Solution for Businesses and Firearms

[gundaddypv]

I'm wondering what your opinion of this solution would be:

Introduce and pass a State bill which requires that any business which generally opens its doors to the public (so no private country clubs or special membership organizations) be required to either A) allow firearms (they can choose to only allow concealed carry) on their premises or B) to ensure the safety of all visitors, install metal detectors and employ armed guards.

That way it's fair for everyone. Nobody has a gun (unless they are super-sneaky) and even then, there are armed guards just in case. Otherwise, let people take care of their own personal security if they so choose to.

To get the big picture, Wal-Mart allows guns. I haven't heard about any problem involving guns in Arizona at all. Dennys does not allow guns, and Link Removed


The entrances to Dennys restaurants is a bit crowded. A metal detector and armed guard would make it a bit more so.

Personally, I love the idea. But, of course, it's MY idea, so I could be a bit biased.

 

[nogods]

more people die from the flu they catch in public places. Why not require such businesses to set up blood test stations and require all patrons to be immunized before they can enter the store?

 

[Bikenut]

originally posted by gundaddypv

Solution for Businesses and Firearms
I'm wondering what your opinion of this solution would be:

Introduce and pass a State bill which requires that any business which generally opens its doors to the public (so no private country clubs or special membership organizations) be required to either A) allow firearms (they can choose to only allow concealed carry) on their premises or B) to ensure the safety of all visitors, install metal detectors and employ armed guards.

That way it's fair for everyone. Nobody has a gun (unless they are super-sneaky) and even then, there are armed guards just in case. Otherwise, let people take care of their own personal security if they so choose to.

To get the big picture, Wal-Mart allows guns. I haven't heard about any problem involving guns in Arizona at all. Dennys does not allow guns, and Man, 26, arrested in connection to Denny?s shooting - CBS 5 - KPHO


The entrances to Dennys restaurants is a bit crowded. A metal detector and armed guard would make it a bit more so.

Personally, I love the idea. But, of course, it's MY idea, so I could be a bit biased.

There is no need for any changes.... if folks don't like a businesses no guns rule... don't shop/eat there. That way everyone gets to keep their rights intact.

What many folks get confused about is "Open to the public" does not mean the public has some kind of right to be there... it only means the property owner has "invited" the public ..and the public is welcomed on/in his property as long as the public follows his rules.

We do not have any right to be on/in the private property of others and businesses are still private property. All we ever have is the property (business) owner's "permission" to be there. And that "permission" is subject to any and all rules/conditions attached to that permission. Disobey the rules/do not agree to the conditions.... results in permission to be on/in that property being denied.

So wanting property owners to have to provide security is expecting someone else to protect us because we think we have a right be on/in that property... or wanting property owner's to lose their right to ban guns just so customers can carry guns is nothing more than some customers wanting their favorite right (bearing arms) to trump the other person's favorite right (private property).

Oh... and by the way... everyone already knows that all the laws in the word... and all the property owner's rules ... and even armed security guards... do not stop criminals from carrying guns in anyway.

But even more scary about your idea gundaddypv is that you would be willing to submit yourself AND OTHERS to a passive search (metal detectors) and perhaps a more intrusive search (being wanded/patted down if the detector went off due to folks who have metal joint replacements) just so you can eat a meal/go shopping?

 

[Axeanda45]

BZZZTTTTT.... Wrong answer....
A PRIVATE club, like Sams or Costco can make rules that you need to abide by, so they have NOT invited the PUBLIC onto their property......

If you INVITE the PUBLIC onto your business property, then that is exactly what you get, the PUBLIC.... No matter how much you want to stomp your feet and claim it isnt so bikenut, it is still the absolute 100% truth....

IF the "property/business owner" didnt want the PUBLIC on his property, then why did he INVITE them? The public, for example, is everyone that is lawfully allowed to be on a public sidewalk... If it is our RIGHT to do something out the on the sidewalk as a member of the PUBLIC then it would be our RIGHT to do the SAME THING anywhere else the PUBLIC is allowed to be... otherwise, the business has NOT invited the PUBLIC, it has only invited certain people.... and would be a PRIVATE club. It cannot be both at the same time.....

 

[Bikenut]

BZZZTTTTT.... Wrong answer....
A PRIVATE club, like Sams or Costco can make rules that you need to abide by, so they have NOT invited the PUBLIC onto their property......

If you INVITE the PUBLIC onto your business property, then that is exactly what you get, the PUBLIC.... No matter how much you want to stomp your feet and claim it isnt so bikenut, it is still the absolute 100% truth....

IF the "property/business owner" didnt want the PUBLIC on his property, then why did he INVITE them? The public, for example, is everyone that is lawfully allowed to be on a public sidewalk... If it is our RIGHT to do something out the on the sidewalk as a member of the PUBLIC then it would be our RIGHT to do the SAME THING anywhere else the PUBLIC is allowed to be... otherwise, the business has NOT invited the PUBLIC, it has only invited certain people.... and would be a PRIVATE club. It cannot be both at the same time.....

And the part I put in bold and underlined for emphasis tells the story....

You can use insulting verbiage but the plain fact is quite simple... the property owner has the right to deny permission to have access to his business property to anyone carrying a gun if he wishes. That actually means he is saying that those members of the public who carry guns are not allowed to be there. And because of that the property owner of a business open to the public actually IS only inviting certain people.... he is inviting only those folks who agree to abide by his "no guns" rule. Those who do not abide by his rules he throws out (rescinds the invitation).

But to be on topic...

We all (including the property owner) have the right to bear arms. And that right is protected from government interference by the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment. But the 2nd Amendment only restricts the government... not the individual citizen.

We all (including the person bearing arms) have the private property right to be in control of our own property. That control is the same for property that is a private home or private property that the owner has decided to allow individual members of the public entry for the purpose of doing business. Both the home owner and the business owner have the private property right to control who he allows to enter by either giving... or denying... permission to enter. (There are some laws concerning "protected classes of people" the business owner must allow that the home owner doesn't have to follow. )

Now.... how do we reconcile those two supposed conflicting rights? By understanding that they do not conflict at all.

Don't like a businesses no guns rule? Shop/eat elsewhere. The business owner keeps his property right to ban guns and you keep your right to bear arms. Very simple.

And if we are going to go down the road of requiring a business that is "open to the public" to be required to allow people to carry guns... or be required to provide metal detectors and armed security............ imagine having to do that during your weekend garage sale that is "open to the public".

 

[Nightmare45]

A private property owner has the absolute right to decide who may enter his property and I have the absolute right not to spend my money where my weapon and I are not wanted.

 

[Axeanda45]

Nope, sorry... you are still wrong because you totally ignore or try to explain away the absolutely simple fact that the public is NOT just SOME of the public.......

Inviting the PUBLIC is NOT the same as inviting PART or only SOME of the public.....

IF you are only inviting some or part of the public, you are no longer inviting the PUBLIC....

IF you only want some of them, you are now a PRIVATE club..... because the PUBLIC is no longer allowed...... the PUBLIC is ALL OF US..... not just SOME OF US.....

 

[Axeanda45]

A private property owner has the absolute right to decide who may enter his property and I have the absolute right not to spend my money where my weapon and I are not wanted.

Absolutely correct sir...... to a point... But I think you are confusing a business with private property in this context..... A business open to the public is not the same thing as a private property open only to whom you want it to be open to...

As far as the right to spend or not to spend your money where you want, you are correct... and if I wish to spend my money where the public is invited, even if it is posted no firearms, I retain the right spend my money there while armed... it is MY CHOICE, not the property owners, whether I am armed or not.... I may be doing something he doesnt like or want, but I am not harming him in any way by having something in my pocket or under my shirt.... and, to top it off, he is profiting by me spending money there...

 

[Bikenut]

Nope, sorry... you are still wrong because you totally ignore or try to explain away the absolutely simple fact that the public is NOT just SOME of the public.......

Inviting the PUBLIC is NOT the same as inviting PART or only SOME of the public.....

IF you are only inviting some or part of the public, you are no longer inviting the PUBLIC....

IF you only want some of them, you are now a PRIVATE club..... because the PUBLIC is no longer allowed...... the PUBLIC is ALL OF US..... not just SOME OF US.....

Nope.... the "public" is composed of individual people and the property owner can, and does, exclude individual people from the public.

Look... it really is quite simple... if, as you assert, the "public" is all of us then why can the private property business owner refuse entry to some of us who are part of the "public"?

 

[Axeanda45]

Nope.... the "public" is composed of individual people and the property owner can, and does, exclude individual people from the public.

Look... it really is quite simple... if, as you assert, the "public" is all of us then why can the private property business owner refuse entry to some of us who are part of the "public"?

It looks very much like you just contradicted yourself, but I think I know what you are trying to say.. and if I am correct in that, I have already answered the question many times... once the business owner makes you agree to his rules by a membership system, he has NO LONGER INVITED THE PUBLIC! there, that wasnt so hard, was it.... to put it another way, UNTIL the "business owner" puts in place a membership system (think sams club, costco) he CANNOT legally refuse entry to ANYONE (public) who wants to come in!

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Nope.... the "public" is composed of individual people and the property owner can, and does, exclude individual people from the public.

Look... it really is quite simple... if, as you assert, the "public" is all of us then why can the private property business owner refuse entry to some of us who are part of the "public"?

It looks very much like you just contradicted yourself, but I think I know what you are trying to say.. and if I am correct in that, I have already answered the question many times... once the business owner makes you agree to his rules by a membership system, he has NO LONGER INVITED THE PUBLIC! there, that wasnt so hard, was it.... to put it another way, UNTIL the "business owner" puts in place a membership system (think sams club, costco) he CANNOT legally refuse entry to ANYONE (public) who wants to come in!

Really? Then why can any business owner with a business open to the public that has a "no guns" rule throw out someone carrying a gun? Or can throw out someone who has disobeyed the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule?

You do understand that being thrown out means a denial of entry... even if you are already there... right?

 

[Eidolon]

I'm wondering what your opinion of this solution would be:

Introduce and pass a State bill which requires that any business which generally opens its doors to the public (so no private country clubs or special membership organizations) be required to either A) allow firearms (they can choose to only allow concealed carry) on their premises or B) to ensure the safety of all visitors, install metal detectors and employ armed guards.

That way it's fair for everyone. Nobody has a gun (unless they are super-sneaky) and even then, there are armed guards just in case. Otherwise, let people take care of their own personal security if they so choose to.

What other decisions do you want the Government to take for small business owners?

 

[Eidolon]

Nope, sorry... you are still wrong because you totally ignore or try to explain away the absolutely simple fact that the public is NOT just SOME of the public.......

Inviting the PUBLIC is NOT the same as inviting PART or only SOME of the public.....

IF you are only inviting some or part of the public, you are no longer inviting the PUBLIC....

IF you only want some of them, you are now a PRIVATE club..... because the PUBLIC is no longer allowed...... the PUBLIC is ALL OF US..... not just SOME OF US.....

Does that include the subset of "the public" that includes robbers? I mena the public is all of us (including those who think your money belongs to all of us) not just some of us

 

[Axeanda45]

Really? Then why can any business owner with a business open to the public that has a "no guns" rule throw out someone carrying a gun? Or can throw out someone who has disobeyed the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule?

You do understand that being thrown out means a denial of entry... even if you are already there... right?

Nope, wrong again bikenut, denial of ENTRY means BEFORE entered... being kicked out AFTER entry is something very different, you know, I have tried to explain this before... words have meanings.... Entry is not the same as EXIT... you know, most Businesses even have entry and exit written on their doors to differentiate them from each other...

 

[Axeanda45]

Does that include the subset of "the public" that includes robbers? I mena the public is all of us (including those who think your money belongs to all of us) not just some of us

Absolutely! Why do you ask? You trying to "catch" me at something, just being a smartazz, or do you just not know? Thieves are just as welcome as everyone else, they just dont get to go thieving stuff is all..... Do that, and then you HAVE harmed the business owner and THAT DOES infringe on his rights.... any more questions?

 

[Bikenut]

Nope, wrong again bikenut, denial of ENTRY means BEFORE entered... being kicked out AFTER entry is something very different, you know, I have tried to explain this before... words have meanings.... Entry is not the same as EXIT... you know, most Businesses even have entry and exit written on their doors to differentiate them from each other...

Really? The moment a person "enters" in violation of a property owner's rule they have already been denied entry. The rule is a written expression of the property owner having already denied entry by those who violate the rule. Being asked (required) to leave only means the person was caught already in the act of violating the rule that denies permission to be there.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'm wondering what your opinion of this solution would be:

Introduce and pass a State bill which requires that any business which generally opens its doors to the public (so no private country clubs or special membership organizations) be required to either A) allow firearms (they can choose to only allow concealed carry) on their premises or B) to ensure the safety of all visitors, install metal detectors and employ armed guards.

That way it's fair for everyone. Nobody has a gun (unless they are super-sneaky) and even then, there are armed guards just in case. Otherwise, let people take care of their own personal security if they so choose to.

To get the big picture, Wal-Mart allows guns. I haven't heard about any problem involving guns in Arizona at all. Dennys does not allow guns, and Link Removed


The entrances to Dennys restaurants is a bit crowded. A metal detector and armed guard would make it a bit more so.

Personally, I love the idea. But, of course, it's MY idea, so I could be a bit biased.

Sounds like you want more government intervention...more government power...uhhh why?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BC1]

This one's been rehashed a zillion times. No one can force the owner of private property to allow someone to carry a gun on his premise. The entitlement generation thinks they're part owner of my premises. Couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Axeanda45]

This one's been rehashed a zillion times. No one can force the owner of private property to allow someone to carry a gun on his premise. The entitlement generation thinks they're part owner of my premises. Couldn't be more wrong.

IF you are talking about me, or including me in the blanket of "entitlement generation", here is my response:


My argument has nothing to do with trying to force someone to ALLOW others to carry a gun onto his property.... it is simply that they cannot deny a persons rights to do so... many of you get confused into thinking that entails permission to be there... it does NOT... it simply says that IF a person is there, you cannot deny them the tools/trinkets/air/property that is in his pockets....... just as you cannot deny them their right to exist, you cannot kill them for simply BEING there, even if they have something in their pocket you dont like... it is NOT threatening you at all... you do however, have every right in the world to make them leave IF they are on your property..... You can deny them access, yet if they ignore that denial, and DO come onto your property... they retain all the same RIGHTS as they would have anywhere else... like for example, the RIGHT to own/have the property they carry in their pockets or on their belt.....

The confusion really kicks in when bikenut and others think I am claiming the "intruder/trespasser/person not wanted on your property" has the right to be there in the first place, that has NEVER been said or hinted at by me.... it has all been imagined by those who either cannot read or will not read what has actually been written.....

 

[BC1]

IF you are talking about me, or including me in the blanket of "entitlement generation", here is my response:


My argument has nothing to do with trying to force someone to ALLOW others to carry a gun onto his property.... it is simply that they cannot deny a persons rights to do so... many of you get confused into thinking that entails permission to be there... it does NOT... it simply says that IF a person is there, you cannot deny them the tools/trinkets/air/property that is in his pockets....... just as you cannot deny them their right to exist, you cannot kill them for simply BEING there, even if they have something in their pocket you dont like... it is NOT threatening you at all... you do however, have every right in the world to make them leave IF they are on your property..... You can deny them access, yet if they ignore that denial, and DO come onto your property... they retain all the same RIGHTS as they would have anywhere else... like for example, the RIGHT to own/have the property they carry in their pockets or on their belt.....

The confusion really kicks in when bikenut and others think I am claiming the "intruder/trespasser/person not wanted on your property" has the right to be there in the first place, that has NEVER been said or hinted at by me.... it has all been imagined by those who either cannot read or will not read what has actually been written.....

I wasn't talking about you, I was referring to the OP. 150 years of SCOTUS decisions is against your opinion though. The bill of rights doesn't mean what you interpret, it means what the SCOTUS interprets. It's between you and the government, not you and any other person. How do you reconcile my castle doctrine rights against a suggestion I can't disarm you on m property? Which wins-out in a conflict on my private property. You believe you can legally carry and use a gun against me in defense on my property when you clearly have no right to be there armed or unarmed? I can't forcibly remove you for any reason? Better check thousands of cases already decided. People with that belief should never enter my property.
.
Then again, I don't care about anyone's rights where my wishes are concerned. Arguing this topic with me is pointless.
.
Question... is the death penalty a violation of your rights? It's the ultimate denial of 1st and 2nd.