Or maybe you missed that 3/4 of my post. ?!?!Quote:
"I realize that is infringing on their rights, too.
I agree that businesses should be allowed to deny people who are intoxicated, aren't clothed appropriately, aren't wearing shoes, etc.. if they perceive a firearm to be unacceptable, I think it is within their rights to deny it."
I hear what you're saying and those are valid points. However, I would say that we already limit other rights on our private property, even for those we invite in. For instance, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law are huge Patriots fans and invited a big group of people to their house to watch the Super Bowl the first time the Giants beat them a few years ago. We had one trouble maker there who was rooting for the Giants just to stick it to my BIL and SIL. Towards the end of the game, the 1st amendment rights of the "friend" were squelched and they were told to get the heck out of the house. So, that's kind of how I see it with the 2nd amendment. I believe states should not give signs the "force of law", but should give the home or business owner the right to say who can and can't be on their property. If someone has a firearm and a business doesn't like it, they can send the patron packing (pun intended) if they choose, or bar them from entering if they don't meet their own requirements.
If the law doesn't back the property owners wishes, than what is the real effect of anyone claiming their rights to operate their business as they choose?
In the opposite effect, I wish that more OC/CC folks would step up and notify these posted businesses their reasons for not patronizing the business. If the business doesn't know why you walked away, how are they to know that their poor policy has impact?
Let's say for the sake of the argument the following:
Everyone is considered equal under the law.
Everyone has the same Rights.
Everyone is free to exercise or not exercise their Rights as they see fit.
Whatever one person can legally do any other person can also legally do.
Whatever is illegal for one person to do is also illegal for any other person to do.
While we are at it, let's also say for the sake of the argument that one's Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Keeping the above in mind, I have a few questions.
If you limit where one can go while bearing arms, isn't that an infringement?
Isn't telling someone that they must first disarm before proceeding any further an infringement on what that person can do while bearing arms?
By saying that an unarmed person can do something that an armed person can't isn't that the same thing as saying that these two people are now no longer considered equal under the law because one person has chosen to exercise one of their Rights and one person has chosen not to exercise that same Right?
Isn't writing laws that restrict what people can do while exercising their Right to bear arms an infringement?
Isn't writing laws that only pertain to people who exercise their Right to bear arms a way of making these people not equal to other people under the law?
If everyone is equal under the law and it is illegal for someone who bears arms to go someplace, shouldn't it also be illegal for someone who isn't bearing arms to go to that same place at the same time?
I don't like it, but I'll respect it.
Lets paint a scenario for discussion. Your sister has a husband who you know to be a "hothead"......let's say "borderline" mentally ill, but not diagnosed. This hothead brother-in-law is a "gun nut" and loves his guns. Your sister brings him over to your home to watch Georgia Tech beat the Bulldogs :tongue: but you inform him not to bring in his firearm because of your lack of trust in his judgement.
Yes, I know you could just say that he can't come, but humor me. If the law doesn't support your right to use judgement when appropriate on your own property, than how is your house held sacred. It is no longer your domain, it's the public's.
I don't think signs should have the force of law because business owners already have the ability to deny services and ask patrons to leave for violating their rules. I don't think it's necessary to add a criminal charge to someone who hasn't first been personally asked to leave by a representative of the business. Trespassing is a valid offense that can be applied to an individual who does not leave once asked, so I believe additional "force" to be unjustified. The ability to remove someone from their property is the power for a business to operate as they wish, at least in regard to the expectations of their customers.
I would agree, though, that more people who refuse to patronize an establishment for their no-guns policy should inform the manager/owner of their decision and reasons. If for no other reason than the possibility that the policy will be changed and that they will be able to carry their firearms as they please.
The short answer is no, that's not infringement. You don't have to go into any business or on anyone else's property. You choose to go and therefore you choose to forego certain rights. Property rights of a business or individual trump your Second Amendment rights because nobody can compel you onto that property. If you don't like their private property rules, then don't enter their private property. It's that simple.
I feel that a place of bussines should not abide by the same law as a mans castle, you have strangers coming in and out all the time that alone poses danger to everyone and anyone. Unlike your home, strangers are not allowed , your place of bussines strangers are allowed, so everyone needs to watch for themselves. So the owner should have no say so to this matter and allow custumers to bear arm period.....Eddie.
Let us try to look at this matter from a different angle.
The First Amendment has been through the courts nearly every way imaginable. There can’t be many who feel that it is of less importance than the Second Amendment, so I will use it, instead.
Let me preface by stating that I am not a lawyer, so this is a layman’s take on the subject. Alright, here we go.
Let us say that I own a business with a store front, open to the public. Let us also say that you and a group of like-minded associates do not approve of my choice of interior paint, say light purple with lime-green trim. You are so offended, morally outraged even, that you and your associates decide to exercise your First Amendment right to protest this.
You are well within your rights as freedom of speech and assembly is well established. You all walk in to my store, stand in the middle of the sales floor and give impassioned speeches and wave signs over your heads. At which point I ask you to leave the premises immediately. When you refuse to leave, I call the police and have you cited for trespass.
If you had simply chosen to stage your protest on the public easement instead of ON my property, there would have been very little I could have done. But, since you chose to protest on my property, my property rights superseded your speech and assembly rights. This is, I believe, based on the concept that a man’s home/business is his castle (as in those wonderful castle laws we all hold so dear).
Remember the old saying, “Your rights end at the tip of my nose.”? Property rights can, and have been, constrained by law and regulation that is deemed in the public good – zoning regulations, health codes and racial discrimination laws come to mind – but we are still the king/queen of our individual castles. Just because you want to look at the art I have in my home does not give you the right to enter without my permission. For that matter, not even the police can legally enter my home without either probable cause or a warrant.
If I remember my history lessons, property rights were right up there with “taxation without representation” to the Founders. In fact, wasn’t it one of the reasons we went to war way back then?