This is a discussion on Should Guns Be Permitted on College Campuses? within the Featured Topics forums, part of the Welcome To DefensiveCarry.com category; Absolutely they should....
let us know how it works for you after you've been hit with criminal and civil lawsuits, and for lawsuits because you infringed on the rights of other people (especially as a "public place").
I'll give you the address of the restaurant in exchange for you you sharing your own address.
You can then have the opportunity to prove that you cannot stop people from exercising their rights on your private property.
You reference to discrimination cases against protected classes in this discussion suggests that you do not really understand rights, infringement of rights, hierarchy of rights, etc., in the context of this discussion.
Before taking such authoritative and declarative stances on the subject, you should probably brush up on the facts.
SCOTUS has came to the conclusion that some restrictions on 2A are Constitutional. That is the way of the land cased closed. As far as court's are concerned, corneileous is right.
So the admin that started this thread hasn't been online since 3 minutes after starting this thread.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours.
Please re-read what I said about yelling "fire" in a theater...you know the part you skipped over where I said there were consequences if done in a malicious manner.
With regards to MY address...my home is NOT a PUBLIC venue, his restaurant IS a PUBLIC venue....once again you lack reading comprehension and don't understand the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE property.
I do understand rights and infringements.
The irony is dripping in your response.
With that being said...would you be "OK" with a liberal anti-gun majority "interpreting" (read:reinterpreting) the Heller decision and reversing it and restricting the 2nd even further?
As it is, one must disarm to enter the theater but not have their tongue removed.
Thus they can still yell fire in the theater.
Now, the fact that they can be punished for any mayhem or panic they create is exactly the same as they can be punished if they shoot someone.
They found that the 2A did not mean and it was never meant, based on historical data, that the 2A could NOT be regulated in any way, shape, or form. You asked what I thought about the Heller decision being reversed by the anti-gun majority to further restrict gun rights, and my response to that is that the Heller decision need not be reversed to accomplish that. The Heller decision clearly supports "some", but not all, restrictions on gun rights. In their "interpretation" of the 2A, some, but not all, restrictions are constitutional. As far as the courts and laws are concerned, some restrictions on 2A are in fact constitutional. The case has been closed on the subject. That's the current way of the land and how things actually work in reality. We're debating a moot point. Our "opinions", "interpretations", "reinterpretations", and whatever else we want to happen or not happen is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.Originally Posted by SCOTUS
The first amendment clearly, textually, and literally stated thast NO LAW shall be made that ABRIGES aka restrict or diminish freedom of speech. My turn to ask you a question... Do you believe that people should be able to say anything, at anytime, anywhere, and any and every law that restricts a person's speech in any way shape or form is unconstitutional? People should be able to peaceful assemble where ever they like with no restrictions?Originally Posted by First Amendment
Before you block me and accuse me of being or sounding like an anti-gun Liberal, let me say that, while I agree that some restrictions are constitutional, I also believe that most gun laws should be ruled unconstitutional being that they serve no other perpose than to be a backdoor way for the Antis to get around the 2A by keeping as many people as they possibkely can from exercising a Constitutional Right they believe we should not have.