Defensive Carry banner

161 - 180 of 229 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
Tell me–does a business have the right to tell someone they may not hold religious services on their property? How about hand out religious or political pamphlets?

Or is that violating their 1A rights?
Talk about "strawman" , holding services & handing out pamphlets are actions, and often talking to folks not interested; akin to handing out guns maybe?

The first only denies Congress the right to establish a religion, doesn't protect pamphlets (not that I can find) it does protect free speech however.

A better example would be can someone in a store say "God bless you " when someone sneezes , or "God go with you" , or "God bless" when checking out etc. carrying arms is not "in your face" (though some try to say it is, it's not) LEO do it all the time and who pays attention? Oh yeah , lately thugs have been trying to make that an issue , even killing them on the job.

Academic exercise anyway, since I've never seen a "no religious pamphlets " sign, much less someone getting arrested over the sign like you can in some states for crossing a no guns sign (that is the BOR issue & violation btw signs having the FOL involving agents of the state- LEO) even IF you really didn't see the sign.

Regardless, carrying of arms in public is protected outright
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
Talk about "strawman" , holding services & handing out pamphlets are actions, and often talking to folks not interested; akin to handing out guns maybe?

The first only denies Congress the right to establish a religion, doesn't protect pamphlets (not that I can find) it does protect free speech however.

A better example would be can someone in a store say "God bless you " when someone sneezes , or "God go with you" , or "God bless" when checking out etc. carrying arms is not "in your face" (though some try to say it is, it's not) LEO do it all the time and who pays attention? Oh yeah , lately thugs have been trying to make that an issue , even killing them on the job.

Regardless, carrying of arms in public is protected outright
Carrying a firearm is not an action?

And no, it is not protected outright. Try to carry your gun through TSA security and find out how wrong you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzQkr

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
Talk about "strawman" , holding services & handing out pamphlets are actions, and often talking to folks not interested; akin to handing out guns maybe?

The first only denies Congress the right to establish a religion, doesn't protect pamphlets (not that I can find) it does protect free speech however.

A better example would be can someone in a store say "God bless you " when someone sneezes , or "God go with you" , or "God bless" when checking out etc. carrying arms is not "in your face" (though some try to say it is, it's not) LEO do it all the time and who pays attention? Oh yeah , lately thugs have been trying to make that an issue , even killing them on the job.

Academic exercise anyway, since I've never seen a "no religious pamphlets " sign, much less someone getting arrested over the sign like you can in some states for crossing a no guns sign (that is the BOR issue & violation btw signs having the FOL involving agents of the state- LEO) even IF you really didn't see the sign.

Regardless, carrying of arms in public is protected outright
You have failed, to this point, to demonstrate where 2a states carrying openly in public is protected. It may well be a presumption, but nowhere was it written. If you think the founders were that smart, they'd have articulated that so there would be no need to presume.

The Doc is constantly being adjudicated in the courts, as such, it's obviously open to interpretation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
I don't have any use for TSA so how about NO.

Also I never said you could carry a gun onto a plane (you can carry into the front of the airport ) and have it onboard IF you follow the rules.....

Try to follow this:

THE FOL signs are what violates the BOR - NOT a store's policy on carry, not a stores sign on food or drinks , nothing else - NO gun signs that carry FOL - involving agents of the state to enforce store policy on a protected RIGHT

Just like you can't put up a NO _________ <-- put in your pick of religions, races, genders etc. allowed signs you shouldn't be putting up a no gun sign with FOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
Talk about "strawman" , holding services & handing out pamphlets are actions, and often talking to folks not interested; akin to handing out guns maybe?

The first only denies Congress the right to establish a religion, doesn't protect pamphlets (not that I can find) it does protect free speech however.

A better example would be can someone in a store say "God bless you " when someone sneezes , or "God go with you" , or "God bless" when checking out etc. carrying arms is not "in your face" (though some try to say it is, it's not) LEO do it all the time and who pays attention? Oh yeah , lately thugs have been trying to make that an issue , even killing them on the job.

Academic exercise anyway, since I've never seen a "no religious pamphlets " sign, much less someone getting arrested over the sign like you can in some states for crossing a no guns sign (that is the BOR issue & violation btw signs having the FOL involving agents of the state- LEO) even IF you really didn't see the sign.

Regardless, carrying of arms in public is protected outright
Additionally, you may want to re-acquaint yourself with the 1A:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof—that is, holding religious services...doesn’t say you can only hold them in your home, or a church, does it? Sounds like that business can’t tell them to leave, for you to be logically consistent with your 2A beliefs...

Handing out pamphlets? I’d see that as free speech...or peaceably assemble. Take your pick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
I don't have any use for TSA so how about NO.

Also I never said you could carry a gun onto a plane (you can carry into the front of the airport ) and have it onboard IF you follow the rules.....

Try to follow this:

THE FOL signs are what violates the BOR - NOT a store's policy on carry, not a stores sign on food or drinks , nothing else - NO gun signs that carry FOL - involving agents of the state to enforce store policy on a protected RIGHT

Just like you can't put up a NO _________ <-- put in your pick of religions, races, genders etc. allowed signs you shouldn't be putting up a no gun sign with FOL
So you admit that the 2A is not protected outright...if it was, you wouldn’t need to “follow the rules” to carry past TSA.

As to your final paragraph: Again–one bans an inanimate object, or even an action, if you will.

The other bans a person. Big difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
You have failed, to this point, to demonstrate where 2a states carrying openly in public is protected. It may well be a presumption, but nowhere was it written. If you think the founders were that smart, they'd have articulated that so there would be no need to presume
You didn't read Heller Or McDonald (or not very closely) as for "articulated" SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does that in and of itself (despite some lefty judges not obeying the "Supreme Law of the Land" , man's law that is .

To once again make it simple

Keep - to own
Bear - to carry in public openly or concealed upon one's body
RIGHT = not up for negotiation , not "if we like it " , not dependent on majority opinions or snowflakes; not a privilege subject to the whims of anyone
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - exactly what it states

From "Heller"

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose–confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”–what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate–again, in the most analogous linguistic context–that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country … .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18—23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in Muscarello said.

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war–an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

IF you'd read the same Heller you mentioned , HOW did you miss the obvious above ? (there is more btw)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
You didn't read Heller Or McDonald (or not very closely) as for "articulated" SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does that in and of itself (despite some lefty judges not obeying the "Supreme Law of the Land" , man's law that is .

To once again make it simple

Keep - to own
Bear - to carry in public openly or concealed upon one's body
RIGHT = not up for negotiation , not "if we like it " , not dependent on majority opinions or snowflakes; not a privilege subject to the whims of anyone
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - exactly what it states
Keep - not necessarily own. During the revolution federal arms were stored/hidden in private homes
Bear - no mention of where, thus it's open to interpretation
Right - up for interpretation like the rest of the Doc
Shall not be infringed - has been infringed since at least the mid 1800's

Altruistic vs reality
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
So you admit that the 2A is not protected outright...if it was, you wouldn’t need to “follow the rules” to carry past TSA.

As to your final paragraph: Again–one bans an inanimate object, or even an action, if you will.

The other bans a person. Big difference.
Because I realize that commercial flights are not open to the public American businesses and the flights are International doesn't have one thing to do with the other. Nor does the fact that flights are miles up in the air, unlike WM , and every other store in the USA. Flights are unique in several aspects and again have nothing to do with the conversation.

Aren't you glad you prefaced your strawmen arguments with "strawmen" accusaitions that were not strawman at all LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
Keep - not necessarily own. During the revolution federal arms were stored/hidden in private homes
Bear - no mention of where, thus it's open to interpretation
Right - up for interpretation like the rest of the Doc
Shall not be infringed - has been infringed since at least the mid 1800's

Altruistic vs reality
100% incorrect: I posted enough from the Heller decision to prove the above wrong and even told you there was more there; IF you're going to mention a SCOTUS ruling you really should read it .

Of course it's infringed, you and some others are openly fighting for exactly that , rather than standing up for it "as written", when folks supposed to be on our side allow for the law to be ignored what should we expect?

Doesn't mean anything, the BOR are LAW as written, anything violating them as written is NOT LAW ; regardless of the codes, regardless of prosecutions, it is treason but as long as folks allow it , it likely won't change for the better.

Banning of arms on Fed Property is totally illegal but folks don't care enough to change it.

It is what it is
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
Because I realize that commercial flights are not open to the public American businesses and the flights are International doesn't have one thing to do with the other. Nor does the fact that flights are miles up in the air, unlike WM , and every other store in the USA. Flights are unique in several aspects and again have nothing to do with the conversation.

Aren't you glad you prefaced your strawmen arguments with "strawmen" accusaitions that were not strawman at all LOL
Yes, your statements which I originally called out were very much strawmen.

And now, you move your goalposts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
MORE from "Heller"

“The right to bear arms has always been the distinctive privilege of freemen. Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person, it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise of a certain jurisdiction. … t was not necessary that the right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution, for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241–242 (1891).

-----------------------

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would notapply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
100% incorrect: I posted enough from the Heller decision to prove the above wrong and even told you there was more there; IF you're going to mention a SCOTUS ruling you really should read it .

Of course it's infringed, you and some others are openly fighting for exactly that ,

I'll take that as an uneducated biased opinion because I disagree with you on many merits. rather than standing up for it "as written",

As interpreted, like other areas of the Doc by SCOTUS. If we could take the written as gospel and not open to interpretation as it has been historically,

perhaps when folks supposed to be on our side allow for the law to be ignored what should we expect?

An us vs them mentality,
Doesn't mean anything, the BOR are LAW as written, anything violating them as written is NOT LAW ;

Tell that to the jailer as he turns the key, you're wrong historically, plenty of people in jail for gun violations

regardless of the codes, regardless of prosecutions, it is treason but as long as folks allow it , it likely won't change for the better.

An expressed opinion of SCOTUS?

Banning of arms on Fed Property is totally illegal but folks don't care enough to change it.

again, altruistic at best

It is what it is
Bingo, reality has set in.

:hand10:

It's getting to the point I care less and less about the 2a and turned off by all the backyard barrister opinions stated as fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,107 Posts
Thereby taking the business owners rights away from them through law? I'm beginning to see there's a LOT of "me, me me" people on this forum who don't give a crap about anyone's elses perceived rights but their own.
I agree 100%

Its not matter of what is legal, its a matter of what the properly owner is personally willing to allow on his/her property. I dont have to agree with the property owner and I take no pleasure in seeing a gun buster sign but at the same time, I support the right of any person to have dominion of their own private property. I agree with Brownie, there seems to a an awful lot of self assigned specialness going on in regards to this subject. I don't think that the armed citizen is a protected class of people as it relates to discrimination. That's just silly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
Yes, your statements which I originally called out were very much strawmen.

And now, you move your goalposts.
Not only have I moved nothing, my posts are there for you to read, if you can't understand my point was/is that FOL signs violate the 2nd , I explained in pretty good detail why that is .

We all have the RIGHT to carry arms in public- period it is nothing new, it's not "my opinion" it's a simple fact and a long standing one at that. Long before the BOR, the USA , from the beginning of time, it's natural law to be able to protect oneself
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
I agree 100%

Its not matter of what is legal, its a matter of what the properly owner is personally willing to allow on his/her property. I dont have to agree with the property owner and I take no pleasure in seeing a gun buster sign but at the same time, I support the right of any person to have dominion of their own private property. I agree with Brownie, there seems to a an awful lot of self assigned specialness going on in regards to this subject. I don't think that the armed citizen is a protected class of people as it relates to discrimination. That's just silly.
SO it is silly (in your opinion) to HAVE "protected classes" ?

Or only those enumerated as such in the BOR?

You DO bring up an important point, WHY are we NOT a protected class, I mean seriously other groups ARE with nothing in the COTUS or BOR mentioning them at all, yet even with the 2nd we're not in a protected group. We should be, could be but too many are "wrapped up being PC" while ignoring our Rights.....is what it is:aargh4:

There is an outbreak of very poor reading comprehension on this thread. I don't believe anyone said "armed citizens" are a "protected class"

"I" did clearly say the 2nd protects armed citizens and FOL signs are a clear violation of the 2nd......how that can possibly be twisted to "protected class " is more than confusing , it's purposely insulting
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
Not only have I moved nothing, my posts are there for you to read, if you can't understand my point was/is that FOL signs violate the 2nd , I explained in pretty good detail why that is .

We all have the RIGHT to carry arms in public- period it is nothing new, it's not "my opinion" it's a simple fact and a long standing one at that. Long before the BOR, the USA , from the beginning of time, it's natural law to be able to protect oneself
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzQkr

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,909 Posts
People have been jailed for centuries wrongfully, that doesn't somehow make it "right" or "just" , I've always know the reality, also always been surprised at how some folks are OK with passing of illegal decrees called "laws" that are not and cannot be by definition - violation of BOR & COTUS cannot be laws.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
People have been jailed for centuries wrongfully, that doesn't somehow make it "right" or "just" , I've always know the reality, also always been surprised at how some folks are OK with passing of illegal decrees called "laws" that are not and cannot be by definition - violation of BOR & COTUS cannot be laws.
We are a nation of laws. Until such time as a law is adjudicated unlawful/unconstitutional, it stands as lawful. As such I tend to obey all laws whether I agree with them or not in principle. The ones I don't agree with but obey, [ just like you ] doesn't elevate me to anti gun/anti 2a or pro this or that. That's part of the disconnect
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,750 Posts
When a sign has FOL, are you really saying that LEO are not "agents of the .Gov???" I think we all know how it works, but a FOL sign brings the .Gov into the mix of store policy, and that certainly violates the 2nd when infringing on the 2nd and it's very purpose, stating citizens have the right to not only keep arms but to bear(carry ) them also IN PUBLIC - there would be no need for the "bear arms" part IF it was not meant, intended and required for arms to be allowed in public .

Reality 101 folks
Nice try.
Posting private property with a legally enforceable sign is not a governmental action. That is simply a property owner giving legally required notice that they are exercising their Right to exclude weapons from their property under the Ninth Amendment . It is their private property in spite of the fact they allow strangers to enter to conduct business with them. Them allowing you to enter the property is a temporary license that they have the sole authority to revoke at will. As the owners of the property are banning inanimate objects (which are not capable of having Rights or legal standing) and not persons there is no discrimination.

The Supreme Court has been abundantly clear on that.
 
161 - 180 of 229 Posts
Top