This is a discussion on No-Gun signs in GA within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Ogre The ammendment only limits how the GOVERNMENT can interact with your rights, not individuals. If you would like additional sources, please ...
LOL...show me in the 1st 10 ammendments where they apply to ANY entity other than the federal government....limit your sources to ONLY those 10 ammendments. No additional acts or laws. The civil rights act is a separate LAW from the Bill of Rights.
If a business is open to the public they CAN say you cannot wear a "politically oriented" shirt, a church (again, open to the public CAN deny you the right to worship as you wish on their property. Your employer CAN tell you that you cannot prostelytise or campaign on their property. Weapons carry IS not a protected CLASS as you do NOT need a firearm to live, removing it will NOT kill you, there are BILLIONS of people in the world walking around without a firearm and they are NOT dead.
I did a review of that post, I saw no reference to Ammendments 1 through 10, just the civil rights ACT, and a state law.
If you think that a "protected class" is truly protected, try to apply as a waitress at Hooters, bet the descriminate based on gender, or try to apply as a doctor at a Catholic Hospital if you are a muslim. Bet I can't wear an "Romney" tee shirt and work at the local Democratic HQ. I bet they don't let me in a Mosque wearing my "Jesus Loves You" pin. Wait, they can't deny me any of that, I CAN too be a Hooters waitress, the Democratic HQ cannot tell me what I can and cannot wear, and that "Jesus Loves You" pin dang sure aint hurting anyone.
It doesnt mean that the govt doesnt step in and restrict certain Const. rights...we all know that they do, generally in the interests of public safety (i.e. when it restricts free speech as in not yelling Fire in a public building) or in the interests of equality (i.e. civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation). Where the govt interferes isnt a subject for this thread, IMO.
We have a Const. right to own firearms. The fed govt has left it up to the states (mostly) to determine laws regarding CC.
IMO, the rest of it comes down to who is infringing on whose rights? Property rights? Privacy rights? Prudence? Respect?
My main point in this thread is that I dont really see why guns should be singled out over other things to be discriminated against by business owners. I've given examples of other things they might not 'like' or 'be offended' about but that they arent aware of and dont slap up signs for.
Fortune favors the bold.
Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.
The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)
That alone disproves your claim.
Additionally, I frequently use Florida as an example of acceptable, justifiable government limitation on employers with regard to firearms. In Florida no business owner may eject a customer or terminate an employee on the basis of lawful carry, though the owner retains the right to require concealed carry only (which I agree with, btw).
Then add to that everything I just sourced about employment and commerce discrimination, and your point is soundly disproved.
So, yes, the government can and does in many ways constitutionally limit private business owner's actions with regard to firearms. There's no point in continuing to claim that the Constitution only limits the government. When you engage in public commerce, the constitution limits you too.
Cosidering that the fact that its called pizza joint and not a bar joint, in pen and paper its a restaurant, it be ok to conceal. Now if your going to have even just one beer than you did the right thing submitting you gun to ur vehicle. With that said and done, you have on your side the state law of sign not holding water and the establishment with a restaurant name instead of a bar name. Two things that favor you that u can use in ur defense in the court of law .... Eddie..... (im no lawyer) !!
One more thing you can conceal in your car no matter where ur at because ur car falls under the castle law... Eddie
If a business wants to install metal detectors and require patrons to submit to a search before entering, they can, true they cannot arrest you, but they CAN deny you admittance based on the presence of "contraband" items (Contraband in this instance refers to items which are not allowed on the property, Soda in a Theater, McDonalds food in a Burger King, etc etc.). The items may not be illegal to have, but they are not allowed on the property.
I am a true Constitutionalist, in the light that the federal government should obey the constitution, however, there is NO provision against STATES imposing stiffer sanctions on firearm ownership (witness IL) or citites (NYC). If you truly think that 2A is the be all end all of "gun ownership rights" try to carry a weapon in IL, NYC, or DC. According to the 2A, there should be NO infringement on the keeping and bearing of arms; according to the 2A I should be able to walk into the White House carrying a loaded longgun, after all the 2A says my right to do so SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, I should not have to have a PERMIT to exercise a right, having a permit turns it into a PRIVALEGE.
Well let me post a few United States Supreme Court cases for you to think on: But first let me quote the 2nd for you:
now how the Highest court in the land views the Constitution in general and the 2nd Ammendment in particular:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Pertinent section in BOLDUnited States v. Cruikshank
In the Reconstruction era case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty black people in what was known as the Colfax massacre and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, "[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States."
The Court stated that "[t]he Second Amendment...has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...." Likewise, the Court held that there was no state action in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:
The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.
Thus, the Court held a federal anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute to be unconstitutional as applied in that case.
[quote]Miller v. TexasPresser v. Illinois
In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with the declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as a violation of Illinois law that prohibited public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the governor.
At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank and held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right "cannot be claimed as a right independent of law." This decision upheld the States' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.
In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death with an unlicensed handgun in violation of Texas law. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law: "As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law."[/qutoe]
pertinent section in Bold
pertinent sections in BoldDistrict of Columbia v. Heller
According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
Other legal summaries of the court's findings in this case are similar.
Note that nowhere in the McDonald v. Chicago case was there mention that the 2nd Amendment limited private individuals or organizations, only State, Local, & Federal governments.McDonald v. Chicago
On June 28, 2010, the Court incorporated the Second Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010). This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition
Now that I have posted my sources for saying that the Constitution limits the Government and not individuals/business'. Please post your refutation sources, using DIRECT Bill of Rights cases, not the Civil Rights Act or state laws, but cases of Constitutional Law.
Last edited by Ogre; October 28th, 2012 at 01:52 AM. Reason: Had to clean up text...
"A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013
I mean, come on man, how many times do I have to keep sourcing the principal behind guns-in-cars law?
If employers could block guns from their property, they could block them from cars, too. But that's not the case, because individuals have the right to self defense.
Keep your finger on the pulse: NRA-ILA: Legislative action, NRA-ILA: News
Whats goin on here? Were soppose to be on the same team, were all about carrying for the protection of ourselves and love ones. Georgia is a state that holds no water with these signs isint that a beautiful thing ? I wish all states were like that dont you ? Come on now , lets be real. ...Eddie