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

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

WhiteyMacD

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
8,173
Reaction score
61
Location
Mustang
I absolutely agree that it is 100% your decision and your right. And yes, according to the castle doctrine you are allowed to defend yourself in either as they both are your dwelling. But a place of business (ie: retail shop) I certainly would not consider equivalent to a home (ie: place of residence). A retail shop I am welcoming the public. My residence, I most certainly am not.

If I owned a Chilis... I wouldn't consider that my "home".

The reason you were quoted in the first place was because of: "How dare someone come into my home and call me unconstitutional simply for making a request that they not bring something into my home." -- nobody said you were being anti-2A or unconstitutional because you made a request that they not bring something into your home... and even if they did, brush it off and move on.

You need to brush up on the constitution and the court cases decided to uphold it. Businesses are not public property just because they are open to the public.
 

Mirge

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
Location
Broken Arrow
You need to brush up on the constitution and the court cases decided to uphold it. Businesses are not public property just because they are open to the public.

"A retail shop I am welcoming the public."..... I said that a retail shop IS public property? :screwy:

It's amazing that people can't understand that I am _not_ saying you don't/shouldn't have all of your rights in both your residence & place of business, but simply that the two are separate. Guess I'm just not smrat like some of you folks.
 

WhiteyMacD

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
8,173
Reaction score
61
Location
Mustang
"A retail shop I am welcoming the public."..... I said that a retail shop IS public property? :screwy:

It's amazing that people can't understand that I am _not_ saying you don't/shouldn't have all of your rights in both your residence & place of business, but simply that the two are separate. Guess I'm just not smrat like some of you folks.

Explain what you meant by "welcoming the public"? I can welcome a total stranger in my home too, and still not want them to carry. What difference does it make that residence is where you live, and business is where you work. Its all my property.

Simply enough,... a business, any business disallowing the carry of a firearm is doing so under the explicit protection of the Constitution of the United States and decades of supporting court cases. Someone thinking 2A applies to private property, be it a home or business is strongly mistaken, misguided, or outlandishly hypocritical.
 

redmax51

Sharpshooter
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
5
Location
Tulsa
"A retail shop I am welcoming the public."..... I said that a retail shop IS public property? :screwy:

It's amazing that people can't understand that I am _not_ saying you don't/shouldn't have all of your rights in both your residence & place of business, but simply that the two are separate. Guess I'm just not smrat like some of you folks.



No you're pretty "smrat" all right.LOL
 

Mirge

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
Location
Broken Arrow
Explain what you meant by "welcoming the public"? I can welcome a total stranger in my home too, and still not want them to carry.

Simply enough,... a business, any business disallowing the carry of a firearm is doing so under the explicit protection of the Constitution of the United States and decades of supporting court cases. Someone thinking 2A applies to private property, be it a home or business is strongly mistaken, misguided, or outlandishly hypocritical.

I meant simply that... a retail shop is welcoming the public, that doesn't mean it becomes public property... the government doesn't own it.. the business owner does. I *absolutely* agree that they have 100% right to request (or demand) that nothing enter their property that they say shouldn't be there. It's also my right to not shop there.

No you're pretty "smrat" all right.LOL

Yes, that was on purpose... I guess you're not quite smrat enough to figure that out. leern 2 reed gud please.
 

jarhead983

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
388
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
I have to disagree with this one. Just because they want to control what happens on their property, doesn't mean they don't believe in our constitution. If anything, they're simply exercising their God given right to own property and then make the decisions as to what takes place on that property. I have much more of a problem with government (public) owned establishments banning guns than a private business/property owner deciding what they want. How dare someone come into my home and call me unconstitutional simply for making a request that they not bring something into my home.

BTW... I'm a business owner that welcomes firearms. Just think the business owner has the right to choose.

I agree totally to this. We act as if the Constitution is only for ourselves. That we can do anything we want wherever we want. We have a right to property, and by possessing this property we have the right to dictate what happens on it, within the law. We get to decide with whom we associate. So if a private homeowner doesn't want my gun to accompany me, so be it, I won't go in. If a business doesn't want me to carry a gun, so be it, it’s their choice. I choose other businesses if possible, but I make my displeasure known at all of these prohibitive locations. I also make a point of mentioning to the management at places that don't have signs, why I am now a new customer. I believe in the Constitution and I detest any distortion of it. I alone can’t change all of the things that our gov't has done to subjugate the supreme law of our land, but I won’t be a party to stomping on it myself. I honor everyone’s rights, and I’m fully aware that my rights cannot limit yours.

We constantly say that we should be trusted because we have passed a background check and we have shown a propensity to be lawful. Then we post on this and other websites that we ignore certain laws and other people’s property rights. Sad state of affairs and if I were an anti, I would be pointing this out at every debate.

I personally believe that the background check is unconstitutional, along with the permit and all of the other limits, but that’s a subject for another thread.

Sorry, as any who have seen my posts know, brevity is not my strong point. I have problems with getting what’s in the brain-housing group down on paper.
 

redmax51

Sharpshooter
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
5
Location
Tulsa
.



Yes, that was on purpose... I guess you're not quite smrat enough to figure that out. leern 2 reed gud please.



Noboby's buying that,you would have highlighted it if it was sarcasm.I know you know how to spell smart,just funny that you made a spelling error and then said you meant to do it.
 

Mirge

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
Location
Broken Arrow
I agree totally to this. We act as if the Constitution is only for ourselves. That we can do anything we want wherever we want. We have a right to property, and by possessing this property we have the right to dictate what happens on it, within the law. We get to decide with whom we associate. So if a private homeowner doesn't want my gun to accompany me, so be it, I won't go in. If a business doesn't want me to carry a gun, so be it, it’s their choice. I choose other businesses if possible, but I make my displeasure known at all of these prohibitive locations. I also make a point of mentioning to the management at places that don't have signs, why I am now a new customer. I believe in the Constitution and I detest any distortion of it. I alone can’t change all of the things that our gov't has done to subjugate the supreme law of our land, but I won’t be a party to stomping on it myself. I honor everyone’s rights, and I’m fully aware that my rights cannot limit yours.

We constantly say that we should be trusted because we have passed a background check and we have shown a propensity to be lawful. Then we post on this and other websites that we ignore certain laws and other people’s property rights. Sad state of affairs and if I were an anti, I would be pointing this out at every debate.

I personally believe that the background check is unconstitutional, along with the permit and all of the other limits, but that’s a subject for another thread.

Sorry, as any who have seen my posts know, brevity is not my strong point. I have problems with getting what’s in the brain-housing group down on paper.

:thumbup3:
 

WhiteyMacD

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
8,173
Reaction score
61
Location
Mustang
I meant simply that... a retail shop is welcoming the public, that doesn't mean it becomes public property... the government doesn't own it.. the business owner does. I *absolutely* agree that they have 100% right to request (or demand) that nothing enter their property that they say shouldn't be there. It's also my right to not shop there.

So let me ask this question. I carry at the business I own. Someone refuses to shop there because I am a big bad gun carrying nut job. Sure that someone has the right not to shop my wares because I carry a gun,... but are they reasonable for doing so? And this isnt aimed at you, per se, but the whole boycotting someone's constitutionally protected rights is juvenile. And I dont mean having an opinion is juvenile, but thinking that you are making some great impact in 2A when it isnt even a matter of 2A, is just recockulous. If anything, its being a sniffling little kid who isnt getting their way. If we want to bring the founding fathers into the mix, Im pretty sure with the heavy references to private property throughout multiple amendments, it was much more of a concern than the right to form a well regulated militia. In fact, I would go as far to say, they intentionally did that so the tyranny of government and the whining masses couldnt start making decisions for the property owner. Which thats all boycotting is, a lame, immature attempt to blackmail a business owner into compliance.

As I said in my first response to this thread. You dont want to recognize my rights protected by the CotUS because you *think* you have a right that does not exist on my property,.. fine. Please move out of my doorway, I have customers trying to get in. ;)

Reminds me of a limerick:

There once was a woman who was quite begat
Who had 3 sons, Nat, Pat and Tat.
Though she found fun in the breeding
Hard was the feeding
When she discovered no tit for tat.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom