how hobby lobby ruling could affect OC/CC

[landon410]

didn't want to hijack another thread with my slightly off topic tanget

This isn't going into great depth, was just a thought I had

ok, so the govt can force companies to do what the govt says so long as it doesnt violate a closely held (family/private) business' religious ideals/morals etc (Hobby Lobby ruling)

can we take this ruling to say that since Target Starbucks etc aren't closely held private companies that they do not have the option to opt out of the the law which allows for me to carry?
Or have we allowed the bastardization of our gun rights through a small law here a small law there to create enough "loop holes" in our rights?

now I also understand that just because something might be right doesn't mean we have the people to fight for it or enforce it (ie the border) I'm also not saying that the govt should ever have the right to tell a business what they can/should do

[OnTheFly]

I'm also not saying that the govt should ever have the right to tell a business what they can/should do

There in lies the problem.  The business owner is not limiting/denying our rights.  They are exercising theirs.

Fly

[Mntnman]

^^ Yeah, that. Businesses have the right to deny your weapon because of their property rights. They aren't denying you because it is your choice to go there or not.

[gsd]

Do you remember seeing the signs in convenience stores that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

[Sandhillian]

There's a significant distinction between the two situations that the previous posters have touched on.

The Hobby Lobby case arose because the federal government was telling these closely-held corporations that they had to do something (i.e. provide birth control).  The SCOTUS held that, by doing so, the federal government was violating the rights of these closely-held corporations.  The Hobby Lobby decision would really stand for the proposition that the government can't force a business to permit firearms on its premises.

In the other situation, businesses are prohibiting people from carrying firearms onto/into their place of business.  The business is exercising its rights (i.e. property rights).  The government isn't involved, so there is no violation of any rights.  Only the government can violate a person's rights.

As such, the Hobby Lobby decision should have no impact on businesses prohibiting the lawful carrying of firearms on their premises.  I don't have a problem with that.  As soon as property rights disappear, so does the right to keep and bear arms.  The solution is to not do business with these companies, and hopefully that will make them reconsider their policies.

[Mudinyeri]

I would say that a business being unable to "refuse service" to a lawful concealed carrier is more like the Colorado baker being unable to refuse to make a wedding cake for the gay couple.  That decision might have some impact.  Not that I particularly like that court decision ....

[OnTheFly]

I would say that a business being unable to "refuse service" to a lawful concealed carrier is more like the Colorado baker being unable to refuse to make a wedding cake for the gay couple.  That decision might have some impact.  Not that I particularly like that court decision ....

I hope that is appealed to a higher court.  That is a bogus decision.

An interesting counter example I read was of a business that was sued because it fired Muslim driver's who refused to deliver alcohol and tobacco products due to their religious convictions.  Seems that the business owner is losing all their rights if both of those decisions stand.

Fly

[landon410]

property rights have already been taken, look at Omaha's smoking ban

do I smoke? nope, do I enjoy places that are smoke free more than smoke filled? yep
do I support the smoking ban? no

this is an example of govt controling property rights

[jFader]

Isn't the smoking ban statewide & not just Omaha?

I think I found the loophole you are looking for landon....& all that you have to do is vote Hillary in 2016!

Stores have their RIGHTS.....but they can't discriminate against minorities? Right?  Didn't Hillary just say in an interview that "america can't let a minority amount of gun owners control the gun debate" or something to that effect?

If we can be decleared an official minority group....maybe we could keep from being discriminated against and maybe the aclu would pick up some gun cases & help a brother out!

[Gunscribe]

J, you are on the right track. Gun ownership is the only Civil Right that must still be exercised at the back of the bus, and we are our own worst enemy.

Suppose there were a large number of blacks that lobbied against changing the laws and public perceptions because they didn't want to offend white people.

Suppose there were large numbers of gay people that publically lobbied against changing the laws and public perceptions because they didn't want to offend the Christians.

Suppose there were large numbers of disabled people that publically lobbied against changing the laws and public perceptions because they didn't want to offend healthy people.

There are however, a large number of gun owners that publically lobby for gun laws or public perceptions because they do not want to offend a few vocal liberals.

Most of you were not around for the fight for Civil rights in the 60's. I was. It was the in your face demonstrations and marches that won the day.

How many paid any attention to the Gay Pride in your face movement and demonstrations that led to the equality enjoyed today?

How many remember the Americans for disabilities movement and what it accomplished.

No major laws or policy shifts have come without protest and in your face actions.

If we had fought tooth and nail in the past we would not be having this discussion today. Now when we realize what we voluntarily gave up, we are appalled and want it back, there are some among us that do not want to rock the boat and insist that we remain seated in the back of the bus.

The Right to keep and bear arms is a Civil Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[Dan W]

The only difference is that the fundamental civil right to bear arms for your own defense has not been "granted" protected  class status like race, gender, national origin, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability.

SCOTUS did say the RKBA is a fundamental civil right bit did not rule in a way that gives it "protected class" status, and that is the level of protection needed to bar private individuals and companies from violating ones right to keep and bear arms

[Gunscribe]

Thanks Dan. Well said!