View Poll Results: Which right holds sway?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2nd Amendment

    17 21.52%
  • Property Rights

    62 78.48%
Page 22 of 54 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #211
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertzz View Post
    You did not yet address my point that I am NOT infringing on your right to bear arms because I am not forcing you to do business with me.
    For example:
    20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.

    South Dakota Code 20-13-23
    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.

    I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' to these classes because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.

    I don't carry for preference, I've actually had to use my gun. No bushiness can demonstrate a streak of lawful CCW carriers committing crimes, that the business would need to ban otherwise lawfull carry.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-09-12 at 02:23 AM.

  2. #212
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    For example:


    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.

    I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' to these classes because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.

    I don't carry for preference, I've actually had to use my gun. No bushiness can demonstrate a streak of lawful CCW carriers committing crimes, that the business would need to ban otherwise lawfull carry.
    Again if your example has any weight you would not need a special law to get what you want. So your argument is invalid. It is obvious that you care nothing about Private property landowner rights. And even if you to wiggle more parking lot laws in more states, it will be a hard sell to go any further than that since if one reads those laws you guys didnt really win much and nowhere close to what the NRA wanted. Legally your movement is weak and will fizzle out as soon as no other states follow the other states lead.

  3. #213
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Again if your example has any weight you would not need a special law to get what you want.
    I look forward to your link proving that.

    Come to think of it, have you offered any source material at all?

    I invite you to share your argument over in the Sex and Sexuality forum, to tell gays that since their cause would require a special law to get what they want, that same-sex marriage is therefore invalid. Let's see how far you get with that one. I'm at least remaining civil and relatively patient. Don't expect the same treatment from pro-ssm.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-09-12 at 03:06 AM.

  4. #214
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,920

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I'll be more than happy to give your post a more detailed response later today, but for the time being I'd like to just put my finger directly on my objection. Hopefully this will help make myself clearer.

    Since the right to keep and carry is a specifically enumerated right, any gun ban must meet 'Strict Scrutiny' requirements.


    The first requirement of Strict Scrutiny is where my chief objection with 'land owner preference' is. The first requirement is that the law allowing the land owner to ban must serve a 'compelling interest', ie; something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

    Constantly repeating 'my property, my rules' is affirming that your ban is merely a preference. Preference fails the Strict Scrutiny test. The land owner must have a 'compelling interest' in order to ban employees from exorsizing a specifically enumerated constitutional right.

    Please see also:
    Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    If you were to apply that test to PUBLIC property ie goverment owned, then you would be absolutely correct. You are however applying that scutiny to PRIVATE property thats whole nother ball of wax. Thats a place I cant and wont go. Business is not public, employers are not public.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  5. #215
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,920

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    For example:


    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.

    I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' to these classes because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.

    I don't carry for preference, I've actually had to use my gun. No bushiness can demonstrate a streak of lawful CCW carriers committing crimes, that the business would need to ban otherwise lawfull carry.
    I have never agreed to protected classes based on my freedom of association, or not to associate. Have you ever seen a "We reserve the right to refuse service." sign. I have one in my office. I have always believed in the golden rule "Do unto others as you would do for yourself." Its bad business mojo to do otherwise. That said if I dont want to do business with someone for whatever reason, I aint.

    How do you balance the rights of a property owner and the rights of free citizens to exercise their god given rights to keep and bear arms? I think Tigger has a very good idea about how to go about it. I carry wherever I can but I dont carry where someone doesnt want me regardless of their reasons. I am polite and respect their wishes in expectation they recipicate. I may not like it but I do it. Karma thing mainly.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  6. #216
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,920

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    There wouldn't be a first, without the second.
    There wouldnt be a second without the first, the two rights are inextractably linked. One cannot exist without the other. Also linked is the concept of property rights.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  7. #217
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,920

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Let's see if I can come up with a means to make everyone either Happy or Unhappy, depending on how you look at it.......

    If you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, it should have to be indicated at the edge of your property. Whether that is the door to your building, the driveway, walkway, etc.... It should be required to be a large enough sign to ensure it is visible at all times. You should also be required to provide this information to the local and state police agencies and to maintain sufficient liability insurance in case I am assaulted and injured while unable to defend myself while on your property.

    If you are a commercial business and you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, you should be required to provide a couple things.....

    1. A means to legally secure my firearm while I am on your property doing business with you.
    2. Armed security to ensure my safety while on your property
    I might point out that if one has to have ARMED security on the property they may as well allow people to be armed on their property.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  8. #218
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,920

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Great answer
    Like I said before, you obviously don't care about liberty, since you have no problem with big government interventionism. You might as well switch your lean to Liberal, at least it would be intellectually honest.
    A little harsh but there is an element of truth. There is a chinese saying that may apply "Be carefull what you wish for, you may well get it."
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  9. #219
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    If you were to apply that test to PUBLIC property ie goverment owned, then you would be absolutely correct. You are however applying that scutiny to PRIVATE property thats whole nother ball of wax. Thats a place I cant and wont go. Business is nopublic, employers are not public.
    You are making claims without providing your source material. I am providing my source material. Even if I'm wrong, I'm still arguing better than anyone else on this thread, and that alone is enough to win in court.

    If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
    Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

    The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

    ~snip~

    Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.
    I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.

    ***
    If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, you will be cited by the city for braking Public Accommodation codes.

    For example:
    20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.

    South Dakota Code 20-13-23
    The typical customer has a need to carry, whereas the typical bushiness does not have a need to ban.

    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.

    I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' to these classes because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.

    I don't carry for preference, I've actually had to use my gun. No bushiness can demonstrate a streak of lawful CCW carriers committing crimes, that the business would need to ban otherwise lawfull carry.


    ***
    The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-09-12 at 06:23 AM.

  10. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    I have never agreed to protected classes based on my freedom of association, or not to associate. Have you ever seen a "We reserve the right to refuse service." sign. I have one in my office. I have always believed in the golden rule "Do unto others as you would do for yourself." Its bad business mojo to do otherwise. That said if I dont want to do business with someone for whatever reason, I aint.

    How do you balance the rights of a property owner and the rights of free citizens to exercise their god given rights to keep and bear arms? I think Tigger has a very good idea about how to go about it. I carry wherever I can but I dont carry where someone doesnt want me regardless of their reasons. I am polite and respect their wishes in expectation they recipicate. I may not like it but I do it. Karma thing mainly.
    Every right has limits.

    Try and refuse service to someone strictly because they're black, and see what happens.

    Even while fighting to protect my right to carry in public I have acknowledged various limitations on my right. such as only carrying concealed, making my CCW available for verification, and conforming to dress code. I can walk downtown with a loaded assault rifle slung, but that's while on publicly owned property, which is different from privately owned property subject to public accommodation. Private owners have more control over their land, but a total ban goes to far.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-09-12 at 06:34 AM.

Page 22 of 54 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •