|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 18, 2014, 08:29 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 11, 2013
Posts: 186
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2014, 09:21 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Location: Shoshoni Wyoming
Posts: 2,713
|
ok once more
Last edited by Wyosmith; April 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM. |
April 18, 2014, 09:38 PM | #28 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
That doesn't make a corporation (or a partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, etc.) a "Creation of the State" as you had put it. Nor does correct the various mistakes of law you made in your prior post, and that I pointed out in post 25. I'm not sure why you think you understand the law in this regard or how you might have learned what you think you know. On the other hand, I am an actual lawyer, now retired after over thirty years of practice, with considerable experience in corporate law and business law. I've done this for a living for real stakes for real clients in the real world. I've done this under the scrutiny of judges, regulators and other lawyers -- some of whom are our adversaries or competitors. So please let's not side track this thread with by putting me in the position of having to correct misinformation about basic law.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
April 18, 2014, 10:02 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Many of those signs come from corporate lawyers who've warned their employers that allowing guns equates to potential liability. The political battle over that was fought three decades ago, and to some extent, we lost. That was when the VPC and other involved parties convinced legal and HR departments that we were all simmering crockpots of potential violence. The reason most employers don't allow their employees to carry stems from that perception. This isn't a recent push; it's an ingrained response to old propaganda. The recent Starbuck's debacle shows that our side is notoriously tone-deaf when it comes to fighting the perception battle.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 18, 2014, 10:25 PM | #30 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
"Remember the Constitution for the united States of America was not accepted by any state until the Bill of Rights was added and accepted."
Say what, now? Or, should I say, that is absolutely 100% WRONG. The Constitution was ratified by 11 of the states, and thus became the guiding document of government for the United States, on March 4, 1789. The legislative articles that, in total, comprise the Bill of Rights were adopted in the 1st Congress (remember, the 1st Congress was created by ratification of the Constitution) by the House of Representatives in late August 1789, and sent to the states for ratification. Ratification of 10 of the original 12 proposed amendments (the original amendments 1 and 2 were not ratified, so 3 became 1, and 4 became 2 in the final version) didn't happen until December 15, 1791, or nearly THREE YEARS AFTER the Constitution became the guiding law of the United States. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They were not part of the original Constitution, but were added in a series of agreements between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. In order to gain Anti-Federalist support for the Constitution, the Federalists had to agree to amend the document once it was ratified.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. Last edited by Mike Irwin; April 18, 2014 at 10:34 PM. |
April 18, 2014, 11:38 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Posts: 525
|
An earlier poster made a connection between a no blacks sign and a no guns sign. Not the same.
Businesses that are not private memberships, but open to the public are often required by state level laws to serve all customers from the public without discrimination under the same circumstances. Circumstances is the key word. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" gets applied to everyone as a circumstance. "No Italians" is not a circumstance limitation. |
April 19, 2014, 08:43 AM | #32 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
I don't know the laws of every state, but a good many (I suspect all) do not require as you say. Have you ever seen a sign in a business that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime."? Generally speaking, the ONLY people that a business is not allowed to discriminate against are PROTECTED CLASSES that are specifically spelled out by The Civil Rights Act or other federal law or by some similar state law. It is completely legal (in general, specific state laws may apply), for a business to refuse to serve people with purple hair, or nose rings, or over 6' tall, or hair below their shoulders, or people with blonde hair, or people carrying guns, or people carrying books, or people with iPhones, etc, etc. None of those things are Protected Classes and all may be discriminated against at will. The business owner will likely find themselves in hot water and will likely soon not BE a business owner, but that's another one of our fundamental principles.... capitalism.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 19, 2014, 09:14 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2012
Posts: 191
|
I see a lot of these threads. They usually get blown up into legal opinions and "what if".
My feeling isn't a matter of law, it's respect for another's property. A store owner invites the public in. The public doesn't own or control his property. They are invited guests. A good guest respects the host's wishes about these things. I insist my guests respect my wishes, whether yes or no. It's not even a matter of "rights". Without mutual respect of each other's rights, none of us have any rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Try reading some of these signs. The one I saw yesterday said "No Unlicensed Firearms Allowed". That's code for "Licensed Firearms Are OK". Those signs are meant for the gangbangers, not licensed carriers. |
April 19, 2014, 10:36 AM | #34 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
A much better sign would say something like "We welcome customers who carry firearms for personal protection." or some variation thereof. That tells the gangbangers that anyone inside might be armed and sends a fairly decent "political" message as well, without trying to tell someone who doesn't give a damn anyway that they can't bring their illegal gun inside to rob you.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 19, 2014, 11:51 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
A related story: Wife put a sign in our yard supporting a state "defense of marriage" amendment. Not only did someone steal the sign at night, the next day they filed a complaint with the police about our nuisance barking dogs. The police wouldn't tell us who filed it. (we weren't home at the time, but the dogs were inside the house with the windows closed and the curtains closed) I will leave it to you to figure out how it relates.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
April 19, 2014, 02:45 PM | #36 |
Member
Join Date: October 21, 2013
Posts: 44
|
Arizona viewpoint
I guess that the situation differs in every state. Here in AZ, CCW holders can even go into places that get most of their income from alcohol sales, they just can't imbibe. Non-CCW holders can still carry concealed but cannot go into alcohol establishments.
As far as signs, the AZ statutes have specific requirements that a sign must have in order to be legally binding. When I come across a business with a no gun sign that does not meet the requirements, I leave my gun secured in my vehicle, enter the establishment and speak with the owner. I tell the owner that they have lost my business because of their sign and tell them that other gun owners will probably not shop with them. I then inform them that their signs do not meet state requirements and point out the site they need to go to in order to get the correct signs. Although I do not agree with their policies, if they are going to have them, I want them to be in compliance with the law. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|