General Categories > Carry Issues

how hobby lobby ruling could affect OC/CC

(1/3) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: landon410 on July 07, 2014, 08:15:21 AM ---I'm also not saying that the govt should ever have the right to tell a business what they can/should do
--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page