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

[Guest WyattEarp]

here's an interesting statement that Judge Sykes utilizes (from a prior Supreme Court case) in Ezell vs. City of Chicago (she's referring to Chicago requiring gun owners to have to travel outside of the City to a firing range in order to get the necessary training to conform to the city's requirement for firearms training.)

Instant Analysis: Ezell v. City of Chicago (Chicago Gun Range Case)

With respect to individual harm, Judge Sykes analogizes the First and Second Amendments, to illustrate the point that allowing firing ranges outside the city is not sufficient.

In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that “ ‘one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’ ” Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76‐77 (1981) (quoting Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939)). The same principle applies here. It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free speech or religious‐liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.

very interesting, because I think one could apply that same statement to be able to carry in public, but not being able to carry in a business or government facility that is posted up that firearms are not allowed. certainly any competent lawyer could argue that same context to pertain to the Opt-Out clause? but then again maybe not, since the Tennessee HCP is not a U.S. Constitutional right, but a State Allowed Privilege.

[Oh Shoot]

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,...

Yes, but the issue is over simple ownership, not carry.

Even 10 states that allow carry to one degree or another, are "may issue" states. Which vary from "almost always" in Alabama, to "hardly ever" in California and "almost never" in Hawaii.

They were not affected by the Supremes' rulings, nor was next to last holdout Wisconsin, which just finally passed concealed carry on their own, but had nothing to do with any federal rulings or pressure.

- OS

[DaveTN]

very interesting, because I think one could apply that same statement to be able to carry in public, but not being able to carry in a business or government facility that is posted up that firearms are not allowed. certainly any competent lawyer could argue that same context to pertain to the Opt-Out clause? but then again maybe not, since the Tennessee HCP is not a U.S. Constitutional right, but a State Allowed Privilege.

The highest courts in the land have spoken….. All of them.

Let’s revisit this when Tennessee joins the ranks of the 4 (that’s right….4…..out of 50) other states that recognize carry as a right. Although you will still be beat down by the fact that you can’t trample all over the rights of businessmen; at least you will be able to get a dog in the fight.

[Guest WyattEarp]

The highest courts in the land have spoken….. All of them.

Let’s revisit this when Tennessee joins the ranks of the 4 (that’s right….4…..out of 50) other states that recognize carry as a right. Although you will still be beat down by the fact that you can’t trample all over the rights of businessmen; at least you will be able to get a dog in the fight.

haha, duly noted good sir.

[MacGyver]

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?

Maybe you can replace the word "business" with "private enterprise".

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'll speak to this as a small business owner. I'm not in business to "serve the community" or "for the public good". I'm in business to make money and better myself and my family. In an ideal world where the government keeps their hands off of me, then I need to serve a public need well or someone will come along, do it better and replace me. But, at the end of the day, I'm in business to make money.

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.

This is exactly the argument the administration used three years ago to nationalize a bunch of banks. That mindset that "we've evolved" cuts both ways. It's really dangerous. I'd spend some time really thinking about that.

[macville]

Here's the thing that bothers me when it comes to the posting law. The gun posting is the ONLY posting in the state of TN that is optional (no smoking is state mandated) but allows for criminal prosecution if you walk past the sign (no trespassing doesn't count because that doesn't mean it's open to the general public.) If someone posts a no shirt/no shoes sign, you are not breaking the law by walking in with no shirt or shoes. All they can do is ask you to leave, or otherwise you are trespassing-which is what you'd be charged with, not, not wearing a shirt. At best, I believe all a business should be able to do is ask you to leave if they see your firearm. Georgia has it much better where signs hold no force of law.

I view it this way for two reasons. First, because you opened your business to the public, you "lost" some rights already. Handicap access, certain amount of bathrooms (depending on your business), etc. I think people carrying firearms falls under the same category.

Second, I don't believe under the TN Constitution the state has the power to allow businesses to post legally binding signs that you can not walk past. The Constitution says that the state can only restrict the carry of firearms "with a view to prevent crime." Can anyone tell me a way that by allowing business owners to post, crime is being prevented? But that is also the same argument that I use to say that schools not allowing firearms is also unconstitutional.

The posting law is a huge issue for me because it means I have to scan every store I walk into every time I go in. I almost walked in to JoAnn's last week like I have dozens of times before without noticing the new gunbuster sign. If I had not noticed, I would have broken the law--even though I was there to peacefully shop with my wife.

If businesses don't like it, then they need to decide if they want to do business in TN. I say that we make our state strong for self-defense.

[bajabuc]

How many of the business are "incorporated?" Corporations have a diferent set of laws than individually owned business. I'm not going to the specifics because they're available to anyone. All I will say is my uncle got severely injured on a job. The jury agreed to a multimillion dollar award...but the business was sold to the board members wives just before the verdict. The award was nullified because the corporate idenity no longer existed.

[Guest bkelm18]

"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.

No one has spoken about rights of businesses. They have spoken about the right of business and property owners. They are still people too, right? Take away the rights of property owners, such as you desire, and we're no better off than we were 235 years ago. It is irrelevant what is in the interests of the public. Stripping of rights is a steep, slippery slope, and one I'm honestly shocked any reasonable gun owner would dare to attempt.

Edited July 25, 2011 by bkelm18

[JayC]

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.

These "laws" are just as unconstitutional as trying to force businesses to allow carry on their private property. We shouldn't use force to mess with private contracts between people, and the peoples right to freedom of association.

I know that won't be a popular thought process, but it's government meddling in private business that has caused a great deal of societies issues over the last 50-60 years.

* Fore the record, just because I don't think any level of Government has the right to dictate how or why you discriminate doesn't mean I condone the discrimination, only your right to be closed minded

[JayC]

OhShoot, sorry to disagree with you, but while the court didn't take up the issue of bearing arms, it's not for the reasons you've outlined. SCOTUS didn't leave the right to bear arms up to the states, the lawsuit before it specifically didn't raise the issue of whether or not laws banning the bearing of arms in DC were unconstitutional.

This was part of a plan of attack by the lead attorney on the case... That same attorney is currently working another case through the court system which should end up at SCOTUS sometime in the next 2 years which will address once and for all whether the right to bear arms is protected under the second amendment or not.

While I'm in agreement, SCOTUS should have gone farther in the Heller ruling, my hope is that over the course of the next 20 years we'll see more and more protections under the 2nd Amendment of our God given right to self defense.

Palmer v. District of Columbia - Calguns Wiki

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

- OS

[JayC]

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.

Not to condone such behavior, but clearing the use of racial slurs is protected speech as noted by last weeks SCOTUS ruling where somebody advocated the benefits of killing a certain presidential candidate, using very colorful language including racial slurs.

You might get arrested for it, but you'll have a pack of ACLU lawyers to defend you in short order. Either way there is a reason we have a first amendment to our Constitution and it's there to protect unwelcome speech such as racial slurs.

[Oh Shoot]

OhShoot, sorry to disagree with you, but while the court didn't take up the issue of bearing arms, it's not for the reasons you've outlined. SCOTUS didn't leave the right to bear arms up to the states, the lawsuit before it specifically didn't raise the issue of whether or not laws banning the bearing of arms in DC were unconstitutional....

Okay, I'll buy that.

My guess that had it been all or none own/bear, it would have lost. As will the next one. Why, because it would mean that the federal government couldn't ban firearm carry on federal property -- and the government will NOT put itself into an easier position to be overthrown by force, even though Jefferson assumed it would likely be necessary now and then.

- OS

[Glock30]

"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. I may not like the law when it is inconvenient for me, but I respect the law just the same.

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.

Would you recognize the right of management to ask a disruptive guest/customer to leave? Is No shirt, No shoes, No service unreasonable? What about the right to report stolen property? How about just the right to own property? Is a business required to hire a certain person or do they have the right to choose their employees?

All of these things fall under currently enacted federal and state law, including the right to restrict HCP holders from carrying on the property. It is not the person, it is the property of the person being asked to leave. I believe this is a key difference.

Corporations are legal entities with full rights to own and operate property and make policy. Accordingly, a business has a right to choose who comes on to its property as much as what comes on its property.

If you don't like the "opt-out" law, write your state representative and seek its repeal just like any other law you disagree with.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Glock30

[JayC]

We'll have to wait and see... My personal opinion is that we'll all be old and grey before it's settled law.

Although I disagree that laws prohibiting carry on federal property (most of which is also unconstitutional) somehow helps protect them from being overthrown.

My gut tells me anybody willing to take up arms against the tyranny of our Federal government would not much care about some silly law prevent the carry of firearms on said property as they're in the process of eliminating the traitors involved

But, I could be wrong that law might be the whole reason Revolution 3.0 doesn't get started

Okay, I'll buy that.

My guess that had it been all or none own/bear, it would have lost. As will the next one. Why, because it would mean that the federal government couldn't ban firearm carry on federal property -- and the government will NOT put itself into an easier position to be overthrown by force, even though Jefferson assumed it would likely be necessary now and then.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

We'll have to wait and see... My personal opinion is that we'll all be old and grey before it's settled law.

Although I disagree that laws prohibiting carry on federal property (most of which is also unconstitutional) somehow helps protect them from being overthrown.

My gut tells me anybody willing to take up arms against the tyranny of our Federal government would not much care about some silly law prevent the carry of firearms on said property as they're in the process of eliminating the traitors involved

But, I could be wrong that law might be the whole reason Revolution 3.0 doesn't get started

Imagine one of the 100,000 plus marches on DC, and everyone is armed with an AR or AK. Think the pols might be a bit nervous?

- OS

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

As usual you folks provide a very interesting read with this thread.

Personally I agree that property rights and allowing the prohibiting of weapons on a persons property is just as important a right to the property owner as our 2-A rights are to us.

I also feel that while the 2-A gives us the right to have a weapon that the state of TN provides us a means to obtain the privilege to carry it.

I have the right to have a weapon and the privilege to carry it but the property owner also has the right to not allow me in their business with my weapon.

Those business' wont get any of my money but it is their choice to make just as it is my choice to carry and shop elsewhere.

I do think the "not even in your car" stuff is a bit overboard but it is the law, hopefully we can get that part changed here in TN soon. Although that will not cause me to shop somewhere that my right of personal defense has been negated by the property owner's rights. I feel a change of that that law would be of a great benefit to those who have jobs with such not even "in your car" restrictions.

I also feel that because courthouses and such buildings are indeed the peoples property that those of us who have bought our privilege to carry should be allowed to do so in those places also. As has been stated, someone with ill intent will not be stopped by any signs anyway, the idea that there may be legally armed people in those buildings may would cause them to reconsider.

[Guest TackleberryTom]

I firmly believe that the property owners rights give them the choice to "opt out". I also believe that the "no firearms" on or in federal, state and local municipalities is totally wrong. How is it that we are deemed "responsible enough" to walk around in public carrying a firearm, with a HCP, but not responsible enough to posses one in one of the govt buildings? An awful lot of horrible things have happened in the recent past, in govt buildings, where someone with a firearm could have saved some lives. In fact govt buildings are actually pretty dangerous places to be.

Getting back to my orig point, I also do not agree that any govt should be able to dictate who that business hires, fires, chooses who to serve, chooses who not to serve or whether or not they can allow people to smoke in their buildings or a large number of other regulations. But, in the interest of SAFETY, we unwillingly give up freedoms. I don't like it. But, if the govt is going to force businesses to comply with all of these other regulations and BS then I guess they should prevent them from prohibiting HCP's from carrying....in the interest of SAFETY. That would make more sense than most of the crap the govt comes up with.

But, if they would just let the people and businesses exercise their rights, consumers who like to carry their firearms just won't go to the places that don't allow it. They won't get their money. If someone does not like eating at a smoking restaurant, then don't eat there. If the business starts to lose money then maybe they will change their policies. If they don't, maybe they will go out of business, maybe they won't, maybe they will greatly prosper for being the only place that allows firearms or smoking. Let the capitalist system work the way it should. I'll step down now. Tom

[JayC]

Imagine one of the 100,000 plus marches on DC, and everyone is armed with an AR or AK. Think the pols might be a bit nervous?

- OS

If 100,000 people take to the streets of Washington, DC with firearms in tow, it won't matter what the unconstitutional law of DC says, there is no way you round up and arrest 100,000 people for violating the law, let alone put them in jail, and provide trials for them all.

Frankly anything more than a thousand and the government will just sit back and watch powerless to do anything to stop it.

[RobertNashville]

No one has spoken about rights of businesses. They have spoken about the right of business and property owners. They are still people too, right? Take away the rights of property owners, such as you desire, and we're no better off than we were 235 years ago. It is irrelevant what is in the interests of the public. Stripping of rights is a steep, slippery slope, and one I'm honestly shocked any reasonable gun owner would dare to attempt.

We most certainly are talking about the rights of businesses...a business has no right to "own" anything, including property, except the that state allows them to do so.

[RobertNashville]

Would you recognize the right of management to ask a disruptive guest/customer to leave? Is No shirt, No shoes, No service unreasonable? What about the right to report stolen property? How about just the right to own property? Is a business required to hire a certain person or do they have the right to choose their employees?

All of these things fall under currently enacted federal and state law, including the right to restrict HCP holders from carrying on the property. It is not the person, it is the property of the person being asked to leave. I believe this is a key difference.

Corporations are legal entities with full rights to own and operate property and make policy. Accordingly, a business has a right to choose who comes on to its property as much as what comes on its property.

If you don't like the "opt-out" law, write your state representative and seek its repeal just like any other law you disagree with.

Yes; they are "legal entities"; granted the right to exist by the state but they certainly don't have "full rights" to anything. They are allowed to own property...they can do with that property what the state allows and they can't so what the state says they can't.

[daddyo]

It's probably already been said, but as much as I would like to be able to transport my weapon back and forth to work, if we start taking away the rights of companies to opt out, where does it stop?

My right to carry does not usurp someone else's right to ban firearms from their property if they so choose. Property rights were very high on the founding fathers' list.

[Jonnin]

Not powerless. If they were shooting people and trying to overthrow, the exact opposite of powerless would be seen. Powerless is only for stopping a large protest march without hurting anyone...The one thing that confuses me here is the car exception that was discussed. I dont see a difference between my car (my property on someone else's property) and my pants (my property on someone elses property) for storage of the firearm. ???. I agree 100% with the property rights comments found here. However, many places put up a sign "no recording devices" which are constantly violated, and the penalty for that is some rentaguard saying "put that away please". I expect the gunbuster sign to be treated exactly the same way as these other signs, which is to say, the most that comes of it is asking the person to leave the property by whoever is in charge of the property at that time. I do not accept that having the gun on the posted property is a crime (this makes an allowance for not seeing the small signs that are used, inconsistent posting of doors, etc.), the posting is a suggestion same as it seems to be for other things. If the person with a camera, cell phone, gun, loud kid, or whatever refuses to comply with the person who confronts them, then we have a crime... trespassing, disorderly conduct, and whatever else. If they draw the weapon, that is the first time the gun actually enters into it in my eyes -- at that point we have all sorts of laws being broken. I realize the above view is not reality and do not advocate wearing a gun to posted locastions nor do I do that. It is just how things should be, IMHO. Once again the forum refuses to allow any blank lines or formatting, a very odd error I am having. Sorry about that.

[Guest bkelm18]

Property rights were very high on the founding fathers' list.

The 3rd and 4th Amendments deal with property rights.

[Worriedman]

The 3rd and 4th Amendments deal with property rights.

bkelm18, I see in the 3rd and 4th Amendments, instances where the Federal Government CAN NOT do certain things, but I really don't get your assertion that they deal with private property Rights.

Third Amendment - Quartering Soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It has been described to me that private property rights are treated with in common law, and not in the Constitutions, either the one of the Union or State. Help me better understand your position please.

[Guest bkelm18]

bkelm18, I see in the 3rd and 4th Amendments, instances where the Federal Government CAN NOT do certain things, but I really don't get your assertion that they deal with private property Rights.

It has been described to me that private property rights are treated with in common law, and not in the Constitutions, either the one of the Union or State. Help me better understand your position please.

If you don't see how the 3rd and 4th relate to rights of your property and your ownership of that property, then I can't help ya. Perhaps "property" is too narrow. How about "that which belongs to you". In any case, I was simply making the statement to those who say property owners have no rights, when in fact they do under those amendments. I was not relating it directly to the current argument of prohibiting carry on private property.

Edited July 25, 2011 by bkelm18