Open Carry while shopping: Please take your gun outside

[Bikenut]

No argument on the concept of what you say, however, I ask you this: If there are not openly posted "NO GUN" signs and you are CCing and no one approaches you to remove yourself and your gun from the premises, how would you know that you were shopping at an "anti gun" establishment in the first place? I'm just asking...

If you don't know the business is anti gun because you have not been informed in some way then the presumption is... they aren't anti gun until they tell you they are in some way.

But I am referring to the folks who already know the business is anti gun but still shop there and support that anti gun business because they think as long as they CC then no one will know they are sneaking their gun in.

Well, someone does know.... they themselves know... and they themselves know they are giving their money to the very folks who want to take away the ability to carry a gun. And they themselves know they are disrespecting the property owner's property rights by sneaking a gun in. And to make things worse ... some of those folks will go online and post how they support the right to bear arms while bragging about how "concealed means concealed so I can shop all day and no one will know I'm disrespecting the private property rights of others".

 

[SouthernBoy]

If you don't know the business is anti gun because you have not been informed in some way then the presumption is... they aren't anti gun until they tell you they are in some way.

But I am referring to the folks who already know the business is anti gun but still shop there and support that anti gun business because they think as long as they CC then no one will know they are sneaking their gun in.

Well, someone does know.... they themselves know... and they themselves know they are giving their money to the very folks who want to take away the ability to carry a gun. And they themselves know they are disrespecting the property owner's property rights by sneaking a gun in. And to make things worse ... some of those folks will go online and post how they support the right to bear arms while bragging about how "concealed means concealed so I can shop all day and no one will know I'm disrespecting the private property rights of others".

Well put but I would add one exception to this.

There are some places where, unfortunately for those of use who carry, a "No Guns" sign is posted but they are the only game in town. In such cases, we either choose to go without, enter unarmed, or conceal our piece and enter anyway. This is a very personal choice and I can easily see times where, when a particular business is the sole provider of a product or service, we must do what we feel is best for us at that instant time.

There is a theater not too far from where I live which after going to it several times, I found out that it was posted. I had heard rumors to this effect and attempted to locate a sign of some sort during their closed hours but was not able to find one. So just to be "safe", I concealed when I went there. Then a friend told me where the sign was and sure enough, it was there on an 8" X 11" piece of copy paper. Problem is, this theater is the only one around within a reasonable distance so I am left with a dilemma should I ever decide to go there again.

I avoid businesses which post gun-buster signs because of the obvious reasons and most always I OC so that can present a problem. Fortunately, such places are not very common where I live so I can go about my daily affairs without having to worry about whether or not I can or should carry into a place of business.

 

[Axeanda45]

If you don't know the business is anti gun because you have not been informed in some way then the presumption is... they aren't anti gun until they tell you they are in some way.

But I am referring to the folks who already know the business is anti gun but still shop there and support that anti gun business because they think as long as they CC then no one will know they are sneaking their gun in.

Well, someone does know.... they themselves know... and they themselves know they are giving their money to the very folks who want to take away the ability to carry a gun. And they themselves know they are disrespecting the property owner's property rights by sneaking a gun in. And to make things worse ... some of those folks will go online and post how they support the right to bear arms while bragging about how "concealed means concealed so I can shop all day and no one will know I'm disrespecting the private property rights of others".

"property owners rights" is a very misleading statement.. You need to step back and think about it before you start harping about "property rights" and decide just what "kind" of property is this you are speaking of...If this "property owner" has invited the PUBLIC onto his BUSINESS (not private) property, the Public does NOT lose their "rights" just because they stepped onto his "(business) property"

IF a "business" property owner wishes to make entrance onto his property conditional with a "membership" or "private club" type agreement, then he can make almost any rules he wants. (in this thread, this is actually the case, it IS a private/membership type business) The issue then becomes is this no weapon policy in the "membership rules/agreement".........

 

[Bikenut]

Well put but I would add one exception to this.

There are some places where, unfortunately for those of use who carry, a "No Guns" sign is posted but they are the only game in town. In such cases, we either choose to go without, enter unarmed, or conceal our piece and enter anyway. This is a very personal choice and I can easily see times where, when a particular business is the sole provider of a product or service, we must do what we feel is best for us at that instant time.

There is a theater not too far from where I live which after going to it several times, I found out that it was posted. I had heard rumors to this effect and attempted to locate a sign of some sort during their closed hours but was not able to find one. So just to be "safe", I concealed when I went there. Then a friend told me where the sign was and sure enough, it was there on an 8" X 11" piece of copy paper. Problem is, this theater is the only one around within a reasonable distance so I am left with a dilemma should I ever decide to go there again.

I avoid businesses which post gun-buster signs because of the obvious reasons and most always I OC so that can present a problem. Fortunately, such places are not very common where I live so I can go about my daily affairs without having to worry about whether or not I can or should carry into a place of business.

Let me ask... just because that business happens to be the only place in town does that excuse disrespecting the property owner's right by insisting on sneaking in your "permit gun" that isn't even a right?

And is the temporary entertainment of seeing a movie at that theater more important than protecting the permanent right to bear arms?

You are correct... all these things are personal choices. But, in my opinion, many folks aren't asking the correct questions before making their personal choice. Instead of asking themselves if they don't want to bother being inconvenienced by traveling further... or miss out on the gratification of buying some toy or having some entertainment.. the question should be... "Am I willing to sacrifice my integrity and sneak in a gun just because I want what I want?"

A rant follows...

What annoys me to no end is for folks to make that personal choice then complain about the right to bear arms being disrespected while disrespecting the private property rights of others. And then brag about it with "concealed means concealed" or "no one will know my little secret" to boot.

What annoys me even more is folks thinking that carry "permit" has anything at all to do with the right to bear arms. If you gotta ask permission and get a permission slip (a "permit") then you do not have the right... all you have is a paid for and ass kissed to get... "privilege" subject to being revoked at the whim of the government. And a government required permit is the exact "infringement" referred to by "shall not be infringed".

End rant.

 

[Axeanda45]

Bikenut...

What annoys ME to no end is people who confuse business property with private property....

As far as the rest of your rant, you are spot on! Couldnt agree more... a "permit" is 100% an infringement on that which shall not be infringed...

 

[Bikenut]

"property owners rights" is a very misleading statement.. If this "property owner" has invited the PUBLIC onto his property, the Public does NOT lose their "rights" just because they stepped onto his "property"

IF a "property owner wishes to make entrance onto his property conditional with a "membership" or "private club" type agreement, then he can make almost any rules he wants. (in this thread, this is actually the case, it IS a private/membership type business) The issue then becomes is this no weapon policy in the "membership rules/agreement".........

Please show me where, in the law Federal or you particular State, that states when private property owner invites the public onto/into his/her property they are required to respect the right to bear arms.

Or that when the property owner invites the public the property owner loses his/her private property right to set the rules for the use of that property by the public.

If your particular State has such a reference it will be the first I've heard of.

Please do not refer to Judge Napalitano's opinion on "public accommodations" because that is not law... it is only his opinion.

I'm not trying to be a jerk... I'd just like to know when/where private property rights were trumped by the right to bear arms.

 

[walt629]

If you don't know the business is anti gun because you have not been informed in some way then the presumption is... they aren't anti gun until they tell you they are in some way.

But I am referring to the folks who already know the business is anti gun but still shop there and support that anti gun business because they think as long as they CC then no one will know they are sneaking their gun in.

Well, someone does know.... they themselves know... and they themselves know they are giving their money to the very folks who want to take away the ability to carry a gun. And they themselves know they are disrespecting the property owner's property rights by sneaking a gun in. And to make things worse ... some of those folks will go online and post how they support the right to bear arms while bragging about how "concealed means concealed so I can shop all day and no one will know I'm disrespecting the private property rights of others".

Okay. That clarifies it. I'm with you on that respect. If you know it's an anti house and still spend your money there, then yes, I'd say you're supporting an anti house.

 

[Axeanda45]

Bikenut...
Private property is "private" that is why it is called such, right?
Business property may be "privately owned", but it is BUSINESS property...... and as such, it has a name... BUSINESS property....
Please show ME where in any laws of any state or the fed that the 2 are the same.....
Do you need to have a BUSINESS license to invite people to your house? Do you need a occupancy permits (how many allowed at one time on property) for your home? Do you need to comply with health regulations and such to serve your friends dinner? Does all the food you serve them have to be prepared in a commercial/licensed kitchen?
Those are just a very FEW examples of how a BUSINESS property is DIFFERENT than PRIVATE property....

Yet you are trying to tell us they are THE SAME THING???? Sorry, you are wrong..


As far as Judge Napalitano's opinion on "public accommodations" goes, I am VERY much more inclined to trust what a Judge who has studied and fought for Constitutional Rights has to say than the opinion of someone who is on a firearms forum......

 

[Axeanda45]

Please show me where, in the law Federal or you particular State, that states when private property owner invites the public onto/into his/her property they are required to respect the right to bear arms.

Or that when the property owner invites the public the property owner loses his/her private property right to set the rules for the use of that property by the public.

If your particular State has such a reference it will be the first I've heard of.

Please do not refer to Judge Napalitano's opinion on "public accommodations" because that is not law... it is only his opinion.

I'm not trying to be a jerk... I'd just like to know when/where private property rights were trumped by the right to bear arms.

Something else just came to mind...
Here you ask me to provide proof with "laws" yet you have argued just a few posts ago (and I agree with it) that ANY law (in your example it is permits) to do with firearms is UnConstitutional... yet now, you want me to prove my point with an on-its-face UnConstitutional law? That seems kinda hypocritical doesnt it?


It seems to me that you are the one that needs to provide proof of "Rights" disappearing when someone crosses a invisible "property line" more than I need to provide proof that they dont.... I have never seen ANY (Constitutional) law that makes "Rights" disappear when someone crosses an invisible line...

 

[Bikenut]

Bikenut...
Private property is "private" that is why it is called such, right?
Business property may be "privately owned", but it is BUSINESS property...... and as such, it has a name... BUSINESS property....
Please show ME where in any laws of any state or the fed that the 2 are the same.....
Do you need to have a BUSINESS license to invite people to your house? Do you need a occupancy permits (how many allowed at one time on property) for your home? Do you need to comply with health regulations and such to serve your friends dinner? Does all the food you serve them have to be prepared in a commercial/licensed kitchen?
Those are just a very FEW examples of how a BUSINESS property is DIFFERENT than PRIVATE property....

Yet you are trying to tell us they are THE SAME THING???? Sorry, you are wrong..


As far as Judge Napalitano's opinion on "public accommodations" goes, I am VERY much more inclined to trust what a Judge who has studied and fought for Constitutional Rights opinion over someone who is on a firearms forum......

Again, the fact that it is property that is open for the conducting of business and there are laws in place that regulate how that business may be conducted in no way negates the fact that it is "privately owned".... nor does it negate the fact that the property owner still has the right to make rules governing how the public uses that property.

Laws that dictate how a business must run is the government telling the business owner how to run his business... but private property rules are the property owner telling people that if they want to frequent his business they must behave in certain ways. If they do not the business owner/his representative can boot the customer out. The laws governing how a business must run and the rules the property owner make governing how the public must behave on the property are two distinctly different things.

Perhaps there is some confusion about what "private property" is. Basically it is any property that is not owned by the government. If it is owned by the government it is "public property" because, supposedly anyway, "we the people" own it... and "we the people" through the government set the rules. And the Bill of rights says "shall not be infringed".

We must remember the Bill of Rights is in reference to rights "we the people" said the government cannot mess with. And it (supposedly) only binds the government from messing with those rights.

But if "we the people" don't own it through the government then it is "private property" and there is not, as yet, any distinction when talking about rights! that I am aware of between private property as a business and private property as a home so the owner(s) get to set the rules concerning the behavior of those who are allowed on/in that property.

And believe it or not... when a business opens it's doors that does not mean the public now has a right to walk in... it means the owner is extending an invitation to come in with an open door. And that owner can rescind that invitation at any time by requiring a customer to leave... just like any homeowner can in/on their private property.

But the Bill of Rights does not bind a private person.

Hence a private property owner who invites the public into his business... his private property rights trump the rights of the public.. because he/she is NOT the government.

As for Judge Napalitano's opinion.... it is exactly that, his opinion, but it is not a legal opinion cast in law or case law. It is just the man Napalitano who used to be a judge offering his personal opinion. If it were otherwise I'd like to see the actual law/case law that matches his opinion.

Just because he used to be a Judge doesn't mean everything he happens to say actually is law.

 

[Bikenut]

Something else just came to mind...
Here you ask me to provide proof with "laws" yet you have argued just a few posts ago (and I agree with it) that ANY law (in your example it is permits) to do with firearms is UnConstitutional... yet now, you want me to prove my point with an on-its-face UnConstitutional law? That seems kinda hypocritical doesnt it?


It seems to me that you are the one that needs to provide proof of "Rights" disappearing when someone crosses a invisible "property line" more than I need to provide proof that they dont.... I have never seen ANY (Constitutional) law that makes "Rights" disappear when someone crosses an invisible line...

Nice try... you said:

"property owners rights" is a very misleading statement.. You need to step back and think about it before you start harping about "property rights" and decide just what "kind" of property is this you are speaking of...If this "property owner" has invited the PUBLIC onto his BUSINESS (not private) property, the Public does NOT lose their "rights" just because they stepped onto his "(business) property"

IF a "business" property owner wishes to make entrance onto his property conditional with a "membership" or "private club" type agreement, then he can make almost any rules he wants. (in this thread, this is actually the case, it IS a private/membership type business) The issue then becomes is this no weapon policy in the "membership rules/agreement".........

And I said:

Please show me where, in the law Federal or you particular State, that states when private property owner invites the public onto/into his/her property they are required to respect the right to bear arms.
-snip-

The real truth is the private property owner has the right to make rules that govern the behavior of the members of the public that have been invited onto/into the property.

The members of the public have a choice... to either accept those rules and behave accordingly while on/in that property even if it means agreeing not to exercise a right while there ... or ... go to a different business where the private property owner's rules do not require agreeing to not exercise a right.

The owner has the right to make the rules... we have the right to either agree and abide or go elsewhere.

 

[Axeanda45]

Again, the fact that it is property that is open for the conducting of business and there are laws in place that regulate how that business may be conducted in no way negates the fact that it is "privately owned".... nor does it negate the fact that the property owner still has the right to make rules governing how the public uses that property.

Laws that dictate how a business must run is the government telling the business owner how to run his business... but private property rules are the property owner telling people that if they want to frequent his business they must behave in certain ways. If they do not the business owner/his representative can boot the customer out. The laws governing how a business must run and the rules the property owner make governing how the public must behave on the property are two distinctly different things.

Perhaps there is some confusion about what "private property" is. Basically it is any property that is not owned by the government. If it is owned by the government it is "public property" because, supposedly anyway, "we the people" own it... and "we the people" through the government set the rules. And the Bill of rights says "shall not be infringed".

We must remember the Bill of Rights is in reference to rights "we the people" said the government cannot mess with. And it (supposedly) only binds the government from messing with those rights.

But if "we the people" don't own it through the government then it is "private property" and there is not, as yet, any distinction when talking about rights! between private property as a business and private property as a home so the owner(s) get to set the rules concerning the behavior of those who are allowed on/in that property.

And believe it or not... when a business opens it's doors that does not mean the public now has a right to walk in... it means the owner is extending an invitation to come in with an open door. And that owner can rescind that invitation at any time by requiring a customer to leave... just like any homeowner can in/on their private property.

But the Bill of Rights does not bind a private person.

Hence a private property owner who invites the public into his business... his private property rights trump the rights of the public.. because he/she is NOT the government.

As for Judge Napalitano's opinion.... it is exactly that, his opinion, but it is not a legal opinion cast in law or case law. It is just the man Napalitano who used to be a judge offering his personal opinion. If it were otherwise I'd like to see the actual law/case law that matches his opinion.

Just because he used to be a Judge doesn't mean everything he happens to say actually is law.

You contradict yourself quite a few times in your post here... You say there is no difference between private and business property, then go and tell us some of the differences..
You say that if a business owner invites the PUBLIC (who exactly is that again according to you? EVERYONE except the government!) into his business, he has only invited them, not their rights.... SO, according to YOU they now, once coming onto the BUSINESSMAN'S property, no longer have the right to life, the pursuit of happiness, etc... just because they took him up on that invitation? SO, it is YOUR property as a BUSINESS owner, now you can rape them, steal from them kill them, because it is your property, RIGHT? YOU said they dont have any rights on your property, not me.....
Again, why in the heck would I put more faith in YOUR opinion over that of a JUDGE??????? Are you a judge with more experience then him? have YOU gone to law school and presided over thousands of cases? I stand by Judge Napolitano's opinion over yours, sorry....

BTW... I have never stated that the business owner cannot ask someone (for ANY REASON HE WANTS) to leave, only that he does NOT have the right to deny them any of their rights...

 

[Axeanda45]

Nice try... you said:


And I said:


The real truth is the private property owner has the right to make rules that govern the behavior of the members of the public that have been invited onto/into the property.

The members of the public have a choice... to either accept those rules and behave accordingly while on/in that property even if it means agreeing not to exercise a right while there ... or ... go to a different business where the private property owner's rules do not require agreeing to not exercise a right.

The owner has the right to make the rules... we have the right to either agree and abide or go elsewhere.

Wrong.... here it is in VERY simple words, maybe now you will understand what I am saying...

If a business owner invites the "public" onto this property then he cannot pick and choose what members of the "public" takes him up on it... If he does, THEN he has no longer invited the PUBLIC onto his property, he is putting stipulations on the invite, and that is not what inviting the public means... THAT is called a PRIVATE CLUB! You fail to see the difference between the PUBLIC and INDIVIDUALS...

You claim you are talking about BUSINESS property, yet you keep describing PRIVATE property.... You still have NO CONCEPT that they are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS!

 

[Bikenut]

Wrong.... here it is in VERY simple words, maybe now you will understand what I am saying...

If a business owner invites the "public" onto this property then he cannot pick and choose what members of the "public" takes him up on it... If he does, THEN he has no longer invited the PUBLIC onto his property, he is putting stipulations on the invite, and that is not what inviting the public means... THAT is called a PRIVATE CLUB! You fail to see the difference between the PUBLIC and INDIVIDUALS...

You claim you are talking about BUSINESS property, yet you keep describing PRIVATE property.... You still have NO CONCEPT that they are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS!

Inviting the public into a business doesn't change who's name is on the deed for the property. I understand that a business is a building/land owned by a person, persons, or a company, and is therefor ... private property. With ownership comes the right to make the rules. Opening a business and inviting the public in doesn't suddenly make the public the owner...

I think you are saying that people have some kind of right to go into a business because the business is open to the public. That right does not exist. What people have is an invitation from the property owner to come into his business contingent upon agreeing to abide by the owner's rules. Failure to obey those rules will result in the invitation being rescinded and the person being required to leave.

Consider... if a person's right to bear arms trumped the property owner's right to set rules there is no way anyone could be required to leave for carrying a gun. But a property owner/business certainly can require someone to leave for carrying a gun if they so desire. Folks have been required to leave businesses for being in violation of a "no guns" policy many times. So much for Napalitano's opinion.

So what people have isn't a right to shop... folks have a choice to either agree not to exercise their right to bear arms by accepting the conditions attached to the invitation in order to have the privilege to shop.. or continue to exercise their right to bear arms by shopping somewhere else. The property owner didn't restrict their rights... they decided they needed that widget more than they wanted to exercise their right to bear arms so they agreed to the terms of the invitation by going into the business (thereby accepting the invitation).... and voluntarily restricted their own rights by agreeing to the businesses no guns policy.

I haven't contradicted myself because I'm talking about rights. And like it or not none of us has any "right" to be on/in someone elses property regardless of if it is a private club, a business, or a homeowner.

Now... simple words..

If I own a store here in Michigan that I decided I would institute a "no guns" rule and you came in wearing a gun I'd demand you leave immediately. If you wouldn't leave I'd have you arrested for trespass. And you would be arrested. So much for the idea that a business isn't private property and the public's rights trump the owner's right to make the rules. And again.... so much for Napalitano's "opinion".

Now.. to clarify. I wish businesses wouldn't restrict guns but I respect their right to do so. If I did not respect their right to make the rules on their property while demanding my right to bear arms be respected then I truly would be a hypocrite.

Now to add:

I see you are from Ohio. Does Ohio have some kind of "public accommodation" laws/case law that allows the right to bear arms to trump a business owner's private property property rights? Please provide a cite and/or link.

Although I am not an attorney... Michigan has no such law that I am aware of.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Let me ask... just because that business happens to be the only place in town does that excuse disrespecting the property owner's right by insisting on sneaking in your "permit gun" that isn't even a right?

And is the temporary entertainment of seeing a movie at that theater more important than protecting the permanent right to bear arms?

You are correct... all these things are personal choices. But, in my opinion, many folks aren't asking the correct questions before making their personal choice. Instead of asking themselves if they don't want to bother being inconvenienced by traveling further... or miss out on the gratification of buying some toy or having some entertainment.. the question should be... "Am I willing to sacrifice my integrity and sneak in a gun just because I want what I want?"

A rant follows...

What annoys me to no end is for folks to make that personal choice then complain about the right to bear arms being disrespected while disrespecting the private property rights of others. And then brag about it with "concealed means concealed" or "no one will know my little secret" to boot.

What annoys me even more is folks thinking that carry "permit" has anything at all to do with the right to bear arms. If you gotta ask permission and get a permission slip (a "permit") then you do not have the right... all you have is a paid for and ass kissed to get... "privilege" subject to being revoked at the whim of the government. And a government required permit is the exact "infringement" referred to by "shall not be infringed".

End rant.

Well you've covered two topics here. In the first one, which was a response to my response to your earlier post, I never said what I would do when confronted with a gun busters sign. I merely offered choices one is likely to be faced with when this occurs. As to the theater where I finally found a sign, I have not returned since seeing it (and I did try to find it on previous visits... it was not in an obvious location).

I am a very strong supporter of property rights because one cannot be truly free unless they own property. I am also a very strong supporter of the Bill of Rights as viewed in its original intent. This can cause a dilemma for folks who live in areas where either laws or demographics or both make it somewhat difficult to carry freely and pretty much where they want. Neither of those things are an issue for me where I live.

Now as to your second topic, that of having to ask permission of your employees to exercise a fundamental right, we are in complete agreement with this. I see nothing in Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution which requires me to submit an application to my employees for issuance of a permit to carry a concealed weapon at my pleasure. I'll be damned glad when we get rid of that requirement and return to what the Founders deemed good and proper in these regards.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Lots of discussion on this thread about private property and whether or not there is a difference between private property which is a business and that which is a dwelling. Some good points have been raised supporting both sides of the argument but there is one area where one can make a distinct determination; trespassing.

On private property, be it one's home and land or a place of business, trespassing charges can be brought against someone who one does not wish to remain on their property. By the same token, trespass signs can be ignored, just like gun buster signs with the permission of the owner or manager, of the private property. What this means is that the owner/manager has quiet control over his property and may do as he sees fit. So he does not have to allow people with grey ties to enter his domain. He can use the necessary force to eject them and summon the police to charge them with trespassing should that be his wont.

When we think of these things, sometimes it's best to think more micro... such as one's home and a small business like a small engine repair shop. Much easier to put things in perspective than when one thinks of a WalMart or Sears.

 

[Axeanda45]

*sigh*
You still have no clue...
You continue to confuse Private property with BUSINESS property... They arent the same thing, period, end of story....

If you own a BUSINESS that has INVITED the PUBLIC onto it, you have no RIGHT to deny any of those people (of the public) any of their rights...

IF it worked the way you claim, and a business owner DID have a right to deny me one of my rights as a member of the PUBLIC, you could kill me with impunity, or rape my wife and the courts could do nothing... because, it is YOUR property, so it is your rules, right?
See how crazy that is? Yet you keep insisting you (if you owned a business) could deny me my rights....
If a business owner doesnt want someone on his property for any reason whatsoever (once they arrive invited onto such property) then all he has to do is ask them to leave... If they dont leave, then the person is guilty of trespass.... BUT he has no "RIGHT" to deny them of ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS WHATSOEVER!!!!!

 

[SouthernBoy]

*sigh*
You still have no clue...
You continue to confuse Private property with BUSINESS property... They arent the same thing, period, end of story....

If you own a BUSINESS that has INVITED the PUBLIC onto it, you have no RIGHT to deny any of those people (of the public) any of their rights...

IF it worked the way you claim, and a business owner DID have a right to deny me one of my rights as a member of the PUBLIC, you could kill me with impunity, or rape my wife and the courts could do nothing... because, it is YOUR property, so it is your rules, right?
See how crazy that is? Yet you keep insisting you (if you owned a business) could deny me my rights....
If a business owner doesnt want someone on his property for any reason whatsoever (once they arrive invited onto such property) then all he has to do is ask them to leave... If they dont leave, then the person is guilty of trespass.... BUT he has no "RIGHT" to deny them of ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS WHATSOEVER!!!!!

A business owner who posts a No Guns sign or who asks someone to leave who is armed is not violating that person's rights because that person is not being disarmed... he is simply being asked to leave the premises. He is free to continue to go armed off of the property of the business owner. If this were not the case, the business owner would not have grounds for a charge of trespassing simply because the person was armed. In fact, a business owner can insist, and bring charges of trespassing, for any reason he wishes or no reason at all, against someone who enters his business, with the exception of the "protected" classes (which is something that I see as highly discriminatory against the business person).

And there is another factor to consider in this discussion. The Bill of Rights was drafted and accepted as a control against the federal government, not private individuals, which includes businesses. It is a warning to the government that there are certain rights which are not negotiable, not infringeable, and not removable. And since a business is not a governmental entity, they are left doing pretty much as they see fit.

I have to admit that I do have mixed emotions with this one myself. One side of me says my life and my safety is far more important than some rules or policies a business may wish to practice. The other side of me says that private property is one of the most basic foundations in a country where liberty and the rule of law reign. So I admit to being torn at times with this one which forces me to do my best to avoid places where I know my presence when armed is not welcome.

Lastly, can we keep this thing a bit more civil? Opposing views are best discussed in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

 

[Axeanda45]

Property rights do not trump the natural born rights of a free man. Else, I could demand sex from my mail lady as she drives onto my property every damn day, my property my rules, right?

If a business cannot keep people from an ethnic or religious group off their property, the why do they presume to keep gun owners off their property. 14th talks to race, but 2nd talks to guns. The reasoning that keep gun owners off business is the same as what denies other groups the right to frequent their business.

Gun owners are more polite. Gun owners respect property rights. And yet - Gun owners do themselves a disservice by accepting second class citizenship, by being told where they may go and what they may do. Our natural rights are acknowledged in 2A. Any business that does not accept that is in violation of the laws of the United States of America. imho.
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I claim that equal protection under the law.


Does slavery (freedom over your own body and freedom of movement) trump property? Can you enslave someone, just because they are on your property? Again, my freedom over myself trumps your property.

So I have property at #3, necessarily behind natural right to life, and control over one's own body (including movement). Because #1 and #2 are necessary before #3 can come into effect.

There appears to be an order, a primacy to natural rights. And property is clearly not the primal right.

 

[Bikenut]

*sigh*
You still have no clue...
You continue to confuse Private property with BUSINESS property... They arent the same thing, period, end of story....

You keep making that statement so I'll simply ask you to provide cites and/or links to anything... anything at all.. that supports your claim. Kindly limit your responses to the realm of "rights".

If you own a BUSINESS that has INVITED the PUBLIC onto it, you have no RIGHT to deny any of those people (of the public) any of their rights...

Any rules as a businessman I might make that put stipulations upon how members of the public must behave in order to be allowed on/in my property do not deny anyone any rights. If you were to accept the invitation to enter my business by entering and agreed to my stipulations as a condition for the privilege of shopping then it is YOU who has agreed to not exercise your right to bear arms in exchange for the privilege of shopping in my business.

We are back to the simple concept that no one has a right to be in/on another person's private property.. and a business IS privately owned therefor is private property.

IF it worked the way you claim, and a business owner DID have a right to deny me one of my rights as a member of the PUBLIC, you could kill me with impunity, or rape my wife and the courts could do nothing... because, it is YOUR property, so it is your rules, right?

Please do not be facetious. We are not talking about rules that violate law. We are talking about a property owner's right to make rules governing the behavior of people while on/in said property. You are aware of the difference I trust?

See how crazy that is? Yet you keep insisting you (if you owned a business) could deny me my rights....

-->*<--

I already said I am not denying your rights. In exchange for the privilege of being allowed, yes allowed, to enter my business YOU are agreeing to honor my stipulation to not exercise your right to bear arms. Want to continue exercising your right? Don't enter my business. It is that simple. But if you do come in I denied you nothing... you agreed of your own free will.

If a business owner doesnt want someone on his property for any reason whatsoever (once they arrive invited onto such property) then all he has to do is ask them to leave... If they dont leave, then the person is guilty of trespass.... BUT he has no "RIGHT" to deny them of ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS WHATSOEVER!!!!!

The reason a property owner can require someone to leave is they have the right to make the rules. Violate the rules and you are NOT being just "asked" but are being required to leave .. refuse to leave and you will be arrested for trespass. Do you know what trespass is? It is being on/in private property without permission.

What is permission? The action of accepting my invitation to come into my business was your tacit agreement to abide by my rules. My tacit agreement was to give you permission to come in and to allow you to be on/in my property as long as you obeyed my rules. Disobey my rules and and you no longer have my permission. No permission means you are.............. trespassing.

As far as denying anyone any rights.... let me refer you to what I said above at the -->*<--

My responses are in blue above.