Activism In Support or Against Private Business

[mljdeckard]

No. This is state government removing a restriction on a right across the board. You own property. You always have the right to close it off to people completely. But when you allow public access to your property, you are agreeing to let in ....the general public. If some of them are carrying, that's how it works. You think it's a great idea for every person, sect, creed, municipality, and philosophy to be able to set rules about their idea of fair to decide where people can and cannot carry? (Then you get Texas.) This way is much more fair. People have the right to keep and bear arms. Peoperty owners have the right to restrict people they don't want on their property. If they open their property to the public, they allow people who carry.

Now something we haven't touched on yet, in Utah, business owners can post 'no guns' signs in the door, but they hold no force of law. If say, you walked past one with a gun in the open, (which is entirely legal,) and you get noticed, the business owner may ask you to leave, because he is allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you refuse, he may call the police, and they may cite you for trespassing, which is a misdemeanor, and will neither have your permit revoked nor bar you from getting a permit in the first place.

Wait. I have a GREAT idea. All you have to do is ban carry on your property, and all the people who follow the law (the ones you WANT carrying on your property) will refuse to enter your business. And you know what the great side effect is? All the criminals you DON'T want carrying on your property will conform to your wishes as well and leave theirs home. No one will ever bring guns onto your property. That's how it works. Right?

The purpose of the Starbucks action is to make sure that the managers and owners know that people who support carrying guns have more clout and pull than those who oppose it.

What have I done to support the cause besides buy a cup of coffee? I'll tell you what I didn't do. I didn't identify the single most law-abiding demographic in the nation and tell them they can't exercise their rights on my property. Other than that, I don't feel like enumerating my work with the National Rifle Association, the Utah Shooting Sports Council, the Utah State Legislature, The Freakin' Boy Scouts, the U.S. Army, The Oath Keepers, my friends and family, the communities I have lived in, and how far Utah has come in the last twenty years to become the first state in America to get a flat "F" grade from the Brady foundation.

 

[LNK]

"b.) The Second Amendment does not grant a "right". Firearms ownership is a privelage that can be taken away as society has deemed necessary per the local/state/federal laws applicable to the individual's scenario. I know, the word "right" is in the amendment... "

Hold it, none of the amendments grant rights. They prevent the usurpation of those rights. The bill of rights protects rights you already have. Yes there are things you can do to lose those rights. But come on, this is just baiting....

LNK

 

[hso]

Being able to exercise the right to carry anywhere is what is important. That right for the individual citizen to choose whether they will own a firearm or not or carry a firearm or not on any given day in any given place is as important as the individual property owner's right to decide what takes place on their property.

In the case of Starbucks, a group of Antis from Chicago has decided to attack them for their corporate policy to stay neutral on customers following local laws on carrying firearms. The decision to coerce this property owner into putting a restrictive policy in place has caused RKBA advocates to respond to the Antis and support Starbucks financially in opposition to the Antis. It should be the same response from RKBA supporters whether the Antis were proposing action against Krogers or any other retailer or business because the business the Antis are attempting to coerce isn't the focus of our response, the Anti group's actions are. We're opposed to them and countering their action is our intent. The retailer may or may not want our involvement and how we involve ourselves may actually do them some harm.

Since our purpose is to offset the losses a business boycotted by Antis may suffer it behooves us to make sure we counter the Antis without harming the business they are attempting to coerce. In Starbucks case we can help by ordering a pound of coffee beans online for delivery to our home and leave a comment or walk up to the counter of the local shop and order a cup or a pound of coffe and thank the clerk for Starbucks neutrality and corporate courage in not giving in to pressure from fringe elements.

 

[jackpinesavages]

Hold it, none of the amendments grant rights. They prevent the usurpation of those rights. The bill of rights protects rights you already have. Yes there are things you can do to lose those rights. But come on, this is just baiting....

LNK

Absolutely not, I'm not baiting: carrying and shooting firearms is a privelage similar to a driver's license. Act like an idiot, get caught, and you either lose those privealges or you never get to experience it legally. "Just baiting.." you into thinking more carefully about your own thought process as it pertains to firearms!!

Folks seem to get emotionally attached to what they FEEL are "god-given" rights (Hence, some of our forays into "freedom from religion" red herrings.), and legal rights.

As of now, private businesses are seen to hold private property, and they can control what happens therein. It is certainly your RIGHT to protest or patronize as you see fit, but as I asked with that list of questions....what are your goals, etc.?

 

[mljdeckard]

No. Keeping and bearing arms is an individual RIGHT, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. NOT a privilege.

Am I emotionally attached to my rights? You betcher bippee. You seem to be just as attached to your property owner rights.

 

[2WheelsGood]

carrying and shooting firearms is a privelage similar to a driver's license

Apples and oranges. Your right to life (and the right to self defense) is addressed in the US Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about driving a car?

If the 2nd Amendment wasn't in the constitution, this "privilege", as you call it, would have been gone a long time ago.

 

[jackpinesavages]

No, it's not apples and oranges: you go through a process of legalities to acquire certification and licensing, get your pieces of credential, and have guidelines/rules/laws to follow while enjoying said privelages within society's guidelines set. It is a sort of social doctrine, you see.

Break that social doctrine, get caught breaking those agreements and you likely lose the privelage(s). That's not a matter of my opinion-that's how it is. The facts.

I am not attached to my property rights anymore than you are: if you don't want somebody/something in your property, that is your right and your authority to say so is final. It is no different with a public business place or a private employer to determine if there will/will not be firearms therein.

Thank You to hso for the PM discussions. This particular instance of Starbucks anti-gunners in Chicago-land is crucial, but again, what are your goals and expectations?

 

[2WheelsGood]

you go through a process of legalities to acquire certification and licensing, get your pieces of credential, and have guidelines/rules/laws to follow while enjoying said privelages within society's guidelines set. It is a sort of social doctrine, you see.

The certification and licensing (only in the states that require it) is the result of those who wish we didn't have the right. And many of us consider those laws and requirements unconstitutional.

The RIGHT to bear arms is spelled out in the Second Amendment. Again, no such thing exists as it relates to driving a car. If you can't see the difference, there's not much point in arguing about it.

 

[mljdeckard]

Rights are not subject to license, perception, necessity, or....social doctrine. What society thinks about a right has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a right. Only with if they can be cowed into calling for its restriction.

 

[Neverwinter]

..and for Utah telling everybody where they can/cannot carry? With the exception of State gov't. dictating carry in State gov't. buildings, why would I as a business owner want the State taking away my choice to do what I want with my private property? Smacks of "big gubment" to me, IE the public smoking bans.

That is without a doubt the worst argument I've seen yet for this topic; you don't have to make a decision as the State government is going to decide for everybody? I don't understand how this fact helps make your point about firearm carry, religion, cultural expression, etc.?

This is a position which ignores the role of the other citizens in the participation of government. It's the state government elected by the people deciding that the rights of the property holder are not unlimited. Why do the interests of business owners get to supersede the public interest of preserving fundamental rights? Would it be okay to support the right of a property owner to strip search visitors?

 

[jackpinesavages]

There's nothing to argue about: there is no "right" for every able-bodied human to be armed.

I do not have a "right" to walk onto a privately owned business with my firearm(s), when said business owner has decided they do not want firearms there and posts signage which says so.

Can't follow society's guidelines for maintaining a driver's license? I lose it.

Can't follow society's guidelines for voting privelages(felon)? Lose em.

Can't follow guidelines for firearm ownership(privelage)? Gone.

It's a matter of choice: the business doesn't want me in there with my guns. Fine, if I feel that my security is so impinged by not being able to carry in that establishment, I don't go in THAT establishment.


Wow, a property owner's strip search "rights" on private property? How in the world did you make that leap, and where did you think I would agree to consent to that? I swear, you guys have ingenious imaginations when you set your mind to something!!

So, let's look at the flip side of the coin: you own a business. Are you going to deny access to your business, to those who refuse to legally carry a firearm therein?

The RIGHT to bear arms is spelled out in the Second Amendment. Again, no such thing exists as it relates to driving a car. If you can't see the difference, there's not much point in arguing about it.

 

[mljdeckard]

Rights always exist, regardless of what sign someone puts up. The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the fundamental human right of self defense. Having a law that differentiates who can and cannot restrict someone else from being armed is not a fundamental human right, as it implies involvement of a legislative process.

You really need to go back and understand the difference between rights, powers, privileges, and laws. They are all different.

 

[jackpinesavages]

...and here we go with another red herring subject: Yes, rights always exist, and here is a moronic analogy that matches your idea: I have a "right" to have consensual sex BUT just not with a 15 year old.

I have a "right" to legally carry my CCW of choice, just not into a business that posts a sign saying they don't want it. To do so is a violation of their "rights" to not have ME in their business, with MY gun. Are their feelings hurt? No. Are my feelings hurt? No.

The..." fundamental human right of self defense."? When and where is that including firearms, etc. wherever you choose it to be? Of course you have a "right" to defend yourself from an attacker. Nobody is saying you have to lay down and be a defenseless victim, unless you ARE a defenseless victim w/o your sidearm? Do you really wanna play the victim card?

Wow. Come on you guys, this aint rocket surgery: all you're doing is regurgitating the NRA baselines of brainless one-liners.

 

[mljdeckard]

No. Consexual sex with someone else infers a third party. Therefore it is not a right.

If it is a right, you don't need to choose when and where it exists. You are so sure about whether or not this is an absolute rule, that you as a property owner have this right, but as we have already shown, that 'right' varies depending on what state you are in. If it changes so easily, it can't be much of a right.

If you are so offended by brainless NRA members like us, perhaps you would be more comfortable somewhere else?

 

[Robert]

As has been pointed point out, the Constitution only "protects" against Government denial of our rights. It does not apply to a private company. However, I have every right to decide not to spend my money where it and I are not welcome. I will gladly go somewhere else if I can.

Can't follow guidelines for firearm ownership(privelage)?

The right to defend myself is not a privelage. Take firearms out of the equation. Would you call the basic right to self defense a privealage? If no, they why would you consider the use of a firearm a privelage? Or should I be restriceted to only using my fists or a sharp pointy stick as a means of self defense?

 

[Walkalong]

Defending myself is a god given right, and if you do not believe in god, merely a universal right, understood by 99% of people.

A very slight minority thinks one should stand there and let others beat you or kill you, and those are religious fanatics.

The right to own a gun, and use it to defend myself, is guaranteed by the Constitution of the USA, but it is also a universal right, just as defending myself with my fist, or a rock, or a bat, is a universal right.

Almost all of the people who want to take away your right to defend yourself with a gun want to control you, and the few others are merely living in a make believe world where all evil suddenly vanishes if we only got rid of guns.

Guns make a 105 pound person equal to a 300 pound criminal, and a politician. Without them we are subject to the whims of both, and would be ruled by both, just like the bully on the playground, who grew up and got into politics.

 

[jackpinesavages]

No. Consexual sex with someone else infers a third party. Therefore it is not a right.

What?! You have got to start reading your posts out loud before you hit the "Submit" button.

Howdy Gus! Where's Woodrow? Read my post again as I already had MADE the point you are trying to reiterate, as if I had not just done that! Read people, read!!

Carrying a firearm is a privelage as that activity can be taken away from you by the authorities, at any time you decide to be an asshat and not follow the societal guidelines given to us: this (set of laws) of course goes state by state, depending on where you live.

Yes, it IS part of the social doctrine: We as an ENTIRE society have given Law Enforcement agencies the authority to enforce laws, as they pertain to people who are breaking the law(s). Even if you commit a crime without that firearm of choice, say a felony, and you are convicted of said felony-you lose the privelage of carrying a firearm for self-defense, hunting, OR recreation!

Do you get it? Society has decided that as a convicted felon you do not have the brain background, as I like to call it, to carry firearms much less trade/shoot/swap/carry/hunt with them.

 

[jackpinesavages]

If you are so offended by brainless NRA members like us, perhaps you would be more comfortable somewhere else?

Wow, here's the quote of the day. I did not say you were brainless, you did.

As an NRA Instructor I have to educate people on how to safely conduct themselves with their firearms, on and off the range.

Excellent men have been shot and killed because of what they PERCEIVE to be their "rights" to carry, where and when. If you believe this debate here is meant to be an electronic dog-pile on an anti-gunner (me), you are sadly mistaken.

Hopefully at least one person has walked away from their computer to go better research their local laws, ordinances, or to have a conversation with a business owner who has posted a "no guns" sign.

 

[Sam1911]

We seem to be running multiple lines of argument here.

1) Is keeping and bearing arms not intrinsically linked to the right of a person to protect their own life against violent attack? Others are arguing that point pretty well, so I'm not jumping into it. In the end, if you believe the ability to keep and bear arms is a "privilege" then we may just be stuck in one of those "agree to disagree" black holes. Oh well, c'est la vie.

2) The other relates to a very different matter: Does my right to do or do not -- or allow or not allow -- something, someone, or some action on my own property somehow equate to a right to be free from repercussions? This, I think, has a clearly determinable answer: NO.

You have the right to do a great many things here in the US. Almost anything you might dream of doing. You are not guaranteed to have the MEANS to do them (those are up to you to procure, if you're able) nor do you have any social or legal protection against suffering the negative results of your choice of action.

I have the right to dress in a chicken costume for a job interview. The repercussions may well be that I don't get hired for the job -- and nothing shields me from the effects of my dumb, but perfectly lawful, choice.

I have the right, out here in the country (no noise ordinances) to slap a cherry bomb muffler on my truck and then run it at high idle for an hour at 5:00 am each morning before I leave for work. Nothing shields me from having my neighbors chew me out, refuse to invite me to dinner, or play pop music at loud volume at midnight while I'm trying to sleep, in an effort to get me to knock it off. Hey, it's my right -- but I have to live with the consequences, too. Or decide that the costs aren't worth the benefits I'm "buying" through my actions.

I have the right, as a business owner, to prohibit purple shirts, children between the ages of seven and ten, people with bad breath, or anyone carrying a firearm from entering my store -- if I can find the means to do so*. But nothing in the world gives me any shelter from receiving bad press, nasty comments, a letter-writing campaign, and/or a critical loss of patronage/income because folks don't like the standards I'm enforcing.

Just as I can tell people I don't like X,Y, or Z -- and won't allow it in my place of business, they can tell me they hate my sorry guts for that attitude and/or won't spend a dime in my store -- and will tell all their friends, loved ones, and facebook pals to avoid me as well. If I can stand that heat, I'll stand my ground. If I can't...I might decide that what I'm "buying" with my policy isn't worth the cost. That's the way life works.



(* -- And nothing in life says my policy is self-enforcing. Unless the state decides to back up my policy with the force of law, it is entirely on me to find a way to screen patrons and enforce my decrees. Folks are no more required to follow my dictates than I can physically force them to comply through lawful means.)

 

[jackpinesavages]

Thanks for that clarification. Yes, I believe in a higher power of my choice, but that has nothing to do with anything here other than your emotions. God will not help you regain your carrying privelages after being convicted of a felony, or if you are denied firearms privelages by any of the other ways Society has deemed necessary, in order to protect the rest of the flock.(There, does some Bible lingo help any?)

Society has made a bunch of laws, ordinances, etc., that basically say we as gun owners have to demonstrate to some extent that we are reasonable people, and will probably be so also with firearms.

I don't like the fact that I'm supposed to disrobe of my gun kit, to enter a business of sorts, that doesn't want guns. There's a lot of things I don't like, but does the judge want to hear about it? No. Does the judge care what I don't like? No.

Defending myself is a god given right, and if you do not believe in god, merely a universal right, understood by 99% of people.

 

[Robert]

Read people, read!!

Please forgive me, I got off work at 2200 last night as was back at the desk at 0600 with only about 4 hours of sleep and one cup of coffee. I totally missed #38. Sorry.

That being said, you go one to say:

unless you ARE a defenseless victim w/o your sidearm?

No, no I am not. But why would you (in the general sense) want to deny me the ability to defend myself with any means possible?

When and where is that including firearms, etc. wherever you choose it to be?

Where ever it is legal for me to do so, which thankfully in my state is just about anywhere I go. If it is not legal, gov't building or a posted business, then I try to limit my business in those locations.

My 1911 is not my first line of defense. Far from it. My first line of defense is situational awareness and knowing when to beat a reatreat. I have nothing to prove and I am not getting paid to get shot at or beat up so if at all possible I am going to remove myself for those situations as quickly as I can.

If a mugger wants my wallet he is welcome to it. There is nothing in there that is worth my life. A few simple calls and all he has is a wore out piece of old leather. I needed a new one anyway. Does this make me a victim? Some would say that a real man would have shot him and mounted the mugger's head on their wall. Again I have nothing to prove.

Even if I do not have my 1911 with me I still have my brain, and if nothing else my knife, or knives depending on the day. I will do everything I can to avoid a fight, but if one is forced on me then fight I will and it will be epic.

So no my defense is not centered around my side arm. It is just a tool. But I have the right granted by God and recognized by the Gov't to carry it and protect myself if need be. And that right shall not be infringed. Unless I break the contract by comitting one of the mind bloggling numerous laws that would make it illegal for me to carry.

Carrying a firearm is a privelage

No. Some, the gov't and people who wish to take away my rights, may see it this way but it is simply not true. The Second Amendment does not say the "privelage to keep and bear arms".

Society has decided that as a convicted felon you do not have the brain background

There are several ways to reestablish one's rights even after a felony conviction. However, there are some that should have never been felons in the first place. Not all felons are murders or rapists. I believe they should be taken on a case by case basis.

I see what you are getting at but I think you are overstating your case. Firearms ownership is a right until someone activly chooses to give up that right by breaking the law. They chose to give it up when they broke the law. It is not a privelage that the Gov't took away. It was a right. They gave it up.

 

[Robert]

I don't like the fact that I'm supposed to disrobe of my gun kit, to enter a business of sorts, that doesn't want guns. There's a lot of things I don't like, but does the judge want to hear about it? No. Does the judge care what I don't like? No.

This is where voting comes into play. That judege, or the folks who wrote the laws, will come up for re election at some point. That is when we as gun owners make our voices heard. We have made amazing progress in the last few years at getting rid of a good amount of the anit gun laws here in the US. But we still have a ton of work to do. If we can change the local political landscape first then we will stand a better chance of changing things higher up.

On to cup number two. Maybe things will start making more sense soon.

 

[hso]

The argument started focused on whether a private property owner's right to determine what takes place on their property is equal to the Second. That's a great general debate topic. It also triggers a range of other issues on how those rights are carried out and the supporting arguments around those.

Staying civil at THR and attacking the argument and not the person is our basic requirement here and not everyone has upheld that standard. That's not acceptable and some warnings have been handed out for folks that have let their passion override the commitment they made to the standards of conduct at THR.

 

[Robert]

Something else dawned on my sleep deprived mind. Having one's rights taken away through due process of law is vastly different than the Gov't just granting/recinding them on a whim.

 

[hso]

Society has made a bunch of laws, ordinances, etc., that basically say we as gun owners have to demonstrate to some extent that we are reasonable people, and will probably be so also with firearms.

Some of those laws are constitutional and some aren't. The fact that people put unconstitutional laws in place and that we have a judicial means to challenge and overturn those unconstitutional laws is a fact and one our great strengths as a nation. Just because a bad law exists doesn't make it a good law.

The fact that a criminal looses some of the constitutional rights guaranteed to free citizens during incarceration isn't unconstitutional and using the loss of those rights during incarceration as an argument for citizens being denied their rights logical. Equating the rights of criminals to free citizens is a false argument.