but for entering the property without the owner's permission. Trespass is also State law but is not a gun law. There are nuances of trespass laws in some States as to when or how trespass law can be enforced. Most revolve around when, or if, a person must first be informed of trespass (asked to leave). Some States require being asked to leave before an arrest can be made and some do not have that requirement.
In some States being arrested for any crime including trespass could result in a review and/or loss of that carry permit.
I am not an attorney but I strongly suggest folks research the trespass laws (the black letter laws themselves and not what some cop or their uncle said) of their own State and any State they might visit to understand how being arrested and/or convicted of what many consider the minor and unimportant crime of trespass could affect them.
Folks with carry permits have the legal PRIVILEGE to carry since carrying concealed without that permit can result in being arrested for carrying without the permit (if caught). Not for carrying the gun but for carrying the gun without the government's permission slip called a permit. That is State gun law. There are nuances of these laws in some States as to when concealed carry permit law can be enforced. Most are concerning where a person can not carry concealed even with a permit.
Folks who carry their gun into/onto private property in violation of a property owner's no guns rule can be arrested for entering the property for trespass (if caught). Not for carrying the gun but for entering the property without the owner's permission. Trespass is also State law but is not a gun law. There are nuances of trespass laws in some States as to when or how trespass law can be enforced. Most revolve around when, or if, a person must first be informed of trespass (asked to leave). Some States require being asked to leave before an arrest can be made and some do not have that requirement.
In some States being arrested for any crime including trespass could result in a review and/or loss of that carry permit.
I am not an attorney but I strongly suggest folks research the trespass laws (the black letter laws themselves and not what some cop or their uncle said) of their own State and any State they might visit to understand how being arrested and/or convicted of what many consider the minor and unimportant crime of trespass could affect them.
denny45acp
New member
Hell yes I do,
Denny Shootsalot
Denny Shootsalot
corneileous
Active member
Link Removed
Link Removed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Blueshell
Banned
There's no confusion at all. 'Shall not be infringed' means exactly that.
corneileous
Active member
- Status
