Sit back and enjoy the show
This is a discussion on Business Rights within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I keep seeing recent threads discussing the ability of business owners to create and enforce policies that either restrict customers or employees from carrying guns. ...
I keep seeing recent threads discussing the ability of business owners to create and enforce policies that either restrict customers or employees from carrying guns. For example, this thread running here: Fired for Carrying - now suing Employer. On one hand, I see suggestions that property rights trump the second amendment. On the other hand, I see suggestions that the 2A does not interfere with property rights.
Recently, it was brought to my attention that Arizona passed a religions freedom bill (SB1062) which prevents injunctions against businesses for refusal of services due to religious beliefs. I couldn't help but compare the outrage that is happening over this bill to the various gun laws across the country. Property rights, civil rights, second amendment rights, religious freedoms, and possibly others come into play regarding bills like this - and many of the countries gun laws.
So... Should businesses be able to prevent customers or employees from carrying firearms - which are protected under the second amendment? Do they have the right to hire and service people as they see fit? How can gun right discrimination be any different than religious or civil rights discrimination in regards to a business owners property rights? Where do businesses various rights (including property) begin and end? Where do individuals rights fit into the equation when entering a business open to the public? Who gives and who takes? Who gets the special treatment?
Sit back and enjoy the show
Gun control isn't about guns...it's about control. It also makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citzens.
To me it is very simple, it is called choice and personal responsibility. A business has a choice to make the rules concerning their business that includes the right to carry for employees and people frequenting that business. Every person then has their right to choose to frequent that business or be employed there.
In my view no one gets special treatment, the business should be able to make the decisions they wish. If the business doesn't like left handed people they should be allowed to ban left handed people and the left handed people should be able to protest that decision. This is liberty. The government trying to force "equality and fairness" is nothing more than the government enforcing its will on the people.
Yes, in my view private property rights trump your right to do whatever you want in my business or on my business or personal property.
Including, but not limited to:
1. Gay marriages
2. Straight marriages
3. Drinking alcohol
4. Drinking soda
Don't like it, don't buy from me, eventually the free market will take over....
If we have rights as human and as citizens ..................Lets take freedom of speech you have a right to say whatever you want or to post on your property a sign about pretty much anything but anyone else that may hear your speech or see your sign may choose not to buy from your business .
So you have the right but you also will suffer the consequences . This is just the way life is and has been IMO
Member of the NRA
Keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you want to destroy something .
"There's something in me I can't describe. It's as if I saw a strange darkness before me, into which I must go."
Of course, the Constitution doesn't specify what it doesn't specify, yet it clearly indicates the enumerated rights aren't the only ones that exist.
Still, it seems clear enough to me.
Where it gets muddy is with the non-public ... as in, staff, contractors and others on the premises for "company" business. If property rights are to hold any water at all, a property owner must retain the right to control access to the facility. In this aspect, I see little difference between a person's home and a company's workplace, at least in terms of the non-public folks present. Unless one right is to be held to trump the other, in which case the other doesn't really exist any longer, then the only real way to have both those rights co-exist is to accept that property owners have every right to dictate who shall stay and who shall go. Specifically with the terms of hired staff, it seems clear to me that if policies dictate this or that requirement for employment, then that's pretty much it.
Interesting question, with all sorts of little wrinkles to consider.
Here, any business can post their business .... but, it is not a crime to carry past the sign either. They can only ask you to leave if they discover you are carrying, and if you don't leave..... you could get charged with trespassing. Last year, Legislature passed a bill making ALL public places open to carrying ..... unless they had security measures in place (metal detectors, armed guard, etc.) at all entrances.
Last edited by Eagleks; February 23rd, 2014 at 12:08 AM.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
That's a pretty concise answer, ccw9mm. Definitely gives some things to ponder about.
A private business on private property, yes, property rights prevail.
A private business operating on PUBLIC property, no, it is not their property and they do not have the right to exclude what is lawful.
Examples: Gun shows operating on public property excluding concealed carry is wrong.
Employment: On private property, in a private business, yes, you may restrict employees.
21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps.
The line of hard men willing to rain violence on our enemies so you can sleep warmly and safely in your bed at night continues. That's what we do. Semper fi.
NRA Life Member since 1972
Property rights are far too easily disregarded these days. If you have a business and wish to prohibit people from carrying guns on its premises, you have every right to do so. If you don't want to service people because you disagree with their lifestyle, or because you're a racist heathen, or for whatever other reason you can think of, no matter how stupid...that's your right. No one has a right to your products or your services, and no one has the right to come onto your property and force you to engage in commerce with them. Anyone who understands basic economics will understand that even your typical racist jerk is probably going to like your money more than he hates you. For the few holdouts...there's also no violation of anyone's rights going on when that guy faces a massive boycott and finds that no one will do business with him. If you want your 2A rights to be safer then you need to wrap your mind around the fact that it's just one form of property rights like any other, and if you won't respect the property rights of others (ie, insisting on your right to carry onto someone else's private property whether they want you to or not) then you shouldn't be surprised when they refuse to respect YOUR rights as they make their Brady Campaign donation. Making things like these into POLITICAL problems, rather than dealing with it yourself like an ADULT, is what leads to so much of our current trouble.
Private property rights should be protected... even though it is hard for me to accept as far as the 2A is concerned, it is not the governments place to tell anyone what they can and can't allow on their own property.
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine
Constitutionally speaking, people don't have the right to be served by a business if the business owner doesn't like the people for any reason (such as race, color, religion, or national origin), which is why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. While you can't discriminate based on sex for employment, you can actually do it to customers. It's legal to make your establishment for men or women only.
This Arizona law is unnecessary because the civil rights act doesn't protect homosexuals to begin with. It might actually prompt Congress to update the civil rights act to include sexual orientation as a protected class.
Businesses can't legally deny you service just because you're a Christian, but it can deny you service if you're gay? That doesn't sound right.
If you look closely, the protected classes are something inherent, something you typically has no control over. You can't control what race and color you're born with and which country you're born into. While you can change religion, it's something typically acquired from your parents, and you can't control which family you're born into. The civil rights act protects who you are, not what you do. This is why you can't be denied business just for being white, but you can be evicted if you choose to exercise your 1st amendment right by insulting the owner.
Ars longa vita brevis