Should private businesses be allowed to ban guns?

[Acer-m14]

The issue is .... that pesky business license the States and FED hold over them ..

no license and run your business how you want to .. just like your home

or do this or that even that too .. if you don't we will pull your license or fine you ..

 

[Bananabandit]

So since everything is illegal, including being a straight white male, can we just do whatever? Since it doesnt fucking matter

 

[spat]

So they can deny someone because they are Jewish black or Mexican?

They should be able to.

White should not be the only race you can exclude.

 

[spat]

No, the ability to deny is coming from the owner of the property that holds no legal standing to deny rights.

They don't have the ability to deny you your rights.

They do have the right to kick you off the property they own for any reason or no reason at all.

 

[meketrefe]

Still don’t understand what you are saying in regards to what I’m saying. The only thing I’m saying is that the constitution does not apply on private property. That’s it. Period. Finuto.

Whether I agree with it or not is besides the point.

Your idea that The constitution does not apply in private property is not accurate.
By recognizimg your obligations in someone else's property you are not only validating his/her rights but your rights in your own property.
Rights cannot exist without obligations.

That's is what politicians do these days, talk about rights selectively but forget their obligations.

 

[Paxal]

There seems to be some people who believe that private businesses should not be allowed to ban people from possessing guns if they have a permit to do so.

Some even argue banning possession of guns violates the Civil Rights Act.

What do you think? Should private businesses be allowed to ban people from possessing firearms even if concealed?

No. Private citizens can not deny other citizens their civil Constitutionally protected rights. The end.

 

[nortatoga]

Key Difference Between Civil Liberties and Civil Rights​

Key Difference Between Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

There are key differences between civil liberties & civil rights. These definitions & examples will help you compare & learn the differences between them.

examples.yourdictionary.com

Difference Between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties​

Civil liberties and civil rights sound similar. It’s quite easy to see why they get confused. However, while both terms ensure an individual's rights, they do so in different ways. Probably the greatest difference between the two is government action.

• Civil liberties are designed to limit government action in specific areas. For example, you have the freedom of speech. This is a civil liberty.
• Civil rights, on the other hand, require a government to act to ensure equal treatment for all. If you are denied a job because you are a woman, this is against your civil rights and the government needs to act to ensure this doesn’t happen.

How the government acts is the key difference between civil rights and civil liberties, but there are other subtle differences as well. Get a comprehensive overview of what civil liberties and rights are by looking at each one.

What Are Civil Rights?​

As a U.S. citizen, you have certain rights. Not only do you have the right to fair and equal treatment, but you also have the right to government services. These are your civil rights. Civil rights are granted to us via the U.S. Constitution through the 14th amendment, which states all citizens have the right to life, liberty, or property along with equal protection under the laws. These rights were then further expanded on through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires equal application of laws for everyone.

Examples of Civil Rights​

The application of full and equal rights for all seems simple. However, it’s actually anything but. Not only do race and gender come into play, but sexual orientation as well. However, to try to keep it clear, examples of civil rights include the equal treatment of individuals in:

• Employment
• Housing
• Public facilities
• Government services
• Public education

For example, if a public school discriminated against you because of your religion, this would be a civil rights issue. Based on your constitutional rights guaranteed to every U.S. citizen, you should get equal access and treatment to any public or government services. A well-known civil rights case is the United States vs. City of Ferguson following the police shooting of Michael Brown.

What Are Civil Liberties?​

As a citizen, you also have certain rights that a government shouldn’t interfere with called your civil liberties. Civil liberties are granted by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. For example, freedom of speech is a civil liberty. So, if you want to create a poster about problems with your school district and post it in your yard, you can. However, it must meet a few guidelines like not defaming someone.

Examples of Civil Liberties​

Just like civil rights, there are a few different examples of civil liberties. Unlike civil rights, civil liberties are a bit more cut and dried. However, there are still gray areas. Examples of civil liberties include the freedom of:

• Speech
• Expression
• Privacy
• Due process
• Press
• Religion
• Assembly
• Owning property
• Defending oneself
• Marrying
• Voting

A famous civil liberties case is the New York Times Co vs. United States in 1971. In this case, Nixon stopped The New York Times from publishing secret documents. The supreme court ruled this was against the First Amendment’s freedom of the press.

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties​

Need a quick reference of the difference between civil rights and civil liberties? Check out this handy table to keep everything organized.

Civil Rights	Civil Liberties
14th Amendment; Civil Rights Act of 1964	Bill of Rights
Protects people from discrimination	Puts limitations on government's power
Ensures government action	Limits government action

 

[nortatoga]

Last paragraph...

Understanding Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties​

When looking at civil rights and civil liberties, it might seem like the differences are clear. However, they can weave together into a tangled mess. For example, the right to marry is a civil liberty that all U.S. citizens are granted. So, the government can’t impede this right. If they try, then you have a civil liberties issue. But what if they only choose to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Well then, you’ve ventured into the waters of civil rights. See how that can get confusing fast. Either way, your civil rights and liberties are important.

Now that you know a bit about civil rights and liberties, explore examples of prejudice. You might also be interested in examples of bias.

 

[dsdmmat]

I don’t get the argument I just read.

A business open to the public must follow the business conduct laws of the jurisdiction. Most of those laws are designed to protect the public from discrimination, unethical practices and hazardous conditions. The business who employs people not in their family must also follow the labor laws of that jurisdiction.

Businesses may establish rules for conduct for both employees and patrons. Those rules must not violate the laws established governing the type of business being conducted.

The government telling a business to post what is legal to do on their property is an overreach of authority. A true step towards total fascism. This position taken to the Nth degree means businesses have to post legal conduct for everything, if it is not posted it is illegal. A real break from the founding of this country. The government telling businesses to post the consumer protection and worker protection laws I can see, posting you may carry a gun in this establishment I cannot see.

I wonder if the government made it illegal to wear clothing in sensitive areas then told businesses if they want patrons to wear clothes they must post a sign stating, “you may wear clothing in this establishment” would be seen as reasonable.

 

[nortatoga]

I don’t get the argument I just read.

A business open to the public must follow the business conduct laws of the jurisdiction. Most of those laws are designed to protect the public from discrimination, unethical practices and hazardous conditions. The business who employs people not in their family must also follow the labor laws of that jurisdiction.

Businesses may establish rules for conduct for both employees and patrons. Those rules must not violate the laws established governing the type of business being conducted.

The government telling a business to post what is legal to do on their property is an overreach of authority. The government telling businesses to post the consumer protection and worker protection laws I can see, posting you may carry a gun in this establishment I cannot see.

I wonder if the government made it illegal to wear clothing in sensitive areas then told businesses if they want patrons to wear clothes they must post a sign stating, “you may wear clothing in this establishment” would be seen as reasonable.

It's no different then those here that refuse to understand/believe that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government till incorporated to the States by the SCOTUS through the 14th amendment. They might not be so angry if they did some research!

 

[JackNeat]

Yes.

Should the state be allowed to ban CC under penalty of the law on all privately owned business and/or property. Abso-f’in-lutely not.

Should it be a felony brining a concealed carry into a privately owned building if there is a “no guns” sign CLEARLY posted on every single doorway?. No. It should stay as it has generally been… you can be charged with trespassing.

this level of control Gov Cruella has assumed is damn near tyrant level.

we need a new emoticon updated with FUKH

 

[8w7]

.

Your idea that The constitution does not apply in private property is not accurate.
By recognizimg your obligations in someone else's property you are not only validating his/her rights but your rights in your own property.
Rights cannot exist without obligations.

That's is what politicians do these days, talk about rights selectively but forget their obligations.

Instead of arguing with me, why don’t you google it? You’ll see how dead wrong you are.

Here I’ll help you out incase you have a tough time with Google.

Homepage

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner (1972)

Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner (1972) said that a shopping mall is private property and people do not have a First Amendment right to stage protests there.

mtsu.edu

 

[meketrefe]

.

Instead of arguing with me, why don’t you google it? You’ll see how dead wrong you are.

Here I’ll help you out incase you have a tough time with Google.

Homepage

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner (1972)

Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner (1972) said that a shopping mall is private property and people do not have a First Amendment right to stage protests there.

mtsu.edu

Google search is not going to settle this.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I want to argue with you for the sake of arguing.

It is simply discord and discussion on an argument that has been discussed here 1000 times before.

A private business has no way to take away your rights all they can do at any point is to ask you to leave their property.

 

[8w7]

Google search is not going to settle this.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I want to argue with you for the sake of arguing.

It is simply discord and discussion on an argument that has been discussed here 1000 times before.

A private business has no way to take away your rights all they can do is to ask you to leave their property.

That’s what I’ve been saying. You have to leave. You cannot exercise your rights on private property if they don’t want you to. Never once did I say that a private business or property owner can take away your rights everywhere.

Not sure where you got that from.

 

[nortatoga]

 

[spat]

No. Private citizens can not deny other citizens their civil Constitutionally protected rights. The end.

They cannot deny people their rights.

But they can deny them access to any space they own for any reason.

"You don't have to disarm, but you do have to GTFO my shop".

 

[ronstar]

If guns not allowed, they could always leave in car. But banning guns does not ban the right to self defense, as you can defend yourself without a gun.

 

[ronstar]

No. Private citizens can not deny other citizens their civil Constitutionally protected rights. The end.

A private store can ban you from wearing a shirt full of curses, even though protected by Freedom of Speech laws.

1st Amendment protects you from Government regulation, not regulation by private entities.

 

[spat]

A private store can ban you from wearing a shirt full of curses, even though protected by Freedom of Speech laws.

1st Amendment protects you from Government regulation, not regulation by private entities.

The store cannot ban you from wearing the shirt.

All they can do is ban you from entering the store.

 

[ronstar]

The store cannot ban you from wearing the shirt.

All they can do is ban you from entering the store.

Yes, they can ask you to leave for wearing an obscene shirt, just like they can ask you to leave if possessing a gun.

But they cannot ask you to leave just cuz you are white, Catholic or a man.

 

[spat]

Yes, they can ask you to leave for wearing an obscene shirt, just like they can ask you to leave if possessing a gun.

But they cannot ask you to leave just cuz you are white, Catholic or a man.

They probably can for those last 3.

Just not for the opposite.

 

[Acer-m14]

new vid 2 days ago ...

where the FED judge said the GOVT cant tell the business what to do .. its not how it works ..

even thou this judge denied this case for no standing .. he laid out how bad NYS is and how to fight it with the next Case that is coming.

25:20 mark i think it is .. click n watch .. yep the video will start there .. you may want to watch it all .. lots of info ..

sensitive places ... and NYS trickery .. Restricted Places ..

 

[Podmonkey]

Actually I don't think anti gunners should be allowed to own businesses.

 

[dsdmmat]

Actually I don't think anti gunners should be allowed to own businesses.

I have seen signs posted in stores, “if you voted for Biden do not enter we don’t want your business.” Same goes for Trump. If I ever own a business again the sign saying, “If you are anti-gun you are anti-freedom don’t bother coming in, we don’t want your business. Thanks the Management” will be posted on the front door.

 

[nortatoga]

new vid 2 days ago ...

where the FED judge said the GOVT cant tell the business what to do .. its not how it works ..

even thou this judge denied this case for no standing .. he laid out how bad NYS is and how to fight it with the next Case that is coming.

25:20 mark i think it is .. click n watch .. yep the video will start there .. you may want to watch it all .. lots of info ..

sensitive places ... and NYS trickery .. Restricted Places ..

Yes I watch all his videos, the one I post mentions 2 already ruled on cases on the matter!

 

[Paxal]

If a private buiness/citizen can dictate the exercise of your second amendment right, then they can do the same with the First as well and any other. So I still say no, and Im one who doesnt like the idea of drunks on a bar being armed.

 

[Defilade]

The thing is when a business decides to take your right of self defense away which is guaranteed under the law as an In alienable right . Our rights are being restricted which is illegal itself because it is not in agreement with the constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

Actually Common Law is the supreme law of the land.
View attachment VID_20220904_081907_589.mp4

 

[ronstar]

They probably can for those last 3.

Just not for the opposite.

Awwwwww........

 

[ronstar]

Actually Common Law is the supreme law of the land.
View attachment 172058

Wrong.

The USC is the Supreme and final legal word.

 

[Bigfoot]

View attachment 172059