Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Were you born with your gun attached to your body?
Apples and oranges, sparky.
Always about the genitalia with you people, isn't it? No, I was not born with a gun attached to my body. But I was born with a document that stated I have the right to posses firearms.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that I have the right to buggery?
Liberals, always confusing the concepts of rights and privileges.
That would be the 10th amendment.
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.
Were you born with your gun attached to your body?
Apples and oranges, sparky.
Always about the genitalia with you people, isn't it? No, I was not born with a gun attached to my body. But I was born with a document that stated I have the right to posses firearms.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that I have the right to buggery?
Liberals, always confusing the concepts of rights and privileges.
That would be the 10th amendment.
The 10th amendment recognized gender as being either male or female, and there was no mention of any third gender. or a male who thinks he's a female, or a female who thinks she's a male.
Gender is and always has been defined by the plumbing you have. Period. End of story.
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.
Were you born with your gun attached to your body?
Apples and oranges, sparky.
Always about the genitalia with you people, isn't it? No, I was not born with a gun attached to my body. But I was born with a document that stated I have the right to posses firearms.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that I have the right to buggery?
Liberals, always confusing the concepts of rights and privileges.
That would be the 10th amendment.
The 10th amendment recognized gender as being either male or female, and there was no mention of any third gender. or a male who thinks he's a female, or a female who thinks she's a male.
Gender is and always has been defined by the plumbing you have. Period. End of story.
There is nothing at all about gender in the 10th amendment. It just says "the people". When it refers to the states, it means all of the states. When it refers to the people, it means all of the people. Period. End of story.
There are different requirements of licensing among the states. It is similar to a CDL before there were national standards in the 80's. A marriage license is the most basic among them.OK... and... what is the difference between one of those, a marriage license, and a license to carry?States can refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. A fishing license or nursing license in one state is not necessarily valid in another.It does.You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.I have a point now.You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.
many people have BOTH types of 'plumbing". So what you do THEN, dumb-ass?
Why not? It's protected by a specific amendment. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.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.
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?
To take your absurdity to the next level of absurdity, why should any business owner allow service dogs or therapy dogs enter? More people are killed every year by dogs, than rattlesnakes.
Yes, they essentially did. They extended subsidies to states with no exchange in direct violation of the intent of the law. ACA was written in such a way as to try and force Conservative states to jump on the band wagon. Many states called obama's bluff and he responded by giving people in those states subsidies in violation of the letter of the law.One would think that, but considering SCOTUS last week essentially rewrote ACA, the precedent is there to allow them to add other rights and classes to public accommodation laws.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."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.
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.
They did not rewrite ACA.
Nor excluded. It says "arms". My pistol is a firearm whether it it a revolver or a semi.Funny, my arms are mentioned in the Constitution, your right to plug your buddy in the ass isn't.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.
Your semi-automatic pistols aren't mentioned.
As of today. Please explain why that should stand.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.
State regulations on guns are constitutional. State prohibitions of gay marriage are now unconstitutional.
But a marriage license is? Why is that? (other than the fact that gays are a protected class that is overwhelmingly Liberal)States can refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. A fishing license or nursing license in one state is not necessarily valid in another.It does.You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.I have a point now.You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.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?
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.
Essentially, yes. I was born in the United States. As such, I have always had all of the rights that affords me including the right to keep and bear arms.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.
Were you born with your gun attached to your body?
Apples and oranges, sparky.
As of today. Please explain why that should stand.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.
State regulations on guns are constitutional. State prohibitions of gay marriage are now unconstitutional.
You would have a point if CA honored some OH carry licenses but not yours.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?Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.
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,
Yes, they essentially did. They extended subsidies to states with no exchange in direct violation of the intent of the law. ACA was written in such a way as to try and force Conservative states to jump on the band wagon. Many states called obama's bluff and he responded by giving people in those states subsidies in violation of the letter of the law.One would think that, but considering SCOTUS last week essentially rewrote ACA, the precedent is there to allow them to add other rights and classes to public accommodation laws.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."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.
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.
They did not rewrite ACA.
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,
really dude --LOL
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.
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.
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,
really dude --LOL
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.
Equal protection means the law can't select a certain group to discriminate against. As long as everyone is prohibited from carrying in a school there is no equal protection issue.
