Defensive Carry banner

181 - 200 of 229 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,885 Posts
You can't be serious, "bailouts" have not been mentioned, tax $$$ for locating in certain areas, tax breaks from citizen's tax $$ WM taking them (despite being a huge business) , I agree to disagree, when OUR tax $$$ help you to open in a location you're NOT private- not even in spirit.
The tax breaks to open in certain locations are not really helping Walmart. They are helping their future customers.

That is your opinion, so I suspect you actually believe that to bear (carry) was NOT meant to be in ALL public spaces, open to the public places, or to put it another way, YOU would be willing to let all anti 2nd folks make carry impossible by them being able to use FOL to keep every legal person from carrying?

IF you must disarm "constantly" you're not really allowed to bear arms - that pretty simple and straight forward.

You're simply wrong that is "exactly how that works" , the 2nd is NOT a "privilege" depending on even a majority's wishes, (which is why were are not and never were a democracy) not to mention the fact the 2nd didn't even grant the right but simply enumerated it in Fed law. When the law (e.g. GOV) steps in (FOL signs) that is a direct violation of the 2nd - period

Policy of a store or stores should never be law- we do have legal ways of law making, stores don't follow those. They're in business to make $$ Not LAW.....as it should be.

Which is why more & more states signs won't carry FOL; and why they don't now in several states.

ETA:

DO you think criminals obey "no gun signs"? Signs are worthless and foolish, as are those who "believe in their magic power" just another thing that tries to punish the law abiding that were not a danger to begin with. Since most mass murders happen in no gun zones, it's comical anyone would even try to defend "the right to post signs" much less the .Gov being a part of that with FOL Signs.......
2A is a restriction on government. Just like you have rights, so does the person who owns the business. The great thing about America is if you don’t like how someone does business you can take your money elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Risasi and AzQkr

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
Except on an airplane, though, according to you.

Either the 2A is absolute, and you can carry wherever and whenever you want, regardless of a property/business owner’s wishes (which you continually have bern claiming) or it’s not.

You moved the goalposts when you said “airplanes are special”.

The fact you can’t(won’t?) see your own logical inconsistencies makes this futile, at best.

Go ahead; the last word is yours.
Well, they're different (what I actually said) unless you can show me other businesses that fly miles up in the sky and land all over the world........

What I said was, laws making signs carry FOL are a clear violation of the 2nd- I stand by that I have fully explained why, but I do agree it's futile and I have better things to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
2A is a restriction on government. Just like you have rights, so does the person who owns the business. The great thing about America is if you don’t like how someone does business you can take your money elsewhere.
The really great thing is I fully already understood that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
With facial recognition technology in cameras becoming wide spread, and last I heard at least some Walmarts are using it, they might be able to try it.
Of course I'm sure the Lawyers will get involved???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
I"m really tired and frustrated so many (even on here) don't value their natural rights, nor the BOR enough to stand for them in public (even on a forum no less) to me it is very sad to see what is happening while those many would expect to do otherwise instead stand on pc . Rights do not trump other rights, you have a right to post , we have a right to carry. Period.

Saying FOL is "fine" is a sellout , it's a clear violation of the 2nd, they can still trespass you IF you refuse to leave (armed or not) it's NOT OK to violate someone's rights because you like "your other rights" more (or less) . To use agents of the state to enforce your policy, you (whomever you may be) are showing you don't value anyone's rights - besides your own.

I'd never thought pro gun folks would really loudly support 30:06/07 laws, yet I see it all the time ; without seeing how it clearly violates the 2nd.

We can expect red flag laws and such, in large part because some folks say they support the COTUS & BOR , when they really just support what law makers pass, even when those decrees clearly violate the COTUS & BOR.

Funny , I stated my opinions on some things, cited SCOTUS opinions in part, and watched my words twisted, distorted and even mocked; all by folks that claim to be pro 2nd .

Y'all have fun with this thread now .
 
  • Like
Reactions: forester58

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,885 Posts
The really great thing is I fully already understood that
Your posts, including the one below indicate otherwise.
I"m really tired and frustrated so many (even on here) don't value their natural rights, nor the BOR enough to stand for them in public (even on a forum no less) to me it is very sad to see what is happening while those many would expect to do otherwise instead stand on pc . Rights do not trump other rights, you have a right to post , we have a right to carry. Period.

Saying FOL is "fine" is a sellout , it's a clear violation of the 2nd, they can still trespass you IF you refuse to leave (armed or not) it's NOT OK to violate someone's rights because you like "your other rights" more (or less) . To use agents of the state to enforce your policy, you (whomever you may be) are showing you don't value anyone's rights - besides your own.

I'd never thought pro gun folks would really loudly support 30:06/07 laws, yet I see it all the time ; without seeing how it clearly violates the 2nd.

We can expect red flag laws and such, in large part because some folks say they support the COTUS & BOR , when they really just support what law makers pass, even when those decrees clearly violate the COTUS & BOR.

Funny , I stated my opinions on some things, cited SCOTUS opinions in part, and watched my words twisted, distorted and even mocked; all by folks that claim to be pro 2nd .

Y'all have fun with this thread now .
There is probably nobody that values rights more than I do. Maybe as much, but I doubt more. Standing up for the BOR in public? Is there any way to more publicly stand up for the BOR than military service? Its ironic that you say rights do not trump other rights, while suggesting that someone should not have a say in who, or what is on their property. I dont support the 30.06/07 signs at all, but I recognize that as property owners, they have the right to post it. I also have the right to not be supportive of the business and their sign. Like I said before, 2A doesnt give you a right to carry in a business, just like 1A does not mean Zuckerberg has to allow you to post whatever you want on facebook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,113 Posts
Since when is the 2nd Amendment a pact between the citizenry and a private property owner? I suspect that there are some people who are simply drawing an equivalence between many things regarding public land, public space, private land and private property which is open to the public. This sounds like more flat Earth logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
563 Posts
I'm sorry so many of you got your noses out of joint thinking I was advocating armed citizens have a right to ignore a store owner's intentions. I was not, not in the least.

I most certainly was, however, trying to illustrate the "store owner's authority is absolute" fallacy, as it most certainly is not, not in the least.

The second a store owner opens his or her door to the public, it's no longer private property. It's commercial property. A few laws apply to both, but each has its own set of laws with respect to the governance of both store/property owner and customer on that property.

I would respectfully point out, that when a business owner prohibits guns in their business, that are not prohibiting a person–they are prohibiting a gun; an inanimate object that has no rights. The person is welcome; the object is not.
Understood.

Go buy a large soda and some snacks from the gas station and walk into a movie theater with it in your hand. See how far you get before they tell you to get rid of it. Businesses have the right to disallow people or objects on their property. You should go have a longer sit down discussion with that attorney and get a better understanding of exactly what grounds a property owner can prevent, or must allow entry onto their property.
Please show me in our United States Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land," where it states "the right of the people to bear snacks and drinks thereby undercutting a proprietor's revenue stream shall not be infringed."

In NC, a business owner can put a legal sign on his door that says No Guns and has a picture. If I carry a gun into that store or place of business and get caught -- I'm breaking the law, fined, maybe arrested, and will lose my CC permit immediately. I don't think your attorney is from NC, @since9.
The legal authority of posting varies by state. In some state, that authority is full. In others, postings carry no force or legal authority at all. Most states are somewhere between.

Again Since9 is trying to say what the law is and has not cited a single statute or court opinion to support that claim.
Once again, property laws vary by state. If you expect me to research the variations in all 50 states I'm going to direct you to Lexis Nexis and say, "Knock yourself out."

The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly stated that a store is still private property even though it is open to the public.
Then by all means, mcp1810, "cite the specific court opinion to support that claim." I'm not doubting you. I'm saying if you're going to demand others cite every reference, by all means, lead by example.

That is the one Supreme Court as described in Article III of the United States Constitution that is THE judicial power of the United States that all of the inferior courts are obligated by precedent to honor.
Lol, it actually doesn't say that. Here's what it says:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. - Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution​

Nowhere in there does it say the Supreme Court's judicial power extends to cases between a citizen and his state of residence. The case must involve either interstate, federal, or foreign controversy.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" will always remain a case arising under this Constitution, as Amendments are fully a part of the Constitution and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The question is, "Whom 'shall not infringe' the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" Absent a restrictive modifier, it applies to everyone, at all levels throughout our land. Naturally, this means a great many entities have violated the people's Constitutional rights in recent years they would never dared to have infringed in our nations' earlier years.

So how is it intellectually honest to demand some to adhere to our personal opinion of what the Constitution says while selectively ignoring it ourselves?
Indeed, how is it? But I would never ask anyone to hold to any "personal opinion of what the Constitution says." It's very straightforward. Just read it. If you're confused, read it again!

By far the greatest problem we have in the U.S. is that so few people have fully learned what the Constitution itself says before they go on to other things. Thus, most people read the Constitution with a myriad of biases which color their understanding or blinding them to it altogether.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,885 Posts
Please show me in our United States Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land," where it states "the right of the people to bear snacks and drinks thereby undercutting a proprietor's revenue stream shall not be infringed."
.
It’s right next to the text that states you have the right to be on someone else’s property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,298 Posts
After seeing some of these beliefs, OC is not what we need to be concerned about in this country. Civics 101 is.

Ignorance of the people is the biggest threat to our country today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,068 Posts
I most certainly was, however, trying to illustrate the "store owner's authority is absolute" fallacy, as it most certainly is not, not in the least.

The second a store owner opens his or her door to the public, it's no longer private property. It's commercial property. A few laws apply to both, but each has its own set of laws with respect to the governance of both store/property owner and customer on that property.
That is not true. Commercial property not owned by the "public," the public being the government at some level and paid for with public funds, is still private property. Commercial is only a zoning and taxation description. It has nothing to do with being privately owned.

You, as a customer, are a public "invitee." A business inviting you to enter is, with certain SCOTUS-approved exceptions, no different than you inviting a neighborhood passerby to join you in your backyard barbecue. Just like you would have, the business has the right to decide the conditions of that invitation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,128 Posts
That is not true. Commercial property not owned by the "public," the public being the government at some level and paid for with public funds, is still private property. Commercial is only a zoning and taxation description. It has nothing to do with being privately owned.

You, as a customer, are a public "invitee." A business inviting you to enter is, with certain SCOTUS-approved exceptions, no different than you inviting a neighborhood passerby to join you in your backyard barbecue. Just like you would have, the business has the right to decide the conditions of that invitation.
That's the way it should be.

However, details on what the SCOTUS-approved exceptions are is important. Most of those are based on civil rights. If self defense, which requires sufficient means to defend against an attacker, is recognized as a civil right then a paradigm shift on understanding the 2A may logically follow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,930 Posts
The second a store owner opens his or her door to the public, it's no longer private property. It's commercial property. A few laws apply to both, but each has its own set of laws with respect to the governance of both store/property owner and customer on that property.
The term “commercial” as it relates to property is used to categorize property as revenue or profit generating. It’s not a legal term used to signify when someone may or may not establish rules for conduct on that property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,068 Posts
That's the way it should be.

However, details on what the SCOTUS-approved exceptions are is important. Most of those are based on civil rights. If self defense, which requires sufficient means to defend against an attacker, is recognized as a civil right then a paradigm shift on understanding the 2A may logically follow.
If...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
563 Posts
Oddly enough, during OEF and OIF our USG lawyers took the position that self defense was an inherent right recognized by the US and the international community and therefore we weren't allowed to fully disarm local civilians.
True. When I initially heard this, I was incredulous. After bantering it about over chow, here's what began to sink in: If we disarm the general populace, most of which were still law-abiding people, they'll have no defense against either criminals, roving bands of outlaws, or a tyrannical government.

Naturally, this created issues for our troops on the ground. However, how much worse would things have gone had our troops attempted to disarm everyone, thereby acting like, if not actually being a tyrannical government?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,760 Posts
I'm sorry so many of you got your noses out of joint thinking I was advocating armed citizens have a right to ignore a store owner's intentions. I was not, not in the least.

I most certainly was, however, trying to illustrate the "store owner's authority is absolute" fallacy, as it most certainly is not, not in the least.

The second a store owner opens his or her door to the public, it's no longer private property. It's commercial property. A few laws apply to both, but each has its own set of laws with respect to the governance of both store/property owner and customer on that property.



Understood.



Please show me in our United States Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land," where it states "the right of the people to bear snacks and drinks thereby undercutting a proprietor's revenue stream shall not be infringed."



The legal authority of posting varies by state. In some state, that authority is full. In others, postings carry no force or legal authority at all. Most states are somewhere between.



Once again, property laws vary by state. If you expect me to research the variations in all 50 states I'm going to direct you to Lexis Nexis and say, "Knock yourself out."



Then by all means, mcp1810, "cite the specific court opinion to support that claim." I'm not doubting you. I'm saying if you're going to demand others cite every reference, by all means, lead by example.



Lol, it actually doesn't say that. Here's what it says:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. - Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution​

Nowhere in there does it say the Supreme Court's judicial power extends to cases between a citizen and his state of residence. The case must involve either interstate, federal, or foreign controversy.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" will always remain a case arising under this Constitution, as Amendments are fully a part of the Constitution and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The question is, "Whom 'shall not infringe' the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" Absent a restrictive modifier, it applies to everyone, at all levels throughout our land. Naturally, this means a great many entities have violated the people's Constitutional rights in recent years they would never dared to have infringed in our nations' earlier years.



Indeed, how is it? But I would never ask anyone to hold to any "personal opinion of what the Constitution says." It's very straightforward. Just read it. If you're confused, read it again!

By far the greatest problem we have in the U.S. is that so few people have fully learned what the Constitution itself says before they go on to other things. Thus, most people read the Constitution with a myriad of biases which color their understanding or blinding them to it altogether.
As i already cited in another thread, From Lloyd Corp v Tanner 326 U.S. 501
Nor does property lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. Few would argue that a free-standing store, with abutting parking space for customers, assumes significant public attributes merely because the public is invited to shop there. Nor is size alone the controlling factor. The essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center.
I have cited. Now you get to cite.

If you are arguing the Second Amendment is at issue in a legal dispute that is certainly a case "arising under this Constitution" isn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
563 Posts
The term “commercial” as it relates to property is used to categorize property as revenue or profit generating. It’s not a legal term used to signify when someone may or may not establish rules for conduct on that property.
And yet the term or one of it's many legal variants, including "places of public accommodation" (see below) is used throughout the laws of most, if not all states, precisely to so distinguish that very thing you claim it does not.

Again, property in use by both the owner and the public at large because the owner has invited that public in for the purpose of conducting business i.e. "commercial" is treated differently under the law than the private property of one's personal domicile.

I am not trying to convince you of something that "should be, StripesDude. I'm trying to convey the essence of the law, particularly as it applies to refuting the errant claim that store owners have "absolute authority over who enters and who doesn't." That claim is absolutely false, at least here in these United States, and repeating it doesn't make the case one iota stronger.

But since you folks won't listen to, listen to a licensed, practicing attorney:

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law. The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability."

This says precisely what I've been saying all along: Businesses do have serious authority to refuse service, but NOT "absolute authority" as several here have claimed. Furthermore, "places of public accommodation" isn't some fictional construct, but it does go by different names depending on the source or nature of the discussion, as well as the specifics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
563 Posts
As i already cited in another thread, From Lloyd Corp v Tanner 326 U.S. 501

I have cited.
Sorry, mcp1910, but one cite does not topple the entirety of the body of law. It is, at best, anecdotal.

Furthermore, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're attempting to compare the disruptive and interactive activity of distributing leaflets with the peaceful and non-interactive carry of a firearm.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
And yet the term or one of it's many legal variants, including "places of public accommodation" (see below) is used throughout the laws of most, if not all states, precisely to so distinguish that very thing you claim it does not.

Again, property in use by both the owner and the public at large because the owner has invited that public in for the purpose of conducting business i.e. "commercial" is treated differently under the law than the private property of one's personal domicile.

I am not trying to convince you of something that "should be, StripesDude. I'm trying to convey the essence of the law, particularly as it applies to refuting the errant claim that store owners have "absolute authority over who enters and who doesn't." That claim is absolutely false, at least here in these United States, and repeating it doesn't make the case one iota stronger.

But since you folks won't listen to, listen to a licensed, practicing attorney:

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law. The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability."

This says precisely what I've been saying all along: Businesses do have serious authority to refuse service, but NOT "absolute authority" as several here have claimed. Furthermore, "places of public accommodation" isn't some fictional construct, but it does go by different names depending on the source or nature of the discussion, as well as the specifics.
You're speaking to protected classes, we're all quite aware of them and when discussing business owners rights, those protected classes are a given.
 
181 - 200 of 229 Posts
Top