"Public Accommodation Properties" have no right to block a fundamental right

[Fallguy]

I recorded a video of Judge Napolitano on Fox News discussing the situation at Starbucks in Washington.

In it he mentions something that I have several times...that there is (or should be) a difference between properties that are open to the public and personal private property.

At one point he says that if a business opens theirs doors to the public than can not block a fundamental right of a person entering and in his opinion the carry of a firearm is a fundamental right.

Just something to think about and another reason I wish he was sitting on a federal court somewhere...

Edited March 5, 2010 by Fallguy

[brooksjr]

Just something to think about and another reason I wish he was sitting on a federal court somewhere...

+1

[Guest jackdm3]

Falldude, good find!

Sidenote: Is the old munitions factory still going in Milan? One my grandmother's whole family worked it in WWII.

[Guest redbarron06]

Would that also not include collages, bars, planes?

[Guest rockbottom12]

should unfortunately i dont see planes changing anytime soon or the other two for that matter

[Smith]

Evidently the University of Tennessee athletic department disagrees with him.

[Fallguy]

Evidently the University of Tennessee athletic department disagrees with him.

As do many places and even governments (like TN) but maybe it is a sign things could change.

If the SCOTUS Chicago case goes the way many think it will, the already expect many more challenges to current restrictions to determine which ones the court thinks are ok and the ones that aren't.

It might behoove the NRA to get Judge Napolitano to argue their cases for them,

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It would be a great message for a great man like Napolitano to

deliver to SCOTUS.

[DaveTN]

The state would have to recognize that carry is a right. The state of Tennessee does not, the 6th Circuit does not, and the SCOTUS does not.

[Smith]

The state would have to recognize that carry is a right. The state of Tennessee does not, the 6th Circuit does not, and the SCOTUS does not.

So your saying there's a chance!

[Fallguy]

The state would have to recognize that carry is a right. The state of Tennessee does not, the 6th Circuit does not, and the SCOTUS does not.

Looks like SCOTUS is going to say it is, just that it is subject to reasonable restrictions.

That is what will cause more cases, determining what restrictions are reasonable.

[DaveTN]

Looks like SCOTUS is going to say it is, just that it is subject to reasonable restrictions.

That is what will cause more cases, determining what restrictions are reasonable.

The SCOTUS isn’t going to make any ruling that will allow carry in Illinois. That is a state right and we already fought a war over that.

Of course I could be wrong; I never thought they would rule they way then did on Eminent Domain.

[Fallguy]

The SCOTUS isn’t going to make any ruling that will allow carry in Illinois. That is a state right and we already fought a war over that.

Of course I could be wrong; I never thought they would rule they way then did on Eminent Domain.

AFAIK Heller and the Chicago case are about ownership not carry, so neither ruling would allow carry. However it's possible future cases and rulings could.

[macville]

AFAIK Heller and the Chicago case are about ownership not carry, so neither ruling would allow carry. However it's possible future cases and rulings could.

But it's a VERY good start since the right to "bear" arms is connected by the word "and" to "keep"--which is what they said you have the right to.

I wonder if a case about bearing arms would include knocking down restrictions on certain firearms because removing restrictions on carry should remove other restrictions also.

Matthew

[JayC]

The SCOTUS isn’t going to make any ruling that will allow carry in Illinois. That is a state right and we already fought a war over that.

Of course I could be wrong; I never thought they would rule they way then did on Eminent Domain.

I disagree... First, SCOTUS has already ruled in another case that 'bear' means to carry on one's person (not Heller but I don't remember the exact case, it was mentioned in the oral arguments of the Chicago case).

If SCOTUS rules that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right, and applies to the states then it would cover both keeping (ownership) and bearing (carrying). What would qualify as 'reasonable' regulation of either of these functions will probably have to be resolved after dozens more lawsuits.

It's unclear if TN's HCP being required to exercise a fundamental right will past muster or not... We won't know until after the Chicago ruling is handed down, and likely another few years until after somebody brings suit challenging some states anti-carry law. But there is hope that as a fundamental right open carry will be allowed in all states for law abiding citizens.

Now as for your argument that we fought a war over states rights, and the federal government can't force itself on states... That was a valid argument before ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Now, a lot of arguing could be done that the 14th Amendment was only passed because some states had a gun to their head, that the legislatures in many southern states were occupied by military troops forcing them to pass certain things... But the 14th amendment extents the bill of rights to the states and in theory the states agreed to it.

[Armed Aviator]

Guns allowed on my Airplane!

[Armed Aviator]

Oh, wait... required if you have an HCP

[DaveTN]

I disagree... First, SCOTUS has already ruled in another case that 'bear' means to carry on one's person (not Heller but I don't remember the exact case, it was mentioned in the oral arguments of the Chicago case).

If SCOTUS rules that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right, and applies to the states then it would cover both keeping (ownership) and bearing (carrying). What would qualify as 'reasonable' regulation of either of these functions will probably have to be resolved after dozens more lawsuits.

It's unclear if TN's HCP being required to exercise a fundamental right will past muster or not... We won't know until after the Chicago ruling is handed down, and likely another few years until after somebody brings suit challenging some states anti-carry law. But there is hope that as a fundamental right open carry will be allowed in all states for law abiding citizens.

Now as for your argument that we fought a war over states rights, and the federal government can't force itself on states... That was a valid argument before ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Now, a lot of arguing could be done that the 14th Amendment was only passed because some states had a gun to their head, that the legislatures in many southern states were occupied by military troops forcing them to pass certain things... But the 14th amendment extents the bill of rights to the states and in theory the states agreed to it.

The question in Illinois has nothing to do with carry, so I doubt the court will address it.

I’m simply saying that Illinois does not allow carry… period. I am sure that will still be the case after the McDonald ruling. Nothing is going to change as far as Illinois state law goes.

I am curious to see what is going to happen after this ruling. Daley is not use to being told how things are going to go in Chicago.

I just wish in Illinois we could keep the 2nd amendment arguments out of the carry permit arguments.

[DavidD]

Guns allowed on my Airplane!

Oh, wait... required if you have an HCP

Cool Terry. I'll trade you a plane ride for a sailboat ride where you can bring your gun too .

[wjh2657]

I too am in support of universal carry. However, I am afraid that many of the arguments that the COTUS actually says we can carry can fall apart too easily. Arguing that the founding fathers intended for handgun carry on the person falls apart under historical argument. The same founding fathers that drafted the COTUS (most of whom opposed the Bill of Rights)went back to their municipalities and supported laws that banned private carry of firearms and blades (knives/swords.) These are facts that will be used as precedence in the SCOTUS as far as CCW and OCC are concerned. Many of the founding fathers were not really all that much in favor of private carry of firearms.

Instead of bleating the Second Amendment of the COTUS every time the point comes up we need to work on changing local laws (State/City)and influencing local courts as this is where we can sustain our right to carry a handgun.

[Guest lci419]

The same founding fathers that drafted the COTUS...went back to their municipalities and supported laws that banned private carry of firearms and blades (knives/swords.) ....Many of the founding fathers were not really all that much in favor of private carry of firearms.

I'd be real curious to see the historical evidence on this, any sources you can cite? Being a fairly well informed student of American History, this is the first I've really heard of this. It could be I have missed something, and if so, I would like to educate myself.

Seems to me that while it's true that during our lifetimes thus far, the argument about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been challenged (i.e. militia/citizens, keep/bear, individual/collective, states/federal, etc.), there has always been something that has been overlooked. A very simple point really, that didn't need the Heller or McDonald to define it. That being, if the founding fathers didn't want the general populace (outside of a military context) to have weapons as asserted above, there would have been mass confiscations of them.

To my knowledge, that never happened; even on a minor scale in that era. If the founding fathers didn't like them, why were there so many in usage during the first 100 years of our nation? Firearms have ALWAYS been a part of the American experience. Had guns been banned for personal carry, how did names such as a Quaker born on the outskirts of Philadelphia by the name of Daniel Boone become an iconic name? His feats involving the usage of firearms are legendary.

If pistols are the issue, how in 1813 did two young lawyers by the name of Andrew Jackson and Thomas Hart Benton engage in a tavern brawl here in our own state of Tennessee, where pistols were discharged at one another? That doesn't even begin to address the numerous duels (with pistols) that these men engaged in during their lives.

If knives were banned, how in 1827 on a sandbar in Natchez, Mississippi did a young man by the name of Jim Bowie make an iconic name for himself? Swords outlawed? Consider the case of one John Brown and his sons who in 1856 along the Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas hacked the pro-slave Doyle family to death with broadswords. Reprehensible deed and impractical to carry a sword daily, but hardly criminal to possess.

These are just some of the high profile names and instances I can think of where weapons were used in our young republic. I am sure if one were so inclined, newspaper accounts dating back to prior to the Revolution are filled with advertisements, and stories of usage of weapons such as these. Did some town somewhere, at some time prior to the American Civil War ban such weapons? Possibly. I've never heard of it, but I suppose it could have happened. I am quite comfortable in saying though, that a vast majority of places did not have bans nor confiscation.

Therefore, I would ask again, can you direct me to some solid verifiable sources that back your assertion? I really would like to educate myself further on this.

Edited March 6, 2010 by lci419

[wjh2657]

I must apologize for generalizations in my previous post. Subsequent reading on my part shows that the Northern States did indeed have little or no restriction on CCW until the 1920s. Southern States did have restrictions on CCW starting in 1740 and on. However these laws only applied to Blacks and did not restrict whites from carrying guns. I have an obvious case of foot-in-mouth.

[Guest lci419]

I must apologize for generalizations in my previous post. Subsequent reading on my part shows that the Northern States did indeed have little or no restriction on CCW until the 1920s. Southern States did have restrictions on CCW starting in 1740 and on. However these laws only applied to Blacks and did not restrict whites from carrying guns. I have an obvious case of foot-in-mouth.

Thanks for the clarification. I really wasn't trying to be an a$$. I too had forgotten about the restrictions on slaves possessing firearms (though in some cases I am told that slaves were allowed to use them for hunting etc.). I am thinking that a clever lawyer could use the case you intended as a selling point for keeping AND bearing weapons. Seeing as how gun control was one of the prime means of "black" control, we wouldn't want to associate ourselves with that in this era.

[wjh2657]

No offense taken. I think what I am really trying to say is that our forefathers weren't really thinking of the common citizen as much we are lead to believe when they framed the Second Amendment. They worded it in such a way as to leave the powers to be still in control of who gets to have guns. I still think that we need to concentrate on State Laws to enable us to carry our guns. Even if the SCOTUS does state that the 2dA is incorporated via the 14thA, the battle still isn't won. the states will still find ways to make "reasonable" laws that will restrict CCW and yet comply with the 2dA. If they had worded it without the first part (the Militia clause) and had simply said that the citizenry had the right to be armed we would be closer to an iron tight right. As it is, they put in a CYA, like they do in all laws, and now we have to fight to maintain our RTKBA. I am not as stricken with the beauty of the Second Amendment as some of you are. I think that it is not explicit enough to protect our RTKBA. We have a lot of laws to enact before we are safe.

[Guest Eagle Eye]

You understand that in Chicago the issue is that you can't even own a handgun, right? CCW is not on the table.