it just doesn't remove enough off -limits locations lol.Pawpaw wrote:HB 308 appears to do exactly that, in addition to removing the statutorily off-limits locations.Winchster wrote:Thank you for your answer, it makes sense. As an aside, maybe someday we can get the penalty reduced, once we win some other battles, to a Class C. Again, thank you.
I realize this, I was merely over simplifying for purposes of this discussion.Charles L. Cotton wrote: Actually, this isn't correct. The Civil Rights Act will not let a restaurant have a whites-only section or require blacks to enter by the back door. By entering the back door and not sitting in the whites-only section, a black person would acquiesce to the will of the business owner. The Civil Rights Act and the ADA help the people Congress wanted to help; there's nothing more to either law.
There will always be a divide between people who want property rights to trump everything, whether we're talking about private business property or one's home and other non-business property, and people who view private business property differently. Commercial property is already regulated more than non-business property and the regulations deal primarily with safety of the public entering the property. Requiring a business to allow armed CHL holders to enter does not cost the owner a dine, unlike fire codes, commercial sprinkler requirements, etc. A good argument can also be made that not allowing the forced disarming of customers is another safety issue for the customer, not only while in the store but to and from as well.
Chas.
No, because my car is my property. LolScott Farkus wrote: I'm not referring only to the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. Certainly that's part of it, but not all of it. For purposes of this discussion, those are examples of areas where the government can and does tell a private property owner who has a "right" to be on his property. There are countless other examples where the owner doesn't control other aspects of his property if he opens his doors to the public for commerce.
My only point was that the precedent has already been established and once so, we can't just continue to say "your property, your rules, end of discussion", because it's simply not true. You have to consider, among other things, the reasons for the infringements and whether they are fair or applicable to other circumstances.
Were you opposed to the parking lot bill? Because that's an example where "our" side tells a private property owner he can't exclude guns on his property if he wishes.
The difference is simple. The civil rights act and ADA,which I assume is what you're referring to, center around things over which a person has no ability to modify to aquiesce to a business's conditions. The right to keep and bear can be, and your proverbial right to swing your first ends just shy of my nose. Make sense?Scott Farkus wrote:I'm not sure that's entirely correct. When you open your doors to the public, there is, or at least seems like there should be (I'm not a lawyer), at least some minimum level of expectation that the public does, in fact, have a "right" to be there, since you've essentially invited them. I think that's what Glockster is trying to say.Winchster wrote:I'm aware of that. Doesn't change anything. We don't have a "right" to go to Walmart.Scott Farkus wrote:
Just to make clear, we are talking about private property that has been opened to the public for some reason - typically for commerce. The rules are already different there. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be able to carry into another person's home or private non-commercial property against that person's wishes.
Now maybe you should in theory be able to dictate the terms which your guests must follow while they are on your property, but that's kind of the crux of my question. The government already tells you, to a large degree and getting larger, what those terms have to be. You already don't get to set them yourself. Given what some of those terms are and the arguments the other groups used to get them, I don't find it a huge stretch that we gun owners ask that licensed concealed carry be one of those "terms".
Precisely, we have no "right" to enter private property. Business reserves the right to refuse service.C-dub wrote:I just thought of something that may throw a monkey wrench into the whole argument here.
Anyone remember hearing about instances where a business owner would tell one or more LEOs that they were not welcome in their business with their weapons? Some were in uniform and some were in plain clothes, but all had their badges. The police acknowledged the businesses had that right and they did have to obey their request.
I'm aware of that. Doesn't change anything. We don't have a "right" to go to Walmart.Scott Farkus wrote:
Just to make clear, we are talking about private property that has been opened to the public for some reason - typically for commerce. The rules are already different there. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be able to carry into another person's home or private non-commercial property against that person's wishes.
Not exactly, a person cannot do anything about the color of their skin and neither can the handicapped do anything about their condition. We, on the other hand, have a choice regarding ours.Embalmo wrote:Based on that logic, minorities and the handicapped have the right to choose not to shop in a place where there are anti signs posted. I see it as a safety issue. I consider my daily carry the same as any other tool that maintains my health and safety like my asthma rescue inhaler.
M. Ball Moe
Vol Texan wrote:Charles,
I do agree that 30.06 saved the program, and I do agree that it is MUCH better than the alternative of 'no guns' signs being valid for us. The history of the program is very important, but I'm of the mind that the future could be better.
It seems that if we follow the thread of logic presented in the OP (which I've also thought of in the past), then sure, any business can ask anyone to leave for any reason (e.g. being disruptive, dressed inappropriately, bad smell, or no reason at all), but if that reason happens to conflict with a civil right (e.g. I've told a gay couple I don't want them holding hands in here, so I asked them to leave), then it's not legal.
The courts have been used lately as the 'hammer' to force such things (think about the cake designer who was forced to make a cake for a gay couple, or the student who was not allowed into the law school because the standards applied to her race were higher than to other races). It may have to be that the court becomes the vehicle for tossing out 30.06. Not tossing out in the direction of valid 'no guns' signs, but instead tossing it out in the direction of 'you cannot categorically discriminate against someone who is exercising their right to carry'.
I welcome your opinion on this.
Note I said 'categorically discriminate'. I still believe any private property owner should be allowed to single out an individual for expulsion from their property. As a business owner, I should be able to walk up to anyone and say, "I'd prefer you to leave the store, as you're being disruptive to my other guests for ....(name your reason)." But a sign, preventing a whole class of people from entering (white, black, Asian, straight, gay, young, old) should not be allowed - in my perfect world view.
