Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[bdickens]

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...but it has already been established that discrimination is illeagal.

That's my point and I think you can begin to see where I'm headed.

[txmatt]

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

Well, I guess that kind of explains why you think what you do... but would you care to explain on what legal basis you believe this? It's clearly not covered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and no where else in federal or Texas law that I am aware of. If you are talking 1st, 2nd or 14th amendments those are restrictions on the government, not individuals, and I don't see how that applies unless you are advocating an even more activist judiciary which I can't imagine is a very popular view around here.

[pt145ss]

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.

It’s protected in a public venue…it is not protected, no matter benign it is, from a private business owner or private property owner, if the property owner does not wish to have someone on their property saying something they do not agree with.

Your free speech is not protected on my property…I could and would remove you or refuse service to you.

[GEM-Texas]

When the issue of property rights comes up, folks rightly point out that discrimination is not allowed on grounds of race, etc. The RKBA is a similar right, IMHO. However, someone always says that the property owner should be allowed to discriminate.

I pose this conundrum for that latter argument. If you are a tax payer of the excluded group - why should your tax money pay for police, fire or EMS to go that establishment? Shouldn't you be able to stipulate that you don't want to pay for that property that discriminates to be protected?

Also, if you are an emergency personnel team member of the excluded group - shouldn't you have the ability to say - well, dude - I can't shop here in your castle. Thus, I will watch your castle burn. Nor will I go beat on your chest to get your ticker starter.

If you view your business as your castle - please hire private security and fire to deal with property problems rather than assume that tax payer money of the excluded group or members of the excluded group (as police, etc.) will be coming to your assistance.

Please post a sign saying that you discriminate at the door - along with your 30.06 such that minority emergency personnel will know not to help you.

I have no sympathy for the property rights argument for a business open to the public. It is a psychopathology of some conservative theoretical views that are not sensible. Carry should not be banned except for some technical reason - as for example, carrying your gun into the MRI room and having the magnets do ill to your gun and pants.

[pt145ss]

When the issue of property rights comes up, folks rightly point out that discrimination is not allowed on grounds of race, etc. The RKBA is a similar right, IMHO. However, someone always says that the property owner should be allowed to discriminate.

I pose this conundrum for that latter argument. If you are a tax payer of the excluded group - why should your tax money pay for police, fire or EMS to go that establishment? Shouldn't you be able to stipulate that you don't want to pay for that property that discriminates to be protected?

Also, if you are an emergency personnel team member of the excluded group - shouldn't you have the ability to say - well, dude - I can't shop here in your castle. Thus, I will watch your castle burn. Nor will I go beat on your chest to get your ticker starter.

If you view your business as your castle - please hire private security and fire to deal with property problems rather than assume that tax payer money of the excluded group or members of the excluded group (as police, etc.) will be coming to your assistance.

Please post a sign saying that you discriminate at the door - along with your 30.06 such that minority emergency personnel will know not to help you.

I have no sympathy for the property rights argument for a business open to the public. It is a psychopathology of some conservative theoretical views that are not sensible. Carry should not be banned except for some technical reason - as for example, carrying your gun into the MRI room and having the magnets do ill to your gun and pants.

That business owner pays taxes too. He probably pays more if you count in his personal taxes and business taxes. The EMS personnel you refer too is most likely only paying personal taxes. But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that it is illegal (and rightfully so) to discriminate based on a protected class. If the EMS personnel you are referring to is being denied entry based on a protected class…then he/she should sue.

I do not think your “conundrum� is a conundrum at all. A place that discriminates based on a protected class should be shut down. Unfortunately, CHL is not a protect class (at least not right now).

One thing everyone should keep in mind is that our fore fathers thought that property rights were just as important as the RKBA. This is exactly why we have search and seizure in the amendments…to protect the property owner. There is a fine line we need to walk between RKBA and Property rights.

[GEM-Texas]

You missed the point. First, the right to carry should be considered in the same domain as being a protected class. If specific legislation is needed then it should be done.

Second about my conundrum. It is not about the exact amount of money. Rights are not determined by your level of tax contribution nor assigned to you specifically. There is a general pool of taxes and contributors who were discriminated against contribute to that pool. Their individual identity is lost in that pool.

It was to show that the poster who wants to put forward the view that he or she should be able to discriminate is really one-sided in their argument. They want to exclude on their property but not when their life is at risk - sheer hypocrisy.

One also postulates that the RKBA is equal to property rights. However, we have already established that property rights fall when that argument is used to discriminate. The argument here is that when you open your business to the public, your property rights do not trump the RKBA. Unless you argue for absolute property rights (which don't exist), that argument holds little strength as we can establish the hierarchy of rights. It is the opinion of many of us that the property right argument for banning CHL for businesses open to the public doesn't cut the mustard.

[bdickens]

Skewered on the horns of a dillema. Here we have two people, Mr. CHL and Mr. Business Owner with competing civil rights claims. Whose rights trump whose?

When you, Mr. Business Owner, post your 30.06 sign you are denying Mr. CHL access to your business, a business he has a right to patronize if he wishes.

[CleverNickname]

Let's say there's a movie theater and the owner really hates it when people talk on their cell phone during the movies. So in order to prevent that, he decides to go to an extreme and totally ban cell phones at the theater. So he puts up a sign at the front door that says "No cell phones". If someone breaks the movie theater's rule, then that's all they've done, broken a rule. If the theater finds out, they have every right to require that person to leave. The person with a cell phone only commits trespass when and if that person refuses to leave promptly when asked.

But if the theater puts up a "no handguns" sign (in the proper 30.06 form), then they can restrict legal carry prior to entry and have the force of law behind them. My problem is not that a private property owner can ban lawfully carried concealed handguns from their property. My problem is with the idea of a 30.06 sign and singling guns out for special treatment.

[pt145ss]

Skewered on the horns of a dillema. Here we have two people, Mr. CHL and Mr. Business Owner with competing civil rights claims. Whose rights trump whose?

When you, Mr. Business Owner, post your 30.06 sign you are denying Mr. CHL access to your business, a business he has a right to patronize if he wishes.

Mr. Business owner is not denying Mr. CHL entry…Mr. Business owner is only saying that he does not want Mr. CHL’s gun on the premises. Mr. CHL can enter and conduct business as long as he does not have his pistol. Mr. CHL has a choice…do business with Mr. Business Owner without the pistol…or Mr. CHL can go do business else where…somewhere that will allow Mr. CHL to have his pistol. Mr. Business owner is the one missing out on revenue.

I would also argue that no one has an absolute “right to patronize� any business they wish as you allude to in your post. You would not want Mr. 17yrOld patronizing the local exotic dance club because he has an absolute right. You may not want Mr. NoShoes-NoShirt to patronize your $80 a plate restaurant simply because he has an absolute right to patronize it.

If I were a business owner I would allow CHL. As a consumer and CHL holder, I avoid places that don’t allow CHL. I think the property owner should have some say as to what happens on their property.

[txmatt]

Byron,
You keep saying people have these rights that you give no basis for. I'm getting the impression that you are not talking about legal rights but some fundamental human rights? You should clarify. And I, with pt145, disagree with any idea of a fundamental right to patronize a business. How do you propose to create these new rights? State law? Federal? On what basis?

I think the posts early in this thread suggesting holding businesses that do not allow CCWs on their property liable for providing security is a better approach. Much preferable to creating a whole new protected class of people. Actually I think so far you have proposed three new classes- CHL status, sexual orientation, and the consumer in general. Where does it end?

[cbr600]

I'd love to open a business and require everyone to carry. Sauce for the goose and all that...

[bdickens]

I'm coming to your restaraunt and I'm carrying legally. If you post a 30.06 sign, you are denying me entry. It's that simple. If I can't bring my gun in, then I can't come in myself. What am I supposed to do with it?

I'm not coming in bare-chested with my flabby belly hanging out. I'm well-dressed, clean-shaven, trim, fit, athletic, polite, courteous, and a generous tipper. (and good-looking, too!). What basis do you have for denying me service?

Frankly, it surprises me that so many of us are so willing to roll over and play dead when it comes to our rights being infringed and so willing to be satisfied with the crumbs that are allowed to fall from the master's table. It's time to demand a seat at the table so we can enjoy the feast ourselves.

I also find it noteworthy that so many here buy into the knee-jerk conservative rallying cry of "property rights! Private business!" If you really think that "private businesses" have an absolute right to bar entry to whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, then this discussion is over and we might as well roll the calendar back to the days of Jim Crow. "Private businesses" with their "private property rights" can start saying "No Blacks," "No Jews," and "No Catholics" again and no one will have any recourse. Is that in the public interest?

Based on the nature of this forum, I'm going to assume that everyone here accepts that citizens of the US have a fundamental right to be able defend themselves and a fundamental right to keep (posess) and bear (take with them) arms. Business owners also have a right to control what happens on their property. Two sets of rights are coming in conflict. Whose rights trump whose?

I'm also sure most here have at least a passing fammiliarity with the work of Dr. John Lott. His research has shown that allowing private citizens to carry handguns in public reduces violent crime. It also shows that as more and more citizens carry handguns legally, the violent crime rate drops further and further. To this date, no one has been able to credibly fault Mr. Lott's research or his methodology. All of the attacks on him have been personal and emotional; none have been on his scholarship. Therefore, Mr. Lott has demonstrated that it is in the public interest for citizens to carry concealed handguns.

You, Mr. Restaraunteur, have a right to control what people do on your property. No one denies that. I also have a right to patronize your establishment. I'm not claiming an absolute right, but I do have a right to pretty much go where I want to. Now remember, I'm dressed nicely, good-looking, well-behaved, etc. As a complete stranger, you know nothing else about me other than what you can see at a glance. What basis do you have for refusing to accomodate me?

I'm also legally armed. I am obeying the law and doing something that is my right and privelege to do. Something that we have established is in the public interest to do. You may be a hoplophobic milquetoast who curls up in a ball and wets his panties an the mere mention of a gun, but my carrying is something that is in your greater interests as well.

We are both wanting to exercise our rights, but our interests clash here. My carrying ls legal, moral, and in everyone's interest: mine, yours (whether you want to admit it or not), and everybody else inside. It is in no one's interest to deny me service. Something has to give here.

Again, I ask, whose rights trump whose?

[pt145ss]

I'm coming to your restaraunt and I'm carrying legally. If you post a 30.06 sign, you are denying me entry. It's that simple. If I can't bring my gun in, then I can't come in myself. What am I supposed to do with it?

If you so choose, you can put your gun in your car and patronize the business. You are not being denied entry, your gun is being denied. You can also choose to go somewhere else. And by doing so, I have not infringed on your RKBA...but forcing me to allow you entry with your gun has infringed on my right as a property owner.

I'm not coming in bare-chested with my flabby belly hanging out. I'm well-dressed, clean-shaven, trim, fit, athletic, polite, courteous, and a generous tipper. (and good-looking, too!). What basis do you have for denying me service?

The basis can be what ever i want...as long as that basis is not one that is protected.

Based on the nature of this forum, I'm going to assume that everyone here accepts that citizens of the US have a fundamental right to be able defend themselves and a fundamental right to keep (posess) and bear (take with them) arms. Business owners also have a right to control what happens on their property. Two sets of rights are coming in conflict. Whose rights trump whose?

If I really had to answer that I would say that property rights would trump the RKBA and this is why. Property owners have a right to enjoy their property as they wish (within reason) without interference from the feds or any other municipality. A big part of the RKBA is so that citizens have a way to fight the Feds if they try to unjustly interfere with your rights as a property owner. In other words one reason for RKBA is to protect your property rights. The RKBA was put in to ensure that all your other rights would endure and overcome tyranny. The RKBA is a means of protecting your right to free speech, your right to religion, your right to own and enjoy property, your right to disagree with the feds.

That being said…we really need to find a happy medium between RKBA and property rights. BTW…RKBA is not and should not be absolute, there are and should be some reasonable limitations. We see these same reasonable limitations with all of our other “rights.� For example, we have a right to free speech, but we also have a right to keep our good name intact and not unjustly slandered, and therefore we compromised on the two and said free speech is protected as long as it is not slanderous.

but my carrying is something that is in your greater interests as well?

Although I agree that an armed society is a better society, I must argue…who are you to say what is in my best interest? What makes you think you know anything about me and what is in my best interest on my property? If I want someone telling me what is in my best interest…I would live in Cuba or something.

My carrying ls legal, moral, and in everyone's interest: mine, yours (whether you want to admit it or not), and everybody else inside. It is in no one's interest to deny me service.

See Argument above.

[bdickens]

Aha! now we're getting to the meat.

I rode the bus to get to to your resraraunt. Now, what do I do with my gun?

[pt145ss]

Aha! now we're getting to the meat.

I rode the bus to get to to your resraraunt. Now, what do I do with my gun?

You just have to exercise your 2a rights somewhere else.

Just for the record, I am not anti-2a by any means. In an ideal situation I would like all business owners to be educated about RKBA and CHL and think logically through fruition and allow CHL on their property. However, I respect the right of the property owner to choose what they wish.

What does annoy me are property owners who make decisions without knowing all the facts about RKBA and CHL.