Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[bdickens]

You, as a business owner can discriminate against whomever you wish? What a load! Do it and see what happens to you and to your business. It's against the law and you know that. Don't try to pick metaphysical nits with me; you know good and well what I'm talking about.

I didn't know there were special protected classes of citizens. I thought everyone was equal under the law. I know it doesn't really work that way, but isn't that the ideal and isn't that the point of stacks and stacks of lawsuits?

But CHLs are certainly a class of citizen any way you want to slice it. I submit that CHL is a political statement about individual rights, self-determination, and the Constitution.

pt145ss said, "...if I own a butcher shop and PETA decides they want to do a sit in at my place of business…do I have to allow them to be on my property just because they exercising their 1st amendment right? I do not think so! So why should a business owner be required to serve someone exercising their 2nd amendment right?"

Not a valid comparison. In this example, PETA is causing a disturbance in pt145ss's place of business. If they have their sit-in outside on the public sidewalk, then he has no recourse against them. You can bar PETA from having a demonstration on the premisis of you business. You can not, however bar a member of PETA from being on the premisis of you business for no other reason than being a member of said organization.

Baring entry to CHLs is baring entry to a class of citizens based on their political views, for one, and baring their entry based on membership in a group for another. It's the same as if you bar entry to someone who is a member of PETA. Under the law, you can't do that. If that person becomes disruptive, you can have him removed and bar his subsequent entry. But you can't bar his entry simply because of his membership in a particular group or because of his political views.

A CHL holder who is carrying within the scope of the law is not being disruptive and in fact can not be being disruptive any more than I can be by wearing red underwear.

[aardwolf]

If store owners can't prohibit off duty LEOs from carrying they shouldn't be able to prohibit CHLs from carrying.

Or looking at the other way, if store owners' property rights allow them to prohibit CHLs from carrying then those same property rights allow them to prohibit LEOs from carrying, unless the police are there with a warrant.

[txmatt]

Byron,
I doubt I will be able to convince you of what others have been telling you, but here it goes.

Barring entry to all CHL holders based on the fact that they are CHL holders might not be ok. CHL holders are not a protected class, but barring a group of people based on membership in a group is maybe, perhaps questionable. Still, not being a protected class, I think a business could get away with it.

On the other hand, barring people from doing something you don't like in your place of business is, in general, fine. If I want to ban smoking in a property I control I can, and this is completely different from banning smokers. If you want to make it based on exercising a certain constitutional right, then if it is ok to ban someone who is excercising their 1st amendment rights in a way you don't like (maybe wearing a profane T-shirt or yelling something you disagree with), which it is, then barring people from excercising 2nd amendment rights in your establishment is ok, too. The amendments to the constitution are restrictions on the government and don't generally apply to the private sphere. Just look at cities leasing all public spaces to political parties when they hold their conventions (look it up) so as to suspend the 1st amendment, to get and idea of where the law is on this. Not that I think that last example should be legal, but it illustrates the point.

[bdickens]

Oh, I understand all right. I'm just surprised no one sees where I'm headed with this.

[bdickens]

Wearing a profane T shirt or yelling something disagreeable is entirely different than CHL. CHL is not in any way disruptive like those actions would be. You have no more way of knowing I am carrying than you do of knowing I'm an Episcopalian.

[pt145ss]

You, as a business owner can discriminate against whomever you wish? What a load! Do it and see what happens to you and to your business. It's against the law and you know that. Don't try to pick metaphysical nits with me; you know good and well what I'm talking about.

I didn't know there were special protected classes of citizens. I thought everyone was equal under the law. I know it doesn't really work that way, but isn't that the ideal and isn't that the point of stacks and stacks of lawsuits?

But CHLs are certainly a class of citizen any way you want to slice it. I submit that CHL is a political statement about individual rights, self-determination, and the Constitution.

pt145ss said, "...if I own a butcher shop and PETA decides they want to do a sit in at my place of business…do I have to allow them to be on my property just because they exercising their 1st amendment right? I do not think so! So why should a business owner be required to serve someone exercising their 2nd amendment right?"

Not a valid comparison. In this example, PETA is causing a disturbance in pt145ss's place of business. If they have their sit-in outside on the public sidewalk, then he has no recourse against them. You can bar PETA from having a demonstration on the premisis of you business. You can not, however bar a member of PETA from being on the premisis of you business for no other reason than being a member of said organization.

Baring entry to CHLs is baring entry to a class of citizens based on their political views, for one, and baring their entry based on membership in a group for another. It's the same as if you bar entry to someone who is a member of PETA. Under the law, you can't do that. If that person becomes disruptive, you can have him removed and bar his subsequent entry. But you can't bar his entry simply because of his membership in a particular group or because of his political views.

A CHL holder who is carrying within the scope of the law is not being disruptive and in fact can not be being disruptive any more than I can be by wearing red underwear.

I do not know what you are talking about nor do I know that it is against the law.

Ok…let’s try this. I own a restaurant and deny you entry because you are not wearing a sport coat. You are not making a disturbance but under current law, I can and will deny you entry.

I do not see that barring a member of PETA is against the law either. They do not have any political affiliation, a PETA member can be dem, repub, green, lib, or independent.

Carrying (at least for me) is not a political decision. It is a decision about safety and protection. I would be scared of someone making a decision to carry solely because of a political affiliation. I would hope people who decide to carry have thought about all the consequences and carry for the right reasons. Most of those I know who have a CHL do lean towards conservative/republican…but at least two are dems and one is a libertarian.

[anygunanywhere]

Any business open to the public is in no way a private entity any longer. Businesses open to the public do not meet the proper defintion of private and in no way can be compared to a residence.

They absolutely meet the definition of "private", no matter who is or isn't invited. If someone else owns it, it's private.

If you can get the government to dictate what others do with their property, then you've invited the government to do the same to you.

Again, this is my opinion. When the word private is used in this case it is not used in the proper context. When I am in my house I am in my private place.

I do not consider the grocery store or Academy or the mall private. They are property, but I am in public when I am there.

I do understand the stance those of you who agree with what KB is saying are taking. I just think differently, and agree that this is the way things are.

They really should not be this way. An individual's right to maintain his ability to defend himslef should be supreme to pretty much anything.

My $.02 worth and YMMV.

Anygun

[aardwolf]

On the other hand, barring people from doing something you don't like in your place of business is, in general, fine. If I want to ban smoking in a property I control I can, and this is completely different from banning smokers. If you want to make it based on exercising a certain constitutional right, then if it is ok to ban someone who is excercising their 1st amendment rights in a way you don't like (maybe wearing a profane T-shirt or yelling something you disagree with), which it is, then barring people from excercising 2nd amendment rights in your establishment is ok, too. The amendments to the constitution are restrictions on the government and don't generally apply to the private sphere.

Would it be allowed for a business owner to prohibit customers from wearing shirts. Not "profane" shirts but any clothing above the waist.

[45 4 life]

Yowch! I had no idea this thread would take off so fast!

I figured the propery rights thing would come up and I've prepared for it.

We've already decided in this country that business owners can not arbitrarily exclude enire classes of citizens. You can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks" or "No Jews" and expect to get away with it. Putting up a sign that says "No CHL," I submit, is the same thing. Whether the sign is a "gunbusters" or a legitimate 30.06 sign, it is an attempt to discriminate against an entire class of law-abiding citizens.
A business, private property or not, is not the same as a private residence or a private club. By being open to the public, it has to serve the entire public. Disagree and moan about "property rights" all you want, but that's the fact and that's the law.

bdickens,
You took my thunder. I was reading through the post waiting to find someone mention that these businesses are discriminating against us. I suppose one could argue that we were not born with a handgun on our hip. They could say that African Americans are born black, and Jewish are born Jewish, and Hispanics are born Hispanick. Well in my opinion those of us born in the United States of America were born with the RIGHT to bear arms. If the laws have already decided that a business owner does not have the right to discriminate by racial, or religous reasons what gives them the right to allow business to post 30.06 signs.

I had truly hoped that the public at large would realize that once all of the hype went away, the legal carry of firearms by upstanding (that is what we are)citizens would not be a danger to them. However the number 30.06 signs seems to be growing rather than dimenishing. When I send a email asking why companies have changed their views and added signs to their establishments I also ask if there was a problem that made them believe CHL created risk. I have never had a response that indicated that their change in poilicy was a result of having a bad expirence with a CHL holder.

Then why do some corporations and individual owners feel the need to post 30.06 signs. It is based on the beliefs of the board members, and owners period. It is a way for one or a few to force their beliefs on many.

The questions have always come up pertaining to making the list of CHL holders public information. I would like to see the list of corporations/companies that support by donations, antigun groups/lobbyist, and antigun politicians. We get to see small samples now and then, but I would like to see a hard list kept up to date. It would be the same ever growing list of companies that are starting to post the 30.06 signs.

I actually like it when these folks post the signs. I will not do buiness there. In a way if you decide to disarm and spend your money you must understand that a percentage of what you spend is going to become support for the antigun movement.

I do repect a property owners right to conduct their business as they deem fit, but it has already been established that discrimination is illeagal.

[txmatt]

Wearing a profane T shirt or yelling something disagreeable is entirely different than CHL. CHL is not in any way disruptive like those actions would be. You have no more way of knowing I am carrying than you do of knowing I'm an Episcopalian.

And if it were not illegal to bar people based on being Episcpalian, then I could. Would it be easy for me to spot an Episcopalian? Well, it would be about as easy as a business owner spotting someone with a concealed handgun, but that doesn't change the fact that it is antidiscrimination law that makes it illegal for a business owner to deny entry based on religion, not the fact that it is not readily discernable. Likewise, I could argue that the only thing "disruptive" about a profane T-shirt is the fact that I don't like it, and thus it is exactly like barring concealed carry, with the exception that concealed carry is more difficult to spot. If your only argument for not allowing owners of private property to discriminate is that they can't discriminate based on something not readily observable that is really weak.

Oh, I understand all right. I'm just surprised no one sees where I'm headed with this.

Ok, if you understand that CHLs are not a protected class under the law, and futhermore, that the businesses are not barring people based on having a CHL but rather based on whether a person with a CHL has a concealed handgun then I will be the first to admit that I don't see where you are going with this.

[txmatt]

Would it be allowed for a business owner to prohibit customers from wearing shirts. Not "profane" shirts but any clothing above the waist.

I would agrue that it is legal. I also think it is legal for a business owner to discriminate against any class of people that are not specifcially protected under the law. I'm not saying it's right, but arguing that it is legal. Of course, IANAL et c. For instance it is my understanding that it is legal to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. Again, I'm not saying it is right but rather that it is not prohibited by law.

[pt145ss]

Would it be allowed for a business owner to prohibit customers from wearing shirts. Not "profane" shirts but any clothing above the waist.

Sure...it's called a nudist camp. Its a business as they make money and most have strict policies about not wearing any clothes.

[Keith B]

Would it be allowed for a business owner to prohibit customers from wearing shirts. Not "profane" shirts but any clothing above the waist.

Sure...it's called a nudist camp. Its a business as they make money and most have strict policies about not wearing any clothes.

However, most of these 'camps' are not open to the public, they are a private clubs or membership type organizations, who can pick and choose their members or attendees. (Not that I really know anything about them. You wouldn't catch me at one!!! ) However, I do know someone that is a 'naturalist.'

[pt145ss]

Would it be allowed for a business owner to prohibit customers from wearing shirts. Not "profane" shirts but any clothing above the waist.

Sure...it's called a nudist camp. Its a business as they make money and most have strict policies about not wearing any clothes.

However, most of these 'camps' are not open to the public, they are a private clubs or membership type organizations, who can pick and choose their members or attendees. (Not that I really know anything about them. You wouldn't catch me at one!!! ) However, I do know someone that is a 'naturalist.'

I really do not want to know how someone would conceal carry there either. All jokes aside, I thought even private membership clubs could not discriminate against a protected class (i could be very wrong about that). I thought there was a case a long time back where a female sued and won for admission to a cigar club (or something like that) that only allowed male members…no puns intended.

[bdickens]

I don't believe that it is legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Being Episcpalian

Free speech is a Constitutional right and is protected as long as it isn't disruptive, i.e. if what you say provokes a fight or causes panic, it isn't protected.

Being Episcopalian is protected under the Constitution and therefore it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of that.

Keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutional right as well. Therefore it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because he chooses to exercise that right.

We eagerly await the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case. Unless five of those Justices have gone quite insane, I think they are almost assuredly going to rule that the Second Amendment protects individuals. We've seen the briefs, heard and seen parts of the oral arguments and the Justice's comments and questions, read what just about every Constitutional scholar says about the Second Amendment. How can they rule otherwise? Do I think they're going to sweep away every gun control law in the country? No. Are they going to let the draconian victim disarmament laws in D.C stand as they are? I don't think that either.