Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC - Page 19

Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC

This is a discussion on Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Havok A non governmental entity can not possibly infringe on your constitutionally protected rights....

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 286
Like Tree309Likes

Thread: Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC

  1. #271
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    A non governmental entity can not possibly infringe on your constitutionally protected rights.
    Add Meijers and Aldi to the list of stores banning OC-lincoln-sand-sculpture-facepalm.jpg
    How many times must we see defenseless people die before we realize being defenseless is NOT the answer? // The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect everything else.

  2. #272
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,423
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Lincoln Sand Sculpture facepalm.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	61.3 KB 
ID:	302562
    You can post all the pictures you want, but you are still wrong.
    maxwell97 likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  3. #273
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    You can post all the pictures you want, but you are still wrong.
    Am I really?
    How many times must we see defenseless people die before we realize being defenseless is NOT the answer? // The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect everything else.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #274
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,423
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Yes you are. The lawsuits mentioned here were each against a government entity, for an incident that took place on property owned by a government entity.

    On the other hand, in Lloyd Corp v Tanner that was mentioned by another poster:
    Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner's privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center's operations, and petitioner's property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner's tenants.
    maxwell97 likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  6. #275
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,819
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    If you would, members of the forum, please explain how each of the following aren't infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms:

    forcing people to "cover it up" i.e. CC
    forcing people to OC
    banning bump stocks (assuming it's an armament or part of an armament)
    restricting or banning types of firearms
    restricting or banning types of ammunition
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

    'Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).'
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  7. #276
    Distinguished Member Array patkelly4370's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,702
    (Referring to the "element of surprise")
    I'm my post above where there were 3 groups with 4 open carriers...
    A criminal comes in to the restaurant to rob them, sees 4 open carriers, and shoots them first?
    That sure makes perfect sense to me (not).

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  8. #277
    Distinguished Member Array patkelly4370's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    And I have not changed my opinion that if folks hadn't been hiding their guns for decades people might have become accustomed to seeing guns in daily life. But seeing as how they haven't been seeing guns everyday now we have the reality that you speak of.
    Of the 4 OCers in the restaurant, the group with 2 were two families. Four adults and a gaggle of kids from (guessing) ages 2 to 11.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  9. #278
    Member Array TimBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    US
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by StripesDude View Post
    The US Constitution establishes rights guaranteed to us by the government. It has nothing to do with a store owner (not the government but a private citizen) prohibiting an inanimate object.
    The Constitution RECOGNIZES rights given by our Creator, it does not establish rights.

    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
    since9 likes this.

  10. #279
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

    'Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...
    The very fact that the Second Amendment, part of the supreme Law of the Land (Article VI*) says one thing and all those supposed "officers of the court" who're supposed to be bound to support the Constitution instead decided to weaken it, in no way invalidates the Constitution itself.

    The supreme law of the land supercedes all disparate laws.

    *This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


    The First Amendment is limited. It says, "Congress shall make no law..."

    The Second Amendment contains no such limitation. It says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Where's the restriction? And don't tell me "the judges..." They're REQUIRED to adhere to the Constitution. When they don't, are any of their rulings at all trustworthy?

    We the People say, "No," and as Abraham Lincoln confirmed...

    Name:  Abraham Lincoln on Overthrowing Those Who Pervert Our Constitution.jpg
Views: 17
Size:  31.5 KB

    "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void." — Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177

    The question before us, gentleman, is that since the Constitution itself holds judges just as accountable to the Constitution as legislators, shouldn't this principle apply to judges, as well? The text of the Constitution itself so demands.

    Read it again:

    *This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


    In light of the Constitution itself, let's rephrase Marbury vs. Madison:

    "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the judiciary, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

    That's perfectly commensurate with Article VI.
    How many times must we see defenseless people die before we realize being defenseless is NOT the answer? // The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect everything else.

  11. #280
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,819
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The very fact that the Second Amendment, part of the supreme Law of the Land (Article VI*) says one thing and all those supposed "officers of the court" who're supposed to be bound to support the Constitution instead decided to weaken it, in no way invalidates the Constitution itself.
    Weakens it, according to your opinions. I happen to agree with the Heller decision, and find it a much better researched and reasoned defense of the meaning of the 2A than anything presented in this thread. Regardless, per Article III Section 2:

    "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

    ...so the legal opinion of the Supreme Court is the one we'll be going with, not yours or mine. Unless you prefer to ignore the parts of the Constitution that you find inconvenient?
    Wavygravy and AzQkr like this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  12. #281
    Member Array sqlb3rn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    277
    What is the point of these no OC policies... it's not like hanging a "no OC allowed" sign is going to gain you any customers. You are more likely to lose customers. The only reason I ever go to walmart is to buy ammo for the shooting range, they stop selling ammo they lose $60-80$ a month from me, meanwhile preventing no mass shootings.

    Some people say they never seeing OC anyway... I see it all the time here in Bessemer AL.

  13. #282
    Member Array MisterMills357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    204
    Aldi is small minded in a lot of ways, IMHO;and this is just one more way to be small.
    Crabby Old Goat, that's me!

  14. #283
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,595
    Quote Originally Posted by sqlb3rn View Post
    What is the point of these no OC policies... it's not like hanging a "no OC allowed" sign is going to gain you any customers. You are more likely to lose customers. The only reason I ever go to walmart is to buy ammo for the shooting range, they stop selling ammo they lose $60-80$ a month from me, meanwhile preventing no mass shootings.

    Some people say they never seeing OC anyway... I see it all the time here in Bessemer AL.
    Beg to differ, there's more people that don't carry that do than shop at big box stores. Thus a no oc sign ingratiates more customers to shop there where they won't see people carrying fire arms openly
    The mind is the limiting factor

    The lion does not even bother to turn his head when he hears the small dog barking.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/azqkr

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  15. #284
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,416
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterMills357 View Post
    Aldi is small minded in a lot of ways, IMHO;and this is just one more way to be small.
    They built an Aldi up the road from me. It just seems like a minor-league Sam's or Costco to me. Single A level.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  16. #285
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    434
    I'll add them to the list of my Do Not Shop There list.
    How many times must we see defenseless people die before we realize being defenseless is NOT the answer? // The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect everything else.

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •