The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: 3 gun on July 08, 2009, 07:01:13 PM
-
Just listened to the podcast and this thought came to me.
The way I see it if you have a store/hotel/restaurant open to the public you are not private property any longer.
My home, factory or a club based on a membership can be private and set any rules they like, but once you open your doors to the public at large, you no longer have that ability. (And the truth is even those are highly restricted. Try and have a factory that will not hire based on age, race or gender.)
When an area open to the public, like McDonalds, can post and enforce a no jews, no women or no blacks policy then they should be able to post a no guns sign.
It's the same Constitution and BoR that prevents discrimination based on age, race, religion and sex, why then can I be discriminated against because I carry a gun?
Has this challenge to no carry laws ever been tried? Just a thought. Am I crazy?
-
I disagree, my shop, my rules, don't like it, don't come into my shop.
you can't compare something you can not change( race) with something you can.
it really makes you look foolish.
I also see no diffrence between me telling you something, and it posted clearly in sign form.
-
3 Gun, pay no attention to that fool with the sexy avatar. TAB is just jealous because he can't get a CCW without bribing the sheriff.
He, like far to many in America just can't get his pointy little California head around that "shall not be infringed" thing.
-
3 Gun, pay no attention to that fool with the sexy avatar. TAB is just jealous because he can't get a CCW without bribing the sheriff.
He, like far to many in America just can't get his pointy little California head around that "shall not be infringed" thing.
the goverment is NOT infringing your rights. as a person I can infringe apon those rights. Don't like it, to bad.
-
3 Gun, pay no attention to that fool with the sexy avatar. TAB is just jealous because he can't get a CCW without bribing the sheriff.
He, like far to many in America just can't get his pointy little California head around that "shall not be infringed" thing.
Actually Tom, even though I ultimately agree with you rather than TAB on this issue, you owe him an apology for your tone. The fact is that the RTKBA AND the right to property are both fundamental. This issue has been argued to death, but both sides start out with good principles on their sides. After all, why do we have the right to guns if not to defend our lives AND property? If we don't control it, do we own it? These aren't questions to take lightly. Ultimately I do think the the right to SD trumps property rights, but just like I never cussed in front of my grandmother, I try not to carry a gun in someone's home or business where it is unwelcome unless I wouldn't feel safe otherwise. Again I think an apology is in order.
FQ13
-
Here we go again
-
FO fq
-
the goverment is NOT infringing your rights. as a person I can infringe apon those rights. Don't like it, to bad.
Oh really ? Try refusing to hire based on race, age etc. It will cost you.
FQ, I don't much care what you think. I would think you had figured that out by now.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=2609.0
-
FO fq
Nice. Yet again, a well argued, cogent and logical argument tumble bug. Can you do better? God knows you can't do worse. Its not that I mind your disagreement, its just that I wonder why an opposing opinion makes you not wish to challenge it in a way that will either convince others to your side, and maybe convert your opponent, but to respond with school yard insults. Grow up TB.
FQ13
-
your talking about things that can not be changed. having a weapon on you is a choice. Just like you have a choice, rather or not you enter my place of biz. if you don't like my rules, go some place else.
but lets for get all that.
federal property= no guns by law, federal crime, etc etc
so if the federal govemernt can infringe your rights, why can't I?
CCW is a new idea, so is "shall no be infringed" meaning you can't regulate anything.
-
your talking about things that can not be changed. having a weapon on you is a choice. Just like you have a choice, rather or not you enter my place of biz. if you don't like my rules, go some place else.
but lets for get all that.
federal property= no guns by law, federal crime, etc etc
so if the federal govemernt can infringe your rights, why can't I?
CCW is a new idea, so is "shall no be infringed" meaning you can't regulate anything.
OK, so here we go again as someone posted.
It depends on the state as well. As I have noted many times, the ND state constitution has a provision for shall not be infringed with no - none - zero - nada - zip - exemptions. The very first paragraph of the first section of the first article of the Constitution.
This means that within ND, a public store cannot prevent me from following the law and CCW so long as I have the card with me. I cannot carry into a church or a bar, that's the (stupid) law) but a store - no problem.
-
your talking about things that can not be changed. having a weapon on you is a choice. Just like you have a choice, rather or not you enter my place of biz. if you don't like my rules, go some place else.
but lets for get all that.
federal property= no guns by law, federal crime, etc etc
so if the federal govemernt can infringe your rights, why can't I?
CCW is a new idea, so is "shall no be infringed" meaning you can't regulate anything.
Because you don't have thousands of cops and an Army, Air Force and Navy to back you up if I say GFY.
The only thing new about concealed carry is the distinction between concealed and open.At the OK Corral 130 years ago, Frank McLaury and Wyatt Earp had their pistols in their pockets (Earp jacket, FM, pants pocket) While Doc Holliday had his sawed off shotgun under his jacket.
And yes thats EXACTLY what is meant by "Shall not be infringed".
-
Because you don't have thousands of cops and an Army, Air Force and Navy to back you up if I say GFY.
The only thing new about concealed carry is the distinction between concealed and open.At the OK Corral 130 years ago, Frank McLaury and Wyatt Earp had their pistols in their pockets (Earp jacket, FM, pants pocket) While Doc Holliday had his sawed off shotgun under his jacket.
And yes thats EXACTLY what is meant by "Shall not be infringed".
which was illegal for common citzen as they had a no fire arms law at that time( not holly wood, remakes, it was an actually law)
so guess what, it was infringed back then. atleast by the current intrupatation that some people have.
-
which was illegal for common citzen as they had a no fire arms law at that time( not holly wood, remakes, it was an actually law)
so guess what, it was infringed back then. atleast by the current intrupatation that some people have.
AZ was not a state at that time.
-
which was illegal for common citzen as they had a no fire arms law at that time( not holly wood, remakes, it was an actually law)
so guess what, it was infringed back then. atleast by the current intrupatation that some people have.
Preemption laws also trump you TAB, if the state retains all power to set gun laws you, just like a city do not have the right to make up your own.
I'm sick of this thread, you bring up the same stuff every time the subject comes up.
Shall not be infringed means what it says,if you want to do what nanny Pelosi wants go ahead. But don't bitch to us when the state shafts you, because they don't respect you for pissing away your God given rights.
-
even tx has the 30.06 law... very few states have premeption laws for private citz.
-
TAB, you're making me agree with Tom. Don't do that. I'm in the middle of a strangely inadvertant (in the sense I didn't mean to start it, but it just seems inevitable) pissing contest, but still. :-\ If there were no laws, and these were Federal territories then the 2A is holding law. No violation. My partial agreement with you and dissagreement with Tom's tone but not his reasoning is based purely on the fact that the right to SD and property are both fundamental. Push comes to shove, by morality, legal precendent in terms of restrictions based on property rights vs SD rights, and plain common sense, SD wins every time.
FQ13 Who twice on one thread, and thrice in one day agrees with Tom (See what happens when you actually argue your points rather than taking childish cheap shots tumblebug?)
-
its a choice, you can either disarm and enter, or keep your gun and don't enter.
it is litterly that simple.
let me ask you this:
if you sold every thing you own, how much cash can you come up with?( you don't have to list a figure, just get a number in your head)
would that be able to cover the cost of a ND? ( if its less then 1 mill don't count on it)
so my question to you is, why should a store owner be forced to pay for your wreckless( I think we can all agree a ND is a wreckless action) action?
no gun signs are not about like or dislike of guns, its all about limiting liability.
-
as far as individual stores not allowing guns in... well. they have the right to refuse service to anyone. though it is bad business. if they don't want me (meaning my gun) than I won't give them my business. their loss. remember, they are the ones looking to sell you something. My folks owned a business in Solvang Ca. for some years and I got to work with them and learn young what work ethic is and that the customer is always right. but I also know that the business was THEIRS. they ran it their way. if they chose they could exclude people for whatever reason. but that would be the end of their business. all were welcome. do I disagree with businesses that don't allow guns? oh yeah, but I will respect that, and pass the word, and they will never see my money as long as I'm excluded. I won't even get into government property, that's a different matter.
-
For those of you that have a business that you think you can run any way you want, do me a favor, post a NO JEWS or NO BLACKS sign on your front door today. Care to guess how long you’ll stay in business?
Sure you can post that on your home, which is CLOSED to the general public, but once you open a business your rights as a property owner are limited.
As for the choice argument, the guy doesn’t have to be a Jew does he? He can convert to something else, right? Then he can come in. You really think that would work in court?
And why is that? Because under the amendments to the Constitution it has been decided that you can’t discriminate or violate rights based on race, age, religion or sex. As all the rights defined in the Constitution are of equal importance, why is it that it is OK to violate my 2nd amendment rights?
So back to my original question, has anyone ever fought a gun ban based on the equal protection of a right under the law?
Heller now clearly spells out that the 2nd is an individual right. As such I think it may be a route to rolling back many of the infringements we suffer under.
-
For those of you that have a business that you think you can run any way you want, do me a favor, post a NO JEWS or NO BLACKS sign on your front door today. Care to guess how long you’ll stay in business?
Sure you can post that on your home, which is CLOSED to the general public, but once you open a business your rights as a property owner are limited.
As for the choice argument, the guy doesn’t have to be a Jew does he? He can convert to something else, right? Then he can come in. You really think that would work in court?
And why is that? Because under the amendments to the Constitution it has been decided that you can’t discriminate or violate rights based on race, age, religion or sex. As all the rights defined in the Constitution are of equal importance, why is it that it is OK to violate my 2nd amendment rights?
So back to my original question, has anyone ever fought a gun ban based on the equal protection of a right under the law?
Heller now clearly spells out that the 2nd is an individual right. As such I think it may be a route to rolling back many of the infringements we suffer under.
Sadly, not until its incorporated, that is, applied to the states. Let me drop the political nit picking and nonsense that seems to occur every time Tom, TAB and I get into the same thread (and my apologies to the rest of you who patiently put up with it) and cut straight to professor mode. The bottom line (Cliff notes version) is this. Baron v Baltimore in 1805 held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the feds, not the states. This changed with the 14th ammendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The Court began, starting in the twenties, to apply the Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law (incorporation). The standard has been "fundamental" rights (as defined by the Court) have been inccorporated. All but the 8A's prohibition against excessive fines and bail and the 2A's RTKBA were incorporated. Heller established that the 2A was an individual right to RTKBA, not a collective right, as in a "well organized militia". Good news as far as it goes, however, it only applies to the feds as the law now stands, as Heller took place in DC. The true test will be whether the Court applies this to the states and says that RTKBA is fundamental, individual, and shall not be infringed not just by Congress, but by state legilatures as well. If it does, we win, if it doesn't its the status quo or worse.
FQ13
-
This will all fizzle out around page 5...... thankfully
-
This will all fizzle out around page 5...... thankfully
bets on for 8 pages ;)
hehe
could be worse,
I agree with what MB said in his podcast however I don't get that option over here :-\
-
The turd roller had it right FO fq.
-
The turd roller had it right FO fq.
FQ is correct as far as he went. What he neglected to pursue is that there are currently at least 2 court cases in process that have lead to opposing opinions which will lead back to SCOTUS. The cases were filed intentionally to achieve incorporation at which point ( Based on the current 5-4 split in SCOTUS ) most restrictions on firearms ownership will be rendered unConstitutional.
-
for those that seem to think heller is the end all be all...
what heller basicly said was, the DC law forbiding hand guns in the home was illegal.
so you can have a hand gun in th ehome for SD, in a condtion that is ready to be used.
it left everything else out on purpose.