Issue with No Firearm Signs

[UnseenUSPCompact]

I was going to make this point in another thread but didn't want to get too far off topic...

The 2A gives you the right to keep and bear arms. We all agree on this for the most part. The state issues a legal CHL for those that are allowed to have one. All of those things are legal and well within your rights as an American under the Constitution. Now comes the issue in my mind and be sure to tell me if Im just reaching too far.
Store owners believe that putting a "no firearms" sign on the door makes them safer or makes their shoppers feel safer. Im not going to argue the point if it makes it feel safer or not, because we all know that if somebody is gonna rob or kill, a stupid sign isn't going to stop them...regardless, my main question is would a "No Firearms" sign be the same as saying "No Blacks Allowed" or "No Asians" or what about "No Gays" or "No Women"? The store owner has ever right to "believe" that all gays are blood thirsty killing machines, but if somebody put a "No gays" or "No Blacks" sign up on their door they would be overwelmed with lawsuits. Why is this not happening in the gun world? Is this not a solid argument or am I reaching? If your business banned gays then it would automatically be labeled a hate group regardless of how wrong or right you are about their killing ability. The thought came from the business having the right to ban guns as a private business/property. I understand the the Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." I also know that other states have come about with laws that relate to sexual orientation and other instances...why wouldn't being turned away for your belief in the Constitution be just as discriminary as anything else?

 

[SVT]

I think private property (business) owners should have the right to discriminate against whomever they want (gays, blacks, asians, gun owners, rednecks, ATL Fans, neoncons, Obama voters). It's THEIR private property, THEY have the RIGHT to allow whomever they want on THEIR property. B-U-T, they must accept the consequences of their actions (ie, people refusing to shop their).

 

[aroundlsu]

It's reaching quite a bit to try and say race and sexual orientation are the same thing as choosing to carry a gun however I understand what you are getting at.

In my opinion, a private business should be free to exclude any one for anything they want. If they don't want me and my gun then to hell with them. I won't spend my money there. There are businesses I have chosen to not do business with for many different reasons. I don't write letters, speak to the manager, or even tell anyone about it. I just don't return. It really doesn't break my heart to add another business to the list like Whole Foods. I already chose to not go there based on other policies they have before they even put up the no gun sign.

 

[SVT]

yeah, trying to compare the permanent physical quality of a person, to an optional inanimate object is not apples to apples.

 

[madwabbit]

as pertinent to the topic, ill copy paste my post from the other forum that sums up my opinion on the subject:


If my life is in danger I dont care if im in the post office basement of a mental health facility that happens to also be downstairs from a courthouse in a school zone. Those who have ever been in a situation where having the gun got them home to their family will know exactly how i feel. Those who haven't, won't.

Someone stated that we should respect business owner rights in an attempt to change the "norm", and simply buy elsewhere to change their policies. You're wrong.

I am trying to change the "norm" and "policy". My actions prove that the sign on your gas station had the same effect on me that it had on your robbers. You stick to your theories and rights' discussions about who got offended and what signs were posted. I'll stick to being the guy that lived to plead "not guilty".

 

[Nick1230]

I've seen stores that have signs saying no sagging pants allowed. IMO that means the same as no gays. So there you go they do have em just worded differently.


Sent from my iphone using Tapatalk

 

[BeerManNOLA]

It's not the same as you *choose* to carry a weapon, and can therefore choose not to bring a weapon inside these businesses. You cannot *choose* not to be black or Asian (and im not getting into the "gay is a choice" debate here) while you are in these stores. It's a request from the owner that if you want to come into their store, do not bring a firearm. You can't persecute someone based on a choice made by that person (choice to carry).

In the 30 seconds I've thought about this, this has been my conclusion.

 

[JNieman]

I don't see that 'choice' matters because there's a certain clarity and certainty to "shall not be infringed" and I don't recall exceptions listed.

 

[madwabbit]

Beerman you're so correct that it hurts. You CAN advertise that you will not serve people that carry weapons, people that smoke, or people that wear blue jeans. Proof? High class restaurants. No tie? No meal. It's their choice what to wear in the morning- its my choice to allow you into my property.

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason! - no different than the "no gun" sign, the "no shirt no shoes no service" sign, or any other "sign" not endorsed by the government for official use.

 

[SVT]

I don't see that 'choice' matters because there's a certain clarity and certainty to "shall not be infringed" and I don't recall exceptions listed.

Except the Bill of Rights applies to things the GOVERNMENT may not do to infringe on the rights of free Americans.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

States have clauses that you can not discriminate against religions and things of that nature as well...those are a personal choice same as it is to carry or not carry a gun. The lady with the head dressing in the grocery line may make you very uncomfortable, maybe as uncomfortable as somebody with a gun or CHL...maybe maybe not...but they are forbiden to be discriminated against by law...Where is the line drawn on things we protect from discrimination and not protect?

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

Beerman you're so correct that it hurts. You CAN advertise that you will not serve people that carry weapons, people that smoke, or people that wear blue jeans. Proof? High class restaurants. No tie? No meal. It's their choice what to wear in the morning- its my choice to allow you into my property.

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason! - no different than the "no gun" sign, the "no shirt no shoes no service" sign, or any other "sign" not endorsed by the government for official use.

Is a place like you described the same thing as Walmart where the public comes and goes at will through a revolving door? I don't know...maybe maybe not. ::shrug::

 

[JNieman]

Except the Bill of Rights applies to things the GOVERNMENT may not do to infringe on the rights of free Americans.

Many of the BoR, yes, but there is no such distinction in the Second. Regardless, we're talking about government because we're talking about laws. If government isn't involved, than it's just a polite request with no teeth.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

I think private property (business) owners should have the right to discriminate against whomever they want (gays, blacks, asians, gun owners, rednecks, ATL Fans, neoncons, Obama voters). It's THEIR private property, THEY have the RIGHT to allow whomever they want on THEIR property. B-U-T, they must accept the consequences of their actions (ie, people refusing to shop their).

The consequences of their actions in the past was new laws being passed to prevent their discrimination. Right or wrong, do we pick and choose who to protect from discrimination or should everything turn into a new law? I dunno really, its why I wanted to ask the question. If their rights to dance in a gay parade or worship cats is protected from discrimination, why cant my right to protect myself be protected from discrimination?

 

[SVT]

Many of the BoR, yes, but there is no such distinction in the Second. Regardless, we're talking about government because we're talking about laws. If government isn't involved, than it's just a polite request with no teeth.

So even thought it's widely accepted that the 2nd amendment was included so that citizens could have the means to overthrow a tyrannical gov't, you still think the 2nd amendment applies across the board and not directly to the gov't?

In other words, the GOVERNMENT can't touch your guns (b/c of the 2nd amend) b/c that would prevent you from protecting yourself against GOVERNMENT tyranny.

 

[SVT]

The consequences of their actions in the past was new laws being passed to prevent their discrimination. Right or wrong, do we pick and choose who to protect from discrimination or should everything turn into a new law? I dunno really, its why I wanted to ask the question. If their rights to dance in a gay parade or worship cats is protected from discrimination, why cant my right to protect myself be protected from discrimination?

I don't there should be ANY laws passed preventing a private property owner from serving who they want at their business.

 

[Jack]

as pertinent to the topic, ill copy paste my post from the other forum that sums up my opinion on the subject:


If my life is in danger I dont care if im in the post office basement of a mental health facility that happens to also be downstairs from a courthouse in a school zone. Those who have ever been in a situation where having the gun got them home to their family will know exactly how i feel. Those who haven't, won't.

Someone stated that we should respect business owner rights in an attempt to change the "norm", and simply buy elsewhere to change their policies. You're wrong.

I am trying to change the "norm" and "policy". My actions prove that the sign on your gas station had the same effect on me that it had on your robbers. You stick to your theories and rights' discussions about who got offended and what signs were posted. I'll stick to being the guy that lived to plead "not guilty".

You are missing the point. If you don't go there, you won't ever need to defend yourself there. As such, self defense is irrelevant.

 

[UnseenUSPCompact]

I don't there should be ANY laws passed preventing a private property owner from serving who they want at their business.

Its not Private Property when you invite the public to come inside. You do not and should not loose your rights when you remain part of the public.

 

[JNieman]

So even thought it's widely accepted that the 2nd amendment was included so that citizens could have the means to overthrow a tyrannical gov't, you still think the 2nd amendment applies across the board and not directly to the gov't?

In other words, the GOVERNMENT can't touch your guns (b/c of the 2nd amend) b/c that would prevent you from protecting yourself against GOVERNMENT tyranny.

Actually it's for a defense against tyranny and for self defense in general. SCOTUS rulings, there.

If you'll notice... most of the constitutional amendments specify exactly /who/ is being restricted or granted power. State reserves... Congress shall not... etc. The Second Amendment says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" period. I believe it's a right that is protected, and since incorporated by SCOTUS to apply to the States as well, and as such, I see no reason to go above-and-beyond anyone's desire to disarm me in public or public-invited places, and I carry when possible and practical. I am not saying everyone should do what I do - just explaining what I'd said earlier in this thread and the other.

 

[Storm52]

Your right to bear arms is not infringed. You have guns. Discrimination, deals with a person or identity and equal treatment, regardless of their religious, political, race, sexual orientation, age. You will find far more business restricting firearms due to liability issues than a "safety for our partrons" viewpoint. Shop owners may say no dogs allowed, unless for a handicap. No hats or caps at banks. Your right to wear a cap or travel with a dog isn't restricted, unless you enter these businesses. Leave your cap, dog and gun in your vehicle to conduct business.