One always has to ruin it for others

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Marty. And I do, too, if the weapon is concealed. Mine is concealed when I am out and about.

Open carry, however, is subject to the right of business to not serve individuals who are violating common stands. It is also bad for business: people will go elsewhere.

 

[rdean]

Ever notice how right wingers are OUTRAGED when told to leave their guns outside, and then are equally OUTRAGED when they have to serve gays and blacks at their establishments?

They want everything their way. Talk about "selfish".

 

[RKMBrown]

you have a constitutional right to carry a firearm, not to walk around barefoot and shirtless.

I'm thinking you may be confused about the first ten constitutional amendments. They are restrictions on government not rights for citizens.

But progressives say public accommodations need to follow access laws, and if a locality has a law stating people can carry in public accommodation areas, they have to follow them.

Progressives have been saying recently if you own a business the law can make you serve people you don't want to. Why is this any different?

It's different because the civil rights laws in question pertain to race, color, creed, gender...

You are talking about apples they are talking about oranges.

To combine the issues you'd need some establishment having two rules for hand guns, one for whites or males and another for blacks or females. Then you'd have the progressives agreeing with you that the establishment should not be able to change civil laws.

 

[martybegan]

I'm thinking you may be confused about the first ten constitutional amendments. They are restrictions on government not rights for citizens.

But progressives say public accommodations need to follow access laws, and if a locality has a law stating people can carry in public accommodation areas, they have to follow them.

Progressives have been saying recently if you own a business the law can make you serve people you don't want to. Why is this any different?

It's different because the civil rights laws in question pertain to race, color, creed, gender...

You are talking about apples they are talking about oranges.

To combine the issues you'd need some establishment having two rules for hand guns, one for whites or males and another for blacks or females. Then you'd have the progressives agreeing with you that the establishment should not be able to change civil laws.

Civil rights laws are supposedly based upon constitutional protections, the same as the right to bear arms. The issue of being able to concealed carry is not the same as a racial civil right law, granted, but the issue is why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public, if they do not provide replacement security to replace the security the CCW is giving up to enter said establishment?

The other issue is this is another feel good gun control concept, that does nothing to make people safer, and can easily be ignored by a CCW holder by making sure their weapon is not visible.

 

[RKMBrown]

But progressives say public accommodations need to follow access laws, and if a locality has a law stating people can carry in public accommodation areas, they have to follow them.

Progressives have been saying recently if you own a business the law can make you serve people you don't want to. Why is this any different?

It's different because the civil rights laws in question pertain to race, color, creed, gender...

You are talking about apples they are talking about oranges.

To combine the issues you'd need some establishment having two rules for hand guns, one for whites or males and another for blacks or females. Then you'd have the progressives agreeing with you that the establishment should not be able to change civil laws.

Civil rights laws are supposedly based upon constitutional protections, the same as the right to bear arms. The issue of being able to concealed carry is not the same as a racial civil right law, granted, but the issue is why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public, if they do not provide replacement security to replace the security the CCW is giving up to enter said establishment?

The other issue is this is another feel good gun control concept, that does nothing to make people safer, and can easily be ignored by a CCW holder by making sure their weapon is not visible.

>> Why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public?

Because they (the business owners) have rights too.

When a business goes public the civil rights laws prohibit them from refusing service based on race. However, they can close shop if they want or make it a private club for members only.

There, currently, is no federal law like the civil rights laws that prohibit business owners from restricting access based on the patron having a firearm. Not that I know of.

So if you want that you'll need to pass an act of congress, or an amendment for a civil right to carry in public and private locations that serve the public. I'd vote against that amendment though. Let the libs have their hovels with their rules like gun free zones and the conservatives have theirs. We'll see which wins out.

 

[martybegan]

It's different because the civil rights laws in question pertain to race, color, creed, gender...

You are talking about apples they are talking about oranges.

To combine the issues you'd need some establishment having two rules for hand guns, one for whites or males and another for blacks or females. Then you'd have the progressives agreeing with you that the establishment should not be able to change civil laws.

Civil rights laws are supposedly based upon constitutional protections, the same as the right to bear arms. The issue of being able to concealed carry is not the same as a racial civil right law, granted, but the issue is why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public, if they do not provide replacement security to replace the security the CCW is giving up to enter said establishment?

The other issue is this is another feel good gun control concept, that does nothing to make people safer, and can easily be ignored by a CCW holder by making sure their weapon is not visible.

>> Why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public?

Because they (the business owners) have rights too.

When a business goes public the civil rights laws prohibit them from refusing service based on race. However, they can close shop if they want or make it a private club for members only.

There, currently, is no federal law like the civil rights laws that prohibit business owners from restricting access based on the patron having a firearm. Not that I know of.

So if you want that you'll need to pass an act of congress, or an amendment for a civil right to carry in public and private locations that serve the public. I'd vote against that amendment though. Let the libs have their hovels with their rules like gun free zones and the conservatives have theirs. We'll see which wins out.

There are local laws that can make a business allow CCW access. In fact that is one of the issues here.

The problem is I am "stuck" in a lib hovel due to family commitments. I shouldn't be denied my rights because of where I live.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But progressives say public accommodations need to follow access laws, and if a locality has a law stating people can carry in public accommodation areas, they have to follow them.

Progressives have been saying recently if you own a business the law can make you serve people you don't want to. Why is this any different?

It's different because the civil rights laws in question pertain to race, color, creed, gender...

You are talking about apples they are talking about oranges.

To combine the issues you'd need some establishment having two rules for hand guns, one for whites or males and another for blacks or females. Then you'd have the progressives agreeing with you that the establishment should not be able to change civil laws.

Civil rights laws are supposedly based upon constitutional protections, the same as the right to bear arms. The issue of being able to concealed carry is not the same as a racial civil right law, granted, but the issue is why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public, if they do not provide replacement security to replace the security the CCW is giving up to enter said establishment?

The other issue is this is another feel good gun control concept, that does nothing to make people safer, and can easily be ignored by a CCW holder by making sure their weapon is not visible.

Because LEO is supposed to serve that purpose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, just do not go into establishments with your weapon in the open.

I knew a woman who taught at one of the high schools who carried two concealed weapons.

She would have been fired if it had become officially "known," but that was her choice to make.

 

[nodoginnafight]

These folks weren't concealing their weapons

 

[martybegan]

Thank you, Marty. And I do, too, if the weapon is concealed. Mine is concealed when I am out and about.

Open carry, however, is subject to the right of business to not serve individuals who are violating common stands. It is also bad for business: people will go elsewhere.

Then they had better deny service to police officers open carrying as well.

 

[martybegan]

These folks weren't concealing their weapons

Which is legal in Texas, as well as the local jurisdiction they were in.

Chipotle then went overboard and said they do not want any firearms, including CCW's despite what local laws may allow.

 

[martybegan]

It's different because the civil rights laws in question pertain to race, color, creed, gender...

You are talking about apples they are talking about oranges.

To combine the issues you'd need some establishment having two rules for hand guns, one for whites or males and another for blacks or females. Then you'd have the progressives agreeing with you that the establishment should not be able to change civil laws.

Civil rights laws are supposedly based upon constitutional protections, the same as the right to bear arms. The issue of being able to concealed carry is not the same as a racial civil right law, granted, but the issue is why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public, if they do not provide replacement security to replace the security the CCW is giving up to enter said establishment?

The other issue is this is another feel good gun control concept, that does nothing to make people safer, and can easily be ignored by a CCW holder by making sure their weapon is not visible.

Because LEO is supposed to serve that purpose.

Not the same concept. A LEO is not obligated to protect you. If it happens, great, but as the NYC court case showed, they are not OBLIGATED and hold no responsibility to protect individuals. They are really only OBLIGATED to capture and detain criminals for processing through the legal system. If they fail in protecting someone during a crime commission they cannot be held liable.

In the case of a store denying you your right to CCW, they are ACTIVELY saying you cannot protect yourself. In that case they should be required to replace that protection.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Sure, as if I would let a restaurant tell me where I can take my firearm.

So you would defy a sign saying "no firearms allowed".

Good to know but it doesn't make me safe from idiots like you.

(Who buys your guns and ammo for you?)

=====

Recently posters have said they would not leave a restaurant if an armed person walked in.

We all have the right to be safe and keep our kids safe. Force these cowards to wear their guns where we can see them.

go to the Hickory Ridge Mall in Memphis, TN........don't take a firearm, let me know how safe you feel with all of your fellow democrats there

 

[nodoginnafight]

These over-zealous gun wielding yahoos are just going to stir up a backlash.
(as seen)
and are going to fuel the anti-gun crowd.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Sure, as if I would let a restaurant tell me where I can take my firearm.

So you would defy a sign saying "no firearms allowed".

Good to know but it doesn't make me safe from idiots like you.

(Who buys your guns and ammo for you?)

=====

Recently posters have said they would not leave a restaurant if an armed person walked in.

We all have the right to be safe and keep our kids safe. Force these cowards to wear their guns where we can see them.

go to the Hickory Ridge Mall in Memphis, TN........don't take a firearm, let me know how safe you feel with all of your fellow democrats there

Been there. Never felt unsafe.

 

[Care4all]

Sure, as if I would let a restaurant tell me where I can take my firearm.

Really, as if you would actually be courteous enough to follow the rules in someone else's house.

I do. But being in someone's house and in a restaurant are two different things.

So, what do I follow, the 2nd Amendment, or a sign? I could walk in with it and go out, nobody would notice it. That right there would demonstrate the inefficacy of gun free zones. As seen with the theater shooting, the Sandy Hook Shooting and the FedEx shooting, gun free zones don't stop some crazed maniac from walking in with a gun and shooting up the place.

No where in the 2nd amendment does it give you the "right" to carry your gun on someone else's property.... the 2nd doesn't give you permission to carry a firearm, anywhere you like or want....where do you get that???

The 2nd amendment is saying the GOVERNMENT can not infringe....private businesses or residences...their owners.....they can make their own choice on what to allow....as long as the government stays out of it....it's ok.

 

[RKMBrown]

Civil rights laws are supposedly based upon constitutional protections, the same as the right to bear arms. The issue of being able to concealed carry is not the same as a racial civil right law, granted, but the issue is why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public, if they do not provide replacement security to replace the security the CCW is giving up to enter said establishment?

The other issue is this is another feel good gun control concept, that does nothing to make people safer, and can easily be ignored by a CCW holder by making sure their weapon is not visible.

>> Why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public?

Because they (the business owners) have rights too.

When a business goes public the civil rights laws prohibit them from refusing service based on race. However, they can close shop if they want or make it a private club for members only.

There, currently, is no federal law like the civil rights laws that prohibit business owners from restricting access based on the patron having a firearm. Not that I know of.

So if you want that you'll need to pass an act of congress, or an amendment for a civil right to carry in public and private locations that serve the public. I'd vote against that amendment though. Let the libs have their hovels with their rules like gun free zones and the conservatives have theirs. We'll see which wins out.

There are local laws that can make a business allow CCW access. In fact that is one of the issues here.

The problem is I am "stuck" in a lib hovel due to family commitments. I shouldn't be denied my rights because of where I live.

You're not being denied any rights. Your liberty to open carry is not a liberty to FORCE others to accept you onto their property while you are packing. You made a choice to live in a lib hovel, that's on you. You don't have the right to punish others for your choices. But you do have the first amendment right to complain about it as a political issue

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[martybegan]

>> Why can a business deny someone the right to defend themselves in a location they open to the public?

Because they (the business owners) have rights too.

When a business goes public the civil rights laws prohibit them from refusing service based on race. However, they can close shop if they want or make it a private club for members only.

There, currently, is no federal law like the civil rights laws that prohibit business owners from restricting access based on the patron having a firearm. Not that I know of.

So if you want that you'll need to pass an act of congress, or an amendment for a civil right to carry in public and private locations that serve the public. I'd vote against that amendment though. Let the libs have their hovels with their rules like gun free zones and the conservatives have theirs. We'll see which wins out.

There are local laws that can make a business allow CCW access. In fact that is one of the issues here.

The problem is I am "stuck" in a lib hovel due to family commitments. I shouldn't be denied my rights because of where I live.

You're not being denied any rights. Your liberty to open carry is not a liberty to FORCE others to accept you onto their property while you are packing. You made a choice to live in a lib hovel, that's on you. You don't have the right to punish others for your choices. But you do have the first amendment right to complain about it.

if it is private property for private use only, then i agree. But as our liberal friends keep reminding us when you open a Business that is open to the public (i mean open, like you walk in to do business) you are suspending some of your property owner rights. Some are more obvious, such as you can't claim you shot a "trespasser" walking into your deli, others less obvious, such as having to follow certain laws based on the fact you allow your property to be used by the public to perform a transaction with you.

 

[RKMBrown]

These folks weren't concealing their weapons

Which is legal in Texas, as well as the local jurisdiction they were in.

Chipotle then went overboard and said they do not want any firearms, including CCW's despite what local laws may allow.

Nah. They sad not welcome. It's a meaningless statement. It's the rough equivalent of saying wink guns are bad, wink, wink, wink we know our patrons carry and we don't really care either way we just wanted to say guns are bad, wink. Not welcome does not mean prohibited.