Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added)

This is a discussion on Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added) within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by tacman605 Armyman not about you either. I never said it was. Please stay on topic....

View Poll Results: Do you support a business's right to ban guns?

Voters
105. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    87 82.86%
  • NO

    18 17.14%
Page 10 of 33 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 490
Like Tree293Likes

Thread: Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added)

  1. #136
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Armyman not about you either.
    I never said it was. Please stay on topic.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #137
    Member Array 2700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SoFlo
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post

    Discoboxer it is all he has left, his box of crayons is empty.
    NRA Certified Instructor - RSO - Life Member

    The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
    -Albert Einstein

  4. #138
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    Unnecessary, unfounded and unproductive statement.

    Many folks on here disagree with you and have tried to compel you to a different understanding. It's ok if you do not agree. It's a good discussion when you can present compelling reason, but it goes south when you make personal attacks such as this.

    Please do us all a favor and keep it to topic and civil.
    Yes, quite civil, for example:
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Discoboxer it is all he has left, his box of crayons is empty.
    Nice double standard you have there, Disco.

    Nothing tacman has said has refuted anything I've presented, so where do you want this to go?

    One side will cite examples of property owners limiting actions of people on the property, the other side will cite examples of property owners authority to limit, itself limited.

    Where do you see this thread in 2 pages?

  5. #139
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Ok Armyman staying on topic.

    What part of the case law, legal definitions, or Constitutional information is incorrect? It all applies to the OP of a business owners rights to not allow firearms on their property.
    "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

  6. #140
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    To redress:
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    I don't know how many topics are going right now in regards to this basic topic of no gun signs but it did motivate me to look up particular legal terminology that clears up some things. If I have posted this in this topic before sorry.

    Private property - Any property not owned by the state or controlled by the public as a whole is private property. Wal Mart, K Mart, Mom and Pop Grocery and your favorite restaurant, they are all private property. Period.

    Invitee - an invitee is a person who is invited to land by the possessor of the land as a member of the public or one who is invited to the land for the purpose of business dealings with the possessor of the land. Not a customer, guest and so on an invitee.

    Rights of that invitee - An invitee is only an invitee within the scope of permission granted by the landowner. You abide by their rules while in their business plain and simple. Don't like it don't go there.

    Constitutional backing in regards to state and local enforcement - by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people. Local Governments and the people are empowered to enforce laws, rules and regulations.

    Gun toters are not in a protected class. Business owners are not discriminating against the person they are stating an object, the gun, is not allowed on their premises. It does not come close to discrimination.

    Landlords can restrict what comes onto their property but they are limited to what is in the lease or rental agreement. If they say the do not allow firearms to be kept and you sign the lease/rental agreement you are now legally obligated to adhere to it or you will be asked to move. They are not discriminating. It is the same thing as no pets allowed, no smoking apartments and so on.

    An employer can have a different set of standards for customers and employee's. The owner can have a smoking area for his customers but can restrict his employees to no smoking on the premises. If you do not agree to this "condition of employment" don't work there or face the consequences.

    The matter is simple really. If signs carry the weight of law you risk being arrested if found with a firearm on their premises. Should the sign carry the weight of the law and you are put into a position that you have to use your firearm you would/could be held liable for anything that occurs even if you saved the day as you were not legally there in the first place.
    If they carry no weight and you choose to go in anyway that is on you. I simply feel that I will respect the owners rights and wishes. It is a personal decision that we each have to make.
    In this post, you are stating the way things are. Most people on this forum already know these things. You and I already know these things. While it's generally good to well known information for new readers who may not know, this post isn't covering any new ground between the two of us.

    Your post simply states various things some oppose and other support. Where did you intend the conversation to go from here? Did you want me to link to case-law where the 2A took precedent over land rights? How will that change anything in your post? How would your post change any case-law I cite?

    I don't see how you're trying to progress the conversation.

  7. #141
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Ok Armyman staying on topic.

    What part of the case law, legal definitions, or Constitutional information is incorrect? It all applies to the OP of a business owners rights to not allow firearms on their property.
    As do everything I've cited. Where do we go from here?

    We begin with a statement of the state of affairs. OP asks us what we each support or oppose. We offer our opinions, and go into some detail as to our reasoning. You then restate the current state of affairs, bringing us back to the beginning of the thread progression, and we start all over.

    I think I now see the wisdom behind the mod team here locking threads after so short a life. Threads on this forum do tend just to chaise their tails.

  8. #142
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Threads on this forum do tend just to chaise their tails.
    LOL you are correct and you are the leader of the pack. Let me guess you are using something with no spell check? CHASE NOT CHAISE one means to pursue and the other is a chair.

    Have a nice day.
    "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

  9. #143
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    LOL you are correct and you are the leader of the pack. Let me guess you are using something with no spell check? CHASE NOT CHAISE one means to pursue and the other is a chair.

    Have a nice day.
    If you see the "no spell check with tapatalk" sig in my post then I'm posting from my phone and only have Predictive-Text (which will still insert the completely wrong word, and I can't edit posts through Tapatalk on this forum even though I can on other forums). Today, however, I'm using Chrome from my gaming comp, but Chrome's spell-check didn't flag "chaise" because "chaise" is spelled correctly.

    The correct spelling of the wrong word is a grammatical error, not a spelling error, and no I don't have a grammar-check on any device.

  10. #144
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Ok just checking.

    Have a nice day.
    "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

  11. #145
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Im back again to cool things down, if you all have read my oppinion on section 5,6,7,8 on this forum than you know my thoughts , to clear things up, I understand what the opposing team is stating and its ok, what im trying to imply is if the owner of the business owned a factory wich does NOT involve public safety(people coming in and out) such as gas stations etc.instead they own a factory wich involves employees only (no trespassing to others(you and me), then yes we need to abide his/her rulesand laws. But if the business involves public(you and me) to come in and out (convieneant store etc.) We should have the rights to bear!! Especially in a state that allows you to bear with liscense... The law should be different when comparing none public business to public involvement business period...... I DO understand YOU do you understand ME ?? Eddie.
    ArmyMan likes this.

  12. #146
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Miamieddie View Post
    But if the business involves public(you and me) to come in and out (convieneant store etc.) We should have the rights to bear!!
    We can bear arms. But the right to do that coexists with the right of property owners to control access to their property. One doesn't trump the other. Nor should it, IMO.

    Especially in a state that allows you to bear with liscense... The law should be different when comparing none public business to public involvement business period...... I DO understand YOU do you understand ME ?? Eddie.
    I fully understand that in a land of laws based on principles, destruction of the foundation principles risks destruction of all.

    I agree with the concept that publicly-accessible areas really should be considered differently, when compared to areas of businesses or facilities that aren't available for general public access. What I can't see, however, is how that principle could exist without erasure of property rights. Seems to me we're founded on property rights as greatly as civil rights, and to effectively destroy one means the others don't amount to a hill o' beans.

    In practice, I think we've come up with the only workable answer: coexistent rights, in which neither trumps the other. One may be armed at all times, and no property rights are disarming anyone. But one may also control access to one's own property. Both may do what they do, and at the same time, and the rights of neither person is subverted. To do anything else would really mean the one with trampled rights had no rights at all.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; October 26th, 2012 at 07:47 AM. Reason: spleng ... slping ... spelling
    Jeanlouise likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #147
    VIP Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    2,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard58 View Post
    Same as a sign at a eating place that says, no pets, or shirts and shoes required.
    Those particular rules fall under the Health Department and do carry the weight of law. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out a difference.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

  14. #148
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Ccw9mm you are 100% correct I want all readers who read and dont post to know that !!! With that said and done, (1) your making sure to keep us out of jail.(2) im here to keep us alive..... Eddie.

  15. #149
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeanlouise View Post
    Yes, I understand that. It just reminded my of that cartoon and the sign.

    An owner obviously has the right to put a sign out that restricts guns.
    On the other hand, it's illegal to discriminate on most other basis and since carrying a gun is legal I question how a business has the right to deny access. I'm sure you'll tell me though.
    Look, this has been hashed out before. YOU are not being banned or discriminated against. Your GUN is. I don't know how to make it more simple.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  16. #150
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Eddie just to make sure I understand you and since Armyman likes your post I understand him.

    instead they own a factory wich involves employees only (no trespassing to others(you and me), then yes we need to abide his/her rulesand laws.
    So an employer, since he owns a business that has no direct retail sales has the right to tell his employees they will not carry a firearm at work. Not in the building, not in the parking lot and the employees should abide by it, that is ok? But a retail store owner who invites people to shop there should give up that right for the sake of......whatever?

    Well since Armyman agrees then I guess he will now stop carrying at work without his employers knowledge or permission?

    A very wise forum member sent me a PM that quoted from a sign he once read and I think he is right.

    "Arguing with a trucker is like wrestling with a pig. After awhile you kinda get the idea he LIKES it"

    I wish you well in your campaign.
    "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

Page 10 of 33 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

buisness banning guns in michigan
,
gun control
,
powered by mybb business license in washington
,
powered by mybb consumer protection cases
,

powered by mybb mail sign in

,
powered by mybb michigan consumer protection
,
powered by mybb move to colorado
,
powered by mybb ownership
,
powered by mybb public opinion
,
powered by mybb taurus firearms
,

powered by mybb top employers

,
when do you have a legal right to deny service in public accomdation facility
Click on a term to search for related topics.