Do you feel that business should have the right to Opt-Out?

[Deerbnb]

their property, their choice. my property my choice.

[robin48]

their property, their choice. my property my choice.

Perfectly said.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[MacGyver]

Your 2nd Amendment rights are worthless without private property rights.

I don't make a habit of calling one right more important than others, but while you may not like it, the ability of that property owner to tell you that you can't bring your gun there is one of the foundational ideas that makes this experiment that we call America unique.

[Oh Shoot]

Your 2nd Amendment rights are worthless without private property rights.

I don't make a habit of calling one right more important than others, but while you may not like it, the ability of that property owner to tell you that you can't bring your gun there is one of the foundational ideas that makes this experiment that we call America unique.

A further nuance of this that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, though, is the immediate criminalization of carrying past a sign on private property by an otherwise legal gun bearer. I think only one other state has a prescribed penalty for the act. All the others simply have the possibility of trespass charge if one refuses to leave.

Seems to me TN could live with that also, and still preserve the basic right of the property owner to prohibit carry. None of the other states seem to have had any constitutional challenges with that policy.

- OS

[mikegideon]

A further nuance of this that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, though, is the immediate criminalization of carrying past a sign on private property by an otherwise legal gun bearer. I think only one other state has a prescribed penalty for the act. All the others simply have the possibility of trespass charge if one refuses to leave.

Seems to me TN could live with that also, and still preserve the basic right of the property owner to prohibit carry. None of the other states seem to have had any constitutional challenges with that policy.

- OS

Actually, is was in post 16. I agree.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

No they shouldnt have the right.

Its illegal to discriminate against someone because if the color of their skin, etc. It should also be illegal to discriminate against me & ask me to leave because I am exercising my 2nd amendment right to carry a weapon for self defense.

[DaveTN]

A further nuance of this that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, though, is the immediate criminalization of carrying past a sign on private property by an otherwise legal gun bearer.

Maybe I missed something. Are there options for something besides the $500 fine?

In all the HCP holders in Tennessee we have yet to find a single confirmable case of anyone being cited under this statute. Certainly if you make a decision to carry past signs, you are risking getting cited. But are you saying you think this would result in a revocation of your license and a criminal record?

[DaveTN]

It should also be illegal to discriminate against me & ask me to leave because I am exercising my 2nd amendment right to carry a weapon for self defense.

That’s not a right; it’s a crime in this state.

It’s wrong and I will not stop posting that until it changes.

[Oh Shoot]

Maybe I missed something. Are there options for something besides the $500 fine?

In all the HCP holders in Tennessee we have yet to find a single confirmable case of anyone being cited under this statute. Certainly if you make a decision to carry past signs, you are risking getting cited. But are you saying you think this would result in a revocation of your license and a criminal record?

39-17-1359 clearly states it is a Class B Misdemeanor. Do not all misdemeanors become a matter of record?

39-17-1352 clearly states that a violation of this statute will result in suspension or revocation of permit

Just because a law has not been enforced widely (or to our knowledge at all) does not mean it won't be. There are cycles of enforcement in every area of law, from vice to speeding, you name it.

- OS

[greenego]

No they shouldnt have the right.

Its illegal to discriminate against someone because if the color of their skin, etc. It should also be illegal to discriminate against me & ask me to leave because I am exercising my 2nd amendment right to carry a weapon for self defense.

You are correct it is illegal to discriminate against someone for race. These laws were passed to right passed wrongs. No such laws for telling someone they cannot bring something on to your property or how you are dressed. People can't bring a dog into most restaurants unless they are service dogs. "Shirt and shoes required". "No food or alcoholic beverages allowed". Just a few of the signs I have seen. There is even a restaurant in PA that will not serve children. You and I have a right to carry. A property/business owner has the right to say not here.

[Guest WyattEarp]

First, WyattErp, you've got it 180 degrees backwards, the places that should never be posted are Government locations, since the Constitution (both the state and federal) protect our right to keep and bear arms... It's those government office buildings, that I'm forced to go into the pay taxes and conduct other business that I can not opt out of... that I should not be disarmed.

No I dont have it backwards, I just know that's something that will never change, therefore conceded that it would never happen, so I didn't even try to argue it to begin with. Hopefully one day it will change though.

Second, private businesses are owned by private people (at least for right now, the way things are going that might not be the case in 10 years) those people have property rights protected by the same Constitution that protects our right to keep and bear arms. You have no right to dictate to them how to operate their private property anymore than they should dictate to you how you run your home.

Let's consider this, how many of those business owners actually OWN their property? Not lease nor rent, but OWN?

This is a situation that did not happen in Tennessee but in Missouri, and with a residence and not a business but bear with me. In 1995, my dad was driving my mother, and brother and I home from a fireworks display on 4th of July. We pulled into our neighborhood, and my dad saw someone lighting fireworks and aiming them at the duplex we lived in (we were renters at the time). As we came down the street, the kids shooting the fireworks at our house saw us and ran. My dad parked the car and chased one of them down, twisted his arm behind his back, and held him until the cops got there. Stupidly, my father was arrested for assaulting a minor because the kid was my age, 15, and his parents pressed charges (my dad got a diversion since he'd never been in trouble with the law before). Now here's where I get to my point, my dad tried to press charges for the kids shooting fireworks at our residence and trying to burn it down. The law wouldn't allow him to do that because he was not the OWNER of the property, he was a renter. The owners of the duplex opted not to press charges, which basically undermined my father and pissed him off so we bought a house a year and a half later.

I know that's Missouri and this is Tennessee and things are different between the states, but I'm just wondering if somehow that same scenario could possibly apply here, if a business owner RENTS or LEASES the property of which they run their business, and does not OWN it, would that person actually have the legal right to say a customer can't carry in their store or business, or would it actually fall upon the person who OWNS the property to make that determination? What does the law say about what rights that a Business Owner who "rents" or "leases" has?

Also is not a business considered to be "public"? If you are in business and you open your doors to the general public, is it then no longer private property?

A gunbuster sign on the door makes a business invisible to me. And I believe in their right to be invisible.

When I first came to this forum, I entered a thread where someone was complaining about not being able to carry in a guitar shop and at the time I didn't really understand what the big deal was

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/54066-guitar-center-posted.html

now that I've been here a bit, and read many threads, my viewpoint has changed drastically, and I definitely concur with your statement.

I'm also the first to admit I'm very new to all of this, I don't know it all, nor do I think do, and I may be conceived as a bit naive or ignorant, which I readily admit is true, but that's why I'm here, so I can learn, learn to think and apply what I've learned.

Property rights trump your right to carry a gun onto that property. If I don't want your gun on my land I have the right to demand that of you.

In TN you have no right to carry a gun anywhere but on your property. An HCP IS a privilege not a right.

People who pay to have a HCP should be able to carry anywhere except for other people's property. Gov't buildings and land are owned by all of us and therefore no gun ban should be allowed.

I do believe the exception for having a gun on private property is the gun in your car thing. If you come to my house and I do not want you armed, there should be no law prohibiting you from leaving it in your vehicle. The vehicle is your property.

I will disagree that the HCP is a privilege, but that's my opinion. I've seen many statements on this forum that say we should be allowed to carry without having to get an HCP or pay a fee to exercise those rights (if i knew where they were I'd quote them and link them) that have been set forth in the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that our 2nd Amendment rights guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms in 2008, as well as handguns as noted in Supreme Court case D.C. vs. Heller where handgun bans have been challenged.

I wish that more people would understand that LEGAL handgun carriers are not the problem...

i quite candidly agree with you.

Call it rights all day long; you are just showing that you are either uninformed or the laws of the land mean nothing to you. “Just because†is not a very convincing argument.

You have a right to own arms. Where and when you can bear arms is controlled by the state; it’s called “States Rights†and we fought the bloodiest war or nation has ever been in over it almost 75 years after the Constitution was written.

I'll take uninformed for $500 Alex. That's why I posted this thread, because I can't see the other side of an argument until I hear the other side, and I'm a bit surprised to be honest that most of those who viewed this thread and voted, voted to support "Opt-Out", very interesting but I respect that.

Did not our Supreme Court rule just 2 years ago in the D.C vs. Heller handgun case that all Americans have the right to "keep and bear" firearms?

Only the Tennessee legislature can allow you the “Right†to carry. We hear all the time about how “most†states allow carry. That’s ridiculous and an argument made by those that are clueless about the world around them. Four states recognize carrying as a right. I believe that Tennessee should be one of them; but we are not. Until that happens carrying a loaded gun in the state of Tennessee is a crime and an HCP is a privilege for a special group of us that can afford it.

We absolutely do not have anything close to a Constitutional Right to carry in Tennessee and pretending that we do will only result in it taking longer to make it happen.

that's an interesting perspective and I appreciate your response Dave, and those with similar responses. This is all new to me, and I'm certainly glad that I decided to wait a while between the time I took my course and got my permit to the time I get my handgun.

I'm a bit nervous about all of this, I've never had a handgun before, and when I lived in Missouri, we didn't have that ability up until right around the time I moved in 2007, and they just started their HCP program, so I've never really been exposed to handguns or needing one, but an event that happened in July of 2008 when I was out with my girlfriend at the time and her 2 kids, has caused me to reconsider. Long story short, me, Cassie and the kids were driving to the movies, when a guy and his gf/wife in an SUV almost ran us off the road as they were coming into my lane. Apparently he didn't see us and when he finally did, it was somehow my fault. The guy started swerving his vehicle at us as if he was gonna sideswipe us, so I dropped into 3rd gear and punched it, and took off. Well this guy starts chasing us, so Cassie gets on the phone with the police, and we got off at the Moore's Lane exit on 65, unfortunately we got stuck at a red light cars in front of us and beside us, this maniac comes flying up the ramp behind us, onto the shoulder, parks, gets out of his vehicle and starts beating on my window and spitting on it, yelling and cussing at me, trying to get me to get out of the car, which I didn't. We left when the light changed and he continue following us, finally the police intervened when we hit the Shell Gas Station. He ended up getting a road rage ticket and something else, we had to go to court, and he had to go to anger management, and was on probation for a year or something if I recall. The kids were terrified and both were crying, Cassie was scared out of her mind, and it was the first time I think I was truly scared for my life at the hands of someone else, even though I couldn't see where he was armed (and maybe he wasn't) but I didn't know if he had a gun or a knife, and I wasn't about to step out of the car to find out either.

Anyhow, I would consider the idea of getting my permit and gun, and then I'd discard it, then I'd reconsider it, and discard it. Finally, after talking with a friend last summer who has his HCP and carries daily, I decided to get mine. I factored in the thing that happened 3 years ago, and all the stories you see on the news of people getting carjacked, robbed, raped, murdered, for just a few bucks or their car, and that someday I'll have a family of my own to protect and provide for, and my father raised me to respect guns, showed me how to operate them, use them safely, and to not be fearful of them, and I want my children to grow up being knowledgeable about guns, and to respect them, and to not be afraid of them or other people who have them and carry them.

Nonsense. If you are talking about lost sales by banning those that are carrying, I think you have a very inflated idea of what’s going on. Of course there is no way of knowing that.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. If a customer goes to store to buy something, it's posted he can't carry, so he doesn't go in, and doesn't spend his money, then the store didn't make a sale, and the state didn't make the revenue off the sales tax. Instead customer goes on ebay, finds said item, store and state both just lost out and the customer supported another business in another state. Or perhaps he drives down to Alabama to get the item there, or Kentucky, or Georgia, or Arkansas, then the business and the state of TN both lost money.

Cops go where they are called and that will never change. I can assure you that you don’t want a dispatcher that is not there making decisions about whether or not someone with a gun is a threat. As I said before it’s a crime to carry a gun in the state of Tennessee and until those changes (and even after, if it does) people will call the Police when they see guns carried openly. I have been sent to calls of a suspicious person and arrested residential burglars on calls where the person was doing nothing more than walking down the street, but looked suspicious to someone.

Anyone openly carrying a gun has to know that they may be stopped.

I don’t think any of that is right. If you unload a weapon and make it legal for transportation (as in someone that didn’t buy a HCP); I think you can transport it anywhere. The state is making a killing off gas taxes; they don’t care if it costs you more money.

isn't it said that firearms are prohibited on the premises of city parks or any place that's posted, meaning they can't be in your vehicle or on your person? From what I've read you can't have them in your car either, but maybe I'm wrong? Just asking for clarification, and if I'm wrong, is there something in the TCA that states that? and if so could you link it?

what is it about our society that has become so fearful of someone carrying a gun? If a person is just browsing a store, has a gun on his hip in the holster, why do people automatically assume he's about to start wasting people and then panic as they did in Broomhead's case?

People have to have watched the news, and know that residents who have an HCP, will be carrying right?

No it doesn’t. It gives you a legal presumption that you were in fear of death or great bodily harm. There is nothing that prevents the Prosecutor from charging you and tearing that presumption down.

You have the right to use deadly force when in your vehicle. Give us an example of when and how you think you would have a problem.

There are no free fire zones anywhere.

I was merely referencing Castle Doctrine as an example. Say you pull into Rivergate Mall where it's posted you can't carry into the mall, and you can't carry on the premises. My reference was such that if the law is inclusive of property, car, home,

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/1225-extended-castle-doctrine-law.html

"Extends circumstances under which there is a legal presumption that a person using deadly force in self defense had a reasonable belief of death and confers civil immunity upon person properly using self defense. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6."

Allows no retreat and assumption of fear of threat to life in any building or vehicle either yours or you are lawfully in as an invited guest...Car, house, shed, vehicle (of any type(Scooter hijacking?)), even a tent (Law specifically includes tents.)

"SECTION 4. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it."

then how is it possible for a property to post up you can't have firearms on the entire premises? (to my understanding and from what I've read it means you can't have them on your person or in your vehicle). Is the property owner going to defend you when you are held at gunpoint on their property? Are they legally liable if something happens to you and you weren't able to defend yourself? Notice, they always post signs that say "they aren't responsible for damage to vehicles or theft". Seems a bit "contradicting" and it seems like they want to assume no liability for anything, but they are putting themselves at risk to be sued for liability in a wrongful death lawsuit, when a HCP holder gets shot and killed on their property, and then the family sues the mall because they disallowed HCP holders from carrying, and the guy was unable to defend himself.

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one, Wyatt. Anything that begins with taking away the right of an individual person (in this case property owner) and gives more rights to a group (even if it is a group I belong to) makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Nice conversation starter, though. This should be an interesting thread.

it's all good, not everyone will agree, nor do I expect them to. I actually thought I might get this response, but wasn't sure, but I posted it so I could see the other side of the argument that I'm not seeing, and learn something.

I'll be the first one to say when I first started considering to get my permit and a handgun and I joined this forum, I thought the "not doing business in a Posted store was absolutely stupid". Now that I've been here a while, read things, learned, listened to other people's viewpoints and considered them, and put it all together, my viewpoint has changed, and I won't be doing business with stores that are posted.

Just wanted to also emphasize to you how totally wrong this statement is -- and a jury won't really be comprised of your "peers".

- OS

would you care to explain why, for my education of course? if you're in fear for your safety, is not the use of the deadly force authorized to defend yourself, your home, property and vehicle should you be occupying them?

[Oh Shoot]

....The Supreme Court has ruled that our 2nd Amendment rights guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms in 2008, as well as handguns as noted in Supreme Court case D.C. vs. Heller where handgun bans have been challenged.

Bzzzt. Nope. They did not rule on "bear" at all. They left that to the states via their silence on the matter.

...would you care to explain why, for my education of course? if you're in fear for your safety, is not the use of the deadly force authorized to defend yourself, your home, property and vehicle should you be occupying them?

You didn't say that. You said:

Tennessee Castle Doctrine allows for the use of deadly force to protect your home, property and your vehicle...

If the perp is not INside your home, you are going to need extraordinary burden of proof that you were in fear of death or severe injury. Maybe if someone is trying to burn your house down down or shooting into it or similar magnitude. But not for stealing or defacing your property, including car, boat, or dog. Unless perhaps you confront them (with non-deadly force) and they in turn threaten deadly force.

I trust you see that your blanket statement of using deadly force could land you behind bars quite handily. This ain't Texas.

- OS

Edited July 24, 2011 by OhShoot

[Guest WyattEarp]

You are correct it is illegal to discriminate against someone for race.

It is only discrimination and it's only illegal when it is used to deny someone housing, employment, or public service (medical care, police, fire) based on your race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability is illegal by federal law.

if it's in a personal sense (meaning a white guy calls a black guy a derogatory racial slur at a night club or at the gym or on the street), or whereas private membership is denied (like with admittance to a private club or private school), then it is not discrimination and it is not illegal. But that's not to say you won't get your ass kicked by the person you direct it at.

[strickj]

Saying "they should not have the right to ban weapons on their property" is the same as saying "they should not have the right to carry weapons".

They are both removing a right to gain peace of mind.

No they shouldnt have the right.

Its illegal to discriminate against someone because if the color of their skin, etc. It should also be illegal to discriminate against me & ask me to leave because I am exercising my 2nd amendment right to carry a weapon for self defense.

As someone with a disability, let me say that comparing a gun to what someone is, is highly offensive. A gun is an object. An object that can be taken off. A disability, a race, a sex, etc. is not. They can not be taken off.

why don't you compare a no parking sign with who I am next

[DaveTN]

if you're in fear for your safety, is not the use of the deadly force authorized to defend yourself, your home, property and vehicle should you be occupying them?

No one cares what you are in fear of. But if a “reasonable person†(that means the cops, the DA, and then a Judge or jury…. In that order) would believe you were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm, and it was possible for the person threatening you to carry out that threat; you would be justified in this state and all others (as far as I know) in using deadly force to protect yourself.

In short that means they will decide, not if you were scared, or justified, but if they would be scared in that same situation and if your response was proper. Everyone involved from the cops responding to the scene to the jury will have hours or even days to decided what you decided in a seconds. People pull guns and use deadly force all the time when they are not in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm; and they go to prison for it.

We just saw that in the case of Jerome Ersland. The jury sent this man to prison for life because he acted after the threat was over. Even though two thugs pulled guns on him and threatened his employees with death; a jury was willing to overlook that and rule that he should have stood down. We can only hope now the Governor or the president will step in with a pardon.

[Mike.357]

I will disagree that the HCP is a privilege, but that's my opinion. I've seen many statements on this forum that say we should be allowed to carry without having to get an HCP or pay a fee to exercise those rights (if i knew where they were I'd quote them and link them) that have been set forth in the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that our 2nd Amendment rights guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms in 2008, as well as handguns as noted in Supreme Court case D.C. vs. Heller where handgun bans have been challenged.

if carrying a gun was a right you would not have to pay for it. I agree that it should be a right but as things are now it's not.

The SCOTUS ruled on ownership, not possessing it while out and about town.

[DaveTN]

if it's in a personal sense (meaning a white guy calls a black guy a derogatory racial slur at a night club or at the gym or on the street), or whereas private membership is denied (like with admittance to a private club or private school), then it is not discrimination and it is not illegal. But that's not to say you won't get your ass kicked by the person you direct it at.

Using a racial slur is a crime in many states. Some white bum got arrested in Colorado for it because he called a black kid a racial slur. I don’t know if Tennessee has laws against it or not; I would assume they do.

[robin48]

If the business owner doesn't have the right to opt out then should a property owner not be allowed to post his land no hunting or no trespassing? You can't take away a mans authority to govern his own land. Although that's soon coming.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[Guest WyattEarp]

Bzzzt. Nope. They did not rule on "bear" at all. They left that to the states via their silence on the matter.

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

Page 7 about halfway down,

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “mili- tia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the peo- ple”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

sounds like they did to me. but that's a long read, and it would take a while to read it all (even longer to fully understand it to it's completion, of which I probably never would fully understand it in it's entirety), so I digress upon this point so as not to steer the original intent of my thread in the wrong direction.

You didn't say that.

If the perp is not INside your home, you are going to need extraordinary burden of proof that you were in fear of death or severe injury. Maybe if someone is trying to burn your house down down or shooting into it or similar magnitude. But not for stealing or defacing your property, including car, boat, or dog. Unless perhaps you confront them (with non-deadly force) and they in turn threaten deadly force.

I trust you see that your blanket statement of using deadly force could land you behind bars quite handily. This ain't Texas.

- OS

whoops, left out that key word.

Edited July 24, 2011 by WyattEarp

[Oh Shoot]

....

sounds like they did to me. ...

Yeah, that's why you can now carry in DC and Chicago, right? Hell, hardly anyone can even get a legal handgun in DC still, and nobody has in Chicago.

I don't know what series of actions DC would have to take to allow carry, but for sure if ever Illinois gets carry, it will be for the state legislature to decide, and I won't be surprised if they don't exempt Chicago even then.

- OS

[Guest WyattEarp]

Using a racial slur is a crime in many states. Some white bum got arrested in Colorado for it because he called a black kid a racial slur. I don’t know if Tennessee has laws against it or not; I would assume they do.

Colo. man’s conviction over racist comments raises speech concerns | First Amendment Center

interesting case, but there's more to it than just use of a racial slur, the victim was left with broken bones, and the person who was convicted was an accessory indirectly even though he didn't take part in the physical part of it. It will be interesting to see if that is appealed and if the conviction is overturned, because honestly from what I read, it appears to be Free Speech, which is a First Amendment right, but perhaps the prosecutor is inferring he incited the following violence upon the individual, and that's how we was able to get a conviction.

Tennessee has a similar law called a Civil Rights Intimidation Statute

http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=f855327e4a17a21510ff15a229be9555&csvc=toc2doc&cform=tocslim&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzB-zSkAA&_md5=3e763aa5c506a2dc92b4e47513f8a460

39-17-309. Civil rights intimidation.

(a) The general assembly finds and declares that it is the right of every person regardless of race, color, ancestry, religion or national origin, to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation, harassment and bodily injury caused by the activities of groups and individuals. It is not the intent of this section to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the constitution of the United States. The general assembly recognizes the constitutional right of every citizen to harbor and express beliefs on any subject whatsoever and to associate with others who share similar beliefs. The general assembly further finds that the advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups for the purpose of inciting and provoking damage to property and bodily injury or death to persons is not constitutionally protected, poses a threat to public order and safety, and should be subject to criminal sanctions.

( A person commits the offense of intimidating others from exercising civil rights who:

(1) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

(2) Injures or threatens to injure or coerces another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee;

(3) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee; or

(4) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person with the intent to unlawfully intimidate another because that other exercised any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.

© It is an offense for a person to wear a mask or disguise with the intent to violate subsection (.

(d) A violation of subsection ( is a Class D felony. A violation of subsection © is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) The penalties provided in this section for intimidating others from exercising civil rights do not preclude victims from seeking any other remedies, criminal or civil, otherwise available under law.

simply calling a person a name that is derogatorily based on their race is not a crime, but if you escalate it to the point where the person fears an attack or otherwise feels intimidated, things could get really messy in a hurry.

Edited July 24, 2011 by WyattEarp

[MacGyver]

This is a great conversation to have, and poses a question people really need to think about.

Without private property rights, you have nothing really.

Threads like this remind me that America is still a grand experiment, and that we shouldn't take it for granted. We can still screw it up.

[Guest WyattEarp]

Yeah, that's why you can now carry in DC and Chicago, right? Hell, hardly anyone can even get a legal handgun in DC still, and nobody has in Chicago.

I don't know what series of actions DC would have to take to allow carry, but for sure if ever Illinois gets carry, it will be for the state legislature to decide, and I won't be surprised if they don't exempt Chicago even then.

- OS

it will be years before D.C. or Chicago ever allow it, if they do. Chicago has already proven it's not going down without a fight, because it's already scoffed it's nose at the Supreme Court with the whole, you have to have 1 hour of training, but then turned around and said the firing ranges couldn't operate in city limits, even though that was overturned as well, they're determined to draw it out as long as they can, until they're forced to face the issue.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/2nd-amendment-issues/60054-chicago-still-disrespects-second-amendment-but-loses-case.html

[Guest WyattEarp]

This is a great conversation to have, and poses a question people really need to think about.

Without private property rights, you have nothing really.

Threads like this remind me that America is still a grand experiment, and that we shouldn't take it for granted. We can still screw it up.

but is a business really "private property"? If it's opened up to the general public, is it in fact "private"? and what does the law say if anything in regards to this?

If a person says I don't want you to bring your gun into my house, then I believe that is acceptable, because that's their home.

but I differ in terms of businesses, because they are open to the "public", and they are out in the community, and are "for the use and good of the community and to serve the needs of the community". to me there is nothing "private" about that.

I like thought provoking conversation, for my benefit as well as others, and sometime I think a lot of things in this country get clouded with too much technical language and jargon that people don't really understand (when it comes to legal precedents and the Constitution) that make things really confusing for the average person.

Not only are we an experiment, but we're evolving as a nation, as a people, and so do our viewpoints and our stances on things.

[RobertNashville]

"Businesses" are not "persons" and never will be no matter how much some want to argue that they are...as such, a "business" does not have any "rights"; "private property" or otherwise...they exist at all only because the state allows them to (generally only because the state gives them formal permission to exist) and the state does so only because it's in the best interest of society.

A person has rights simply because he/she is a person; businesses only have rights granted to them by the state.

Whether or not businesses should or should not be allowed to "opt out" should not be based on the non-existent "rights" of the business but rather, based on what is in the public interest.

Most people who have bothered to educate themselves on the facts knows that law-abiding citizens going armed is in the best interest of the public and that benefit far outweighs any minor inconvenience that may be caused to a "business" by the state declaring that they cannot ban firearms within the business.

Edited July 24, 2011 by RobertNashville