View Single Post
Old January 30, 2013, 10:45 AM   #247
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,130
Before I get off into this, let me clarify something. Earlier there was some business about whether or not I believed that you supported a new AWB or something about the NFA. I reviewed my posts and don't think I was the one who said you supported renewing/expanding/etc. those things. Just to make it clear for the record: I'm not saying that you support those things.

I still think the CRA and impermissible discrimination is a derailment, but if you want to hash this out here, that's fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Alabama Shooter, I think where you're getting tripped up is the distinction between civil rights and constitutional rights, and the distinction between whether a man has a right, and whether I, acting as an individual, am capable of violating it. I have not gone back and re-read my previous posts this morning, but I may be partially to blame for that confusion, as I was perhaps not as clear as I could have been. In the interest of not derailing this thread any further, though, I'd like to move on to another topic. I may start another thread to address the other issues.
It is not a derailment. It is essential to the topic. The CRA and it most of it's follow ups were written to ensure that people have the necessaries in life (education, housing, employment, basic services etc) and not are not to be denied them for discriminatory reasons.

I personally believe that the tools for self defense (arms) are also a necessary and should not be denied without just cause. Therefore obtaining them should not be subject to discrimination (of course most of us know the history of arms control in the US has a long, long racial/ cultural background).

I think if you believe that you can discriminate on who you sell you guns to than you would have to accept it is not truly an essential right.

Agree or disagree? No need to get shaky knees and equivocate here. The question is pretty straight forward.
No shaky knees here. You haven't asked a single question with which I can simply agree or disagree. You've muddled two questions together and confounded two separate issues: (1) what I should do; and (2) what I legally can do. I'll break down your questions to illustrate. Going back to the first example of the private trasaction, in which the buyer is a member of a protected class:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Tell Frank you won't sell him the gun because he is Hispanic or Muslim. Watch Frank sue you for whatever he thinks he can get.
From a later post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Now that you are NOT running a gun shop but that you simply offered a gun for sale (say an online ad). You are not acting as an agent for a business. Just you. If you offer and he accepts now you must sell regardless of whatever misgivings you might have if this protected activity right?
The "offer and acceptance" language that you've included implicates contract rights separate and apart from civil rights under the 2A and the CRA of 1968. For the purposes of narrowing the discussion, let's disregard potential contract law implications. Otherwise, we may never get through this.

The underlined section indicates to me that you believe that I cannot legally decline to sell a person my firearm based solely on his race or religion, as that would violate his civil rights under the CRA or the 2A. Is that a correct understanding?

My contention is that I, acting only as an idividual, can legally decline to sell under those circumstances, without violating his civil rights under the CRA, or the US Constitution.

Now, let's look at a couple of other quotes from your last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
I personally believe that the tools for self defense (arms) are also a necessary and should not be denied without just cause. Therefore obtaining them should not be subject to discrimination (of course most of us know the history of arms control in the US has a long, long racial/ cultural background).
I entirely agree. In the above scenario, I should not decline to sell a person my firearm, based solely on race, gender, or religion. That would be wrong.

However, statements of "should" and "should not" indicate judgments of value, of right and wrong, better and worse. The law does not generally deal in "shoulds." It deals in "shalls," "shall nots," "mays," and "musts." It tells us what we may and may not do, what we must and mustn't do, but not what we should or should not do.

Your other statement is not a statement of "should," though. It's a statement of "can," by which I presume you mean "can do so legally," not "whether Spats is physically capable of" declining to sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
I think if you believe that you can discriminate on who you sell you guns to than you would have to accept it is not truly an essential right.
This question is separate from what I should do. This is a question of what I legally can do. Acting as a private individual, without holding myself out as a public business, can I legally decline to sell to a man just because of his race? Yes.
Assuming this man is not prohibited:
Does that man have a 2A right? Yes.
Does he have a right to purchase a firearm? Yes.
Does he have a right to purchase my firearm? No.
Do I have a right to dispose of my own personal property? Yes.
Does he have a right to purchase my firearm, sufficient to trump my right to dispose of my property? No.

The CRA was enacted in 1968 to protect minorities from discrimination in matters made available to the public at large, and state or governmental matters. Voting, housing, public facilities. (I seem to recall a case invovling the Howard Johnson's line of hotels and restaurants, for example.) In discrimination law, there are several protected classes (race, religion, gender, age, for example) and protected activities (voting, public facilities, education, housing, and employment for example). The private purchase of firearms, from private individuals, is not included in the list. If we were talking about the purchase of a firearm from a store, held out to the public for public business, that would be a different story. The CRA was not enacted in such a way that it protects from purely private discrimination. Whether or not it should have been is an entirely separate question. Whether I believe the 2A is an "essential right," does not enter into the equation.

The 2A right, on the other hand, was enumerated at the end of the 18th century, but that right, RKBA, is not listed in the CRA. So it's not covered by that. Bear in mind, though, that the 2A wasn't even incorporated to the states until 2010, IIRC. In other words, SCOTUS hadn't even told states that the 2A applied to them until 2A. Just because a provision is in the US Constitution does not automatically mean that it applies to the States. As it stands now, though, it has finally been incorporated, which means that States must comply with it. That means that State are now limited in what laws they may enact in restricting the RKBA. It does not mean that private individuals may be forced to sell their private property to other private individuals.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06272 seconds with 7 queries