The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 18, 2016, 03:17 PM   #51
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Yes, we have the right to forbid weapons in our place of business. Yes, we probably have the right to require weapons be carried in our business if we choose. This is not a civil rights issue. This is not a 2A issue. This is not a building code, or public health and safety issue. And no, forbidding weapons in a place of business does not make the owner responsible for any or all consequences of entering unarmed.

This is just another example of government trying to regulate conduct that is not within its Constitutional authority to control. We do not need or want government to micromanage our businesses or lives. That is far more dangerous than me leaving my pistol in the truck while having dinner in my opinion.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 18, 2016, 04:06 PM   #52
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
Yes, we have the right to forbid weapons in our place of business. Yes, we probably have the right to require weapons be carried in our business if we choose.
Logically speaking if it is yes to the first, then it should be as much yes to the second; There is no "probably" to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
This is not a civil rights issue. This is not a 2A issue. This is not a building code, or public health and safety issue.
Are you saying that it isn't or shouldn't be these issues? If it is an issue of being able to defend yourself from being gunned down, then it is most certainly a safety issue. What the law says on it is another issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
And no, forbidding weapons in a place of business does not make the owner responsible for any or all consequences of entering unarmed.
Why because you say so? A business not being responsible for a customer's safety and not allowing the customer to be responsible for their own safety is the ultimate in unaccountability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
This is just another example of government trying to regulate conduct that is not within its Constitutional authority to control. We do not need or want government to micromanage our businesses or lives. That is far more dangerous than me leaving my pistol in the truck while having dinner in my opinion.
Are you O.K. with safety stuff like building codes? I mean, how often does a store burn down? Not very often. Yeah it happens but so do shootings You could argue building codes help prevent fires but I could also argue that pro-gun policies help prevent shootings...
ATN082268 is offline  
Old December 18, 2016, 05:54 PM   #53
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
ATN082268,

Yes, I probably should not have qualified my remark with probably.

It certainly is not a civil rights issue by any accepted definition. Your right to protect yourself does not supersede my right to restrict your bringing weapons into my business. You certainly have the right to bear arms to protect yourself and the right to avoid any business that restricts that right. Requiring sprinklers, emergency exits, occupancy limits, etc. for the public good is not the same as requiring firearms be allowed. It is also not the same as holding business owners liable for the illegal acts of others.

You and I are accountable for our own safety to a large extent. If a business limits our ability to do that, and we knowingly accept conditions that we feel put us at risk, then why would we have legal recourse if something goes bad? More to the point is how much authority does government have in how we live, and the choices we make.

There will always be tension between public health and safety, and our individual rights to live as we choose. For example, I think making laws to prohibit smoking in a bar is government going too far, yet I would fight for the bar owner's right to do so if he chooses. In the same way, I think forbidding weapons in most businesses is a bad idea, but I do not want government mandating compliance.

We often howl about new gun laws, and rightly so. This is another in a long line of proposed laws that gives government more control while chipping away at our individual liberty in my humble opinion.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 18, 2016, 07:46 PM   #54
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
This is not a civil rights issue.
The bearing of arms is a right, supposedly guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Since it isn't a military matter, it can be argued that it is a civil rights issue. The reason businesses can't ban certain classes of people based on their color, race, religion, gender, etc., is only because some legislature, somewhere, passed a law making it unlawful to discriminate against those protected classes of people. Thus, if another law adds arms carriers to the list of classes of people who cannot be discriminated against, it just reinforces the concept that bearing arms IS a "civil right."

Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
This is not a 2A issue. This is not a building code, or public health and safety issue.
Agreed. But it is analagous to such issues once you start arguing that the government can't tell a business how to run their business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
And no, forbidding weapons in a place of business does not make the owner responsible for any or all consequences of entering unarmed.
It will if the law passes. Why shouldn't it? If you operate a business that's open to the public and a patron is injured on your premises, more than likely you will be liable for his/her injuries. Trip on a pavement crack? Slip and fall because the tile floor was wet? Got conked because a heavy box fell off a high shelf while the patron was looking at something on a lower shelf? In all such cases, and myriad other possible scenarios, it's almost certain the business would be found liable. So businesses do, in general, have a duty to look out for the safety of their patrons. This law simply establishes one more possible scenario to add to the myriad of such possible scenarios that already exist.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 18, 2016, 08:06 PM   #55
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
Trip on a pavement crack?-------- Slip and fall because the tile floor was wet? -------Got conked because a heavy box fell off a high shelf while the patron was looking at something on a lower shelf? In all such cases, and myriad other possible scenarios, it's almost certain the business would be found liable. So businesses do, in general, have a duty to look out for the safety of their patrons. This law simply establishes one more possible scenario to add to the myriad of such possible scenarios that already exist.
That seems to make sense . hmm what if another customer trips you ? What if another customer throws grease on the floor right in front of you as you walk ? What if another customer pushes that high box off the shelf ??????

Are my examples any different then another customer pulling a gun and shooting you ????
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old December 18, 2016, 08:49 PM   #56
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Aquila, I think it is a stretch to compare getting hurt in a business due to negligence or oversight, and being hurt by the illegal action of a criminal.

I also think insisting it is a civil right to carry a gun is as credible as those insisting that anyone carrying a gun
violates their civil right to not be around such evil things.

I have made my position as clear as I am able. A business owner that forbids weapons is unlikely to get my business. That is my right, and his. I am good with that.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 19, 2016, 06:35 PM   #57
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
I also think insisting it is a civil right to carry a gun is as credible as those insisting that anyone carrying a gun
violates their civil right to not be around such evil things.
The U.S. Constitution (supposedly) guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does NOT guarantee anyone a right to not have to see a man carrying a gun.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 19, 2016, 08:42 PM   #58
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Aquila, do you really believe that the right to bear arms not be infringed means that there can be no restrictions on carrying a gun?

At what point do we take responsibility for our own actions? If you don't like the conditions of doing business with someone take your business elsewhere. We can't decry government restricting the things we hold dear while advocating for increased governmental involvement in the business of others.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 20, 2016, 04:57 PM   #59
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Mac
Aquila, do you really believe that the right to bear arms not be infringed means that there can be no restrictions on carrying a gun?
Yes, of course I believe that. What do YOU believe "shall not be infringed" means?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 20, 2016, 06:12 PM   #60
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
What do YOU believe "shall not be infringed" means?
I believe you can (and should) study the meaning the word. In do so, you will learn that to infringe is, "to exceed the limits of." You may not like the definition or the reality; that does not change a thing.

I have enjoyed this discussion and appreciate the exchange of ideas and beliefs. Merry Christmas.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 20, 2016, 06:36 PM   #61
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
What do YOU believe "shall not be infringed" means?
I believe the words "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution apply ONLY to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The majority of the bill of rights is a listing of things the Federal Government is NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

"Congress shall make no law..."
"shall not be infringed"
"shall not be quartered in private homes..."
"shall not be issued except upon oath..."
"shall not be deprived of life, liberty...without due process.."

Those and the other things are restrictions on GOVERNMENT. They do NOT apply to our interactions with other citizens, except through the framework of government.

The boss at Clucky's Chicken Shack can forbid arms, can forbid you (as an employee) to speak on certain subjects at work.

And they can forbid a number of other things. This is NOT a violation of your or my constitutional rights.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 20, 2016, 09:51 PM   #62
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I believe the words "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution apply ONLY to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
And the governments of the respective states. See McDonald v. Chicago.

Now let's get back to the topic: a proposed law that would NOT prevent any business from prohibiting the bearing of arms on its premises, but which simply requires that in exchange for that the business accept responsibility/liability for having deprived patrons of their constitutional right to be responsible for their own protection.

As I've already commented, businesses that are open to the public are treated differently under the law than private homes. A business that is open to the public is considered a "place of public accommodation" under the law, and over the years the courts have determined that this status gives government the right to impose certain requirements and restrictions on the business in the interest of furthering some perceived (by the .gov) societal benefit. Thus, we have various civil rights laws that have created a list of "protected classes" of people who cannot be discriminated against on the basis of the characteristic that puts them in that class, such as age, gender, religion, race, etc.

None of the current, protected classes are spelled out in the Constitution. The list was created, and has grown as more classes have been added to the list. The government can add any other characteristic it wants to the list, at any time. The government could decide that bearing arms, as a right guaranteed by the Constitution, is a "civil right" (which I believe it is), and the government could then add arms bearers to the list pf protected classes of people who can't be discriminated against by "places of public accommodation."

But this law doesn't do that. It doesn't force business owners to admit gun bearers if the business doesn't like guns. It simple says, "Okay, you can prohibit guns, but then if a person who wanted to be armed in your place of business gets shot by a robber, you're liable." It's a simple trade-off, a business decision. Economically, is it more advantageous to the business to allow people to carry guns, or is it more advantageous to the business (using whatever metrics the owner chooses to evaluate the perceived benefits) to prohibit guns and to buy insurance to pay for someone being shot if the place gets held up?

Doesn't the government do the same thing to you regarding your personal motor vehicle? In fact, they don't even give you a choice. I don't think there's any state in which it's legal to operate a motor vehicle without carrying liability insurance.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 20, 2016, 11:13 PM   #63
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
It is usually a poor idea to try to introduce statues into tort law, which has traditionally been the sole province of the courts.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old April 10, 2017, 03:24 PM   #64
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
Heard on my drive home today that this bill was being considered today in Missouri... just keeping my fingers crossed even though it's probably a long shot.

http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bil.../0523h.03i.pdf

OK... This is the first line of the pdf. in the link....

Quote:
Any business enterprise electing to prohibit the possession of firearms or other arms by the placement of signs as authorize d under section 571.107, or other provisions of chapter 571, shall assume custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person who is authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to private property not used for commercial purposes or private residences of any type. For purposes of this section, "business enterprise" means any business that sells or provides goods or services to the general public.

I've noticed over the years that fewer and fewer businesses make it a point to post the NO CCW signs.
There's still a bunch out there mind you, but fewer than when Missouri initially adopted conceal carry laws and they continue to dwindle.

My hope is that some measure of success with this particular bill, or similar line of thinking, would result in fewer still.

I'll admit that I've not posted a bunch during my time of participating in this forum, but enough not to be confused for a drive by.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!

Last edited by Al Norris; April 11, 2017 at 10:36 AM. Reason: Merged posts to mitigate the "drive by" error
turkeestalker is offline  
Old April 10, 2017, 03:31 PM   #65
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
Normally a post like this is considered bad form (aka "drive by"). Some of us do not like to open blind links. Perhaps you could copy paste a small paragraph and add your own views to it?
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old April 10, 2017, 05:03 PM   #66
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
Unfortunately, the proposed legislation states that the prohibition of carrying a firearm is "the proximate cause" of the injury or harm. Prohibition of carrying a firearm probably may increase VERY SLIGHTLY the risk of injury or harm to an individual who might otherwise have been armed, but it does not and cannot CAUSE an injury or harm. Simply put, the fact that I am not carrying a firearm does not CAUSE me to be shot, stabbed, clubbed or run over by a car. The fact that I am not carrying a firearm may dramatically reduce my ability to defend myself but that fact does not CAUSE any injury. The CAUSE of an injury to the victim of any attack is the attacker's attack!!! I hope the proposed legislation will be corrected in this regard.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member

Last edited by lefteye; April 10, 2017 at 07:18 PM.
lefteye is offline  
Old April 10, 2017, 06:02 PM   #67
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
Not trying to bust your chops, just saying it so your informative post doesn't get automatically closed.

Thanks for the post!
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old April 10, 2017, 11:09 PM   #68
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Unfortunately, the proposed legislation states that the prohibition of carrying a firearm is "the proximate cause" of the injury or harm.
That is incorrect. The bill states, in part:
Quote:
4. The standard of proof for tort actions under this section shall require that a plaintiff show by preponderance of the evidence that . . .
(d) The business enterprise's prohibition on carrying firearms or other arms was the proximate cause of the damages, loss, or injury suffered by the plaintiff. . . .
So it requires the victim prove the business was the proximate cause of the injury (among other things). My tort law is rusty but I think the assailant would probably almost always be the proximate cause of the injury. But proximate cause is kind of a slippery concept and varies in different jurisdictions.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 11, 2017, 05:45 AM   #69
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
4. The standard of proof for tort actions under this section shall require that a plaintiff show by preponderance of the evidence that . . .
(d) The business enterprise's prohibition on carrying firearms or other arms was the proximate cause of the damages, loss, or injury suffered by the plaintiff. . . .
Sticking that in there pretty much negates the value of passing the law. What's the point? A plaintiff could sue a business today and win if he/she could show that the prohibition was the proximate cause of the loss or injury.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 11, 2017, 01:26 PM   #70
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
Any business enterprise electing to prohibit the possession of firearms or other arms by the placement of signs as authorize d under section 571.107, or other provisions of chapter 571, shall assume custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person who is authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to private property not used for commercial purposes or private residences of any type. For purposes of this section, "business enterprise" means any business that sells or provides goods or services to the general public.
If this was all the bill said, and it stopped there, I could support it 100%.

Unfortunately, it's not all the bill says.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 08:20 AM   #71
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
Already running here.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=582169
steve4102 is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 09:41 AM   #72
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Threads merged.

Thanks Steve. We missed it!
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11920 seconds with 10 queries