Green underwear or a gun. Same thing. Inanimate object. Can't say only red underwear allowed.
TN bill would ban private businesses from saying no firearms
- Thread starter Saltwater60
- Start date
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
This topic was already gone over @Defilade last year and you finally gave up as several others on this forum told you that you were wrong!
nygunforum.com
Should private businesses be allowed to ban guns?
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...
nygunforum.com
This topic was already gone over @Defilade last year and you finally gave up as several others on this forum told you that you were wrong!
Should private businesses be allowed to ban guns?
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...
I read through that entire thread since you posted it, funny how some members have completely altered the way they thought and felt back in that thread compared to this one.
Some people here, they are saying the exact same things as they did a year ago.
Funny how that works.
I already cited the laws pertaining to public accommodation. So no. If your business is open to the public it has to follow those laws. Your business in not a private club.This topic was already gone over @Defilade last year and you finally gave up as several others on this forum told you that you were wrong!
Should private businesses be allowed to ban guns?
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...
If it's a private club that's not open to the general public, it can do pretty much whatever it wants and their members can make the decision whether to comply and belong, BUT when a private business opens it's door to the PUBLIC and acts as a public accommodation, it has no such rights. A business can only control what they are responsible for, adequate lighting, safe flooring, making sure the ceiling is safe, etc...., it has no rights whatever to make decisions for its customers!
So, seriously trying to understand this, are you saying that a business that is open to the public is not allowed to make up store rules or policies? None at all?
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
I wonder. Do the people that support the TN law also support these same places having to let transgender women into the women's bathroom.
Is a gun required policy ok?
Is a gun required policy ok?
I think it would be the other way around. I think. Now, I am confused.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
Well. I'm saying that I'd be willing to bet that the people who support TN saying private businesses can't say no firearms would NOT support TN saying private businesses can't say no to transwomen in the women's restroom. Especially if they had say, a young daughter. This is another can of worms federally and already established but just making a point.
I'd also bet they would be fine with guns required if it was store policy.
spat
.950 JDJ
Before CCIA NY actually had this one right (shocking, I know).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.
The private business can ban them, but it's basically the legal equivalent of a dress code.
They can tell you to leave and then you have to.
So the no guns sign at the vegan bakery has the same legal force as the "jacket and tie required" sign at the 5 star restaurant.
spat
.950 JDJ
You have a right to healthcare in the same way you have a right to a gun.
I.e. if you go out and buy it yourself, nobody should be able to stop you.
That's the only reasonable "right to health care".
They can make up any policy they wish. Policies are not Laws and in court mean nothing. If you make up some idiotic policy stating I can't wear green pants, that is unenforceable and a judge would laugh you out of the courtroom. I would hop you would understand that. The business owner has to follow public accommodation laws. People are confusing Private home ownership/dwelling with a private business! You are a registered business! Your business can't tread on me.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Current ruling from Judge John L Sinatra.
reason.com
New York "argues that private property owners have always had the right
to exclude others from their property and [therefore] may exclude those carrying
concealed handguns," Sinatra writes. "But that right has always been one
belonging to the private property owner—not to the State….Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes."
Two federal judges say New York's presumptive prohibition of guns on private property is unconstitutional
Another federal judge rules that New York's presumptive prohibition of guns on private property violates the right to bear arms.
reason.com
New York "argues that private property owners have always had the right
to exclude others from their property and [therefore] may exclude those carrying
concealed handguns," Sinatra writes. "But that right has always been one
belonging to the private property owner—not to the State….Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes."
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Ouch! New York's Ban on Carrying Guns on Private Property Without Express Permission is Failing Miserably - The Truth About Guns
Another one of New York’s new restrictions imposed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is the private property exclusion. That new provision makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes. Thus, the motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants’ enforcement of this private property exclusion is granted.
@Defilade do you need a long handled shovel now?
About the only thing that I think that is correct in this post is your statement of policy is not law. That is correct. A business can ask anybody to leave at any time as long as they are not being told to leave based on discrimination.
They can make a policy no shoes, no shirts, no service. They can have a store policy no dogs allowed.
Now these policies are not laws, but once a business owner asks you to leave and you don't, you could be charged with trespass.
A business open to the public may have public bathrooms, but have a sign up saying that bathrooms are only for paying customers. That is not a law it is a policy.
A movie theater has a sign up that says no outside food or drink, if you try bringing this stuff into their business that is open to the public you will be asked to get rid of it or leave.
Try going to an NFL football game with a large backpack, they will tell you you cannot come in with that backpack. That is a policy not a law. But I promise you you will not be entering that stadium with your backpack.
From reading your posts, I gather that you think a business that is open to the public, gives the public carte Blanc to do whatever they want within the walls of that business.
OMG Stop!Ouch! New York's Ban on Carrying Guns on Private Property Without Express Permission is Failing Miserably - The Truth About Guns
Another one of New York’s new restrictions imposed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is the private property exclusion. That new provision makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders...
Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes. Thus, the motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants’ enforcement of this private property exclusion is granted.
@Defilade do you need a long handled shovel now?
U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION
Private business has a LEGAL CLASSIFICATION as a "public accommodation" according to federal law, Title III Reg 28 CFR §36.104.
Your private business serves the public and therefore must abide by all state and federal laws. No business policy, No governor's mandate, order, health order, emergency or pandemic supersedes our Constitutionally- protected rights or supersedes the law.
This business is open to the public, and I am the public. Your denial of my service violates several federal laws.
Federal law 28 CFR §36.202 prohibits "denial of participation" from this business establishment. §36.202(c) states that unless I have been individually assessed as a "direct threat" you may not exclude me from the SAME and EQUAL services as others.
Denying my service or requiring me to be served outside or be limited to home delivery is a VIOLATION of Title , | and VII of the U.S. Civil Right Act of 1964.
Title III, Sections §36.202(a)(b)(c) and §36.203(a)(b)(c) states that I shall not be denied the same PARTICIPATION and EQUAL ACCESS as everyone else. The law prohibits you from serving me separately or differently.
So, no private company, open to the public can ever ask you to leave? Not for any reason at all?
If it's a private club that's not open to the general public, it can do pretty much whatever it wants and their members can make the decision whether to comply and belong, BUT when a private business opens it's door to the PUBLIC and acts as a public accommodation, it has no such rights. A business can only control what they are responsible for, adequate lighting, safe flooring, making sure the ceiling is safe, etc...., it has no rights whatever to make decisions for its customers!
Again, I will offer some specifics, I will use the NFL and the local stadiums. Huge list of things that are not allowed into the games? Is this unlawful?
The no shoes, no shirt, no service signs mean nothing?
How about a Jail/Prison? Certain areas are open to the public but visitors are searched for all kinds of things. Is this against the fed laws that you keep citing?
Airports are open to the public, try bringing a gun in to one? Light up a cigarette in the Airport and see what will happen./
You are just wrong on this. Sorry, no matter how many times you talk about this Public accommodation does not make it so.
Bring your horse that you ride into Wegmans, think you will be allowed to stay?
Alot of that is illegal, yes. Most people won't fight against it because of expense in the courts. It's silly. The problem is a lot of people "think" businesses can refuse business, but this is not so. When a private business has a nexus with the State (getting a business license, etc) it becomes a "public accommodation" during business hours if it is open to the public and cannot arbitrarily refuse service to any "unprotected" class. It's all in the public accommodation laws, and everybody is protected from discrimination in the 14th amendment.
So, nearly every judge and jury in the Country has been wrong when a person is convicted of trespass? No lawyers know of this to fight for their clients?
Guns, smoking and explosives should be allowed on airplanes.
spat
.950 JDJ
So, if I want to show up at a fancy 5 star restaurant in cut off Jean shorts and a mustard stained wife beater, they have to serve me ?
I don't think I've ever seen someone defend a misunderstanding of private enterprise so much.
And the thing is, I can't think of a more basic, fundamental right than the right to freedom of association when it comes to running a business. Your money, your business, your rules. Nobody is entitled to or forced to patronize the establishment.
We literally have someone arguing on the side of "You MUST bake the cake", on this very forum. This is so bizarre.
And the thing is, I can't think of a more basic, fundamental right than the right to freedom of association when it comes to running a business. Your money, your business, your rules. Nobody is entitled to or forced to patronize the establishment.
We literally have someone arguing on the side of "You MUST bake the cake", on this very forum. This is so bizarre.
No I'm arguing the fact that a silly tyrannical business owner has no right to tell me I can't wear green pants or a ................MASK! You don't have that right! Take your discrimination and shove it. If I am not a threat than stick it.
Dress code, not a law. You discriminated against what I wore.
Why has not one person sued and won over this??