One of my bosses just asked me to procure 200 "No Guns Allowed" signs for our stores.

[Werewolf]

Let's take this a step further.

The givens:
Under the CotUS, we are granted the right to assemble in order to petition congress under the 1st amendment.

The scenario:
You own a retail shop of some manner, where said shop is seperate from your place of residence. A group of people want to use your place of business to assemble in order to petition the right to:

Choose any of the following that you would have the most opposition to:
A.) Lengthen the term of presidency to 20 years without re-elections for our current president.
B.) Increase taxation to support social programs such as welfare.
C.) Allow Sexual Affinity as a protected class.
D.) Recognize Same Sex marriage on a federal level and enforce states to adhere.
E.) Ban all high capacity magazines, and require thorough background checks and licensing for only "sporting" firearms. All other firearms are restricted. (think Euro gun laws)

Would you allow this assembly on your private property? Or lets even take away the grey areas of right to assemble. Would you allow the freedom of speech concerning these topics on your private property?

What I would allow is irrelevant. I'm sure this scenario has come up in real life. The real question is how did SCOTUS rule about it?

Until that question is answered I will still remain conflicted...

 

[WhiteyMacD]

What I would allow is irrelevant. I'm sure this scenario has come up in real life. The real question is how did SCOTUS rule about it?

Until that question is answered I will still remain conflicted...

I understand your position, but I am not asking what the SCOTUS thinks the CotUS means, Im asking the individuals here. For the individuals here, what and where does the 1st amendment apply? Additionally, if you were a business owner and would not allow such things to be planned, met upon, or discussed in your establishment, would it not by hypocritical then to judge those who chose to adopt no gun policies as anti 2a or anti constitutional?

I agree with many of you, I simply dont understand the fear. However, just as I have full faith in my rights under 2A, I also believe firmly in the rights of others as stated by the other amendments and abstain from saying someone is anti X amendment for the only reason that they are exercising what they consider reasonable, safe, or with proper "environment" for their business/private property.

Im not trying to say someone who chooses to withdrawl patronage from an establishment who choose no gun policies is wrong, I just think its juvenile and hypocritical.

 

[jrusling]

<snip>

Im not trying to say someone who chooses to withdrawl patronage from an establishment who choose no gun policies is wrong, I just think its juvenile and hypocritical.

Why is that? I carry most of the time and I really don't like to leave my weapon in the car. If I have a reasonable choice, I wall go to the businesses that will allow me to keep my weapon with me.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Why is that? I carry most of the time and I really don't like to leave my weapon in the car. If I have a reasonable choice, I wall go to the businesses that will allow me to keep my weapon with me.

Does a sign that has no legal criminal consequences really have that much power over your decisions?

 

[Mirge]

It does for some people, it doesn't for others. Are we really going to continue beating this to death? lol

 

[Burk Cornelius]

To the OP, I think you should just "accidentally" order some of these and send them to all of your stores

[Broken External Image]

Or if you don't really care about your job then order this one:

 

[jrusling]

Does a sign that has no legal criminal consequences really have that much power over your decisions?

Yes it does. There have been a few times that I have ignored a sign, but they have been few and far between.

 

[purplehaze]

"Civil Rights" are a product of statute ie applies to the people. Refusing to serve someone because of color, race, creed or gender is set out in Federal and state law in the form of statutes which the people must abide by. The Constitution is a restriction of the government. In other other words as a private individual no matter what I do I cant violate your constitutional rights.

This is a good point. I think that if you can't refuse service because of skin color, why can you refuse service based on exercising the 2nd amendment? I don't know if our liberal courts would ever rule that way but I think it would be a ruling consistent with precedent already set.

 

[Werewolf]

I understand your position, but I am not asking what the SCOTUS thinks the CotUS means, Im asking the individuals here. For the individuals here, what and where does the 1st amendment apply? Additionally, if you were a business owner and would not allow such things to be planned, met upon, or discussed in your establishment, would it not by hypocritical then to judge those who chose to adopt no gun policies as anti 2a or anti constitutional?

I agree with many of you, I simply dont understand the fear. However, just as I have full faith in my rights under 2A, I also believe firmly in the rights of others as stated by the other amendments and abstain from saying someone is anti X amendment for the only reason that they are exercising what they consider reasonable, safe, or with proper "environment" for their business/private property.

Im not trying to say someone who chooses to withdrawl patronage from an establishment who choose no gun policies is wrong, I just think its juvenile and hypocritical.

You make a good point one which made me think a bit.

My rebuttal to your example is that those doing what you describe to exercise their 1st Amendment rights in a business would be doing so in an active manner i.e. carrying signs, making speeches etc. That would in most likelihood be a noisey, disruptive action that would limit the business owners ability to make sales. Carrying a concealed weapon into a business is by comparison a passive action. No one but the person carrying would know. There would be no disruption of normal business activities and the owner would carry on as usual. Sales would continue as if the person exercising their 2ndA rights wasn't even there.

One action limits the owners ability to use his property as he sees fit while the other does not. One causes harm the other does not.

That said the question then becomes is harm, no harm relevant? Where is the line drawn.

I find my self still conflicted. As a practical matter I don't see that a business owners private property rights should trump one's right to self defense sense by definition business owners actively invite the public on to their property.

On the other hand from a purely theoretical and philosophical point of view ones private property should be sacrosanct and if one wants to enter it you follow the owners rules.

Conundrum - just can't seem to decide or draw a reasonable line.


EDIT: Are we talking concealed carry on to private property or OC? Makes a difference it would seem.

 

[purplehaze]

None of your scenarios have anything to do with the constitution. The first amendment doesn't apply to me as a private business owner.

I understand your position, but I am not asking what the SCOTUS thinks the CotUS means, Im asking the individuals here. For the individuals here, what and where does the 1st amendment apply? Additionally, if you were a business owner and would not allow such things to be planned, met upon, or discussed in your establishment, would it not by hypocritical then to judge those who chose to adopt no gun policies as anti 2a or anti constitutional?

I agree with many of you, I simply dont understand the fear. However, just as I have full faith in my rights under 2A, I also believe firmly in the rights of others as stated by the other amendments and abstain from saying someone is anti X amendment for the only reason that they are exercising what they consider reasonable, safe, or with proper "environment" for their business/private property.

Im not trying to say someone who chooses to withdrawl patronage from an establishment who choose no gun policies is wrong, I just think its juvenile and hypocritical.