A shopkeeper told me I couldn't wear my cross into his store. Then called the cops.

DING DING DING! WINNER!

Now the question is. Why? And more importantly, can the protections afforded other rights be applied to the second?

fail
if he can see your cross/gun it falls under the same category as wearing colors

Maelstrom -

:banghead:

Read the opinion itself, not the Wiki'ed cliff notes version. The parts you quote are non-sequitors and do not in any way advance your position. If you read the opinion carefully (and the lower court cases), you'll hopefully understand the issue a bit better.

When the court says "the District" its referring to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave under federal jurisdiction. Where the court says the District's ban is unconstitutional, it means the right cannot be denied by a federal enclave. It has nothing to do with private parties or state/local/municipal government actions.

Religions are often a bundled group of morals and values. Some people may choose not to adhere to or follow the principles of the religion they choose, but itself would show a lack of conviction for thier beliefs.
Someone specificly choosing to wear a symbol that states such beliefs, and then not adhering to the beliefs they choose to adamantly state to others would clearly be a hypocrite.


If someone chooses to be a part of a group that espouses certain values that will impact decisions they make in thier life, and then chooses to advertise to other people they have those values with symbols, it becomes a very legitimate basis for some discretionary judgement.
If I was to put on clothing or a tattoo that said I was a member of a certain gang or organization with certain views, that would be a legitimate thing to judge me on that I choose to inform you of.
If I choose to wear a piece of clothing or jewelry that states I am from a group with certian beliefs, then you can judge me on it.
If someone made a religion that espoused beliefs that it was okay to steal because everything is of the earth, and the earth belongs to no individual, but to everyone...and someone wore a symbol stating that was a religion they were a part of, would you want them in your store?
It would be your right to ask the very likely thief to leave.
You would be basing your decision on core beliefs they chose to make you aware of through the advertising of thier religion to you.


Religions are often core values people base many decisions on. If you cannot judge a person based on thier core values, values they choose to make known to you by clearly stating it with clothing, jewelry, customs etc then people really have no freedom.




The government is forbidden from discriminating based on such things, private parties are not supposed to be. The government is forbidden from passing laws that restrict or infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Private businesses and homes still have the right to discriminate.
To me that means no law should exist that create legal punishment for someone carrying concealed against the wishes of a private party, as that would be the government taking an active role in infringement on the behalf of the private party.
At the same time that private party can ask them to leave for any reason at any time. Refusal to leave is tresspassing. Whether it is because they don't like thier breathe, thier religion, thier carrying of a gun, thier clothing etc
So 'no gun' signs should always be unenforceable legaly, but the business can and should be able to bar anyone entrance or have anyone leave if they become aware of a customer doing something they do not want done. Whether that is wearing the wrong color, thier possession of a firearm becomes known, or they have a symbol that states certain beliefs on them.

This may of course become a serious issue when most businesses in the future have cameras that can detect concealed weapons. Such cameras already exist and are being used in some nations. They will become cheaper every year.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/16/camera.england/index.html

Maelstrom said:

DING DING DING! WINNER!

Now the question is. Why? And more importantly, can the protections afforded other rights be applied to the second?

Click to expand...

This is where it's important to draw a distinction between the way thing should be (which becomes personal opinion), and the way things are.

My personal view is that business owners ought to be able to reject any customer they wish, for any reason they wish. From that starting point, it follows that a business owner would have the right to prohibit carry within his store.

But, as I mentioned, that is the way things should be, according to my views. But it's not the way things are.

Since legal precedent has been made that businesses open to the public are treated differently than true "private property," it would seem that there is a starting point for forcing them to permit carry- if one can elevate carry to the same legally protected level as race.

So legally speaking, there is a precedent by which one might choose to pursue this, though I'd say the chances of success are slim. Personally speaking, though, I will not support such a thing, because it conflicts with my views on government and property rights.

Since legal precedent has been made that businesses open to the public are treated differently than true "private property," it would seem that there is a starting point for forcing them to permit carry- if one can elevate carry to the same legally protected level as race.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way, either people have those property rights in a business or they do not. If they cannot ask someone to leave because they come in with a shirt calling for a human sacrifice for thier religion, then they shouldn't be able to treat the 2nd differently.
If they cannot ask someone to leave because of the First Amendment rights, they shouldn't be able to over the Second Amendment rights.

There is precedent that business owners have no rights some places. "Ladies night" is illegal as it disciminates based on sex in some states. No double standards.
Smoking is outlawed some places, even if the customer and the business owner want to do it. They simply have no power over thier private property to allow it.

Some companies even have racial or sex based hiring qoutas that so many minorities or women must be hired even if they are not applying in those percentages, or are less qualified.
Clearly that is discriminatory based on sex and race. It means some qualified people will be overlooked, to be certain black Joe in accounting is replaced with another minority rather than a white person to maintain a certain ratio.
Yet as a private entity they should be able to do whatever they want.
However if they can do that, then the opposite would be their legal right as well, yet some places it is not.

So people have clearly caused a lot of issues in recent times by removing some property rights, setting double standards and citing constitutional rights as thier logic.
Either the entire Constitution, which was originaly only a restriction on government is applied, or none of it. You don't choose to keep the First Amendment, cite the constitution or constitutional law as the basis, and then pick and choose to allow people excercising the Second Amendment.

I think property rights mean they can choose who is on thier land for any reason. Yet if exceptions are made in law and the reason cited is Constitutional law, then all of the standards should apply.

I had been under the impression that turning away customers with the phrase, "We don't serve negros here" had been outlawed.

Click to expand...

Oh it has (see the Civil Rights Act of 1964, et seq.). But no similar statute exists with respect to federal gun laws.

Natural law should always trump that of society's, less everything else is seperate but equal.

My point exactly. Can it be argued?

Click to expand...

I don't think its arguable that no such law currently exists, but the government certainly enact such legislation given enough political will to do so.

Just don't expect it under the next administration, however.

Odd. A number of people here said that shopkeepers are free to discriminate for whatever reason they wish. Surely someone must be mistaken.

Click to expand...

As pointed out, shopkeepers can discriminate on certain grounds but cannot on other grounds. A shopkeeper telling a Muslim and his wife to leave solely on those grounds is opening himself up to a lawsuit. A shopkeeper telling same couple to leave after they start haranguing about American devils is perfectly OK.
A shopkeeper's property is not private but exists as a privilege granted to him by the state. Therefore the state can dictate certain standards. That is not the same as the shopkeeper's residence, where he can kick anyone off for any reason, including he hates coons or whatever.
Gun owners are not a protected class under the law. If a store owner wants to exclude people carrying guns, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Just for reference so put the issue to rest, a shop owner cannot refuse service in a store or restaurant on the basis of religion. See below:

Civil Rights Act of 1964
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

It's also important to note that this is not a constitutional issue, because it involves private actors and not the state. The 2nd amendment would be inapplicable to this case.

You are not ENTITLED to someone else's property. A business is property of the the owner, they should have complete control over it. The same way I came into your house and said something that ticked you off, you should be able to boot me out, the business owner should have the same rights. If the people in the area don't like the way the owner conducts business, then they won't go, and the business will fail. The success or failure of that business is solely on the shoulders of the owner, and he is the one who will suffer if it fails, so all decisions should be left up to him.Free market rocks! You have many rights, free speech, religion, gun carry, it doesn't matter what the right is..... just because you have the right to do it, doesn't mean you can do it on someone else's property.

Just for reference so put the issue to rest, a shop owner cannot refuse service in a store or restaurant on the basis of religion. See below:

Civil Rights Act of 1964
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

It's also important to note that this is not a constitutional issue, because it involves private actors and not the state. The 2nd amendment would be inapplicable to this case.

Click to expand...

So what if I worship Colt's?


Can Gaston Glock be a saint?

I'M IN BEFORE THE LOCK AND I'M TYPING IN CAPS!!! I RULZ!!!!11!!!

Seriously, this topic is like beating a dead horse, but at least we get to yell at eachother.

I think property rights vs. personal rights will always be a hot discussion, and it will always lead to bickering.

Oh and just to prove the rule... Nazis!!! Think about the Nazis! Hitler was for the same things you just said, or something like that! This is just like the Nazis!

Can this be locked already?

Pardon my ranting; I'm tired. I think I'm going to call it a night. Carry on.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/378/226/

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-b...ublic&navby=volpage&court=us&vol=379&page=311

http://supreme.justia.com/us/378/130/case.html

Trespasses due to racial discrimination are unlawful and unenforceable under the two above Supreme Court decisions in regards to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until there's a new Civil Rights Act with similar language as applicable to the carrying of personal firearms to where a state law enforcer can be subject to federal criminal charges if they enforce a trespass due to gun possession, the current protections based on race, gender, and religion will not apply to gun owners in the same manner.

But what if it were applied to other Constitutional rights? Such as the right to worship freely

Click to expand...

What if I come into your shop and practice my religion which involves the sacrifice of a goat via blood letting (slicing the throat). You got a problem with that? What if my religion involves me and a bunch of guys coming into your shop, laying down our prayer mats, kneeling, facing east, and holding services? What if my religion involves speaking in tongues whilst in your shop? Since my religion involves solicitation of new members, would you mind if I approached your other customers about being in my religion? How about if I come in and spend time witnessing to them instead of letting you and your sales staff freely conduct business with them?

You are not ENTITLED to someone else's property. A business is property of the the owner, they should have complete control over it.

Click to expand...

Try to run a business without following the ADA, OSHA, EPA regulations, or fire codes and then explain to us how you have complete control over it. Pass a rule at your business that all female employees must have sex with the owner and see how much control you have over it.

The fact remains that owning property does not make you a king, and these "property rights" that people here are always yammering on about on this site are not to be found anywhere in the constitution.

What if I come into your shop and practice my religion which involves the sacrifice of a goat via blood letting (slicing the throat).

Click to expand...

Your arguments are different than what we are discussing. In your examples, the action in itself is disruptive to business. A person merely carrying a weapon in your business in itself is not comparable. No one is asking to FIRE a gun on your property, but merely possess one. Totally different.

concealed means concealed

So much could be said about those "yammering" about what isn't covered in the Constitution. Gimme a break. There isn't anything in the Constitution that says I can't disrupt somebody's business, is there so long as it isn't a press, church, or other activity covered by the Constitution, is there?

Note that the Constitution does not distinguish between business property and personal property such as one's home or land in terms of what can or cannot be done on it in these regards. Since you aren't doing business at home, can I practice my goat sacrifices on your front lawn?

Note that the Constitution does not distinguish between business property and personal property such as one's home or land in terms of what can or cannot be done on it in these regards. Since you aren't doing business at home, can I practice my goat sacrifices on your front lawn?

Click to expand...

There is a legal difference between status, such as being a sadist, and action, actually doing what you believe (such as killing a goat). Status is protected, action is not, when dealing with trespassing on private property or with regard to a invitee in a business.

As another example, being a drug addict is not illegal. The act of doing drugs is.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that says I can't disrupt somebody's business, is there so long as it isn't a press, church, or other activity covered by the Constitution, is there?

Click to expand...

That's true. It is covered by local ordinance and state law, however, which do restrict disruptive behavior. And that restriction even applies to otherwise protected activities. Go to an anti war rally and start throwing eggs and see what happens.

As far as gun related, carrying a gun is not a protected right that trumps the property owner's rights. He can certainly exclude you if he wants.

What you all are missing is that property "rights" are not (with specific exception covered by the third, fourth, and the takings clause of the fifth amendment) guaranteed by the constitution- they are spelled out in state law.

If a property owner who has opened his property to the public sees that I have a gun and specifically asks me to leave, then yes, he does have the ability to do so. If I fail to leave at that point, I am trespassing. Unless otherwise provided for in state law (such as the Texas 30.06 statute) a property owner cannot place advance conditions on entering his property that carry any weight, all he can do is ask you to leave.

For example, if you have a dress code, and ask a person to leave for not meeting it, you may do so. That does not mean that you can require customers to disrobe so that you can examine their undergarments, and they are not trespassing until you tell them to leave and they refuse.

You can place a sign that says "No Jews," but that does not make a Jew on your property a trespasser until you somehow figure out that he is Jewish and ask him to leave. Now, that does give him the ability to sue you later under Civil rights laws, so that is not a smart thing to do.

The same goes for gun owners. As I pointed out before, unless state law allows you to post, you can put a sign on your front door that reads "No guns," but this sign carries no legal weight, and the property owner cannot force you to submit to a search, but can deny entry if you refuse a search even though you cannot be arrested for refusing a search entering or leaving. Of course, this will likely turn off his customers. Only when you spot the weapon can you ask the person to leave and have it carry any legal weight.

On the flip side of this, there are certain times when you as a property owner are restrained by law. For example, you can be sanctioned by law for failing to maintain your business up to local building and fire codes. This can result in fines, jail time, and foreclosure or condemnation of your property.

Note that every one of the above laws has roots in the law, not the constitution. The only word on your "rights" as a property owner with regard to such laws is the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Anyone else have any actual facts to the contrary, or are we going to discuss opinion?