Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed

[nightmare69]

From what I've read on my LEO only group on Facebook, this business will be changing its policy regarding off duty LE carry very soon. I doubt this will happen again.

I'm going to go enjoy my much needed night off after pulling 68hrs the last week.

[Taypo]

From what I've read on my LEO only group on Facebook, this business will be changing its policy regarding off duty LE carry very soon. I doubt this will happen again.

I'm going to go enjoy my much needed night off after pulling 68hrs the last week.

"My LEO only group on Facebook"



Do you guys have a secret handshake, too?

[nightmare69]

Code words and secret knocks.

You have to post a video of you in uniform doing the whip and nea nea dance.

[philip964]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocki ... it=1810609

It spreads.

Could we consider this a "whites only" type of policy. After all it is a right in the constitution.

I can't watch the video that was embedded as it says the account connected to the video has been terminated.

I don't understand your "whites only type of policy" comment.

A business open to the public must accommodate persons regardless of race, creed, color, place of birth, or persons legally carrying a firearm, all as required in the constitution and bill of rights.

That's what I meant, why isn't it that way.

I thought that may be where you are going with that. Carrying a gun is not a protected class or condition when it comes to entering a business on private property. A person's right to carry doesn't trump a private property owner's right to have conditions customers and visitors must agree to abide by if they want to enter.

Whether you agree or not, that's the law. We've discussed this many times in here. It is not an appropriate comparison to compare a physical disability, race, color, creed or nationality with carrying a gun on private property of others.

Business owners open to the public cannot say "whites only", why then can they say "unarmed only". I understand a farmer, rancher, homeowner can refuse to allow anyone on their property. But a business open to the public is different. I know probably there is a Texas law that permits a business owner from limiting customers to the unarmed, but is it constitutional, since the Bill of Rights to me is very clear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Left is very good at stretching things to now cover things that are not specifically referenced, but why can't the Right, simply require the rights that are very clearly written and require no stretching.

I'm just saying.

[Goldspurs]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocki ... it=1810609

It spreads.

Could we consider this a "whites only" type of policy. After all it is a right in the constitution.

I can't watch the video that was embedded as it says the account connected to the video has been terminated.

I don't understand your "whites only type of policy" comment.

A business open to the public must accommodate persons regardless of race, creed, color, place of birth, or persons legally carrying a firearm, all as required in the constitution and bill of rights.

That's what I meant, why isn't it that way.

I thought that may be where you are going with that. Carrying a gun is not a protected class or condition when it comes to entering a business on private property. A person's right to carry doesn't trump a private property owner's right to have conditions customers and visitors must agree to abide by if they want to enter.

Whether you agree or not, that's the law. We've discussed this many times in here. It is not an appropriate comparison to compare a physical disability, race, color, creed or nationality with carrying a gun on private property of others.

Business owners open to the public cannot say "whites only", why then can they say "unarmed only". I understand a farmer, rancher, homeowner can refuse to allow anyone on their property. But a business open to the public is different. I know probably there is a Texas law that permits a business owner from limiting customers to the unarmed, but is it constitutional, since the Bill of Rights to me is very clear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Left is very good at stretching things to now cover things that are not specifically referenced, but why can't the Right, simply require the rights that are very clearly written and require no stretching.

I'm just saying.

So we play by their rules? It is very simple why you can't prohibit a person from entering your business based on race. It's not as if they can leave their "race" in the glove compartment of their vehicle while they come into a privately owned business. There is no "right" to be black or white.

Again, I would rather avoid any business that prohibits weapons, but your logic doesn't make sense. While I prefer to be armed everywhere I go, I don't believe the government should step in and dictate what a private business should let a customer bring in. If you are for property rights then I don't how you can be for the government forcing businesses to allow firearms against their will. I really don't know how else to explain it.

[Goldspurs]

Code words and secret knocks.

You have to post a video of you in uniform doing the whip and nea nea dance.

Cool. Glad to see it worked out and your special access was restored. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

[mojo84]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocki ... it=1810609

It spreads.

Could we consider this a "whites only" type of policy. After all it is a right in the constitution.

I can't watch the video that was embedded as it says the account connected to the video has been terminated.

I don't understand your "whites only type of policy" comment.

A business open to the public must accommodate persons regardless of race, creed, color, place of birth, or persons legally carrying a firearm, all as required in the constitution and bill of rights.

That's what I meant, why isn't it that way.

I thought that may be where you are going with that. Carrying a gun is not a protected class or condition when it comes to entering a business on private property. A person's right to carry doesn't trump a private property owner's right to have conditions customers and visitors must agree to abide by if they want to enter.

Whether you agree or not, that's the law. We've discussed this many times in here. It is not an appropriate comparison to compare a physical disability, race, color, creed or nationality with carrying a gun on private property of others.

Business owners open to the public cannot say "whites only", why then can they say "unarmed only". I understand a farmer, rancher, homeowner can refuse to allow anyone on their property. But a business open to the public is different. I know probably there is a Texas law that permits a business owner from limiting customers to the unarmed, but is it constitutional, since the Bill of Rights to me is very clear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Left is very good at stretching things to now cover things that are not specifically referenced, but why can't the Right, simply require the rights that are very clearly written and require no stretching.

I'm just saying.

The second amendment was intended to prevent the government from infringinging on one's rights. A private property owner has natural rights to control his property with certain limitations. A private property owner has the right to ban guns. Why should the right to carry a gun trump all other rights of another person?

I can't find it at the moment but there was a poll regarding private property rights and it also had some good discussion regarding this matter if I remember correctly. Maybe you can find it or someone can provide a link to it.

[Taypo]

This one?

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=78720

[mojo84]

This one?

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=78720

Yeah , that's it. I had forgotten it was related to the Whataburger issue and I was posting prior to my morning pot of coffee.

Thanks!!!!

[Taypo]

You're welcome!

[Abraham]

nightmare69,

"this business will be changing its policy regarding off duty LE carry very soon."

I hope so.

As for folks getting huffy about LEO's getting to be armed when they, the non-LEO's/CHLers, don't get to be, tough! Maybe future legislation will change this, but in the meantime, are you sure you don't want armed LEO's, just because you aren't allowed to be armed everywhere they can be armed? That attitude, to me, is petty/childish.

Me, I want armed LEO's everywhere it's possible.

[Taypo]

Me, I want armed LEO's everywhere it's possible.

That's awesome! Lets put a cop on every corner so you can feel safe. Maybe install a bunch of CCTV cameras around town. How about we set up random checkpoints to make sure your papers are in order when you're driving from Point A to Point B.

How much police presence will it take to give you a warm fuzzy?

[Abraham]

Taypo,

Really?

You're better than that.

[Taypo]

The question still stands. How many armed cops will it take for you to feel safe?

[Abraham]

Taypo,

You're unrighteous indignation is silly.

If you care to act like the grownup I know you to be, and your questions equally adult, I'll be happy to answer.

Until then, adieu...