Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[45 4 life]

This is one of those topics that will never have one answer. I am certainly glad we do live in a country that provides the freedoms that we do have and the ability to debate in a open forum topics such as this one.

Regardless of whether you believe it is legal or not, the one thing we have incommon is that we are getting tired of seeing these signs appear for no reason that we understand.

What can we do about? I always say that I will no longer do business with the party's posting the signs. Will that get their attention, doubtful. The ever growing list of 30.06 postings that someone as taken the time to maintain has not seemed to phase them. Only until the businesses realize a loss in dollars will we start seeing the signs come down. As the number of CHL's increase over coming years our voices will become loader, and will eventually be heard.

[bdickens]

pt154ss: I'm quite sure you are pro-RKBA and pro-CHL or you wouldn't be here. But let's go ahead and play this out and see where it takes us.

I'm coming to your place for a job interview over lunch. Now, what do I do with my gun?

[pt145ss]

pt154ss: I'm quite sure you are pro-RKBA and pro-CHL or you wouldn't be here. But let's go ahead and play this out and see where it takes us.

I'm coming to your place for a job interview over lunch. Now, what do I do with my gun?

Again...if i were a business/property owner, I would allow CHL but for the sake of playing devil's advocate i will play along. As a business/property owner that does not allow CHL, I would have properly posted signs and therefore, if you had your gun you would be criminally trespassing under current statute. If for some reason I found out you were CCW then I would immediately tell you to leave and call the authorities. As for the job, you could forget about it. If you can’t respect my wishes as a business/property owner and have no respect for current statues in regards to CHL, what makes me think you will honor any other policy I put into place for my employees?

[bdickens]

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.

If that's really what you think, then it's back to the days of Jim Crow . You said "Property owners have a right to enjoy their property as they wish (within reason)...." What is reasonable about excluding Blacks? Asians? Catholics? Jews? Women? Nothing, but businesses used to do it all the time until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then, those same businesses were forced to serve Blacks, Asians, Catholics, Jews and women. Were their "property rights" infringed? You betcha. Was it in the interest of the public at large? You betcha.

txmat stated earlier in this thread that "...it is my understanding that it is legal to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation...." All I can say is go ahead and do so. When you get sued, guess what the basis for the suit will be.

[bdickens]

I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I'm coming there not for an interview with you but with someone else. I've been through the initial interview process for a job at the Widget Corporation and the Vice President of Marketing wants to talk to me over lunch. Now, what do I do with my gun?

[pt145ss]

I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I'm coming there not for an interview with you but with someone else. I've been through the initial interview process for a job at the Widget Corporation and the Vice President of Marketing wants to talk to me over lunch. Now, what do I do with my gun?

Not my problem...I guess you need to explain to your potential new boss that you are CCW and can not patronize my restaurant.

[Keith B]

I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I'm coming there not for an interview with you but with someone else. I've been through the initial interview process for a job at the Widget Corporation and the Vice President of Marketing wants to talk to me over lunch. Now, what do I do with my gun?

You don't want a job with Widget Corp anyway Byron, they have a no-guns policy in their employee manual. Plus I heard the V.P. is an anti!

Seriously, do you not go anywhere that you can't carry? School functions, courthouse, etc? If you do, what do you do then?

As a CHL holder, I make SURE I always have a method to highly secure my gun if I need to disarm for ANY reason.

[bdickens]

I didn't know your establishment was posted until I arrived. Now, what do I do with my gun?

[pt145ss]

If that's really what you think, then it's back to the days of Jim Crow . You said "Property owners have a right to enjoy their property as they wish (within reason)...." What is reasonable about excluding Blacks? Asians? Catholics? Jews? Women? Nothing, but businesses used to do it all the time until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then, those same businesses were forced to serve Blacks, Asians, Catholics, Jews and women. Were their "property rights" infringed? You betcha. Was it in the interest of the public at large? You betcha.

You are making a very poor assumption if you assume that I believe it is reasonable to exclude any of the protected classes.

[pt145ss]

I didn't know your establishment was posted until I arrived. Now, what do I do with my gun?

What do you do now when you go to cunduct busines somewhere...and notice they are properly posted PC 30.06?

[bdickens]

Keith: Complicate things further, wilya? Alright. Let's say I know that already, but the job is so lucrative that I might be able to deal. I wouldn't be the only person on this forum who works in a Criminal Empowerment Zone.

pt145ss: I'm being hypothetical in this line of argument. Let's say I rode the bus because my car broke down and is in the shop. What do I do?

[bdickens]

pt145ss: I don't think that you do believe it is reasonable to exclude any of the protected classes. Do you see where I'm headed yet?

[pt145ss]

Let’s take a look at the third amendment which is as follows:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The framers obviously understood the importance of not forcing their will on to a property owner except in extreme circumstances…in this case…time of war...and only in a manner defined by law. One could argue this is a reasonable infringment...and obviuosly the framers thought it was.

Now let’s look at the fourth amendment is as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This basically says that the feds can not come in and do want they want without enough probable cause. Again, this all alludes to how important it was to the framers to protect the property owner’s right.

So here we have at least two amendments protecting property owners…how many amendments do we have protecting the RKBA?

[pt145ss]

pt145ss: I don't think that you do believe it is reasonable to exclude any of the protected classes. Do you see where I'm headed yet?

Yes...I know what you want...I’m not stuck on stupid… you want it to be protected (and it is within reason). But at the cost of what...less property rights?

The current protected classes where weighed against the rights of the property owners and the protected were deemed to have sufficiently more weight (and rightfully so) that out weighed the rights of the property owner...that is why they are protected.

What makes you believe that the RKBA out weighs the right of the property owner? With our way of doing things now...you get to keep your RKBA and you can choose to do business with whomever you want...and I get to choose who I want to do business with. No unreasonable infringement of either right.

***I really hope no anti’s are reading this post***

[shaggydog]

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?

As you so eloquently put it previously, “what a load�.

There are a number of flaws in the logic you have used thus far in your argument for the superiority of the “right� to KBA vs. the “right� of property owners.

First, and foremost, is that you seem to believe that the RKBA is an inherent, innate right. This is not so. You are allowed this privilege by some body of persons to whom you have given the authority to allow, or disallow, you said privilege.

You seem to, however, have realized the concept of property ownership correctly in that you seem to see that “right� as one of allowed privilege. That is true.

What you fail to grasp is that since both of these “rights� are allowed privileges each can be modified at the whim of the body of persons you have charged with the administration of these privileges.

You argue, a number of times, that a property owner does not have the right of refusal of service to a select “protected class� of citizens. And why is this so? Because the “privilege regulating body� deemed it so. That body determined that, for what they defined as the “greater good�, certain restrictions were to be placed on the privilege of property ownership and you, in your writings, have voiced your approval of these restrictions, thus your indignation at the restrictions placed on the privilege granted you to carry a concealed weapon is inappropriately selective and self serving at best.

The point, of course, is that you do not have the right, at this point in time, to carry anywhere you wish INCLUDING into a private business that does not wish you to do so. If you do not like that policy then petition the “privilege administering body� to place yet another restriction on private business owners, but in the mean time please refrain from personally telling a business owner what he can, or cannot, do.





This time I am really through with this inane exercise.