Like I believe was said, the constitution is there to protect the people from the government, not other individuals. As a business owner you should be able to control ANY aspect of who you do business with and what you allow. If you don't want to allow whites, blacks, or little green men from entering your property so be it. Same goes for carrying a weapon. The likelihood of the former passing muster in our current climate is slim due to political correctness. What SHOULD happen in such a circumstance (rather than big G interference) is sensible people decide that they do not wish to do business with someone with such extreme views and they go out of business or change their model. For the record, that should also be the recourse to the latter example. Shopping or even entering a given privately owned business is not a civil right and has no business being recognized as one. A private citizen or business cannot violate your civil rights, only government entities can.
I for one will never knowingly do business with an establishment that excluded anyone based on race, color, creed, or the ability to carry a firearm.
I agree, mooner, but with some exceptions.
First is the employees of a private business where the owner had disallowed firearms. While the employees have the choice not to work there, it is not as flexible a choice as deciding which hardware store gets your business. Since the employees are somewhat of a "captive audience" the parking facilities available to the employees must allow storage of firearms. This allows the owner his "rights" and does not trample the rights of the employees outside of work. If the employer does not provide parking, then some secure storage to "check" and "claim" firearms at the door would be needed, with the employer being responsible for the safe keeping of the firearms.
A note about liability. My take is that if an employer chooses to limit the ability of self defense for employees while at work, they have then assumed responsibility for that defense. If the employee suffers from a defensible attack while at work, the employer is eligible to be sued for redress.
Another exception would be a private company that has a monopoly on it's service. The first one I think of is the local cable service. It is genuinely the sole provider of cable in a region and often, if not always, chosen by the government. Since customers must do business with that company, they would have similar responsibility as the employer above.
Another area that I can think of would be transportation. Take the bus line. The choice to take a bus is likely not a flexible one, it is the best choice by far at the time it is needed. Therefore the bus line would have similar responsibilities as the employers. It is not likely that they can provide a secure firearms vault so they would need to allow carry on the buses or they would be denying the right of self defense to customers before and after the ride. If they do lock up the guns, they would be responsible for the safety of their passengers.
Taxi cabs would come close to a bus line. Even cabs with different names are often run by the same company, so the choices might be limited and should all cab companies restrict firearms, the choice would be none.
Still thinking about how all this works with other "civil rights".
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
