geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Umm....you guys are worried about the accidental discharge of HANDGUNS, of the type normally carried concealed for defensive purposes, ranging roughly from .22lr to 10mm, penetrating 6-12 inches of polycarb?
Nope.
Not gonna happen.
Those big tank windows are THICK and TOUGH.
Gun bigots might call them pocket artillery, but we oughta know better.
----------------------
Now, as to the question of privately owned places of public accommodation.
A private place opened to the public does NOT have the full protections of private property, such as a private club, or one's lands or dwelling.
That's a grey, sticky area, especially when it comes with RKBA restrictions.
It is widely accepted, by the public, and by law, that such places of public accommodation may NOT discriminate for certain criteria.
It is also accepted that they may enforce certain behavioral codes, as a condition of admittance, such as dress codes.
It is also accepted that they may enforce additional behavioral codes of conduct, such as are consistent and fairly applied to all.
_HOWEVER_, the right of peaceable armament is a FUNDAMENTAL right.
Isn't that one of our central assertions here?
Isn't it also one of our central assertions that being responsibly, peacably armed is inherently HARMLESS?
I suggest that we here too readily accept the libertarian dogma of private determination of the use of private property, misapplying it to the issue of property open to the public. When a property owner opens his property to the public, he gives up some of his rights and interest in what happens on that property, at least partly in exchange for the advantage he seeks to gain in so doing.
I believe that we should adopt an axiom that "what is lawful on the street ought to be lawful in the private place of public accommodation." If we do want to leave some wiggle room for the property owner, I suggest that at the very least, put the onus on the property owner to show the legitimate necessity for such a restriction, (ie, gunfire likely to cause reactor coolant leaks, leading to meltdown) and require him to provide us with secure storage lockers at the door.
This would certainly keep gratuitious and ideologically driven restrictions to a minimum.
I'm not saying this is what IS, I'm merely trying to arrive at a workable model of how it ought to be, to guide further refinements of social acceptance and law in this area.
Nope.
Not gonna happen.
Those big tank windows are THICK and TOUGH.
Gun bigots might call them pocket artillery, but we oughta know better.
----------------------
Now, as to the question of privately owned places of public accommodation.
A private place opened to the public does NOT have the full protections of private property, such as a private club, or one's lands or dwelling.
That's a grey, sticky area, especially when it comes with RKBA restrictions.
It is widely accepted, by the public, and by law, that such places of public accommodation may NOT discriminate for certain criteria.
It is also accepted that they may enforce certain behavioral codes, as a condition of admittance, such as dress codes.
It is also accepted that they may enforce additional behavioral codes of conduct, such as are consistent and fairly applied to all.
_HOWEVER_, the right of peaceable armament is a FUNDAMENTAL right.
Isn't that one of our central assertions here?
Isn't it also one of our central assertions that being responsibly, peacably armed is inherently HARMLESS?
I suggest that we here too readily accept the libertarian dogma of private determination of the use of private property, misapplying it to the issue of property open to the public. When a property owner opens his property to the public, he gives up some of his rights and interest in what happens on that property, at least partly in exchange for the advantage he seeks to gain in so doing.
I believe that we should adopt an axiom that "what is lawful on the street ought to be lawful in the private place of public accommodation." If we do want to leave some wiggle room for the property owner, I suggest that at the very least, put the onus on the property owner to show the legitimate necessity for such a restriction, (ie, gunfire likely to cause reactor coolant leaks, leading to meltdown) and require him to provide us with secure storage lockers at the door.
This would certainly keep gratuitious and ideologically driven restrictions to a minimum.
I'm not saying this is what IS, I'm merely trying to arrive at a workable model of how it ought to be, to guide further refinements of social acceptance and law in this area.