Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
I have mixed feelings on this because private businesses should be able to do as they please but it’s nice to know your rights are protected.
TN bill would ban private businesses from saying no firearms
- Thread starter Saltwater60
- Start date
So you Agree with the current law in NY??
I have mixed feelings also. I think that if they don't allow firearms then they should have to pay armed security to be roaming around the store.
Last edited:
Not sure which NY law you are referring to, there are many laws in NY (too many). I'd agree that private property owners should dictate what happens on their property. My house, my rules so to say. If it was my business I wouldn't ban guns, but if it's not my business then it's not my choice on the rules set by the owner. My recourse as a customer is to take my business elsewhere.
Last edited:
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
I think he’s saying private businesses should be able to do what they want on their property. NYS dictates what we can do on all private property unless they say we can have a gun. Very different things.
I actually didn't hate the old way in NY.
I really give a lot of respect to private property. Private property owners should have the right to decide what occurs on their property.
It used to be you could ignore a no guns sign but if you were spotted printing and they asked you to leave for violating their policy if you refuse you could be charged for trespassing. That's really not a bad compromise IMO. its actually a pretty fair balance between 2a rights and private property rights. There was no risk to the pistol carrier so long as they complied and left if asked to do so.
I feel the property owner should be able to determine their own rules. I also agree with SomeSoldier though that if firearms are prohibited then it's the property owners responsibility to protect you. We know signs don't work. Lawmakers also know signs don't work but they don't care. They just want to make laws that restrict us. While I was in Nashville a few years ago EVERY building I went in had a "no firearms" sign on the door. How the hell is that supposed to stop someone from committing a firearm related crime? There are plenty of laws that say you can't attack someone but those are ignored every day. Because of this I can see why they want to take the property owners right to choose away from them.
TEOTWAWKI inc.
.338 Win Mag
This state is fantastic. I feel like half the bills that get introduced are just to piss of liberals. Some actually make it into law.
What other state is lowering taxes, eliminating regulations, and attracting tons of new residents? Not many.
We are digging in here. It will be the last free state.
What other state is lowering taxes, eliminating regulations, and attracting tons of new residents? Not many.
We are digging in here. It will be the last free state.
I do not like this law (as proposed).
WillyK
.357 mag
And over a hundred guns are stolen from vehicles in Nashville monthly due to people obeying those signs.
subsonic
.44 mag
This retarded reflexively libertarian "muh private property" bullshit is why so-called conservatives have been mostly losing for decades now. Same energy as let them trans and drag the kids, open the borders, free all trade because "freedumb."
This bill is entirely a GOOD thing if it even goes far enough. Current Tennessee, Texas, and New York law makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning, concealed-carrying citizens quietly going about their business while concealed carrying in places of public accommodation (in New York, unless "muh property" owner opts out). What this law does is basically bring Tennessee's concealed carry law closer to what New York's was up until LAST YEAR. Private property owners could still ban open guns, and trespass and keep out anyone they don't like. What they can't do is criminalize your lawful, permitted concealed possession of a gun for self-protection.
Texas did loosen their carry laws recently by removing the permit requirement and changing the consequences on private property to simple trespass, which is a big improvement but doesn't go as far as Tennessee did (or as New York had been, again, up until LAST YEAR), in that concealed carry on signed property is itself still punishable as trespass in and of itself.
If I'm not breaking any laws or causing any trouble, then whether I'm concealed carrying a gun is nobody's business any more than the thoughts I am harboring in my head, or what's in my wallet. The only reason it should become known that someone is lawfully concealed carrying is if they need to defend themselves with deadly force, in which case they shouldn't be punished after the fact for it.
The side that wants to win always beats the side that wants to be left alone.
This bill is entirely a GOOD thing if it even goes far enough. Current Tennessee, Texas, and New York law makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning, concealed-carrying citizens quietly going about their business while concealed carrying in places of public accommodation (in New York, unless "muh property" owner opts out). What this law does is basically bring Tennessee's concealed carry law closer to what New York's was up until LAST YEAR. Private property owners could still ban open guns, and trespass and keep out anyone they don't like. What they can't do is criminalize your lawful, permitted concealed possession of a gun for self-protection.
Texas did loosen their carry laws recently by removing the permit requirement and changing the consequences on private property to simple trespass, which is a big improvement but doesn't go as far as Tennessee did (or as New York had been, again, up until LAST YEAR), in that concealed carry on signed property is itself still punishable as trespass in and of itself.
If I'm not breaking any laws or causing any trouble, then whether I'm concealed carrying a gun is nobody's business any more than the thoughts I am harboring in my head, or what's in my wallet. The only reason it should become known that someone is lawfully concealed carrying is if they need to defend themselves with deadly force, in which case they shouldn't be punished after the fact for it.
Last edited:
Yes, those silly libertarians and understanding basic property rights. It's better to use government force to tell owners who they must allow on their property.
I totally see the connection to drag queens and open borders too. Laws like this would remove rights akin to the owner having the ability to ban them from their property, but hell yeah, more government please!
This is obviously a terrible idea for a law.
DoOver
.450/400 Nitro Ex
So, again, youse agree cake bakers must not be forced to bake cakes.
subsonic
.44 mag
Forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake celebrating Satan is exactly the same thing as making concealed-carrying cake-shoppers felons and putting them in prison because the baker put up a "no guns allowed" sign in their shop.
Am I libertarian enough?
subsonic
.44 mag
Who is forcing who, hugebrain?
If I have a "No Irish" sign in my shop, that might break a civil rights law. If there were no civil rights laws, and Paddy walks in looking and speaking American and I'm none the wiser, he's not breaking any laws. A "No Irish" sign doesn't make him a trespasser or a criminal, and any wrong he's doing to deep-seated Irish-excluding beliefs and ignoring my precious sign is not legally recognizable. It's only if Paddy gets his Irish up and I tell him to leave and he won't that the law steps in. I don't get to write my own criminal laws because "muh private property."
The only reason it's a crime to have a concealed carry on signed private property in a state like Tennessee (or New York as of last year) is because there's a law that says it. It's malum prohibitum, wrong because it's prohibited.
How far do you want this to go? Can the sign say "No Foreskins" and you're a criminal if you have an uncut dick cause "muh private property"? How about no concealed tattoos, or no tighty-whiteys?
subsonic
.44 mag
Oof, you really got me there. What a comeback....
A private property owner has the right to freedom of association with ANY person he or she wishes to or not.
That far.
Dude, you equated store signage and property rights to drag queens. I'd lay off the ball spiking celebration with the commentary.
subsonic
.44 mag
At least what I write makes perfect sense. My freedom of self-defense is infringed when the state criminalizes my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms. How is your "freedom of association" harmed by my not being criminalized for exercising said right, by concealed carrying while invited onto your property?A private property owner has the right to freedom of association with ANY person he or she wishes to or not.
That far.
Dude, you equated store signage and property rights to drag queens. I'd lay off the ball spiking celebration with the commentary.
Mind, if I say "Hey buddy I'm carrying my sweet new Sig on my left hip" you can still tell me to leave and never come back, you can bar the door to me because you saw me post on Twitter "Going out armed again today!" or saw me coming out of the gun shop next door ten years ago, or just don't like my hairdo.
But that's not enough for "muh private property," you need to have the scimitar of the state hanging over my head making me a status felon because I exercised my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms when you don't think I should. You're literally putting the criminal law in my pants because I'm on "muh private property."
You have no more constitutional right to carry a firearm on my private property than you do to come in and blast the latest Lizzo album, claiming "free speech. "
subsonic
.44 mag
At least you've made your incoherent, anti-gun libertardian position clear. I wasn't wrong about same energy. You're clearly in the "let them chop off kids' dicks and tits" camp.
subsonic
.44 mag
I'm not wrong, am I?
Blasting Lizzo causes exactly the same property harm as a pistols peacefully concealed in pants, because extremely libertarian feels.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Agreed 100%. I do like TN sticking up for 2a rights like they have been recently. It shows in their population increase that it is popular with the crowd they want to attract.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Maybe that’s why they feel this law is needed then. I had no idea that many places had no gun signs there. It was the same when I went to Glendale AR and they have the law subsection right on the sign showing you it was a law. I was surprised to see this.
You're not wrong about what? You've been wrong on everything so far.
A careful reader would note nowhere did I say it was the same. I said you don't have the constitutional right to either.
Private businesses-subject to what the owners desire is in fact a legally fallacious argument. That business cannot refuse business arbitrarily. That was what happened during "Jim Crow".
These places are treated as places of public accomodation. We must look at a particular section of the law to fully understand.
42 USC § 12181 (7)
(7) Public accommodation: The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually
occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; © a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.
So while many of these are commonly thought of as private businesses, they are treated like places of public accomodation. This means that the owners/operators do not have the right to
discriminate people attempting to enter the store.
42 U.S. Code § 6102. no person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under,
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
These places are treated as places of public accomodation. We must look at a particular section of the law to fully understand.
42 USC § 12181 (7)
(7) Public accommodation: The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually
occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; © a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.
So while many of these are commonly thought of as private businesses, they are treated like places of public accomodation. This means that the owners/operators do not have the right to
discriminate people attempting to enter the store.
42 U.S. Code § 6102. no person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under,
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Last edited:
subsonic
.44 mag
I don't want to keep jumping on this thread, but since this keeps coming up, you're quoting two basically unrelated bits of the federal US civil rights code that shouldn't be part of this discussion. One is for certain "public accommodations" and the other is for federally funded programs. Neither protects gun owners.
The issue is not even about being a public accommodation, and it's certainly not about any federal laws other than the Bill of Rights.
It's common law of property and trespass. If you invite me onto your property, whether it's because you have a storefront, hang out a shingle and invite the general public, or because you open the door to your home and invite me in personally, you don't get to reach into my mind or my pockets or my pants and criminalize them based on a condition of your invitation.
You either invite me in or not. You can tell me to get lost, but at common law you don't get to create intangible harms and criminal offenses based on my invited presence on "muh private property." Take me as I am and as you perceive me or don't, end of story.
You are no more trespassing against in your "No guns" store when you only found out afterwards a customer was carrying than some woman was raped because she found out the guy she fucked was a loser afterward and regrets it.
It is only codified laws specific to guns that have changed the common law. And they shouldn't, because as we've seen that play out it's a very bad thing. And these laws go further than make someone a fictious trespasser, they create disproportionate firearms offenses that deprive future firearms rights unjustly.