San Anotonio 30.06 Establishments

[Younggun]

How is it not an infringement? The sign has "the power of law" meaning that the government backs the sign and has the ability to enforce it (with their armored personnel carriers, body armor and high powered rifles).

The law is to protect the rights of the business owner. If we did not have laws to protect people's rights, and if the gov didn't enforce those laws, how would we have any rights? Well, I guess the business owner could enforce it himself, but that might get crazy.

Does a no trespassing sign in your front yard violate my right to travel?

 

[duckknot]

The sign in question doesn't bar anyone from entry.

I'm a firm believer in

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

No reason is required to be given.

Bakers should never be forced to bake a cake for someone they don't want to.

Just because it's public accommodation doesn't mean the business owner loses his rights.

I agree with you, if a business owner asks me to leave, I leave....I may ask for an explanation but I am going to leave even if I don't get one! And as someone who spent a great deal of time in retail there were many cases of we aren't going to offer service to you because we said so! Businesses should have the right to refuse service but I don't think that having a government back sign should serve as a method of refusal! Plus...to kind of get back to the topic, if that company refuses me service because I support the 2nd amendment, they will never see another dime from me and every person I know will know why!

No one should be forced to provide a service they do not wish to provide.....yet bakers are required to bake cakes for homosexual weddings. If a bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a couple because they were gun carriers, I guarantee you there would be much less pressure from the general public to force the baker to bake the cake.

 

[Recoil45]

So you decide to alert them so they put up proper signage,,screwing me over?

Wow

That pretty much sums up what's being done. Its helping the anti gun business owner screw other gun owners.

 

[RCK1999]

As someone else suggested, the posting of these incorrect 30.06 signs is no accident or oversight. The large corporations that post them know full well they do not meet the 30.06 specifications. They post the inaccurate signs to placate the anti-gun movement, while giving CHL holders the opportunity to enter. Any 1st year law student can see this. No corporate lawyer would miss this oversight!

 

[Younggun]

I agree with you, if a business owner asks me to leave, I leave....I may ask for an explanation but I am going to leave even if I don't get one! And as someone who spent a great deal of time in retail there were many cases of we aren't going to offer service to you because we said so! Businesses should have the right to refuse service but I don't think that having a government back sign should serve as a method of refusal! Plus...to kind of get back to the topic, if that company refuses me service because I support the 2nd amendment, they will never see another dime from me and every person I know will know why!

What is the difference between a government backed sign and government backed verbal notice?

No one should be forced to provide a service they do not wish to provide.....yet bakers are required to bake cakes for homosexual weddings. If a bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a couple because they were gun carriers, I guarantee you there would be much less pressure from the general public to force the baker to bake the cake.

It almost sounds like you are justifying an infringement on one persons property rights by pointing out the infringement of another's property rights? Two wrongs don't protect any rights.


Maybe I misunderstood the last part.

 

[duckknot]

That pretty much sums up what's being done. Its helping the anti gun business owner screw other gun owners.

Why support an anti gun business owner?

 

[Younggun]

Just to be clear, I'm enjoying the mental exercise of this discussion and do not intend for any of my posts to come of as abrasive, short, rude, or anything else that sometimes get added during the electronic shuffle through the interwebz.

 

[duckknot]

What is the difference between a government backed sign and government backed verbal notice?






It almost sounds like you are justifying an infringement on one persons property rights by pointing out the infringement of another's property rights? Two wrongs don't protect any rights.


Maybe I misunderstood the last part.

A what? Either way this situation proves how reliant on the government this country has become, which is sad!

The last part was saying that a baker was forced to bake a cake for a gay couple because not doing so "violated their rights" somehow.....if the same situation occurred but the couple were gun owners, I guarantee that, at the very least, there would be much less pressure from the public to "uphold the rights of the gunowners" and I would not be surprised if it was determined that the baker was not violating their rights.

For the record....we have gotten way off track and I'm not entirely sure what we are debating now

 

[duckknot]

Just to be clear, I'm enjoying the mental exercise of this discussion and do not intend for any of my posts to come of as abrasive, short, rude, or anything else that sometimes get added during the electronic shuffle through the interwebz.

Same here! I enjoy a discussion, especially when not everyone agrees!

We can always settle this at hicksville if needed

 

[satx78247]

RCK1999,

Pardon me for gently pointing out that I said, "as amended". - Both enabling regulations of the Act & federal courts have since held that "public accommodations" may NOT discriminate against anyone that they choose NOT to serve for "any non-merit reason". = Pushed (and they would HAVE to be "pushed" to defend the 2nd Amendment, by an AG who believes in FREEDOM = Holder is obviously NOT that person..), I believe that the courts would hold that "denying service in public accommodations" including "bearing lawfully possessed arms" is a violation of Constitutional RIGHTS.

yours, satx

 

[Younggun]

A what? Either way this situation proves how reliant on the government this country has become, which is sad!

Verbal notice is backed just like the sign is. If you are asked to leave and you don't, it will be police who enforce the owners wishes. The other option if you refuse to leave is for the owner to use force to remove you. That would likely create some very hairy situations.

The last part was saying that a baker was forced to bake a cake for a gay couple because not doing so "violated their rights" somehow.....if the same situation occurred but the couple were gun owners, I guarantee that, at the very least, there would be much less pressure from the public to "uphold the rights of the gunowners" and I would not be surprised if it was determined that the baker was not violating their rights.

For the record....we have gotten way off track and I'm not entirely sure what we are debating now

Again, because the situation with the gay couple is wrong, we should not use it as justification for another wrong.

At this point the debate has become about whether or not a 30.06 sign violates 2A rights as postulated by yourself and I believe one other member.

 

[satx78247]

Younggun,

Is your front yard a public accommodation under the meaning of law?
(I suspect that it is NOT, any more than my yard is.)

yours, satx

 

[RCK1999]

RCK1999,

Pardon me for gently pointing out that I said, "as amended". - Both enabling regulations of the Act & federal courts have since held that "public accommodations" may NOT discriminate against anyone that they choose NOT to serve for "any non-merit reason". = Pushed (and they would HAVE to be "pushed" to defend the 2nd Amendment, by an AG who believes in FREEDOM = Holder is obviously NOT that person..), I believe that the courts would hold that "denying service in public accommodations" including "bearing lawfully possessed arms" is a violation of Constitutional RIGHTS.

yours, satx

Please post the legal reference detail!

Holder isn't the AG

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

Is your front yard a public accommodation under the meaning of law?
(I suspect that it is NOT, any more than my yard is.)

yours, satx

You are confusing laws with rights. We have many laws which infringe on our rights. At this point we are discussing rights, not laws. They are distinctly different.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Maybe in a perfect world you can always choose to not give business to anti-gun establishments, but sometimes it is just more convenient to pretend you never saw the sign and quickly grab what you need to grab and get the hell out of there. Just don't do anything stupid.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

But once they full integrate facial recognition in those businesses and are able to cross-reference with government data bases (DL and CHL photo)s that you are licensed to carry, you might have some problems. Either that or body scan technology.

 

[duckknot]

Verbal notice is backed just like the sign is. If you are asked to leave and you don't, it will be police who enforce the owners wishes. The other option if you refuse to leave is for the owner to use force to remove you. That would likely create some very hairy situations.




Again, because the situation with the gay couple is wrong, we should not use it as justification for another wrong.

At this point the debate has become about whether or not a 30.06 sign violates 2A rights as postulated by yourself and I believe one other member.

Well I would leave if I were asked to...that's how it should be, the police should never need to be involved! But we live in a world where people don't respect each other enough to leave when they aren't welcome and where people aren't smart enough to realize that just because you don't support someone's decision doesn't mean you shouldn't respect it! Many people escalate the situation unnecessarily which leads to the use of force which yes, is very bad and usually forces the involvement of law enforcement.

I wasn't trying to justify the decision....I was describing the fact that our rights as gun owners are not given the same value in this country as the right for Adam and Steve to get married. As I stated earlier the second amendment is under attack and it is up to us (we the people) to defend it. If my girlfriend and I decided to get married (Lord help us) and the baker we went to said I won't make your cake because you are a gun owner you can bet your ass I'm taking my sweet tooth and my money somewhere else. They have the right to refuse service because it is their business and I respect their decision (I may not support it, but I respect it) just like I expect them to respect my decision to go elsewhere...why does that change because someone is gay? The precedent has been set that if someone hurts your feelings (or stands up for what they believe in) then mommy government will take care of you and you can sue them because they were mean and they probably bullied you too! Personally...I don't get why you would try to force someone who obviously doesn't want to help you to help you...move on!

I firmly believe that a sign saying where you can and cannot carry a gun is, fundamentally, an infringement of my right to carry a gun. Now, I am not oblivious to the fact that business owners and property owners have their own rights and that they trump mine while I am on their property (just as my rights trump yours if you are on my property and yours trump mine if I'm on your property)but once again, if business owner asks me to leave because I am carrying (which he should never know anyways, but we'll pretend) then I will respect his decision and take myself and my money elsewhere willingly, my contention is with business owners who make that decision purely because they are caving to misguided public opinion and because they know that "I can just call the cops on you".

 

[Recoil45]

Why support an anti gun business owner?

Someone that puts up an incorrect sign is not necessarily anti gun.

I don't support businesses with valid 30.06 signs.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Civil Rights Act of 1964 = Unconstitutional

It was a fundamental step in government controlling you. Anyone who doesn't get that is a lost cause.

 

[duckknot]

Maybe in a perfect world you can always choose to not give business to anti-gun establishments, but sometimes it is just more convenient to pretend you never saw the sign and quickly grab what you need to grab and get the hell out of there. Just don't do anything stupid.

I'll inconvenience myself a little bit to support those who support the 2a...especially when I consider all the ways my life is convenienced on a daily basis!

But once they full integrate facial recognition in those businesses and are able to cross-reference with government data bases (DL and CHL photo)s that you are licensed to carry, you might have some problems. Either that or body scan technology.

All the more reason not to support them....

Someone that puts up an incorrect sign is not necessarily anti gun.

I don't support businesses with valid 30.06 signs.

They are either anti you carrying a gun or they are pretending to be to appease the anti gunners....neither of those is someone I want to support!