Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Werewolf" data-source="post: 1094128" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>Hmmm...</p><p> </p><p>Well it seems that just as the courts disagree with me and my interpretation on some things they also disagree with you.</p><p> </p><p>The right to exclude from one's property by law is not absolute. For example: a restaurant cannot exclude a patron simply because they are white, or wear a turban or are Buddhist.</p><p> </p><p>So if the supremes have held the above to be within constitutional limits that can be applied to certain types of property owners - and they have - then it is well within the scope of reason that they could hold that certain property owners could be prohibited from barring access to their property by citizens based on their armed or unarmed status.</p><p> </p><p>Of course they haven't ruled that way yet but they certainly could given a court whose justices are of the right mind. It could happen.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 1094128, member: 239"] Hmmm... Well it seems that just as the courts disagree with me and my interpretation on some things they also disagree with you. The right to exclude from one's property by law is not absolute. For example: a restaurant cannot exclude a patron simply because they are white, or wear a turban or are Buddhist. So if the supremes have held the above to be within constitutional limits that can be applied to certain types of property owners - and they have - then it is well within the scope of reason that they could hold that certain property owners could be prohibited from barring access to their property by citizens based on their armed or unarmed status. Of course they haven't ruled that way yet but they certainly could given a court whose justices are of the right mind. It could happen. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom