Activism In Support or Against Private Business


PDA






jackpinesavages
January 27, 2012, 10:25 AM
The "Freedom" to decide.

So, a business decided that their private property should/should not have firearms on it.

In what country on this planet would an individual business owner be forced to allow firearms on their personal property?

I support open carry, concealed carry, etc.. However, as you guys continue to force feed your ideas on others via monetary boycotts/rewards, it is a.) "partisan hackery" and b.) the message gets watered down.

Figuring out a way to get the "antis" interested in proper firearms training would be a worthy cause and worth my time, and more emblematic of a high road.

If you enjoyed reading about "Activism In Support or Against Private Business" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MrM4
January 27, 2012, 11:21 AM
You think WE are the ones force feeding OUR ideas??????

not to be rude but I think you have a serious disconnect with the country right now.

jackpinesavages
January 27, 2012, 02:59 PM
Yes, I do believe you are force-feeding. Enough.

No, I do not have a disconnect, I have memory of these signs being on store walls since I was a kid:

" We maintain the right to refuse business to anyone."

Did you always just assume those signs meant the business owner was referring to the societal stereotype of "undesirables", and it could never be you?

So, what is the next step, say for the private home owner who has that ANTI-gun sign on their home? Boycott their church, business, family business, or other family member's businesses? What? Publish their address so you can harass them for making a constitutional CHOICE?

My suggestion is to donate your "Starbucks coffee money" to a local youth training fund, a NRA Winchester youth program, or make your own youth training program that tells the next generation firearms are OK. Do something constructive that IS the high road.


...and Yes, you are being rude.

Sgt_R
January 27, 2012, 03:42 PM
1) I don't necessarily agree with a business owner's right to arbitrarily decide which of my constitutionally protected rights he is going to respect. If the sign on the front door said "No Catholics Allowed" instead of "No Concealed Firearms Allowed," I think we'd be having an entirely different discussion right now.

2) Even assuming that I accept point #1, here we have a case of a business which has decided to take the politically neutral stance of respecting our constitutional rights in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws. This wouldn't even be noteworthy, except that so many other businesses have chosen not to respect our constitutionally protected right to bear arms, even in jurisdictions where there are no laws preventing us from exercising them.

Purchacing a $4 cup of coffee on the 14th is a pretty cheap way of saying "thank you," don't you think?

R

2WheelsGood
January 27, 2012, 03:53 PM
1) I don't necessarily agree with a business owner's right to arbitrarily decide which of my constitutionally protected rights he is going to respect.

No rights exist without property rights. If people don't have the right to hang any sign they darn well feel like on their door, the rest is meaningless.

jackpinesavages
January 27, 2012, 04:09 PM
A.) No, I did not start this thread: I was replying within the Starbucks thread.

B.) No, I did not eliminate/change my Sig. line, somebody in Admin. eliminated it. Was it obscene in nature, or slanderous? No.

C.) Has someone decided that their "privately owned" forum will not be a format for me to advertise my dislike of General Motor's and GMAC's NOT having to repay almost $60 Billion in TARP monies, while using those same monies to build factories in China and India? ( My Sig. line) Yes, THR mods have spoken. It is their privately owned forum and they can pick and choose which ideas they want seen.

nonamehavei
January 27, 2012, 05:21 PM
They have a right to restrict firearms, I have a right not to patronize them, very simple concept.

TT
January 27, 2012, 05:23 PM
Rights are not repercussion-free. If you excise your private property rights so as to strip others of their right to self-defense, it is unreasonable to think there should be no pushback. If someone hates gun-owners that much they should be willing to live with the lost business.

sdlsaginaw
January 27, 2012, 05:35 PM
Wow, I don't get it. The antis are proposing a boycott because Starbucks won't disallow firearms on their property. We're looking at spending our money there to negate whatever difference a boycott might make to their bottom line. But WE'RE the ones force feeding OUR ideas?

O-kayyy..

hso
January 27, 2012, 09:35 PM
There are members who have pointed out that a private property owner's right to control what goes on on their property is a core rights issue and that whether they deny or encourage or are neutral on allowing people to carry firearms while on their property, their right to control what goes on on their property has priority. Understood.

The question has been raised whether RKBA advocates or AntiRKBA advocates have a "right" to try to influence a property owner to adopt a policy favorable to one group over the other.

While government has no authority to deny the right of the property owner to make this decision for themselves, either in favor of or against carry on the premises, some of our members think that any property owner has to deal with the reality of one group or the other has the right to express their opinion of the property owner's policies w.r.t. RKBA by spending their money with them or not. This is our right as individuals to support those businesses we agree with as much as it is the business's right to decide upon their policies.

It appears that some of our members think that the property owner's right to decide what takes place on their property has supreme priority to the extent that it shouldn't be supported or attacked in any way regardless of whether agreed with or not.

What about when a group, such as the Antis, threaten a boycott of a business because they haven't bowed to pressure to adopt policies they want adopted? Shouldn't we react to such a threat? To what extent should we respond, if at all? Threatening the business if they don't "side" with us wouldn't be high road in response to their being threatened by the Antis, but I can't see how opposing the Antis by countering their threatened economic attack is the same as forcing our position upon a business.

2WheelsGood
January 27, 2012, 10:16 PM
It appears that some of our members think that the property owner's right to decide what takes place on their property has supreme priority to the extent that it shouldn't be supported or attacked in any way regardless of whether agreed with or not.

I'm not positive who you're referring to. But I do think business owners have the supreme right to decide what goes on in their stores, because that's what freedom means. But living in a free society also means that we shape the goods and services available to us by choosing where and how we spend our money. They're two sides to the same coin.

My only real problem with the Antis choosing this tactic, and one of the reasons I'll go out of my way to throw extra money towards Starbucks, is that this attempt by them is incredibly hypocritical. I live in an extremely Liberal town, and I've never seen a "no weapons" sign in any non-Starbucks coffee shop, and trust me, I've been to them all. So when the Antis begin their silly protest, they're just going to run to other coffee shops that support the exact same laws they want Starbucks to ignore. for THAT I think Starbucks deserves our extra support.

Super Sneaky Steve
January 27, 2012, 10:25 PM
I do think business owners have the supreme right to decide what goes on in their stores

I agree. People should be able to hang a sign that says, No guns, No Catholics, or No people who like Obama.

jackpinesavages
January 28, 2012, 12:27 AM
The question has been raised whether RKBA advocates or AntiRKBA advocates have a "right" to try to influence a property owner to adopt a policy favorable to one group over the other.




No. I have not raised a question about any "right". Being reasonable about your activism has A LOT to do with where it goes towards your end-point, or where it WILL NOT go.


#1.) Carrying a firearm(s) is NOT a RIGHT, it IS a privelage. I do appreciate that most here reading this take that statement as sacrilage but you're gonna have to get over it; similar to voting, getting a driver's license, etc., the privelage of owning/shooting firearms can be taken away at any time from the individual; society says so. As society and our laws say that corporate owners can govern their own properties within reasonable means!!

#2.) As similar to my analogy/metaphor per a private home, I will present an analogy to the workplace: As employers the U.S. Postal Service and/or General Motors will not allow employees to have weapons and/or firearms on company property- in the work area OR parking lot. To be found with firearms, etc., on company property is grounds for legal dismissal that is without grounds for grievance.

When does the boycott begin against the U.S. businesses who will not allow employees to bring their legally owned firearms to work?

I have not raised the idea of a "right" to do anything. Is it a reasonable step to forward the cause of 2A, to spearhead such a "Starbucks donation"? It's become brainless.

Owen Sparks
January 28, 2012, 01:55 AM
You have a right to free speech, but not in a theater or library.
You have a right to worship as you see fit, but you cannot hold a church service in the lobby of the bank without permission. We have freedom of the press but you cannot demand that the local newspaper publish anything you want especially for “free”. Constitutional rights are limits on THE GOVERNMENT not private property owners. The right to carry a weapon is like the right to go to the bathroom. No one has a right to tell you that you that you can’t poop, but they can tell you that you can’t poop HERE.

Sgt_R
January 28, 2012, 02:02 AM
#1.) Freedom of religion is NOT a RIGHT, it IS a privelage. I do appreciate that most here reading this take that statement as sacrilage but you're gonna have to get over it; similar to voting, getting a driver's license, etc., the privelage of observing the religious practices of your choosing can be taken away at any time from the individual; society says so.

Again, if this was the issue, I think we'd be having an entirely different discussion right now. You may differentiate between your constitutionally protected rights. I don't.

R

Owen Sparks
January 28, 2012, 02:15 AM
No right can be had at the expense of someone else.

mljdeckard
January 28, 2012, 02:21 AM
Those of you who think it's a bad idea should check out a state with pre-emption. (Like Utah.) It is so insignificant, I haven't heard a word about it in about 13 years.

You think that you as a property owner have the right to deny carry on your property. We look at it a different way. You as a property owner have the right to deny PEOPLE the access to your property. The State of Utah decides where carry is or is not allowed. This is much more equitable, because it is not reasonable as a citizen to be in violation as you go from one business to the next. We think it is ridiculous to allow every business, city, parish, fiefdom, and club to make its own rules about where people can or cannot exercise their rights.

See, you are looking at this from one side of the coin. That property owners have rights. In restricting carry on your property, you are restricting the right of the individual to carry coming TO and FROM your property. You absolutely do NOT have that right. We have also passed a parking lot law, in which employers cannot restrict employees from keeping guns in their vehicles for precisely this reason.

And I agree with SGT R. Absolutely. Freedom of religion, (as well as the right to self-defense,) is a fundamental human right. This means, that you free from association of any group, nationality, ethnicity or creed, alone on a desert island, you are allowed to do this. It not something that you need permission from ANYONE to do it. No government can permit it, they can only RESTRICT it. The question is not why we are ALLOWED to do it, but rather why the government is allowed to RESTRICT it in the first place.

If you as a property owner claim right to restrict access to your property, that is your option. But when you open access to the general public, you accept that whomever is in the public at large will have access to it. (Including people who carry guns.)

Owen Sparks
January 28, 2012, 04:18 AM
What if you do not want to open your property to the general public?

Maybe you only want to open it to people over 18 who are wearing shoes and shirts?

Maybe you only want to open it to sober people who do not have alcoholic beverages.

Maybe you only want to open it to people who are NOT carrying firearms.

When I worked the door at a bar these were the exact rules I enforced. Your rights end at the door. I must have said it 100 times, "Abide by our rules or don't come in." I routinely turned people away for being drunk, improper dress and general bad attitudes. I almost got in a fight with one idiot who claimed it was his right to wear a tank top. I told him he could indeed wear whatever he wanted, just not here. He observed that let some girl in who was wearing a sleeveless dress and it was "unfair" that he could not come in without sleves. I told him that if he came back wearing a dress that I would let him in.

hso
January 28, 2012, 10:35 AM
Jackpinesavages has raised an important point and I for one appreciate his doing it and the discussion around it.

We argue that Antis and government should not be able to force a private property owner into doing something on their own property when that involves restricting carry. If we think the property owner has the sole power to make this decision when we agree with them they have to have the sole power to make the decision about what goes on on their property when we don't agree with them. There are some limitations when those decisions harm others off that property, but as long as the actions of the property owner doesn't directly harm or put people on the property in real risk of harm there isn't anything the owner should be forced to do.

That doesn't mean that people can't react to those decisions and support the owner by bringing their business to them or "punish" them by taking it to a competitor.

When another person or group makes this decisions about how they will spend their money because of a social or political or religious policy of a property owner, other people and groups can also decide to act in response to those decisions too. It may not even be relevant who the differences of position orbit about because the conflict exists between the philosophies/policies/practices of the groups now in conflict.

I appreciate this discussion taking place here in a civil manner considering the passion we have for RKBA. It is important that people see that the RKBA question isn't a simple one and that we shouldn't blindly follow the herd like sheeple.

jackpinesavages
January 28, 2012, 10:49 AM
Sgt R:

Again, if this was the issue, I think we'd be having an entirely different discussion right now. You may differentiate between your constitutionally protected rights. I don't.



a.) We are not talking about freedom FROM religion. Why do you keep insisting on injecting a red herring topic, as such? A sign on the front door of a house that says "NO SOLICITORS" or "NO TRESPASSING" means what, to you? That your "right" to freedom of movement has been impinged?

b.) The Second Amendment does not grant a "right". Firearms ownership is a privelage that can be taken away as society has deemed necessary per the local/state/federal laws applicable to the individual's scenario. I know, the word "right" is in the amendment...

I have great admiration for the energy here and appreciate that w/o it, we in WI would probably not have concealed carry today. Yes, everyone who feels a need to voice their opinion on Feb. 14th with buying coffee at Starbucks certainly has that right to do so, but why? Why not start a fund for educating the next generation about firearms instead?

mljdeckard
January 28, 2012, 04:03 PM
Because we already are.

jackpinesavages
January 28, 2012, 06:56 PM
" Because we already are. "


"See, you are looking at this from one side of the coin. That property owners have rights. In restricting carry on your property, you are restricting the right of the individual to carry coming TO and FROM your property."


No, I'm looking at this from both sides, of an American coin: having freedoms
to make choices. Choices which make this country great. I do not like the decision that Starbucks or FleetFarm does not want legally owned sidearms on their property, but I will respect that decision as being out of my hands. It's a matter of Civics, and being reasonable, and working toward constructive outcomes. Politics.

If buying a coffee at a certain time/place makes you feel like an activist, and lets your "voice" be heard, cool. Seems rather lazy to me and I challenge you to do more.

"..restricting the right of the individual to carry to and from your property." That is about the biggest bucket of victimization hogwash I've read today.

hso
January 28, 2012, 07:25 PM
The Second Amendment does not grant a "right". Firearms ownership is a privelage

SCOTUS affirmed that the 2A is an individual right under the BOR. Arguing it isn't just won't work. Carry, OTOH, hasn't been affirmed by SCOTUS and bears on the discussion.

mljdeckard
January 28, 2012, 07:35 PM
You are assuming that buying coffee is ALL we are doing.

And like I say, in Utah, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, and there is a disappointing lack of drama in the whole idea.

jackpinesavages
January 29, 2012, 01:22 AM
You are assuming that buying coffee is ALL we are doing.

And like I say, in Utah, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, and there is a disappointing lack of drama in the whole idea.


:D Well, go ahead and tell us: what else will you be doing at your Starbucks of choice.

..and for Utah telling everybody where they can/cannot carry? With the exception of State gov't. dictating carry in State gov't. buildings, why would I as a business owner want the State taking away my choice to do what I want with my private property? Smacks of "big gubment" to me, IE the public smoking bans.

That is without a doubt the worst argument I've seen yet for this topic; you don't have to make a decision as the State government is going to decide for everybody? I don't understand how this fact helps make your point about firearm carry, religion, cultural expression, etc.?

So, let's just put the red herring topics of religion and Utah off to the side for a bit: What is the purpose of this Starbucks action? What are you expecting to happen? How will this further the cause of RKBA? DO you believe it will suddenly open the doors of other businesses? Will Starbucks release the expected revenue increse to the public, for Feb. 14th sales? If the antis are doing an indefinite boycott from the 14th onward, how many days will you be a Starbucks patron consecutively?

mljdeckard
January 29, 2012, 04:04 AM
No. This is state government removing a restriction on a right across the board. You own property. You always have the right to close it off to people completely. But when you allow public access to your property, you are agreeing to let in ....the general public. If some of them are carrying, that's how it works. You think it's a great idea for every person, sect, creed, municipality, and philosophy to be able to set rules about their idea of fair to decide where people can and cannot carry? (Then you get Texas.) This way is much more fair. People have the right to keep and bear arms. Peoperty owners have the right to restrict people they don't want on their property. If they open their property to the public, they allow people who carry.

Now something we haven't touched on yet, in Utah, business owners can post 'no guns' signs in the door, but they hold no force of law. If say, you walked past one with a gun in the open, (which is entirely legal,) and you get noticed, the business owner may ask you to leave, because he is allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you refuse, he may call the police, and they may cite you for trespassing, which is a misdemeanor, and will neither have your permit revoked nor bar you from getting a permit in the first place.

Wait. I have a GREAT idea. All you have to do is ban carry on your property, and all the people who follow the law (the ones you WANT carrying on your property) will refuse to enter your business. And you know what the great side effect is? All the criminals you DON'T want carrying on your property will conform to your wishes as well and leave theirs home. No one will ever bring guns onto your property. That's how it works. Right?

The purpose of the Starbucks action is to make sure that the managers and owners know that people who support carrying guns have more clout and pull than those who oppose it.

What have I done to support the cause besides buy a cup of coffee? I'll tell you what I didn't do. I didn't identify the single most law-abiding demographic in the nation and tell them they can't exercise their rights on my property. Other than that, I don't feel like enumerating my work with the National Rifle Association, the Utah Shooting Sports Council, the Utah State Legislature, The Freakin' Boy Scouts, the U.S. Army, The Oath Keepers, my friends and family, the communities I have lived in, and how far Utah has come in the last twenty years to become the first state in America to get a flat "F" grade from the Brady foundation.

LNK
January 29, 2012, 08:18 AM
"b.) The Second Amendment does not grant a "right". Firearms ownership is a privelage that can be taken away as society has deemed necessary per the local/state/federal laws applicable to the individual's scenario. I know, the word "right" is in the amendment... "

Hold it, none of the amendments grant rights. They prevent the usurpation of those rights. The bill of rights protects rights you already have. Yes there are things you can do to lose those rights. But come on, this is just baiting....

LNK

hso
January 29, 2012, 09:03 AM
Being able to exercise the right to carry anywhere is what is important. That right for the individual citizen to choose whether they will own a firearm or not or carry a firearm or not on any given day in any given place is as important as the individual property owner's right to decide what takes place on their property.

In the case of Starbucks, a group of Antis from Chicago has decided to attack them for their corporate policy to stay neutral on customers following local laws on carrying firearms. The decision to coerce this property owner into putting a restrictive policy in place has caused RKBA advocates to respond to the Antis and support Starbucks financially in opposition to the Antis. It should be the same response from RKBA supporters whether the Antis were proposing action against Krogers or any other retailer or business because the business the Antis are attempting to coerce isn't the focus of our response, the Anti group's actions are. We're opposed to them and countering their action is our intent. The retailer may or may not want our involvement and how we involve ourselves may actually do them some harm.

Since our purpose is to offset the losses a business boycotted by Antis may suffer it behooves us to make sure we counter the Antis without harming the business they are attempting to coerce. In Starbucks case we can help by ordering a pound of coffee beans online for delivery to our home and leave a comment or walk up to the counter of the local shop and order a cup or a pound of coffe and thank the clerk for Starbucks neutrality and corporate courage in not giving in to pressure from fringe elements.

jackpinesavages
January 29, 2012, 10:06 AM
Hold it, none of the amendments grant rights. They prevent the usurpation of those rights. The bill of rights protects rights you already have. Yes there are things you can do to lose those rights. But come on, this is just baiting....

LNK


Absolutely not, I'm not baiting: carrying and shooting firearms is a privelage similar to a driver's license. Act like an idiot, get caught, and you either lose those privealges or you never get to experience it legally. "Just baiting.." you into thinking more carefully about your own thought process as it pertains to firearms!!

Folks seem to get emotionally attached to what they FEEL are "god-given" rights (Hence, some of our forays into "freedom from religion" red herrings.), and legal rights.

As of now, private businesses are seen to hold private property, and they can control what happens therein. It is certainly your RIGHT to protest or patronize as you see fit, but as I asked with that list of questions....what are your goals, etc.?

mljdeckard
January 29, 2012, 01:49 PM
No. Keeping and bearing arms is an individual RIGHT, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. NOT a privilege.

Am I emotionally attached to my rights? You betcher bippee. You seem to be just as attached to your property owner rights.

2WheelsGood
January 29, 2012, 02:04 PM
carrying and shooting firearms is a privelage similar to a driver's license

Apples and oranges. Your right to life (and the right to self defense) is addressed in the US Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about driving a car?

If the 2nd Amendment wasn't in the constitution, this "privilege", as you call it, would have been gone a long time ago.

jackpinesavages
January 29, 2012, 07:24 PM
No, it's not apples and oranges: you go through a process of legalities to acquire certification and licensing, get your pieces of credential, and have guidelines/rules/laws to follow while enjoying said privelages within society's guidelines set. It is a sort of social doctrine, you see.

Break that social doctrine, get caught breaking those agreements and you likely lose the privelage(s). That's not a matter of my opinion-that's how it is. The facts.

I am not attached to my property rights anymore than you are: if you don't want somebody/something in your property, that is your right and your authority to say so is final. It is no different with a public business place or a private employer to determine if there will/will not be firearms therein.

Thank You to hso for the PM discussions. This particular instance of Starbucks anti-gunners in Chicago-land is crucial, but again, what are your goals and expectations?

2WheelsGood
January 29, 2012, 07:32 PM
you go through a process of legalities to acquire certification and licensing, get your pieces of credential, and have guidelines/rules/laws to follow while enjoying said privelages within society's guidelines set. It is a sort of social doctrine, you see.

The certification and licensing (only in the states that require it) is the result of those who wish we didn't have the right. And many of us consider those laws and requirements unconstitutional.

The RIGHT to bear arms is spelled out in the Second Amendment. Again, no such thing exists as it relates to driving a car. If you can't see the difference, there's not much point in arguing about it.

mljdeckard
January 29, 2012, 08:17 PM
Rights are not subject to license, perception, necessity, or....social doctrine. What society thinks about a right has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a right. Only with if they can be cowed into calling for its restriction.

Neverwinter
January 30, 2012, 11:37 PM
..and for Utah telling everybody where they can/cannot carry? With the exception of State gov't. dictating carry in State gov't. buildings, why would I as a business owner want the State taking away my choice to do what I want with my private property? Smacks of "big gubment" to me, IE the public smoking bans.

That is without a doubt the worst argument I've seen yet for this topic; you don't have to make a decision as the State government is going to decide for everybody? I don't understand how this fact helps make your point about firearm carry, religion, cultural expression, etc.?
This is a position which ignores the role of the other citizens in the participation of government. It's the state government elected by the people deciding that the rights of the property holder are not unlimited. Why do the interests of business owners get to supersede the public interest of preserving fundamental rights? Would it be okay to support the right of a property owner to strip search visitors?

jackpinesavages
February 3, 2012, 05:55 PM
There's nothing to argue about: there is no "right" for every able-bodied human to be armed.

I do not have a "right" to walk onto a privately owned business with my firearm(s), when said business owner has decided they do not want firearms there and posts signage which says so.

Can't follow society's guidelines for maintaining a driver's license? I lose it.

Can't follow society's guidelines for voting privelages(felon)? Lose em.

Can't follow guidelines for firearm ownership(privelage)? Gone.

It's a matter of choice: the business doesn't want me in there with my guns. Fine, if I feel that my security is so impinged by not being able to carry in that establishment, I don't go in THAT establishment.


Wow, a property owner's strip search "rights" on private property? How in the world did you make that leap, and where did you think I would agree to consent to that? I swear, you guys have ingenious imaginations when you set your mind to something!!

So, let's look at the flip side of the coin: you own a business. Are you going to deny access to your business, to those who refuse to legally carry a firearm therein?




The RIGHT to bear arms is spelled out in the Second Amendment. Again, no such thing exists as it relates to driving a car. If you can't see the difference, there's not much point in arguing about it.

mljdeckard
February 3, 2012, 10:09 PM
Rights always exist, regardless of what sign someone puts up. The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the fundamental human right of self defense. Having a law that differentiates who can and cannot restrict someone else from being armed is not a fundamental human right, as it implies involvement of a legislative process.

You really need to go back and understand the difference between rights, powers, privileges, and laws. They are all different.

jackpinesavages
February 3, 2012, 10:52 PM
...and here we go with another red herring subject: Yes, rights always exist, and here is a moronic analogy that matches your idea: I have a "right" to have consensual sex BUT just not with a 15 year old.

I have a "right" to legally carry my CCW of choice, just not into a business that posts a sign saying they don't want it. To do so is a violation of their "rights" to not have ME in their business, with MY gun. Are their feelings hurt? No. Are my feelings hurt? No.

The..." fundamental human right of self defense."? When and where is that including firearms, etc. wherever you choose it to be? Of course you have a "right" to defend yourself from an attacker. Nobody is saying you have to lay down and be a defenseless victim, unless you ARE a defenseless victim w/o your sidearm? Do you really wanna play the victim card?

Wow. Come on you guys, this aint rocket surgery: all you're doing is regurgitating the NRA baselines of brainless one-liners.

mljdeckard
February 3, 2012, 11:34 PM
No. Consexual sex with someone else infers a third party. Therefore it is not a right.

If it is a right, you don't need to choose when and where it exists. You are so sure about whether or not this is an absolute rule, that you as a property owner have this right, but as we have already shown, that 'right' varies depending on what state you are in. If it changes so easily, it can't be much of a right.

If you are so offended by brainless NRA members like us, perhaps you would be more comfortable somewhere else?

Robert
February 4, 2012, 09:14 AM
As has been pointed point out, the Constitution only "protects" against Government denial of our rights. It does not apply to a private company. However, I have every right to decide not to spend my money where it and I are not welcome. I will gladly go somewhere else if I can.

Can't follow guidelines for firearm ownership(privelage)?
The right to defend myself is not a privelage. Take firearms out of the equation. Would you call the basic right to self defense a privealage? If no, they why would you consider the use of a firearm a privelage? Or should I be restriceted to only using my fists or a sharp pointy stick as a means of self defense?

Walkalong
February 4, 2012, 09:38 AM
Defending myself is a god given right, and if you do not believe in god, merely a universal right, understood by 99% of people.

A very slight minority thinks one should stand there and let others beat you or kill you, and those are religious fanatics.

The right to own a gun, and use it to defend myself, is guaranteed by the Constitution of the USA, but it is also a universal right, just as defending myself with my fist, or a rock, or a bat, is a universal right.

Almost all of the people who want to take away your right to defend yourself with a gun want to control you, and the few others are merely living in a make believe world where all evil suddenly vanishes if we only got rid of guns.

Guns make a 105 pound person equal to a 300 pound criminal, and a politician. Without them we are subject to the whims of both, and would be ruled by both, just like the bully on the playground, who grew up and got into politics.

jackpinesavages
February 4, 2012, 09:39 AM
No. Consexual sex with someone else infers a third party. Therefore it is not a right.



What?! You have got to start reading your posts out loud before you hit the "Submit" button.

Howdy Gus! Where's Woodrow? Read my post again as I already had MADE the point you are trying to reiterate, as if I had not just done that! Read people, read!!

Carrying a firearm is a privelage as that activity can be taken away from you by the authorities, at any time you decide to be an asshat and not follow the societal guidelines given to us: this (set of laws) of course goes state by state, depending on where you live.

Yes, it IS part of the social doctrine: We as an ENTIRE society have given Law Enforcement agencies the authority to enforce laws, as they pertain to people who are breaking the law(s). Even if you commit a crime without that firearm of choice, say a felony, and you are convicted of said felony-you lose the privelage of carrying a firearm for self-defense, hunting, OR recreation!

Do you get it? Society has decided that as a convicted felon you do not have the brain background, as I like to call it, to carry firearms much less trade/shoot/swap/carry/hunt with them.

jackpinesavages
February 4, 2012, 09:48 AM
If you are so offended by brainless NRA members like us, perhaps you would be more comfortable somewhere else?


Wow, here's the quote of the day. I did not say you were brainless, you did.

As an NRA Instructor I have to educate people on how to safely conduct themselves with their firearms, on and off the range.

Excellent men have been shot and killed because of what they PERCEIVE to be their "rights" to carry, where and when. If you believe this debate here is meant to be an electronic dog-pile on an anti-gunner (me), you are sadly mistaken.

Hopefully at least one person has walked away from their computer to go better research their local laws, ordinances, or to have a conversation with a business owner who has posted a "no guns" sign.

Sam1911
February 4, 2012, 09:57 AM
We seem to be running multiple lines of argument here.

1) Is keeping and bearing arms not intrinsically linked to the right of a person to protect their own life against violent attack? Others are arguing that point pretty well, so I'm not jumping into it. In the end, if you believe the ability to keep and bear arms is a "privilege" then we may just be stuck in one of those "agree to disagree" black holes. Oh well, c'est la vie.

2) The other relates to a very different matter: Does my right to do or do not -- or allow or not allow -- something, someone, or some action on my own property somehow equate to a right to be free from repercussions? This, I think, has a clearly determinable answer: NO.

You have the right to do a great many things here in the US. Almost anything you might dream of doing. You are not guaranteed to have the MEANS to do them (those are up to you to procure, if you're able) nor do you have any social or legal protection against suffering the negative results of your choice of action.

I have the right to dress in a chicken costume for a job interview. The repercussions may well be that I don't get hired for the job -- and nothing shields me from the effects of my dumb, but perfectly lawful, choice.

I have the right, out here in the country (no noise ordinances) to slap a cherry bomb muffler on my truck and then run it at high idle for an hour at 5:00 am each morning before I leave for work. Nothing shields me from having my neighbors chew me out, refuse to invite me to dinner, or play pop music at loud volume at midnight while I'm trying to sleep, in an effort to get me to knock it off. Hey, it's my right -- but I have to live with the consequences, too. Or decide that the costs aren't worth the benefits I'm "buying" through my actions.

I have the right, as a business owner, to prohibit purple shirts, children between the ages of seven and ten, people with bad breath, or anyone carrying a firearm from entering my store -- if I can find the means to do so*. But nothing in the world gives me any shelter from receiving bad press, nasty comments, a letter-writing campaign, and/or a critical loss of patronage/income because folks don't like the standards I'm enforcing.

Just as I can tell people I don't like X,Y, or Z -- and won't allow it in my place of business, they can tell me they hate my sorry guts for that attitude and/or won't spend a dime in my store -- and will tell all their friends, loved ones, and facebook pals to avoid me as well. If I can stand that heat, I'll stand my ground. If I can't...I might decide that what I'm "buying" with my policy isn't worth the cost. That's the way life works.



(* -- And nothing in life says my policy is self-enforcing. Unless the state decides to back up my policy with the force of law, it is entirely on me to find a way to screen patrons and enforce my decrees. Folks are no more required to follow my dictates than I can physically force them to comply through lawful means.)

jackpinesavages
February 4, 2012, 10:00 AM
Thanks for that clarification. Yes, I believe in a higher power of my choice, but that has nothing to do with anything here other than your emotions. God will not help you regain your carrying privelages after being convicted of a felony, or if you are denied firearms privelages by any of the other ways Society has deemed necessary, in order to protect the rest of the flock.(There, does some Bible lingo help any?)

Society has made a bunch of laws, ordinances, etc., that basically say we as gun owners have to demonstrate to some extent that we are reasonable people, and will probably be so also with firearms.

I don't like the fact that I'm supposed to disrobe of my gun kit, to enter a business of sorts, that doesn't want guns. There's a lot of things I don't like, but does the judge want to hear about it? No. Does the judge care what I don't like? No.






Defending myself is a god given right, and if you do not believe in god, merely a universal right, understood by 99% of people.

Robert
February 4, 2012, 10:03 AM
Read people, read!!

Please forgive me, I got off work at 2200 last night as was back at the desk at 0600 with only about 4 hours of sleep and one cup of coffee. I totally missed #38. Sorry.

That being said, you go one to say:
unless you ARE a defenseless victim w/o your sidearm?
No, no I am not. But why would you (in the general sense) want to deny me the ability to defend myself with any means possible?

When and where is that including firearms, etc. wherever you choose it to be?
Where ever it is legal for me to do so, which thankfully in my state is just about anywhere I go. If it is not legal, gov't building or a posted business, then I try to limit my business in those locations.

My 1911 is not my first line of defense. Far from it. My first line of defense is situational awareness and knowing when to beat a reatreat. I have nothing to prove and I am not getting paid to get shot at or beat up so if at all possible I am going to remove myself for those situations as quickly as I can.

If a mugger wants my wallet he is welcome to it. There is nothing in there that is worth my life. A few simple calls and all he has is a wore out piece of old leather. I needed a new one anyway. Does this make me a victim? Some would say that a real man would have shot him and mounted the mugger's head on their wall. Again I have nothing to prove.

Even if I do not have my 1911 with me I still have my brain, and if nothing else my knife, or knives depending on the day. I will do everything I can to avoid a fight, but if one is forced on me then fight I will and it will be epic.

So no my defense is not centered around my side arm. It is just a tool. But I have the right granted by God and recognized by the Gov't to carry it and protect myself if need be. And that right shall not be infringed. Unless I break the contract by comitting one of the mind bloggling numerous laws that would make it illegal for me to carry.

Carrying a firearm is a privelage
No. Some, the gov't and people who wish to take away my rights, may see it this way but it is simply not true. The Second Amendment does not say the "privelage to keep and bear arms".

Society has decided that as a convicted felon you do not have the brain background
There are several ways to reestablish one's rights even after a felony conviction. However, there are some that should have never been felons in the first place. Not all felons are murders or rapists. I believe they should be taken on a case by case basis.

I see what you are getting at but I think you are overstating your case. Firearms ownership is a right until someone activly chooses to give up that right by breaking the law. They chose to give it up when they broke the law. It is not a privelage that the Gov't took away. It was a right. They gave it up.

Robert
February 4, 2012, 10:12 AM
I don't like the fact that I'm supposed to disrobe of my gun kit, to enter a business of sorts, that doesn't want guns. There's a lot of things I don't like, but does the judge want to hear about it? No. Does the judge care what I don't like? No.
This is where voting comes into play. That judege, or the folks who wrote the laws, will come up for re election at some point. That is when we as gun owners make our voices heard. We have made amazing progress in the last few years at getting rid of a good amount of the anit gun laws here in the US. But we still have a ton of work to do. If we can change the local political landscape first then we will stand a better chance of changing things higher up.

On to cup number two. Maybe things will start making more sense soon. ;)

hso
February 4, 2012, 10:16 AM
The argument started focused on whether a private property owner's right to determine what takes place on their property is equal to the Second. That's a great general debate topic. It also triggers a range of other issues on how those rights are carried out and the supporting arguments around those.

Staying civil at THR and attacking the argument and not the person is our basic requirement here and not everyone has upheld that standard. That's not acceptable and some warnings have been handed out for folks that have let their passion override the commitment they made to the standards of conduct at THR.

Robert
February 4, 2012, 10:25 AM
Something else dawned on my sleep deprived mind. Having one's rights taken away through due process of law is vastly different than the Gov't just granting/recinding them on a whim.

hso
February 4, 2012, 10:31 AM
Society has made a bunch of laws, ordinances, etc., that basically say we as gun owners have to demonstrate to some extent that we are reasonable people, and will probably be so also with firearms.

Some of those laws are constitutional and some aren't. The fact that people put unconstitutional laws in place and that we have a judicial means to challenge and overturn those unconstitutional laws is a fact and one our great strengths as a nation. Just because a bad law exists doesn't make it a good law.

The fact that a criminal looses some of the constitutional rights guaranteed to free citizens during incarceration isn't unconstitutional and using the loss of those rights during incarceration as an argument for citizens being denied their rights logical. Equating the rights of criminals to free citizens is a false argument.

beatledog7
February 4, 2012, 10:33 AM
you go through a process of legalities to acquire certification and licensing, get your pieces of credential, and have guidelines/rules/laws to follow while enjoying said privelages within society's guidelines set. It is a sort of social doctrine, you see.

Jackpine,

It's beyond me how you can argue that an item specifically called out and defined as a right in the Constitution is not a right.

You cite examples of why society suspends the RKBA and other things you that claim are not rights, yet you keep missing one fundamental concept that all by itself invalidates your argument:

We as a society or as legislatures or as judges lack the authority to strip away or place conditions (certification and licensing) on a right inherent in mankind's existence and which is confirmed and protected by the Constitution, then justify that stripping by saying it was never a right at all but merely a privilege granted by society. We do it, but we do so in violation of our inherent humanity and of the Constitution.

If that is what you mean by "social doctrine," you're barking up a tree that doesn't exist. If you can cite "social doctrine," I'll listen. But you can't. I can cite the Constitution though.

Our RKBA is not something society gave us, so it's not society's place to remove it. However, individuals can and often do voluntarily suspend or surrender it.

Hypothetically, if I am convicted of committing certain crimes, I go to a place where I'm not allowed to have certain items in my possession, including a gun. Prisons (like businesses and privately owned premises) have the authority to insist that people entering must leave their guns elsewhere. I knew that would be the case when I decided to commit that crime, and therefore I voluntarily accepted the responsibility for the temporary suspension of my RKBA by that prison. Society didn't strip it from me; I surrendered it.

[And when I get out, I have paid my penalty, and the voluntary suspension is reset. Or it should be. At the moment I've served my time and am released from prison, my surrender of RKBA ought to be counted as served as well. If I can't be trusted with a gun because I was once in prison, then I should still be in prison.]

Starbucks, like any business, has the right to ask patrons to leave their guns elsewhere -- to temporarily suspend our RKBA in order to enter -- and we as individuals have the right to not patronize Starbucks. What we are applauding is that despite pressure to stand against RKBA, Starbucks has declined. That's why I'm going to openly and enthusiastically patronize a Starbucks on Valentine's Day, the day on which those who would like to abolish RKBA have decided to not patronize Starbucks.

Don't worry, Starbucks. They'll all be back on Feb 15.

Geno
February 4, 2012, 10:54 AM
This is actually a fantastic thread, and thanks to the OP for posting it. My view is quite simple, and defensible:

Rights & Responsibilities:

1) I have the right to carry, anywhere, in order to protect myself.

2) Government entities and property owners have the right to place restrictions on my carry. ***

3) *** Government entities and property owners who restrict my right to carry, are obligated to, and financially responsible for, providing security in their restricted zone. This is because they choose to restrict my ability to defend myself at my expense.

4) *** I have the right to not do business with government entities and property owners and who restrict my right to carry. That may, or may not work, depending on location, and availability to alternate an source to supplant those placing restrictions on me.

Soultions:

Either A or B:

A) Honor my right to carry ***

B) *** Honor 2, 3 & 4 above.

See; it's simple.

Geno

jackpinesavages
February 4, 2012, 05:59 PM
Geno I like your attitude.

Let's get active on this: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/74217e6e52304f8a9fc71c1086f0ab94/NM--Border-Mayor-Gun-Smuggling/?utm_source=Feb+3+BTW&utm_campaign=BTW+Feb+4&utm_medium=email


What a mess! :banghead:

jackpinesavages
February 4, 2012, 06:08 PM
The fact that a criminal looses some of the constitutional rights guaranteed to free citizens during incarceration isn't unconstitutional and using the loss of those rights during incarceration as an argument for citizens being denied their rights logical. Equating the rights of criminals to free citizens is a false argument.


Where was I talking about incarcerated peoples? (Are you directing this comment at someone else?)

People who are convicted felons are not legally allowed to own/possess firearms. They have lost that privelage as our Society has agreed that is how it will be.

Neverwinter
February 4, 2012, 07:52 PM
This is actually a fantastic thread, and thanks to the OP for posting it. My view is quite simple, and defensible:

Rights & Responsibilities:

1) I have the right to carry, anywhere, in order to protect myself.

2) Government entities and property owners have the right to place restrictions on my carry. ***

3) *** Government entities and property owners who restrict my right to carry, are obligated to, and financially responsible for, providing security in their restricted zone. This is because they choose to restrict my ability to defend myself at my expense.

4) *** I have the right to not do business with government entities and property owners and who restrict my right to carry. That may, or may not work, depending on location, and availability to alternate an source to supplant those placing restrictions on me.

Soultions:

Either A or B:

A) Honor my right to carry ***

B) *** Honor 2, 3 & 4 above.




See; it's simple.

Geno
It is oversimplified in that it conflates government entities and property owners into the same class with regards to the powers that they have. This is not true, and should never be true given the nature of the authority for those two.

Neverwinter
February 6, 2012, 09:57 PM
Wow, a property owner's strip search "rights" on private property? How in the world did you make that leap, and where did you think I would agree to consent to that? I swear, you guys have ingenious imaginations when you set your mind to something!!

So, let's look at the flip side of the coin: you own a business. Are you going to deny access to your business, to those who refuse to legally carry a firearm therein?
No, because part of the characteristics of a right are that you are able to make a choice regarding its expression. If you have the right to carry a firearm, you have a right to choose not to. Just like the Miranda rights inform you that you have a right to remain silent, but you do not have to remain silent.

If it is acceptable for private businesses to violate the rights enumerated in 2nd amendment, then why can't it violate the rights enumerated in other amendments as well?

mljdeckard
February 6, 2012, 10:17 PM
(He's not even going to PRETEND to learn the difference between a right and a privilege, is he?)

Robert
February 6, 2012, 10:26 PM
Nope

If it is acceptable for private businesses to violate the rights enumerated in 2nd amendment,
Also, The Constitution is only a contract, if you will, with the Federal Gov't. It does not apply to private business. Never has. A business owner may throw you out if he does not like what you are saying and you can scream 1st Amendment till you are blue in the face, it will do you no good. A private business is just that, private. It is not bound by the Constitution, only the laws of the local, state and Federal governments.

So the Constitution only protects your rights from infringement by the Gov't, not private business or citizens.

Or was your question rhetorical? If so please disregard.

hso
February 6, 2012, 10:47 PM
If it is acceptable for private businesses to violate the rights enumerated in 2nd amendment, then why can't it violate the rights enumerated in other amendments as well?

They can't "violate" my right on their property because the rights guaranteed in the BOR are guaranteed against the government's usurpation of the rights of the citizen. The private property owner's right to say what I may do or not on their property is their choice and guaranteed.

If we don't like it we can express our disapproval by refusing to step foot on the property or do business with the property owner/operator. The property owner's right to make that choice is as guaranteed as our right to not have the government abridge our right to keep and bear arms. They have the freedom to do that without government meddling, but must deal with the consequences of that decision. IOW they have the right to anger us and loose our business and earn our emnity.

It is a difficult idea to accept that our right is no different than the property owner's.

Neverwinter
February 6, 2012, 11:34 PM
They can't "violate" my right on their property because the rights guaranteed in the BOR are guaranteed against the government's usurpation of the rights of the citizen. The private property owner's right to say what I may do or not on their property is their choice and guaranteed.

If we don't like it we can express our disapproval by refusing to step foot on the property or do business with the property owner/operator. The property owner's right to make that choice is as guaranteed as our right to not have the government abridge our right to keep and bear arms. They have the freedom to do that without government meddling, but must deal with the consequences of that decision. IOW they have the right to anger us and loose our business and earn our emnity.

It is a difficult idea to accept that our right is no different than the property owner's.This seems to have slipped my mind. Yes, the Constitution only protect the citizens from the federal government. It doesn't protect us from private businesses. If it did, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wouldn't have had to be passed; public accommodations would already have been prohibited from discriminating based on race, religion or national origin by the 14th amendment.

We are not at a point similar to the era of the 60s with regards to proliferation of discrimination, and I hope we never get there. But if it got to the point where the prohibition by public accommodations for the RTKBA made it impractical for citizens to do so legally, it would be worth revisiting whether the property rights of the owners of public accommodations are serving as an end-run of the 2nd amendment.

jackpinesavages
February 11, 2012, 09:47 AM
We as a society or as legislatures or as judges lack the authority to strip away or place conditions (certification and licensing) on a right inherent in mankind's existence and which is confirmed and protected by the Constitution, then justify that stripping by saying it was never a right at all but merely a privilege granted by society. We do it, but we do so in violation of our inherent humanity and of the Constitution.

If that is what you mean by "social doctrine," you're barking up a tree that doesn't exist. If you can cite "social doctrine," I'll listen. But you can't. I can cite the Constitution though.



No, you have decided to rearrange what I have written, and excluded what you want to. Very convenient.

Yes, I can cite and explain the Social Doctrine, as I already have and it does include the aspects of governemnt you have included.

The Social Doctrine pertains to Society's agreement that laws and enforcement of said laws will be done, in order to protect Society as a group, and that the criminal justice system will be entrusted to do so. However, I see you have already decided to NOT listen or research what Social Doctrine actually is. That's fine, but is a point of your debate located at the bottom of a quicksand pit.

You say "strip rights" as if to infer I have said that it happens arbitrarily, and I did not say that nor infer it. I said Society overall has decided that gun ownership/use/collection will NOT be legally done by convicted felons, that's all I said which is the truth-it is not my opinion or my muddy interpretation of a vague law. People in the US who have been deemed deficient by court proceedings lose the privelage to enjoy firearms legally. Period.

That is not "rocket surgery" dissection of the Constitution. We can throw out all the great one-liners we want about gun ownership and self defense, etc., but when you break certain laws, are found guilty of felonies, you forfeit the privelages. Society's will is in those laws, it is in the appointed and elected authorities, and the checks and balances are in place therein for making changes.

Social Doctrine does exist, it is not a tree I'm barking up, rather it is a tree of our Society that has been cultivated for the last 200+ years. We as a Society do not want another form of England telling us what religion to obey nor taking all our income for inflated taxes.(Tea Party) We DO want to maintain our ability to defend ourselves against another tyrannical government like England was to us in the 1700s.

It's ironic that a coffee shop has decided to let the individual states decide on carrying in their stores, as we became largely a coffee nation after beginning the boycott on England's teas. History repeating itself in a morphed form. Good stuff!

Neverwinter
February 11, 2012, 09:50 PM
That is not "rocket surgery" dissection of the Constitution. We can throw out all the great one-liners we want about gun ownership and self defense, etc., but when you break certain laws, are found guilty of felonies, you forfeit the privelages. Society's will is in those laws, it is in the appointed and elected authorities, and the checks and balances are in place therein for making changes.
The RKBA is as much a right as the one to life, as far as the 5th amendment goes. Of course, one could say that the privilege to life is also one that we(as a society at some points) have decided can be legally stripped after due process has occurred.

ezkl2230
February 23, 2012, 06:04 PM
The Bill of Rights protects certain - wait for it - RIGHTS. Non-negotiable, so-called inalienable rights. Natural rights, not legislated privileges.

They are:
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; right to petition.
Second Amendment – Militia, Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops in peacetime.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Fifth Amendment – Due process, protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
Sixth Amendment – Criminal trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel.
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically delegated to Congress in the Constitution.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

In today's political climate, however, all too many politicians and citizens have taken the attitude expressed by Capt. Barbosa in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie: "...the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules.”

This attitude is nowhere as evident as when discussing the rights of business owners and the rights of those who carry firearms - employees and clients - in accordance with the provisions of the Second Amendment.

We frequently see and hear remarks like the following: "I would be upset if the government tried to tell me how to run my business..."

The fact of the matter is that the government ALREADY tells one how to run their business - in ways that are at-odds with the Constitutional protections afforded private citizens on property that is truly private. It requires business entities to construct bathrooms a certain way so as to accommodate the physically disabled. It specifies how many handicap parking spaces one must provide. It requires one to allow service animals (even in a restaurant), and prohibits one from discriminating in hiring - meaning that one can be forced in some instances to hire people with whom one might not normally associate in a truly private setting where the Constitutional right of association (First Amendment) is protected. Additionally, business entities may not discriminate against customers or employees based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. - people with whom a private citizen might not choose to associate in the privacy of their home. These laws serve to protect the civil rights of employees and clients.

In short, civil rights, which the Bill of Rights establishes (including the civil right to bear arms), have been legally elevated above the rights of business entities.

Of all of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment exists to insure that other rights - including property rights - are secure. One must be able to defend that which belongs to one's self. Without a means of defense, all other rights - including property rights - are vulnerable, mere words on a piece of paper that really don't mean much. In other words, the right to own property exists only insofar as one is able to DEFEND that property. This includes the right to defend that property which is most precious to every person, their own body. As was observed by Bastiat in his work, published in 1850, The Law:

"Man can only derive life and enjoyment from a perpetual search and appropriation; that is, from a perpetual application of his faculties to objects, or from labor. This is the origin of property. But also he may live and enjoy, by seizing and appropriating the productions of the faculties of his fellow men. This is the origin of plunder. When does plunder cease, then? When it becomes more burdensome and more dangerous than labor.....God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?...every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property." (emphasis added)

In other words, the right to protect one’s body from physical harm does not end at the doorway of a business, whether entering as an employee or a client.

The inviolable nature of the Second Amendment is found in the terminology contained therein.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” As used in a legal context, as is the case in the Second Amendment, the phrase "shall not" indicates that the provision is non-negotiable; absolute; mandatory. When legislators wish to convey the unconditional, mandatory nature of a law, they insert the phrases "shall" or "shall not". NO ONE has the authority to abridge the practice of the right delineated in the Second Amendment - "...shall not be abridged." This is an absolute statement. Congressional acts restricting the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (using the Constitution against itself) are in violation of protections explicitly stated in the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights , shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Second Amendment right to bear arms is one of the civil rights "retained by the people." And there is that pesky legal phrase again: "shall not". The Bill of Rights is not a smorgasbord from which we choose which rights we will protect. One may choose not to practice a right, but that choice not to practice rights guaranteed in the Constitution [I]in no way infringes on or negates the practice of Constitutionally-protected rights by others.

While business owners (this author has been in that position himself) might wish to argue that their business is private property in the same way as their home, there are an overwhelming variety of laws governing business entities that say otherwise. As has been observed previously, those laws exist to protect the civil rights - the rights preserved in the Bill of Rights - of employees and clients. Business entities, places of public accommodation, do not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protection as that afforded to individual citizens. While that may be hard for some to swallow, even a cursory look at US business and civil rights law will bear this out.

Nicky Santoro
February 23, 2012, 06:59 PM
In what country on this planet would an individual business owner be forced to allow firearms on their personal property?

In no country. That being said, in no country should I not have the freedom to not patronize a business with whose policies I disagree. We all make choices and choices have consequences.

Ford Prefect
February 23, 2012, 07:14 PM
"No Catholics, No Mexicans, No Firearms, No Women or Dogs allowed"
"No Blacks, Jews, Irish, Chinese, etc"

I think we've been through all this before. It's called civil rights. If you do business with the public, the law says you can't discriminate upon a civil right.

Your "private" rights end when you open the doors to start sharing your business with others. Close the doors and you can do what you want. Open them to others, and you must respect THIER rights too.

Woolworths never did want to let blacks sit at the counter. Nobody made them. They just tore them all out. Nobody sits there anymore. If they put them back in, then they have to share.

Ford Prefect
February 23, 2012, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by hso
They can't "violate" my right on their property because the rights guaranteed in the BOR are guaranteed against the government's usurpation of the rights of the citizen. The private property owner's right to say what I may do or not on their property is their choice and guaranteed.

If we don't like it we can express our disapproval by refusing to step foot on the property or do business with the property owner/operator. The property owner's right to make that choice is as guaranteed as our right to not have the government abridge our right to keep and bear arms. They have the freedom to do that without government meddling, but must deal with the consequences of that decision. IOW they have the right to anger us and loose our business and earn our emnity.

It is a difficult idea to accept that our right is no different than the property owner's.

Except the same business/property owners expect to use the coercive power of the gov't to enforce the contract you are about to engage in. They can't demand gov't intervention to enforce the contract, but reject gov't power over the same situation when it does not suit them. None of us operate alone on an island. We all benefit from equal application of the law in court. That same law requires equal application from the beginning.
Don't open your business to the public if you are not going to do so fairly. There are only a few reasons for which it is illegal to discriminate. Otherwise it's up to both parties to agree. But our law is based on the idea that it is illegal to discriminate to the public for these few reasons. Otherwise it's nobody's business but the buyer/seller. If one of those reasons is violated... then it does become a federal case (so to speak).

A private whites/members only golf course is still legal. A white only coffee shop on the corner is not.

ezkl2230
February 23, 2012, 09:27 PM
I'll take it one step further, since some people are uncomfortable couching a discussion of Second Amendment rights in terms of civil rights (they feel that term has become overused). The BOR doesn't merely outline civil rights, it is the first real, comprehensive statement of HUMAN rights!

jackpinesavages
February 25, 2012, 10:23 AM
Oh this is great!

What are your ideas of private property?


Does a convicted felon still have a "right" to RKBA?

hso
February 25, 2012, 10:42 AM
Some would argue that anyone has that right once they've been released back into society having served their sentence, others would argue that they threw that and other rights away when they broke the contract with society and government and committed the crime that made them a felon. What rights a felon may have is an argument in and of itself and is a red herring.

This discussion is only concerning the right of a fully enfranchised citizen vs. the rights of a property owner. Minors, felons, non-citizens, aliens from the center of the galaxy are just sleight of hand distractions from the topic.

jackpinesavages
February 25, 2012, 11:02 AM
This discussion is only concerning the right of a fully enfranchised citizen vs. the rights of a property owner. Minors, felons, non-citizens, aliens from the center of the galaxy are just sleight of hand distractions from the topic.


I did not bring up aliens from another galaxy, minors, or non-citizens.

I brought up the "right" of a corporate entity having the choice to decide about what happens/does not happen on their private property.

I brought up the fact that privelages can be removed from citizens who have deemed themselves faulty by our agreed apon Society's laws, and how it relates to NOT everyone having "inalieable rights" to bear arms, wherever and whenever they think.

The discussion is about how some folks think that 2A ENTITLES them to carry wherever/whenever they feel it is necessary-and how that emotionally based misinterpretation gets people in trouble, and MORE importantly how it is giving the anti-gunners a P.R. perception lead on us that is our political suicide!!

Yes, everybody has a "right" to financially boycott a business to make some sort of statement. However, when the reasoning for said boycott is based on false premises about carry "rights" on private property, it makes us ALL look like absolute morons. Even the neutral gun rights people out there, who could not give a rat's behind about this issue, look at this entitlement theory and think.." *** are they smokin?!"

Sam1911
February 25, 2012, 11:34 AM
Yes, everybody has a "right" to financially boycott a business to make some sort of statement. However, when the reasoning for said boycott is based on false premises about carry "rights" on private property, it makes us ALL look like absolute morons.

Two separate issues seem to be getting mixed up here.

1) To the extent that I would participate in a boycott of a store over their anti-carry policies, I would do so simply because I want them to allow something they currently do not allow. I'm expressing my opinion in an attempt to convince them to change that policy. "If you want my money, change this policy. If you don't care about my money -- you feel the benefits outweigh the costs of not meeting my wishes -- then go about as you were and I'll take my money elsewhere." I didn't even have to say the word "RIGHTS" in there at all.

2) To the extent that I feel it is my right and/or duty to be ready to defend myself where-ever/when-ever, I will go where I please (or need to) and do as I feel I must (within the law, of course) and not be concerned at all what the business owner or his insurance company thinks about the matter.

The two issues may cross paths, but they may not as well.

So, jackpinesavages, I guess in the end, we aren't so far apart. A boycott can be perfectly sound and effective without having to carry the question of a RIGHT to that particular action into the matter at all.

jackpinesavages
February 25, 2012, 11:58 AM
There are lots of maybes, kind ofs, and inclusions/exclusions that can be made about this debate.

However, going against the clearly stated policy of private property owners, while Society agrees that private property owners have the right to decide what happens/does not happen there is not a gray area: private property owners are not denying 2A protection(s) by posting "no guns allowed" signs.

I would love to see it be legal for every legal gun owner to carry everywhere, but that ain't how we built this horse and carriage. If you want to advocate for carrying where it is actually illegal to do so, against the wishes of a private property owner, that is certainly your privelage to do so. However, start to also advise of the repercussions of doing so and being found out-all the possible penalties that you are subjected to at the discretion of your local District Attorney.






So, jackpinesavages, I guess in the end, we aren't so far apart. A boycott can be perfectly sound and effective without having to carry the question of a RIGHT to that particular action into the matter at all.

Sam1911
February 25, 2012, 12:48 PM
If you want to advocate for carrying where it is actually illegal to do so, against the wishes of a private property owner, that is certainly your privelage to do so.
Two separate issues mixed, again, here.

In my state (and many others) carrying where it is against the stated policies of a property owner is not necessarily carrying where that would be illegal. Here, and many other places, the law does not recognize or give any legal weight to a property owner's sign or policy.

Our "horse and carriage" may look a bit different from your state's "horse and carriage." :)

However, start to also advise of the repercussions of doing so and being found out-all the possible penalties that you are subjected to at the discretion of your local District Attorney.
I have done so, many times. Here, the repercussions of doing so are that you may be asked to leave the premises, and if so, then you must indeed leave, or you could be charged with trespass.

No other legal repercussions are involved.

Ford Prefect
February 25, 2012, 01:37 PM
My rights end where yours begin. It's not a complicated concept. Keep the doors closed you can do what you like. Open them to others and you MUST repect THEIR rights too. Failure to do so can cost you. There are laws involved here, you don't live in an anarchist state where you can do what ever you like.


Handicap parking spaces are REQUIRED for businesses. This is a restriction we place on all new buisness. No individuals or homes are required to have handicap spaces, but we do place this restriction on all businesses. It's really not that big a deal. There are lots of things business have to do that are not the same as individual rights. There is some overlap, and some real differences.

ezkl2230
February 25, 2012, 02:50 PM
The issue of felons losing their rights is an example of the exception to the rule establishing the rule, as is not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded public space. Society has agreed that the consequences of some crimes are so damaging that the person committing them should never again have access to the tools he used in the commission of his crimes. Now, as has been pointed out so many times, this only applies (in terms of this discussion) to legal procurement of firearms. That criminals can lose rights that are otherwise considered to be inalienable is covered under the Fifth Amendment, and can only be enacted as the result of due process.

And that is the crux of the matter in this discussion. Some business owners feel that they can deprive citizens who are otherwise fully vested with all of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights of their Second Amendment rights on their say-so alone. This amounts to depriving a citizen of their rights without due process of law, and that is the only process by which a citizen can be so deprived. A business owner is not the law, and a citizen legally entitled to carry a firearm is hardly to be equated with someone yelling "fire" in a crowded public place. Unless there is a preponderance of evidence that mitigates against allowing citizens to exercise their right to bear arms, a business owner's assertion of "I don't think" or "I don't want" hardly constitutes a solid basis to prohibit carry.

Having said that, and as has been pointed out before, there is legal basis for a business owner to limit open display of certain items by employees that are otherwise allowed in public areas: jewelry, piercings, religious symbols or literature, etc. - but even this right has well-defined limits (for example, unless there are well-defined, potentially serious safety considerations involved, an employer cannot prevent a Sikh from wearing his turban, even though this constitutes a public display of a religious symbol). One can argue that open carry of firearms by employees could fall under this guideline, but that still doesn't provide any legal basis for a business owner to prohibit such carry by customers - who are under no such restrictions.

jackpinesavages
February 26, 2012, 10:30 AM
Two separate issues mixed, again, here.



No, you clearly stated that YOU WILL carry onto private property where the owner's wishes are clearly posted against guns, in your 11:34 AM post yesterday, point #2.

My point about felons being denied gun "rights" has nothing to do with purchasing, or carrying, or legally procuring firearms: it is the most clear example of firearms buying/collecting/shooting/carrying being a privelage that CAN be lost.

Similar to voting, or driving a motor vehicle, or speaking your mind, these privelages can be taken away by the authorities and the Social Doctrine that empowers them. (Yes, that's the Social Doctrine some goofball said I would not discuss?)

Carrying on private property, where the property owner has clearly and legally posted that they do NOT want firearms, puts me/all at risk of prosecution by the local Authority's discretion. All the slogans in the world about ..."judged by 12 than carried by 6." are NOT going to change the mind of a liberal DA, or Deputy, or Constable.

Way to go Starbucks for agreeing to meet store Policy, with Local Laws, where this whole debate began. Anybody got a link to their press release discussing the results?

So, do you believe that convicted felons have gun "rights"?


And, what are your ideas about private property? How can you NOT manage the privacy on YOUR property, and let others dictate/boycott your private decisions?

Sam1911
February 26, 2012, 11:42 AM
Two separate issues mixed, again, here.

No, you clearly stated that YOU WILL carry onto private property where the owner's wishes are clearly posted against guns, in your 11:34 AM post yesterday, point #2.
But the points you are mixing up are that of carrying where it is against the property owner's wishes and carrying where it is illegal. That is two separate issues in many/most places. (Those two factors might overlap in your state -- I don't know.)

Carrying on private property, where the property owner has clearly and legally posted that they do NOT want firearms, puts me/all at risk of prosecution by the local Authority's discretion. All the slogans in the world about ..."judged by 12 than carried by 6." are NOT going to change the mind of a liberal DA, or Deputy, or Constable.Ok, then I must assume that's because your local laws back up the property owner's signage or wishes with the force of law -- i.e. immediate arrest and prosecution for being caught violating that policy.

Here in PA, as in many other states, that just ISN'T SO. On the off chance the owner or his representative discovers my concealed firearm they may ask me to leave. That's it. And I must oblige, or THEN I could face arrest for trespass. But no criminal charge attends being simply caught in violation of that policy, sign, or wish.

And, what are your ideas about private property?They are varied and complicated. From a practical standpoint, they are whatever THE LAW says they are.

How can you NOT manage the privacy on YOUR property, and let others dictate/boycott your private decisions?You're throwing around terms and issues again as if they were identical or equivalent when they are not.

Privacy? That's a wholly different question than anything we've been discussing here. Kind of hard to picture why you've included it.

(And I am concerned that you've included it as a dodge or red herring to extend your argument.)

As for "dictate/boycott" my private decisions? Not the same thing. No one (except the law/court) may dictate my actions or decisions. A boycott is not the same thing as dictating a course of action. It is merely a method of persuasion. A transactional arrangement between two people/entities with (more or less) equal rights. I can't FORCE Starbucks to allow me to carry my weapon -- with their knowledge and approval -- into their store. I can tell them that unless they do, I won't spend my money with them. If they want my money, they need to agree to my request. If they don't agree to my request, they don't get my money. They don't HAVE to have my money -- and don't HAVE to care about my opinion. I make my request, they decide whether to oblige. But I can express myself to them in the only way that they even remotely could care about. ($$$)

I am not violating their rights in ANY way. I'm expressing my opinion and spending my money where I choose.

Its a variation of the same sort of transactional relationships we have with every business (and other people) every day. I can tell McDonald's that I will patronize their business if they'll allow free refills on drinks, and have automatic opening bathroom doors. If they provide those services/accommodations, I'll spend my money with them. If they won't/don't, I'll spend my money somewhere that does. No one's rights are being violated.

Don't they have the RIGHT to refuse my demands? Sure! Absolutely! But no one can make me spend my money there, either. All free will decisions, in response to real-world inputs.

jackpinesavages
February 26, 2012, 12:57 PM
Ah yes, sorry, misread your state's "horse and carriage" laws. :D


Our state has specifically stated penalties for carrying where signage has been legally posted. (Disappointingly, Buffalo Wild Wings is one of them.)


...and here is where a blanket interpretation of 2A can lead to forfeiture of
2A privelages. Yes, I am sticking with 2A being a privelage, but of course I'm from the land where politicians don't want us legally carrying firearms. :banghead:

jackpinesavages
February 26, 2012, 01:15 PM
No, it's not a dodge or a red herring: The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are "individuals". People, with the decision making rights of an individual and their own self-determination as such. Though open for public business, such as a Starbucks is for coffee customers, it is legally considered a private business wherein said privacy MAY include/exclude firearms carry.

Starbucks may have very well gone the other direction with their policy decision, and still could, without legal repercussions. However, if a legally carrying individual goes into that business where legally posted, the legal repercussions exist in many states against the CCW person. That is not a matter of my opinion, personal theory, or interpretation-it's the law!

We have the best set of checks and balances on the planet to change said Laws. Decide. Legal or illegal activity? Put myself at the discretionary powers of the appointed Authorities or do the right thing? Be active in training and education, or buy coffee?


You're throwing around terms and issues again as if they were identical or equivalent when they are not.

Privacy? That's a wholly different question than anything we've been discussing here. Kind of hard to picture why you've included it.

(And I am concerned that you've included it as a dodge or red herring to extend your argument.)

ezkl2230
February 26, 2012, 04:03 PM
No, it's not a dodge or a red herring: The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are "individuals". People, with the decision making rights of an individual and their own self-determination as such. Though open for public business, such as a Starbucks is for coffee customers, it is legally considered a private business wherein said privacy MAY include/exclude firearms carry.

Starbucks may have very well gone the other direction with their policy decision, and still could, without legal repercussions. However, if a legally carrying individual goes into that business where legally posted, the legal repercussions exist in many states against the CCW person. That is not a matter of my opinion, personal theory, or interpretation-it's the law!

We have the best set of checks and balances on the planet to change said Laws. Decide. Legal or illegal activity? Put myself at the discretionary powers of the appointed Authorities or do the right thing? Be active in training and education, or buy coffee?
Corporate personhood is only recognized in very limited terms. They can own property; they can sue and be sued; they can enter into contracts; they can advertise their products; recently,they can contribute to political campaigns. But is inaccurate to assert that corporations have ALL of the legal protections granted to individual human citizens. The following editorial from the 9/21/2009 NY Times is very instructive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html

jackpinesavages
March 3, 2012, 01:26 PM
eer, no offense ezkl, but I put the NY Times alongside the National Inquirer; entertainment value only. Again, no offense.

This has been an informative and well balanced debate.

Kudos to THR staff for maintaining an excellent website.

Neverwinter
March 4, 2012, 03:27 AM
eer, no offense ezkl, but I put the NY Times alongside the National Inquirer; entertainment value only. Again, no offense.
There are numerous sources other than the NYTimes which contain the cited information: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

Indeed, Chief Justice John Marshall's comment regarding corporate personhood is recorded in Dartmouth College v. Woodward itself: A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.

No, it's not a dodge or a red herring: The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are "individuals". People, with the decision making rights of an individual and their own self-determination as such. Though open for public business, such as a Starbucks is for coffee customers, it is legally considered a private business wherein said privacy MAY include/exclude firearms carry.Except for the fact that limitations on the freedoms of corporations regarding public accommodations have been upheld ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Given sufficient legislative will, such a professed right can be withheld just as the RKBA for people who have been convicted of crimes. Just as a person can avoid committing crimes, a business could avoid providing products and services to the general public but instead offer them to a selected clientele of members, a la whites-only country clubs.

If you enjoyed reading about "Activism In Support or Against Private Business" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!