General Categories > Carry Issues
Panera Bread bans guns
Mudinyeri:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on September 09, 2014, 07:45:53 PM ---If a customer spilled a liquid, and someone slipped in it, no court would say it was the business's fault. Now, if a customer spilled a liquid, and the store left it there, made no attempt to clean it in a timely fashion, and then someone slipped in it, there would be (and has been) a court case in which the store would lose.
The issue would be the store not removing an obvious actual hazard, which of course, is separate from the previous issue about stores being responsible for other people's behavior.
--- End quote ---
Similar to a store not removing an actual hazard - a person intent on doing customers bodily harm.
Moreover, what society believes has been historically demonstrated to become legal precedent. You tried to wiggle out of the thorny dilemma of business owners not being allowed to refuse service to protected classes by suggesting that such legal decisions were limited to a specific Colorado court case. I assume that you're referring to the cake baker who was forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple against his wishes based on Colorado state law. This is only one of dozens of cases where business owners have been punished - either civilly or criminally - for refusing service to protected classes. This isn't even a recent phenomenon.
And that's what we're talking about here. Refusing to do business with people (or asking people not to do business with you) based upon a belief. Unfortunately, because we have fought amongst ourselves and have waited around for scholarly papers to be written and otherwise hemmed and hawed and sat at home on our couches, it has become acceptable to discriminate against our belief that the Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
We can use current law to useful effect. We can also work to plow new legal ground to our advantage.
farmerbob:
All right I'll try to answer Gunscribe's questions even though no one told me there was going to be a quiz.
1. I don't believe I'm backing the opposition to restrict your rights. I do believe the in your face long gun folks are putting limitations on mine. You may be right we may make gains from their actions.
One way to look at it is, we all had the right to go naked over time society deemed it necessary we had to cover it up. Groups have over time tried to bring it back in the norm with nothing to show for it but being arrested and shamed. (I realize the Constitution doesn't cover going naked)
2. I don't think anyone would condone giving a toddler a loaded handgun..so there must be a age limit. I think kids should learn how to safely use firearms with adult supervision.
Society has set these standards, not me, I guess we will have to live with them. I've been around kids like my own that are very responsible around guns, I would trust at a younger age, yet there are others I wouldn't trust with a gun at 40.
I think education is the key and as long schools remain liberal institutions they won't be getting at school. Can you imagine if we treated cars like guns and just hope kids would never come in contact with a car in the future.
I guess your question when do you get your right. I say at birth.
When can you exercise that right. Not my decision but I think we decided 2 was to young. With adult supervision until such time right can safely be exercised. Every thing else is a legal matter.
AAllen:
This is a good place to point out (and we are having a respectful discussion, even though some of us disagree on specifics) that we are hitting the area of what rights are more important or over rule what rights or when or if there could even be a conflict.
Point 1 - The Second Amendment does not grant a right, it only secures a right from Government intervention. My rights come from God and are my birthright, they are also yours and everyone else's. Though I occasionally fail I try to respect others rights and hope they do mine, thereby avoiding conflicts but they do happen.
Point 2 - Property rights come from the ownership of property and are tied to the property, not a person. A person gets to exercise property rights with the ownership and in some cases through contractual agreements.
There are a few times that even though you may have property rights they may be overridden, example property rights are over ruled by a treaty, another is for laws and ordinances (such as building codes) that are enacted for public safety. They may also be overridden if there is a conflict with a natural or FUNDAMENTAL right. I capitalized that on purpose because that is what the US Supreme Court has ruled our Second Amendment rights are, Fundamental rights; or as I said in point 1 rights given us by God.
As I said earlier this is a fairly new area of judicial work, and the current case law is all over the place. But if backed by competent scholarly works being published that would support that position, and proper ground work being done a case for your right to over ride property rights can and could be won. Do I think it could be won right now as things stand, I'm not a lawyer just a judicial junky but I don't think that there is a court that would lean that far right nor is there enough published works supporting the position. But there are some historic pieces that do and they would be a starting place to build that scholarly work.
Gunscribe:
--- Quote from: farmerbob on September 09, 2014, 09:50:53 PM ---Society has set these standards, not me, I guess we will have to live with them.
--- End quote ---
No we do Not!
AAllen:
--- Quote from: Dan W on September 09, 2014, 06:25:12 PM ---Why did they not just stand silent...or say that they won't be swayed by any group? They could have just stated that they will abide by the law currently in place at their stores locations, but what they did was appease an anti gun, anti liberty group by furthering the public perception that guns are bad and so are the people that own them.
A public statement of a nation wide policy like that is not neutral, despite the actions they take afterward to try and play both ends against the middle.
--- End quote ---
Dan while I agree with you in spirit I take issue in practice. We brought a lot of this on ourselves by being over the top unnecessarily. I'm not talking about the rallies being held in Texas, nor some of the things done by organized prepared people that are making a point (though I look at what the open carry folks have had for an effect in California and wonder). What has cost us is the stupid kid that has decided to carry his loaded AR15 through town so he can record the interaction with police and say how bad they are. The groups who with no plan or knowledge of the ramifications decide to descend upon a business to take selfies of them with their Combat Patrol Special Tactical Shotgun and post on the internet, ignoring the fact that these businesses have other customers.
I have no problem with open carry, and the actions being taken in Texas are to highlight a problem in Texas law and force legislative action (that action could backfire but they are prepared for that). But as many people around here say take stupid actions expect returns that you are not happy with, and some folks have been doing some pretty stupid things trying to make themselves all superior with their ability to open carry.
Respect goes both ways, we want businesses to give us some we need to earn it and we have been feeding the anti's lots of ammo to use against us.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version