Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights

[JGalt]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

 

[Freewill]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights"

The situation in your OP has nothing to do with 'rights' since there's no government involvement, no effort by the government to regulate, limit, or restrict the rights of gun owners or gay Americans.

With regard to denying services to gay patrons, it would depend on whether or not the business in question is located in a jurisdiction with a public accommodations law that has as one of its provisions sexual orientation, absent such a provision, the business could deny services to gay patrons with impunity.

With regard to a business owner who disallows firearms on his property, again, there are no gun rights violations because the Second Amendment applies only to the relationship between government and those governed, not the relationship between and among private persons or organizations – including private businesses.

 

[Ernie S.]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Why not? It's protected by a specific amendment. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Show me where sexual perversion is a protected right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Why not? It's protected by a specific amendment. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Show me where sexual perversion is a protected right.

Wrong.

Again, the Second Amendment applies only to the relationship between government and those governed – in this case gun owners – not the relationship between and among private persons, organizations, or businesses.

Should government seek to restrict the rights of gun owners (Second Amendment) or deny rights to gay Americans (14th Amendment), then either party could claim an injury and seek relief in Federal court.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So now the red herring argument is that metal alloys are to be awarded the same rights as human beings?

What about textiles? Can cotton refuse to have the confederate flag printed on it?

 

[jon_berzerk]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

it does indeed

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Ernie S.]

"Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights"

The situation in your OP has nothing to do with 'rights' since there's no government involvement, no effort by the government to regulate, limit, or restrict the rights of gun owners or gay Americans.

With regard to denying services to gay patrons, it would depend on whether or not the business in question is located in a jurisdiction with a public accommodations law that has as one of its provisions sexual orientation, absent such a provision, the business could deny services to gay patrons with impunity.

With regard to a business owner who disallows firearms on his property, again, there are no gun rights violations because the Second Amendment applies only to the relationship between government and those governed, not the relationship between and among private persons or organizations – including private businesses.

While I essentially have to agree, You have to admit that someone being denied service because he was armed could be an interesting test case of public accommodation laws.
PA laws are there to ensure various protected class citizens have equal access to services.
I won't argue whether it is proper to force a business to serve blacks or gays or Martians, but the fact that only race, gender, sex, disability and sexual orientation are mentioned in PA laws, would ordinarily mean that gun owners are not covered. However, considering the recent SCOTUS ruling extending subsidies to obamacare recipients in states with no exchanges, could one assume that SCOTUS is apt to rewrite laws to fix presumed improper omissions?
The right to bear arms is so plainly protected by the Constitution, might SCOTUS include that right in existing PA laws?

 

[PratchettFan]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Equal protection would probably not apply. That doesn't obligate states to change laws, only apply them equally. So if the same restrictions are applied equally to everyone, there is equal protection. That argument just won't fly.

However, another argument would be Article IV Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

If one state provides a CC permit, then all states should honor it. Of course, that would require the various cases be filed and make their way through the courts.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights"

The situation in your OP has nothing to do with 'rights' since there's no government involvement, no effort by the government to regulate, limit, or restrict the rights of gun owners or gay Americans.

With regard to denying services to gay patrons, it would depend on whether or not the business in question is located in a jurisdiction with a public accommodations law that has as one of its provisions sexual orientation, absent such a provision, the business could deny services to gay patrons with impunity.

With regard to a business owner who disallows firearms on his property, again, there are no gun rights violations because the Second Amendment applies only to the relationship between government and those governed, not the relationship between and among private persons or organizations – including private businesses.

While I essentially have to agree, You have to admit that someone being denied service because he was armed could be an interesting test case of public accommodation laws.
PA laws are there to ensure various protected class citizens have equal access to services.
I won't argue whether it is proper to force a business to serve blacks or gays or Martians, but the fact that only race, gender, sex, disability and sexual orientation are mentioned in PA laws, would ordinarily mean that gun owners are not covered. However, considering the recent SCOTUS ruling extending subsidies to obamacare recipients in states with no exchanges, could one assume that SCOTUS is apt to rewrite laws to fix presumed improper omissions?
The right to bear arms is so plainly protected by the Constitution, might SCOTUS include that right in existing PA laws?

It would only apply if the state's PA laws included people who carry guns. If SCOTUS ruled on this based upon the 2nd, it would not involve PA laws at all.

 

[Freewill]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

it does indeed

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Your pistol is a person? You know you are suppose to shoot those things,

 

[Freewill]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Why not? It's protected by a specific amendment. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Show me where sexual perversion is a protected right.

Gun ownership is protected as is the right of the store owner to refuse guns in their establishments. To argue from the absurd, what if you wanted to bring a rattle snake into an establishment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Why not? It's protected by a specific amendment. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Show me where sexual perversion is a protected right.

Rights need not be enumerated to be rights. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, many believed the Bill of Rights was not necessary, and in fact many worried that a Bill of Rights might imply that other unspecified rights were not protected.

As we can now see, the latter's fears were quite prescient.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Under the reasoning in both he holding and the opinion in Hodges, how does CA refusing to honor my OH carry license not violate the 14th amendment?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected by the constitution.
I have the right to carry a gun; my state must issue a license to that effect, and has done so.
According to the reasoning behind Hodges, the 14th amendment requires that every state recognize the privileges, immunities and responsibilities attached to that license.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Equal protection would probably not apply. That doesn't obligate states to change laws, only apply them equally. So if the same restrictions are applied equally to everyone, there is equal protection. That argument just won't fly.

"May issues" states do not apply the law equally

 

[The Rabbi]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

Why not? It's protected by a specific amendment. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Show me where sexual perversion is a protected right.

Wrong.

Again, the Second Amendment applies only to the relationship between government and those governed – in this case gun owners – not the relationship between and among private persons, organizations, or businesses.

Should government seek to restrict the rights of gun owners (Second Amendment) or deny rights to gay Americans (14th Amendment), then either party could claim an injury and seek relief in Federal court.

Wrong.
It is a right to keep and bear arms. The property owner infringes on the right to bear arms when he bans someone doing just that from his premises.
Gays are not a protected class under Federal law (they are under some state laws). So someone could legally post "NO Gays Allowed." Why he'd want to is beyond me but he could.

 

[Syriusly]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Well I respect your right to own a gun- but guns are not people.

No business is saying 'gun owners not allowed'- they are saying no guns allowed. No different than forbidding dogs or offensive t-shirts.

 

[The Rabbi]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Well I respect your right to own a gun- but guns are not people.

No business is saying 'gun owners not allowed'- they are saying no guns allowed. No different than forbidding dogs or offensive t-shirts.

They are infringing on people's right to bear arms.

 

[Syriusly]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Well I respect your right to own a gun- but guns are not people.

No business is saying 'gun owners not allowed'- they are saying no guns allowed. No different than forbidding dogs or offensive t-shirts.

They are infringing on people's right to bear arms.

No one has a right to bear arms on another persons property. Same as no one has the right to get up and have a speech on another persons property- or build a church on another person's property.

Again- we have the right to own guns- no issue with that at all. But you can tell me I can't bring my gun on your property.