Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added) - Page 32

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 mcp1810 I do. However the courts have established protected classes which limit that right. So the government has determined what can and ...

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 32 of 33 FirstFirst ... 22282930313233 LastLast
Results 466 to 480 of 490
Like Tree293Likes

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

  1. #466
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I do. However the courts have established protected classes which limit that right.
    So the government has determined what can and cannot be done with private property and you support that infringement upon property rights?

    So since the courts have ruled you cant yell fire in a crowded theater we have free speech privileges? No, it is a right and the right has been limited by the courts. I have never said it is an absolute right. In fact in previous posts I mention protected classes. Gun owners are not a protected class.
    It is not a right if the government can limit it. It then becomes a privilege. If you being able to exercise a "right" is contingent upon government permission...it is a privilege.

    Only on a limited and narrowly defined basis (protected class) or when a compelling need can be shown. And when that right is denied the property owner must be compensated for it. Typically they are paid the market value of the property.
    How were businesses compensated for having their right to deny service to folks based upon whatever criteria they saw fit?


    There are some cases with national security implications or where a condition on a property creates a specific well defined hazard to the greater community. But still to address the issue it is a taking under the fifth amendment and they must (and do) compensate the property owner.
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I think it was in New Hampshire there was an eminent domain case where a town took a property from an individual and gave it to a developer. The property owner had refused to improve the property the developer did what developers do and built on it. The additional revenue from the property and other taxes generated by the new businesses was held to be a good enough reason for the taking.
    So governmental theft that is justified by the amount of money gained from it? Sounds moral.


  2. #467
    Member Array HroadhogD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    31
    Some business owners post no gun signs simple because they have a bigger fear of guns than they do of being robbed. They know there is a chance of being robbed, but they would rather take that chance than have a gun in their business 24/7. I really don't think it has to do with insurance as much as a fear of the guns.

  3. #468
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    So the government has determined what can and cannot be done with private property and you support that infringement upon property rights?
    When did I say I supported it? I just stated what is.

    It is not a right if the government can limit it. It then becomes a privilege. If you being able to exercise a "right" is contingent upon government permission...it is a privilege.
    So we do not have a right to assemble, speak freely, or to vote (they tell us where and when we can do it) or to keep and bear arms?


    How were businesses compensated for having their right to deny service to folks based upon whatever criteria they saw fit?
    They were not. What the courts did was to limit what criteria were acceptable.
    Simply being a member of a protected class does not mean you can not be denied service. It only means your membership in that class can not be the reason you are denied. To prove your case against me you would have to show that I have a patern of refusing service to members of that class and it has be enough to show that membership in that class is the reason service was refused.

    If members of a class wear a particular shirt I find offensive I can deny them service so long as I also deny service to people outside that class that also wear that shirt and do not deny service to members of the class that are not wearing that shirt.

    In cases not related to discrimination against a protected class the government paid the property owners fair value of the property as compensation.


    So governmental theft that is justified by the amount of money gained from it? Sounds moral.
    They argue it is not theft because you are being paid fair value for it. They don't just take your land it is a coerced sale. As Don Corleone would put it, they make you an offer you can't refuse. You can however contest the value of the property. IIRC they generally offer the appraised value from you last property tax assessment.
    Regarding the developer one, it was not New Hampshire it is Kelo v New London (Ct.) I am still kind of fuzzy on the details but after a quick scan of some related stuff Kelo was also a developer but their financing fell through on their redevelopement plan. So it was not that they refused to develope the property it was just that they didn't do it.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  4. #469
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,127

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    ...

    So governmental theft that is justified by the amount of money gained from it? Sounds moral.
    Happens all the time and is nothing new - progressive facism at it's finest.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  5. #470
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Very true, don't confuse them with facts their mind is made up.
    Speaking to the mirror again, I see :P

  6. #471
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    Armyman,

    What is it about the bulk fuel or chemical containers that you bring up regularly as justifiable reason to ban guns on a property?
    Lucky ND + above-ground fuel storage =



    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    Does that mean all gas stations can ban per your logic or do the storage containers have to be above ground? Is it a mass casualty risk that is only appropriate for a business to ban?
    Not just gas stations, but any place at all which has above-ground fuel storage. I've personally never seen a regular gas station with above-ground storage. It's my understanding that Federal regulations require the tanks to be burred. However, propane refiling stations, oil-burning furnaces, and heavy-equipment yards with privately owned refueling stations, and welding/machine/mechanic shops are good examples. This is the same hazard prompting no-cellphone signs at gas stations; to reduce risk of static charge igniting fuel, which results in....



    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    May sound silly, but what if a CCer were to hit a fire extinguisher or a gas line in the wall?
    Assuming the discharge was lawful, the chance of an explosion happening as a result is less than the chance of a prankster causing an accident.

    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    Wouldn't these be possibilities for major injury?
    It could, but the goal is not to foam-pad the whole world and prevent any and all injury whatsoever. The goal is to bring the risk down to a manageable level.

    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    What if a CCer misses and hits one innocent, is that still enough risk to sway a business owner (or insurance co) to not allow it?
    There's no greater risk of missing while in a bushiness then at your own home. So, ban guns from your home?

    Whether or not you hit your target is dependent on factors other than your mere location. Range time is the answer to that problem, not banning guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    I'm trying to understand where you draw the line in what is acceptable for a business to ban guns and this is one area you have brought up repeatedly in this thread. What justifies your decision to support a private businesses right to post?
    Please understand that "private business rights" are not part of my calculation. Public Safety is the basis of my reasoning. IMO whichever is the greater hazard must be banned, regardless of what the business owner or the gun carrier want.

    If the presence of a gun in a given business is more hazardous then it's presence was on the street, then it must be banned or the business is creating a public hazard.

    If the presence of a gun in a given business is no more hazardous then it's presence was on the street, then it must be allowed or the business is creating a public hazard.

  7. #472
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,891
    no-cellphone signs at gas stations; to reduce risk of static charge igniting fuel
    Urban myth. Almost all studies have concluded that cell phones have never set off a gas station fire.

    as far as the rest of the post above I can only say this:



    I would honestly respond to each section but kids are going to be showing up for trick or treat soon. I am sure someone will handle it
    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

  8. #473
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So here you state that you do not respect the rights of property owners...
    To disarm me without a proper and logical reason, no, I don't respect that at all. Not in the least. I thought this was made perfectly clear a long time ago. You must be new to the discussion so I'll reiterate:

    I have a Basic Human Right to self defense which always and forever trumps your Civil right to operate a business regardless of the personal religious/political opinions of anyone else. This is also basic Army doctrine, that no order, statute or regulation ever deprives a Soldier of their right to self defense, and the only time we have to disarm is when we're in designated sensitive arias which have armed guards around them.

    The only time I will ever give a no-gun sign the time of day is when it would brake a law. Otherwise it's just the ignorant religious/political musings of the property owner and in no way has any right or authority to deprive any person from otherwise lawful self defense.

    That doesn't mean I'm going to make a scene or cause a disturbance. That doesn't mean I'm going to act in a way that someone would otherwise think I'm a jerk. I'm calm, cool and collected everywhere I go in the real world. In fact, during my recent trip to OH, the clerk at the rental car agency gave me a free upgrade just because of my manors.

    I'm simply going to ignore the sign and be a normal customer you'll forget about.

    I hope that clears it up for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Fact: The right to exclude is a basic property right that is recognized by courts all over the world.
    No right is unlimited.
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Fact: Your presence in a place of business which is private property is a privilege, not a right.
    It's called the "Right to Public Access". This is how a licensed fisherman may walk onto your private residential coastline property against your expressed objection. Yes, this means that a if a person is legally fishing while legally carrying a gun, that person has the *right* to bring that gun onto your personal residential property against your expressed objection. If you stop that person you are braking the law. That doesn't mean the person can go allover your property, or brandish his gun, or just do whatever he wants on your property, but it does mean he may enter your property with a gun against your will.

    This is how we're getting guns legalized to carry in grade schools and police stations. Take Oregon for example. It logically follows that a citizen who can lawfully carry a gun at all, should be able to carry that gun wherever the citizen can lawfully go. Exceptions require a demonstratable 'need', which Court Houses, ERs and polling stations can easily provide.

    Property rights are vast, but they are not unlimited.

  9. #474
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Senario: bad guy comes in to rob or kill, I the good guy defuse the situation bad guy runs anf leave pd arrives, should I be charged the same sa the bg because I broke the sign rules,we both broke the law.do u feel the law should be more leaneant toward me because of my heroric action?? I mean there were two differant intentions of gun use here, one was to kill or steal or both and the other was for saving lives, shouldnt the law be defferant...... Oppinoin only,.... Eddie

  10. #475
    VIP Member Array zonker1986's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    3,642
    No. My right to do business with 2nd Amendment friendly establishments...businesses right to say what comes on their property and lose my business.
    Kimbers are the guns you show your friends....Glocks are the ones you show your enemies.

  11. #476
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Miamieddie View Post
    Senario: bad guy comes in to rob or kill, I the good guy defuse the situation bad guy runs anf leave pd arrives, should I be charged the same sa the bg because I broke the sign rules,we both broke the law.do u feel the law should be more leaneant toward me because of my heroric action?? I mean there were two differant intentions of gun use here, one was to kill or steal or both and the other was for saving lives, shouldnt the law be defferant...... Oppinoin only,.... Eddie
    One is a felony...the other is most likely a misdemeanor depending on what the law is in a particular state...so there already is a difference...don't understand your point
    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

  12. #477
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    So with your logic of demonstrating a need due to hazards, i.e. stored chemical tanks, a gun shop can ban because they have smokeless and black powder and you could even include ammunition stocked on the shelves.
    A paint/hardware store would within your needs test because they have gallons and gallons of paint thinner, stripper and other possibly explosive/flammable chemicals stored on the shelves.
    An automotive shop could show a need because they have chemicals and probably a very large air compressor or two on the premises which if punctured would probably cause damage, injury or death to anyone near by.
    Anything to do with aviation could post as they have aircraft filled with fuel and fuel trucks running around.
    Most agricultural business's would fit as would grocery stores that have compressed dangerous chemicals and flammable liquids on the shelf.
    Anyplace that sells propane tanks is out to just like anyplace that sells gasoline even though they may have underground tanks they get their fuel from tankers that park on their lot and refuel the tanks but I guess they could post a sign stating when they get their fuel deliveries firearms are not allowed.
    Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Oh and since you work as a carpenter out of a retail shop they surely have chemicals stored or on the shelves for customers to buy so that means your employer has a need to not want firearms in his place of business so you, by your own standard, cannot carry there.
    We don't store chemicals on the premises. We do share a paint-booth with a couple other small businesses and chemicals are stored there, but that's a separate building then the retail shop precisely because of the hazard (and something like a paint-booth requires separate zoning from a retail store). Yes, guns can be justifiably banned from that location.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    The list goes on and on.
    It sure does. Tell me more about how allowing guns won't damage you.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    There are no statistics that show gun free zones are targeted specifically because they are gun free that I have found.
    How many school massacres occurred on campuses which allowed their students/faculty to carry?
    How many school massacres occurred on campuses which did not allow their students/faculty to carry?

    Easy math.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    So basically any business owner who shows a need under your standard would be allowed to restrict firearms from their store for "safety reasons" all they have to have is a need but person who has chosen under their god given and constitutionally protected right to choose because it is their business and livelihood cannot.
    Run-on sentence, please modify.

    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    I notice in your post that you did not mention that you have different rules for those that OC. So CC is ok because the owner may not know but it is ok to not allow someone who is openly carrying?

    You are being selective in your restrictions but yet you preach equal rights for all unless you OC, own a factory, or demonstrate a need other than simply saying I do not want guns in my store, that does not fit your agenda. So you would rather see a business owner go bankrupt defending a legal issue to allow firearms on their property than to simply shop somewhere else. You are truly a great American.
    Business owners retain the right to enforce a dress code, same as always.

  13. #478
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    While i disagree with Armyman, he has with his persistence made me rethink my arguments.
    Your arguments make me re-think mine as well, that is why I persist (as many have asked).

  14. #479
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    armyman.jpg
    ..........

  15. #480
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    You are being asked by the owner of the property through the use of a sign.
    I understand.

    My answer to the question is a calm and respectful "no".

    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    Are you saying that you will only comply if told verbally by the property owner or his/her agent and no other forms of communication are acceptable reasons to comply?
    That's correct, because refusing a verbal request to leave is illegal.

    Calling back to my example of a fisherman on private property: if my presence were in all ways peaceful and legal, I would not honor a no-guns or do-not-enter sign on private property while I'm fishing, nor would I leave if verbally asked. That does not mean I intend the owner any disrespect. I just want to peaceably continue about my business, harming no one (except the trout). That does not mean I'm going to become rude and belligerent. That does not mean I am going to litter, brandish or damage anything. It means the property owner is in the wrong for asking me to leave and needs to stop. I would not take the law into my own hands, I would call the police and let them handle it.

    To me, walking past a no-gun sign on a business door is exactly the same as walking past a no-fishing sign on lake-front property. I am where I have a legal right to be, doing what I have a legal right to do, not harming anyone. Just as interfering with a fisherman is illegal, so should interfering with a lawful gun carrier.

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 internet services in my area
,

powered by mybb mail sign in

,
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.