Your gun rights vs the right of business owners...

[rellascout]

In the recent thread about Kroger not allowing concealed carry in Ohio contained this statement.

That's not relevant to the discussion of what plan to put into action to force Kroger to reverse their anti RKBA policy. Whether concealed or openly carried, Kroger has no business posting against legally carried firearms.

It is important to continue to push them to issue a policy saying that Kroger will not allow stores to post against permit holders except where required to by law. That may include where liquor is sold, but shouldn't include anywhere else.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6499694#post6499694

Moderator HSO is putting forth an opinion that the right to carry trumps a business owners rights and that no business has the right to "post" their property and prohibit carry. Do you agree?

I firmly disagree. I am all for writing and calling Kroger informing them that their policies are anti gun and that an anti gun stance in many of their markets will effect their bottom line. This is exactly the way the free market should work.

However, I believe I have a right to own and carry a gun but that right does not trump property owners and business owners rights to post and to prohibit carry on their property. Do you allow anyone and everyone to carry a gun into your home? No one if forcing you to shop at Kroger. No one is forcing you to disarm in order to feed your family.

IMHO this is a where the rubber meets the road gun issue.

 

[JoeMal]

This is a really touchy subject...also following along the lines of this thread

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=523692


Assuming it's legal in your state to carry; should a business be allowed to restrict your safety by not allowing you to possess a weapon in their store?

At that point is my safety the responsibility of the business since I can't protect myself?

If I were to be shot and killed in a store where I wasn't allowed to carry (even though laws permitted it), could my family sue the business for losses?


An interesting subject, for sure. The water is oh so muddy, the slope oh so slippery

 

[benEzra]

Is Kroger a sole proprietorship, or is it a corporation (i.e., a paper entity that gives up certain rights in return for state protection from certain types of legal liability)?

If the latter, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that the "rights" of a paper entity created by the state trump the rights of a real person, but that's a debate for another thread. Still, I don't think most people argue that Kroger can't legally post as a no-carry zone (certainly they can under current law), merely that they have absolutely no business doing so from a moral standpoint.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh NO! This thread again?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=518089 Argued through and locked down less than 1 month ago.

Or was it this one? http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=496035

Or this one? http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=484456

Or this? http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=473417

This... http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466784

This ... http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=457616

Or sort of the mother of 'em all with 245 posts: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=456493

But the list continues.

This topic makes folks' blood just BOIL. I sure hope this one's shorter and more courteous than ... any ... of the others have been.

 

[Kwanger]

Sad as it may be, IMO a business has every right to say 'No guns on our premises'. Just the same as they can discriminate as to who they even allow on their premises (barring known trouble makers, thieves etc).

As has been said, where do you stop with this one? The only sane answer is that the owner/controller of said property is allowed to dictate the rules.

 

[ArmedBear]

IMHO this is a where the rubber meets the road gun issue.

I agree with this statement.

However, I disagree with you for strictly practical reasons. There is a limited number of insurance companies that offer certain policies, and there is often a limited number of businesses in a market.

There is no particular reason that a business owner would care about your rights. The business has no liability. E.g. woman gets CC permit and carries a gun at all times, primarily because her ex-husband has been stalking her and has told other people he will kill her. She leaves the gun in her car when she goes to buy groceries due to the no-gun policy. Her ex comes into the store, shoots her, and she spends her life in a wheelchair. The grocery store has ZERO liability for preventing her from defending herself. Therefore, it has no incentive to change the policy.

If a business is open to unrestricted access by the general public, like a grocery store, where anyone can enter at any time, then it is a de facto public place. If the property owner wants to keep people out, he/she/it can do that by locking the door. But when it's wide open, it's a public place. Note that the owner of the property voluntarily allows the public free access to it.

This is akin to desegregation laws, where stores open to the general public are not allowed to post "white only". Simply desegregating government buildings and land would not have worked: some places would have had segregation in every privately-owned place of business, at least where there wasn't an overwhelming business incentive to desegregate. This would have meant that black Americans still could not go to the grocery store -- defeating the purpose of desegregation. Rights aren't rights when they are merely theoretical, and if you can't carry a gun in public places, then you don't really have the right to defend yourself.

A dose of utilitarian realism is needed here.

Of course, another possibility would be strict liability for "gun-free" places. If you are attacked in a store and unable to defend yourself due to a "gun-free" policy, the store is liable for treble damages. That would work fine, too. The property owner can do whatever -- but it will be expensive.

 

[rellascout]

Is Kroger a sole proprietorship, or is it a corporation (i.e., a paper entity that gives up certain rights in return for state protection from certain types of legal liability)?

If the latter, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that the "rights" of a paper entity created by the state trump the rights of a real person, but that's a debate for another thread. Still, I don't think most people argue that Kroger can't legally post as a no-carry zone (certainly they can under current law), merely that they have absolutely no business doing so from a moral standpoint.

This is absolutely not backup up by the law. Property rights are foundation of the set of rights that corporations are entitled to. In fact some would argue that the property rights of corporations are stronger than individuals.

If HSO is morally apposing the no carry law he should state that clearly and not make those type of comments within a the legal action forum where he cuts people off all the time for giving their $.02.

 

[ArmedBear]

If you want backup from the law, the owner of privately-owned property that is open to public access does not have the same rights to control those on that property, as one whose property is closed to the public. A landlord has limited rights over tenants who have paid for a unit, as well.

Property rights are only as simple as you pretend, if you buy land and close it to all access.

 

[rellascout]

If a business is open to unrestricted access by the general public, like a grocery store, where anyone can enter at any time, then it is a de facto public place. If the property owner wants to keep people out, he/she/it can do that by locking the door. But when it's wide open, it's a public place. Note that the owner of the property voluntarily allows the public free access to it.

IMHO this is not the case. Private property open to the public does not equal public property. IIRC every state in the union gives business owners the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime on an individual basis. No reason needs to be given because when shopping or conducting business on their property they are allowed to control who they do business with.

If you are having a yard sale and people are on your property do you give up the right to control who comes onto the property and under what terms and conditions?

 

[ArmedBear]

every state in the union gives business owners the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime on an individual basis.

There is nobody at the door, selectively barring access. Private clubs generally retain more legal property rights than places open to unrestricted public access, but businesses usually are not private clubs.

It's also simply not true that a business has the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just try telling an African-American patron at your bar that you don't serve black people. Have fun.

If you are having a yard sale and people are on your property do you give up the right to control who comes onto the property and under what terms and conditions?

Yes. You give up certain rights by opening up the yard and posting a sign. Try shooting someone for trespassing when your gate is open and there's a "yard sale" sign up, even in a state with a very strong "castle doctrine" law. Have fun in prison.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

Moderator HSO is putting forth an opinion that the right to carry trumps a business owners rights and that no business has the right to "post" their property and prohibit carry. Do you agree?

We, as a community, need to financially pressure businesses into "firearm-friendly" postures.

The threat of boycott is a tried and true practice for the public at large to change private industry policies that are repellent.

It is the business owner's right to tell me I can't carry a gun is his establishment, and it is my duty as a citizen to obey his lawful request (it is HIS place of business, after all).

It is also my right as a citizen fighting a policy I see as unfair to boycott a business in an attempt to convince the owners to change a practice. It is also my right to openly encourage others to boycott as well.

This is exactly where I'm headed with the Kroger gun ban if they don't back down in a very public fashion.

I'll take my business elsewhere, and I'll work tirelessly to convince as many others as possible to do the same.

KR

 

[rellascout]

HSO stated this:

Whether concealed or openly carried, Kroger has no business posting against legally carried firearms.

IMHO as a business they have the right to post private property. I don't have to like it or shop there as a results but why are we looking to take away the strength of laws that protect our property?

We cannot have it both ways. We want our property rights when they apply to us but we want our guns rights to trump someone's property rights????

 

[JoeMal]

KR;

I agree with your viewpoint...but feel some businesses simply won't care. They'd rather you shop somewhere else. Until a huge portion of the market joins your side, one or two lost customers isn't going to put them out of business.

 

[rellascout]

It's also simply not true that a business has the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just try telling an African-American patron at your bar that you don't serve black people. Have fun.

Most states do not require you to give a reason. If I own the business I am allowed to simply ask you to leave. If you do not comply you are trespassing. You are 100% right if have a problem if you say I am not serving you because you are black. If I simply say I am not serving you not so much.

Also comparing or trying to draw an analogy between being of a certain race and choosing to carry a gun in public is quite a stretch. IHMO YMMV

I have told sales people who come soliciting without an appointment at my business to leave. If they do not comply I tell them they are trespassing and my next action will be calling the police. They tend to leave at that point.

 

[rellascout]

We, as a community, need to financially pressure businesses into "firearm-friendly" postures.

The threat of boycott is a tried and true practice for the public at large to change private industry policies that are repellent.

It is the business owner's right to tell me I can't carry a gun is his establishment, and it is my duty as a citizen to obey his lawful request (it is HIS place of business, after all).

It is also my right as a citizen fighting a policy I see as unfair to boycott a business in an attempt to convince the owners to change a practice. It is also my right to openly encourage others to boycott as well.

This is exactly where I'm headed with the Kroger gun ban if they don't back down in a very public fashion.

I'll take my business elsewhere, and I'll work tirelessly to convince as many others as possible to do the same.

KR

This is the same approach I take on any issue not just guns....

+1

 

[rbohm]

It's also simply not true that a business has the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just try telling an African-American patron at your bar that you don't serve black people. Have fun.

it is absolutely the right of the business to refuse service to anyone anytime they choose. a reason does not have to be given.

it is the right of a business to not allow firearms in their store, as long as state laws regarding signage are followed.

however, it is also the right of the people to boycott any business they choose, for what ever reason they choose.

the customer may not always be right, but the customer is always the customer, and if a business suffers financially because they refuse to allowed legal citizens to carry legal firearms in their store, they will change their policy in that regard.

 

[CraigC]

I think every state should be like Florida. When, where and how you can carry your concealed weapon is regulated by state law. No owner of private property that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC can prohibit you from carrying your concealed weapon on premises. Private property that is NOT open to the public is an entirely different matter.

 

[Rshooter]

I agree that it is the business' right to restrict the access of customers with guns. Like it or not :banghead:.

 

[rellascout]

I think every state should be like Florida. When, where and how you can carry your concealed weapon is regulated by state law. No owner of private property that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC can prohibit you from carrying your concealed weapon on premises. Private property that is NOT open to the public is an entirely different matter.

Flip that and make it like DC. Govt controls it and no one gets to carry anywhere.

 

[Zach S]

Membership stores have the right to ban firearms on their property. You buy the membership, you agree to their rules.

However, I feel that any business open to the general public shouldn't have the right to ban firearms. Its not private property when you let everyone in.

If wearing a t-shirt that promotes the use of illegal drugs or activities, or t shirts supporting racist organizations such as the KKK or NAACP is protected under the first amendment, than the "right to carry," which I had to complete training and apply for, should be protected under the second.

 

[Sam1911]

In my state (commonwealth) a store policy has no legal weight. They can ask you to leave for whatever reason -- including because they see that you have a gun -- and you would have to do so or face tresspassing charges, but there is no criminal charge for simply carrying a gun on their property against their wishes.

If you want to make a statement or find out where they stand, carry openly and let them respond -- you make it their "business" by making it visible.

If you just want to go about your day without flustering their staff or their insurance carrier, carry concealed -- nothing in your pants is their concern.

Seems to work out well for all involved.

 

[DammitBoy]

The high road means you honor the wishes of the business owner.

To honor the RTKBA, the high road means you don't patronize places that restrict your right to self-defense.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

When I CCW, it's MY little secret. I don't want ANYBODY to know I'm CCW'ing, and I do it in a manner that keeps my gun reliably concealed from public view. I occasionally choose not to honor "no weapons" signage and policies at businesses. Leaving a gun in a car where it's vulnerable to theft and criminal misuse produces a greater hazard to public safety than keeping it secreted on my person and ignoring a store's sign.

 

[Mags]

This subject has been discussed to nauseum, I won't comment on the topic as it makes me show my ass more than any other topic, I will reccomend for all posters to review the threads posted by Sam1911 before posting as I am sure not much can be positvely added. This topic also displays the division among gun owners yet again just like OC vs CCW and mall ninjas vs fudds. We are so divided how did we make it this far?

 

[Sam1911]

The high road means you honor the wishes of the business owner.

To honor the RTKBA, the high road means you don't patronize places that restrict your right to self-defense.

That's a pretty broad statement of ethics applied to a lot of people who may or may not agree with your personal vision of the matter.

Personally, I don't consciously honor the wishes of a business owner in anything I do beyond what the law requires. I don't seek to act contrary to them as a matter of course, but his wishes -- whether they reflect on how much money he hopes I will spend with him, who he'd prefer I vote for, what god he thinks I should pray to, or what private means I choose to ensure my own safety -- are of no more importance, or relevance to the tenuous social contract we're briefly engaged in, than those of any other fellow citizen.