prohibited locations ?

[hkgonra]

The supposed reason for most of those other requirements to have a business is safety. So it is generally recognized that even in a private business the owner has to do certain things for safety.

Does anyone here actually believe you are safer having to leave your gun in the car , or in the case of certain employers having to leave it at home because you can't have the gun in their parking lot ?

[Guest Skeeter]

No, not really, I don't have to have a beer license , liquor license, have my kitchen inspected regularly by the health department, have handicap parking or handicap restroom, marked fire exit's. I could go on but I think maybe you are starting to see where I am coming from. If it is your business and by god you dictate what happens in there then you wouldn't have to comply with all those things to stay in business.

.

Gosh,

Sounds Like Your asking for more help and guidance from the Locale, State and federal Governments to help level the playing Field of the goings on in Your Private Home.

.

[DaveTN]

The supposed reason for most of those other requirements to have a business is safety. So it is generally recognized that even in a private business the owner has to do certain things for safety.

Does anyone here actually believe you are safer having to leave your gun in the car , or in the case of certain employers having to leave it at home because you can't have the gun in their parking lot ?

The owners make the argument that their employees are safer without guns on the property. It’s a valid argument the state has made it for the streets.

If all citizens could have a gun in their car to and from work; you would have a valid complaint. But they can’t; it’s a crime in this state. Therefore the state shouldn’t be able to cram this down the throat of business owners for something they won’t recognize as a right. That would be the actions of a thug government.

[hkgonra]

I guess I am terrible at making my point.

I believe a private business should be just that. I believe as an owner if I want to do something at my business that either discriminates against or makes my employees or patrons less safe then it is my business and they can choose not to be there.

The problem I see is that the only time that really applies is when it comes to firearms.

Edited January 29, 2012 by hkgonra

[midtennchip]

I guess I am terrible at making my point.

I believe a private business should be just that. I believe as an owner if I want to do something at my business that either discriminates against or makes my employees or patrons less safe then it is my business and they can choose not to be there.

The problem I see is that the only time that really applies is when it comes to firearms.

I guess I don't really understand what you are getting at. Business owners prohibit a lot of things. If you look, there are "no solicitation" signs on many businesses. That's a First Amendment prohibition. If you walked in and started preaching, I suspect many businesses would escort you out the door. So, I don't see this as a "guns only" issue.

[Guest Miracle]

If your argument is valid, then how can the government, who grants us the ability to legally carry in the first place, tell us where We can and can't carry? Places such as schools, post offices, federally owned property... etc.

[hkgonra]

I guess I don't really understand what you are getting at. Business owners prohibit a lot of things. If you look, there are "no solicitation" signs on many businesses. That's a First Amendment prohibition. If you walked in and started preaching, I suspect many businesses would escort you out the door. So, I don't see this as a "guns only" issue.

You are right I guess it isn't guns only but it still makes no sense to me.

See if any of the statements below work as a business owner.

No hijabs allowed.

No crutches allowed.

All employees must remain topless while on the property.

Speak English or leave.

Speak Spanish or leave.

Police officers must disarm and remove vests before entering.

If a business owner has the right to tell me I can't carry my gun then they should also have to the right to do all those other things.

[Guest Miracle]

Do you have a right as a homeowner to tell someone they couldn't carry a gun in your house?

[hkgonra]

Do you have a right as a homeowner to tell someone they couldn't carry a gun in your house?

I do, I also have the right to do all those other things I listed in my house but a business owner does not.

[Guest Miracle]

Stop running around in circles. A business owner can do what they please with their business, just as you can do as you please in your home. A business owner can refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Miracle

[Guest Skeeter]

I do, I also have the right to do all those other things I listed in my house but a business owner does not.

.

Sure I can " Toss Your Behind Out " lock the door, turn the Closed Sign Over and when your tail lights leave my Parking Lot Whoop Back in Business.

.

[strickj]

No, not really, I don't have to have a beer license , liquor license, have my kitchen inspected regularly by the health department, have handicap parking or handicap restroom, marked fire exit's. I could go on but I think maybe you are starting to see where I am coming from. If it is your business and by god you dictate what happens in there then you wouldn't have to comply with all those things to stay in business.

Despite what you think you know, all business owners do not have to do any of those things, either.

But what right does the government have to tell me I have to have a rail on my stairs at work ?

The same right they have to tell you, you have to have a rail on your stairs at home.

I guess I am terrible at making my point.

I believe a private business should be just that. I believe as an owner if I want to do something at my business that either discriminates against or makes my employees or patrons less safe then it is my business and they can choose not to be there.

The problem I see is that the only time that really applies is when it comes to firearms.

You are not being discriminated against. Carrying a gun is a choice.

A person's color, religion, disability or ethnicity is not a choice.

See the difference?

[midtennchip]

You are right I guess it isn't guns only but it still makes no sense to me.

See if any of the statements below work as a business owner.

No hijabs allowed.

No crutches allowed.

All employees must remain topless while on the property.

Speak English or leave.

Speak Spanish or leave.

Police officers must disarm and remove vests before entering.

If a business owner has the right to tell me I can't carry my gun then they should also have to the right to do all those other things.

First, you need a business license to even conduct most businesses. However, the issue you appear to be most concerned about has little to do with firearms. The issue is the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. I believe (as I suspect most on this forum do) that the federal government has far surpassed what the Commerce Clause was intended to do, but the SCOTUS has interpreted the Commerce Clause to allow the federal government to have some regulatory power over anything that affects interstate commerce. But more to the point, the issues you are pointing out (more times than not) are controlled by state or local law. States and municipalities don't rely on the Commerce Clause for their power over businesses. It really just goes to the business license issue.

Fundamentally, a business is not a purely private endeavor. By definition, it requires the participation of people other than the owner. Accordingly, there are certain aspects of a business that can (and should) be controlled by state and local government. If a business should be able to do ANYTHING it's owner wants (as I understand you to say), then all the consumer protection laws, usury laws, taxes, licenses (e.g., doctors, lawyers, truck drivers, etc), and any other regulation required to run a business would have to disappear. If you believe that, okay, but I doubt you'll ever see that in any governmental environment ever again.

[hkgonra]

Thanks Chip for not just completely dismissing where I was going from.

Can a private business prevent any car with an airbag from entering their parking lot ?

I am pretty sure that they would be toast in civil court if not criminal court as well.

Then why do we all just lay down and accept it with firearms ?

The reason it bothers me more is that I can't even find any mention of an airbag in the Constitution but I can find what is supposed to be a right to bear arms specified and I can also see a clear intent from our founders that it was not just something you could do but something that it was your duty to do as a citizen.

[midtennchip]

Thanks Chip for not just completely dismissing where I was going from.

Can a private business prevent any car with an airbag from entering their parking lot ?

I am pretty sure that they would be toast in civil court if not criminal court as well.

Then why do we all just lay down and accept it with firearms ?

The reason it bothers me more is that I can't even find any mention of an airbag in the Constitution but I can find what is supposed to be a right to bear arms specified and I can also see a clear intent from our founders that it was not just something you could do but something that it was your duty to do as a citizen.

To answer your question, yes, I believe a private business could do that. It wouldn't be good for business (not too many of us drive such cars anymore), but it could. The risk (and I think it would be VERY minimal) is that someone could sue that business for "forcing" them to not have an airbag to come onto the business's property (although, I'm not sure how someone could "remove" an airbag -- unlike what happens with a gun).

I think your hangup on this (like many other people) is the Constitutional issue within the 2nd Amendment. But, there is also a Constitutional issue for the business owner (the property issue) to be able to prohibit the carrying of a gun within that property. I understand the problem, but you basically have two (2) competing Constitutional rights. Which one gets the nod? Personally, I don't think the government should make that decision (whether for me or against me).

The real issue is simply this. The state and/or local government could pass a law saying that a business within its jurisdiction could not prevent legal firearms carry, just as such a government could pass an "English only" law (or vice versa), a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, or any other law. At the state or local government level, this would be only a matter of political will, not a Constitutional issue. In regulating businesses, local and state governments have wide latitude.