December 18, 2016, 03:17 PM | #51 |
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 |
December 18, 2016, 04:06 PM | #52 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
December 18, 2016, 05:54 PM | #53 |
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 |
December 18, 2016, 07:46 PM | #54 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
December 18, 2016, 08:06 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
Quote:
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 . |
|
December 18, 2016, 08:49 PM | #56 |
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 |
December 19, 2016, 06:35 PM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
|
|
December 19, 2016, 08:42 PM | #58 |
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 |
December 20, 2016, 04:57 PM | #59 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
|
|
December 20, 2016, 06:12 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
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 |
|
December 20, 2016, 06:36 PM | #61 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
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. |
|
December 20, 2016, 09:51 PM | #62 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
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. |
|
December 20, 2016, 11:13 PM | #63 |
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.
|
April 10, 2017, 03:24 PM | #64 | |
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:
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 |
|
April 10, 2017, 03:31 PM | #65 |
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 |
April 10, 2017, 05:03 PM | #66 |
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. |
April 10, 2017, 06:02 PM | #67 |
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 |
April 10, 2017, 11:09 PM | #68 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 11, 2017, 05:45 AM | #69 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
|
|
April 11, 2017, 01:26 PM | #70 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, it's not all the bill says.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 14, 2017, 08:20 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
|
April 14, 2017, 09:41 AM | #72 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Threads merged.
Thanks Steve. We missed it! |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|