Do you think any of our LEO not supporting OK SDA or conceal carry?

[castleeleven]

Head down the street to Pho Lien Hoa. Food's better anyway.

100% agree

 

[dcmtex]

All this over bad food ?

 

[Gabriel42]

 

[yukonjack]

the restaurant
View attachment 34574

That ain't real food anyway. Cat meat and spaghetti noodles.

 

[LightningCrash]

...and which amendment covers this? Driving is a privilege.

It's not a simple privilege. See Bell v Burson.

 

[Werewolf]

His restaurant, his rules. Don't go there.

So if the sign said:

There is a parttime sheriff owned restaurant in Oklahoma city with a Bold Big sticker at the entrance " No illegal aliens allowed except roofers".

That'd be OK then too?

 

[LightningCrash]

So if the sign said:

That'd be OK then too?

Well it would be OK moreso than it would be TX.

 

[beast1989]

I think that you may be confused as to the qualification of the typical LEO. GC is the exception when it comes to safety and ability, the average officer is no safer with a weapon than the average citizen.

That's like when I tried talking to an officer about guns, I asked if it was a G22 and he corrected me by saying its a Glock 40cal.

 

[sethk]

...Would he put up a sign that says "No black people except law enforcement"??? I'm just sayin'.

... It is the same as Walmart...they essentially choose to do business in Oklahoma with the public and therefore should respect the laws of Oklahoma. They should have the right not to let me in their houses with a gun, but in their store, they should not be able to decided who gets Constitutional rights and who doesn't. What say you on this JB? Is there any validity here (even if you don't agree)?
...
So then by that logic...on my PRIVATE property...I CAN say "No gays" right??? Of course I'd never do that, but I want you guys to explain the difference to me???

So let's take a look at these analogies here. For one, you can't leave your blackness or your gayness at home or in the car. Being black is not a right. Being gay is not a right. Bear bear arms is considered a right. Not being discriminated against for being black/gay/Christian/Japanese/etc. is considered a right. Not being discriminated against for bearing arms is not a right. I have a constitutional right to free speech, but there are limits to that right in public and private places. If I am shouting "fire" in a crowed movie theater, I can be kicked out or banned. Further, if I am talking rudely to a theater employee I can be kicked out or banned. If I am simply talking audibly at all during a movie, I can get kicked out or banned.

Saying "no black" or "no gays" is making rule barring types of people regardless any behavior on the part of those people. CC carriers are not a "type of person" in the same way (though I'm not sure I agree with JB's take on "protected classes"). An armed person is being banned because of something they are doing.

Some are "more equal" than others.
His business, his rules. He should be able to ban ANYBODY he wants to.

He can ban anyBODY he wants. As mentioned above, you can legally be kicked out of a private business for doing or saying many things (even as little as just saying things the owner or employees don't like). I can ban TedKennedy from my business, but I cannot ban all Irish Catholics from my store.

I've been to clubs where there were signs that said that I was not allowed to wear a ballcap or bring in a gun. Having hats and guns are both perfectly legal for me and rights protected by the constitution. And the club is under no obligation to ensure that I can practice every single constitutional right I have when I'm within their walls.

 

[SMS]

This again? Here's 7 pages of it from just a little while ago...with all the same stuff in it LOL. https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?186674-Pass-a-law-please

We sure like to beat those horses don't we?