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 limatunes JD and I had a pretty good discussion about this the other day. Man, I am torn. I tend to think ...

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 5 of 33 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 490
Like Tree293Likes

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

  1. #61
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by limatunes View Post
    JD and I had a pretty good discussion about this the other day.

    Man, I am torn.

    I tend to think that businesses that are public (because, let's face it, there are a lot of businesses that are run out of homes, etc) shouldn't be able to ban firearms but then 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.
    Don't confuse something that is 'open to the public' as being public. Just because they freely allow customers on their premises, they are no less a private entity and they do have the same right to determine what they consider permissible on their property.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,247
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Don't confuse something that is 'open to the public' as being public. Just because they freely allow customers on their premises, they are no less a private entity and they do have the same right to determine what they consider permissible on their property.
    I understand that.. which is why I said
    "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."
    Or maybe you missed that 3/4 of my post. ?!?!

  4. #63
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    Firstly, I just want to say that I really like your name and avatar I have my fingers crossed for this weekend. After last weekends performance, I'm hoping for a miracle. Being in Jacksonville, it's going to take one!

    Back OT... The libertarian in me wholeheartedly agrees. Society and capitalism should work itself out. Good will prevail and shoddy business tactics will fail. (Unfortunately, this doesn't happen. Hence anti-trust laws, labor laws, etc.) The conservative in me thinks that owning property doesn't give people the right to take away other people's rights (assuming you are inviting the public onto your land). The realist in me thinks that if given the time, misinformation, and chance - all landowners could potentially disallow firearms on any property. Imagine if the only place you could exercise your second amendment was on your own property. What if you don't own property? Your rights would be tossed out the window in their entirety.
    Hopefully the Dawgs will pull out an upset over the jorts, but we'll see

    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.
    pgrass101 and discoboxer like this.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  5. #64
    Member
    Array discoboxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaDawg View Post
    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.
    I wish that businesses didn't post, but if signs do not have the force of the law, how is a business supposed to provide reasonable notice that they do not want firearms on their property? Short of them paying someone to stand at the door and greet everyone with notification of their policy (unrealistic), I can't think of another way to provide notice.

    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?
    “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
    ― Albert Einstein

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,898
    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?
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  7. #66
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,149
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    You can't defend their right to say it if you're in a gun-free zone.
    It does make the to the death part much more feasible, though.
    ArmyMan likes this.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  8. #67
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by limatunes View Post
    I understand that.. which is why I said

    Or maybe you missed that 3/4 of my post. ?!?!
    No I saw it, I was addressing the idea that because a business is open to the public it is somehow forgoing certain property rights. I was simply using your quote as a springboard for my point, mostly because that is a sentiment that a lot of people echo (and I think it's a dangerous mindset when people start thinking their "rights" are more important than the next guys). I wasn't addressing you specifically, sorry if that caused confusion.

  9. #68
    NCG
    NCG is offline
    Member Array NCG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    54
    I don't like it, but I'll respect it.

  10. #69
    Member
    Array discoboxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    332
    1MoreGoodGuy,

    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 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.
    “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
    ― Albert Einstein

  11. #70
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    I wish that businesses didn't post, but if signs do not have the force of the law, how is a business supposed to provide reasonable notice that they do not want firearms on their property? Short of them paying someone to stand at the door and greet everyone with notification of their policy (unrealistic), I can't think of another way to provide notice.

    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?
    The sign is reasonable notice. It's a warning that if you are caught with a firearm on the property, you will be asked to leave or be arrested for trespassing.

    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.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  12. #71
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    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?
    For the sake of brevity I'm going to answer all your questions as one.

    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.
    discoboxer likes this.

  13. #72
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    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.
    CharlesMorri likes this.

  14. #73
    VIP Member
    Array RoadRunner71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,321
    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?
    discoboxer likes this.
    "Mind own business"
    "Always cut cards"

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    Keep in mind the federal government is the biggest violator of the 2nd amendment.
    Considering that the Federal Government was exactly what the amendment was directed at makes it even worse.

    Michael
    discoboxer likes this.

  16. #75
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    Quote Originally Posted by discoboxer View Post
    Your sister brings him over to your home to watch Georgia Tech beat the Bulldogs
    Thems be fightin words
    discoboxer likes this.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

Page 5 of 33 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... 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.