Activism In Support or Against Private Business

[jackpinesavages]

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.

 

[MrM4]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

They have a right to restrict firearms, I have a right not to patronize them, very simple concept.

 

[TT]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

#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]

No right can be had at the expense of someone else.

 

[mljdeckard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Because we already are.

 

[jackpinesavages]

" 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]

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]

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]

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.

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?