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 suntzu ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Armyman--can you just do a sticky for that post (the examples)of yours...we have seen it a hundred times BTW: Notice ...
A city/state ordinance allowing business owners to eject a customer or employee for lawful carry is a violation of Heller.
I wasn't aware you needed it pointed out, that of course the state is a middle-man between SCOTUS and the private owner. I thought everyone already knew that, but at least you know now. SCOTUS directs the state, and the state directs local commerce. I hope this finally catches you up.
LOL...YOU argue that lawful possession of a firearm should be on the protected classes list. How can you say that an employer has no need to ban? It is HIS property, he does NOT have to hire anyone. Just as the employees are not FORCED to work there, they can find employement with someone who closer follows their beliefs. People are not FORCED to shop at "no guns" stores, they can shop elswhere that agrees with thier beliefs.
I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.but firearms ownership is not (and I pray never will be) a protected class. I do not want to be denied my right to tell idiots who should not own a gun that they cannot come on my property armed.
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.
When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.AGAIN, YOU want, and again, how do you know that a business has no need to deny? Don't know bout you, but I know people who should not be carrying a weapon, but they are able to legally, I personally want to be able to tell them that they cannot around me at my home. I also bet some business owners who don't know if you are one of those would like to do their best to assure that they can do the same on their property.
I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.
Again, MY RIGHT to be SAFE in my home IS a right, and I have the RIGHT to insure that I am safe by denying those whose proficiency and/or qualifications for weapons carry I do not know the ability to carry on MY property. I do not know if you are up to MY standards of weapon carry therefore until you prove that you are, you cannot carry on MY property. Trust me, you have already FAILED to meet my requirements.*****
The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.