Open Carry while shopping: Please take your gun outside

[nogods]

In the '60's, the SCOTUS decided that when private property owners accept "the public" on their property, they could not prevent "the public" from the exercise of their constitutional rights as a condition of entry of those premises (Black people have the right to come and go, eat, drink,...etc, where they like, in areas set aside for public use, and the owners of those properties cannot keep them out.
Thus ended "separate but equal" bathrooms, restaurants, schools, etc. The government decided then, that property owners rights were not absolute. They made their bed then, they should have to lie in it now (carry permit reciprocity.")

Not true. The Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause was sufficient authority for congress to enact laws prohibiting discrimination. Absent the Commerce Clause, congress would be powerless to require equal protection in non-government activities, and the Constitution itself would provide no individual rights in non-government activities.

In 1946 the Supreme Court had adopted a "qausi-public places" doctrine in Marsh v. Alabama, but since that time the court restricted and then eventually reversed the quasi-public places doctrine:

Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)

Respondents sought to distribute handbills in the interior mall area of petitioner's large privately owned shopping center. Petitioner had a strict no-handbilling rule.

Petitioner's security guards requested respondents under threat of arrest to stop the handbilling, suggesting that they could resume their activities on the public streets and sidewalks adjacent to but outside the center, which respondents did.

Respondents, claiming that petitioner's action violated their First Amendment rights, thereafter brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief.

The District Court, stressing that the center is "open to the general public" and "the functional equivalent of a public business district," and relying on Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501, and Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U. S. 308, held that petitioner's policy of prohibiting handbilling within the mall violated respondents' First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner's privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center's operations, and petitioner's property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner's tenants.

The facts in this case are significantly different from those in Marsh, supra, which involved a company town with "all the attributes" of a municipality, and Logan Valley, supra, which involved labor picketing designed to convey a message to patrons of a particular store, so located in the center of a large private enclave as to preclude other reasonable access to store patrons. Under the circumstances present in this case, where the handbilling was unrelated to any activity within the center and where respondents had adequate alternative means of communication, the courts below erred in holding those decisions controlling.

 

[VA Pete]

I think you may jump on me for this but, do we have to use insults? We must not be fighting our own in private, maybe a private post, to the side. It is a free forum and you have the right. Just saying.

If you search thru these forums and look at Axeanda45's previous posts, you'll notice that hysterics, name-calling, defensiveness, and posturing are all pretty common for him. Some people just like this sort of thing.

 

[Deserteagle]

I think you may jump on me for this but, do we have to use insults? We must not be fighting our own in private, maybe a private post, to the side. It is a free forum and you have the right. Just saying.

You have discovered what most other people on this forum have as well, Axeanda45 is somebody to add to your ignore list. Nothing but insults and childish comments from him. From a psychological point of view, he has a strong superiority complex most likely resulting from an abusive childhood. He empowers himself by bringing others down.

Oh I almost forgot, he WILL jump on you for that, and this, and Warbirds commenting on your post as well.

 

[SGB]

You have discovered what most other people on this forum have as well, Axeanda45 is somebody to add to your ignore list. Nothing but insults and childish comments from him. From a psychological point of view, he has a strong superiority complex most likely resulting from an abusive childhood. He empowers himself by bringing others down.

Oh I almost forgot, he WILL jump on you for that, and this, and Warbirds commenting on your post as well.

 

[Deserteagle]

Should have figured Axe's fan club would show up. Dont forget to call me a woman so you feel empowered too.

 

[cgiven1]

In Texas the signs have the force of law behind them. Ignore a sign and you have committed a firearm offense by illegally carrying were prohibited. If there is no sign they can ask you to leave and if you refuse you committ an offense of tresspassing. I don't argue that a business can't post the sign or ban firearms inside their business. My point is if you have a policy against guns, be honest about it so that gun owners can go where their business is wanted. If you allow concealed carriers to have guns, then you don't have a anti-gun policy. You are simply trying to have it both ways. Appease the anti-gunners by not having an open display of guns on the premise while appeasing gun owners who carry concealed as they are never made aware of the policy. I have no interest in supporting a business that tries to have it both ways. You either stand up for the law and rights of your customers or your honest about displaying your intent to excercise your rights to ban the guns. The policy is either no guns or guns allowed. That is how you prevent conflict when you have to approach someone and ask them to leave.

One other thing I should mention. The signs used to ban weapons inside a premise must meet the standards that are outlined in the law. A simple no guns allowed won't cut it and there is no firearm offense if you ignore it. It's only a tresspass charge if you're asked to leave and refuse.

 

[Bikenut]

One other thing I should mention. The signs used to ban weapons inside a premise must meet the standards that are outlined in the law. A simple no guns allowed won't cut it and there is no firearm offense if you ignore it. It's only a tresspass charge if you're asked to leave and refuse.

Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.

 

[Axeanda45]

I think you may jump on me for this but, do we have to use insults? We must not be fighting our own in private, maybe a private post, to the side. It is a free forum and you have the right. Just saying.

The individual I was responding to has almost CONSTANTLY twisted what I have said and has come up with attacks without any basis in reality... Yelling/attacking me for crap pulled out his a$$ instead of what I have written...
It had just gotten to me more than usual... which resulted in the post you quoted.


Remember though, I never twisted your arm and forced you to read any of my posts...

 

[Axeanda45]

If you search thru these forums and look at Axeanda45's previous posts, you'll notice that hysterics, name-calling, defensiveness, and posturing are all pretty common for him. Some people just like this sort of thing.

Actually 90% of the time I am defending the truth from people with no clue.. The other 10%,I am just being an a$$

 

[Axeanda45]

You have discovered what most other people on this forum have as well, Axeanda45 is somebody to add to your ignore list. Nothing but insults and childish comments from him. From a psychological point of view, he has a strong superiority complex most likely resulting from an abusive childhood. He empowers himself by bringing others down.

Oh I almost forgot, he WILL jump on you for that, and this, and Warbirds commenting on your post as well.

Defending the truth and pointing out dangerous advice from those who have no clue (like you) doesnt make me popular, but I really dont give a crap about that. I would rather the truth,no matter how ugly, comes out than to sit back and let some newbie think what YOU said is correct...

 

[Axeanda45]

Should have figured Axe's fan club would show up. Dont forget to call me a woman so you feel empowered too.

I have a fan club?