What areas should be restricted?

[john_horstman]

RockerXX, your Constitutional rights analogy is faulty; standing on a table yelling through a megaphone in an establishment is, in truth, analogous to drawing one's firearm and indiscriminately discharging it in the establishment.

 

It was just an example, and you don't see a flaw in your analogy when you compare telling through a microphone (non criminal act) to indiscriminately discharging a weapon (criminal act)? The point was private institutions can restrict your civil rights and be fully within the law in doing so the Constitution does not protect you from others in that way, do you deny this?

 

So here is a better analogy, if I'm wearing a shirt that has a middle finger on it (a declared 1st amendment expression) can or can not the store legally deny me entry for exercising my 1st by wearing said shirt very similar to exercising my 2nd by carrying a firearm?

One the contrary, standing on a table yelling through a megaphone in someone's establishment is, in fact, a criminal act -- breach of the peace, disorderly conduct. I'm sure I can dig my nose in the book and find a few other offenses.

 

I do not deny that there are establishments, who are open to the public, which are restricting our civil rights by posting these discriminatory 'no guns allowed' signs. However, we still possess our rights as guaranteed in our Constitution and that's why these signs, therefore, are, in fact, unconstitutional. Same as the "No Coloreds Allowed' signs of old.

 

Hey, if a picture on a t-shirt can be upheld as a constitutional right then so, too, can our right to keep and bear arms as we go about our daily business.

[StogieRob]

I agree with the Personal Property choice belonging to the properly owner. But the issue is the word 'Personal'. That, to me, equals my home. That is as far as it should go.

 

Prisons - we carry where the guards carry.

Nuclear facilities - do they have armed guards? Then they must be expecting someone malevolent to eventually arrive. If the paid guys with guns are armed for protection, we should be too.

 

For every place else, it should be acceptable to carry...

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[jake8267]

John - Rocker's point was that a private establishment does have the right to refuse you entry for wearing a shirt with a middle finger on it. They also have the right to refuse to allow you to bring in a megaphone. Therefore they also have the right to prevent us from bringing in a gun. It shouldn't be anything more than trespassing if we do but that is a different argument.

 

Outside of legally protected classes, our rights are generally trumped by the rights of the owner of the private establishment. Which, in the overall not just about guns picture is probably right.

[lockman]

No rights are absolute and that goes for private property also. There is a distinction between types of private property. A private residence would be treated differently than a business open to the public. A business's ability to trump the rights of others is drastically reduced by all sorts of governing laws and regulations. I support 2A rights be included in that group that trump private property right in accessible areas where the public is solicited, encouraged or allowed. If the business does not allow or invite the general public then they get to trump 2a rights with their exercise of their property rights.

[john_horstman]

John - Rocker's point was that a private establishment does have the right to refuse you entry for wearing a shirt with a middle finger on it. They also have the right to refuse to allow you to bring in a megaphone. Therefore they also have the right to prevent us from bringing in a gun. It shouldn't be anything more than trespassing if we do but that is a different argument.

 

Outside of legally protected classes, our rights are generally trumped by the rights of the owner of the private establishment. Which, in the overall not just about guns picture is probably right.

For sure, the proprietor can demand a patron leave who is expressing obscene or lewd gestures (like on a t-shirt) since such acts are an offense to polite society, as is indiscriminately discharging one's firearm in the establishment. My philosophy is, keep your speech concealed and keep your firearm concealed.

 

 

That notwithstanding, any business that is open to the public has NO right, private property or otherwise, to deny access to classes of persons based solely, and this is key, on the proprietor's unfounded fears and ignorant prejudices. Which is what these 'no guns allowed' sign express.

 

Put another way, how can we support their right to create killing zones?

 

 

 

 

For those who hold that business proprietors, who open their doors to the general public, can deny access to a class of persons they, well, hate, then you have no choice but to accept and condone that business proprietors have a right to put up the old 'No Coloreds Allowed' signs (but, of course, their 'right' has been infringed upon, in your opinion, by the so-called 'government protected rolls').

 

 

To that I've coined a new phrase; "My rights trump your prejudices."