Freepers who believe in property rights should support the right of businesses to ban guns on their premises.
Businesses can ban guns on their premises, but their ability should extend to simply asking the CCW to leave if they notice he came in armed anyway, rather than there being criminal penalties for ignoring any sign.
Much like movie theaters can post signs saying "no outside food may be brought in".
I agree. But the NFL is hardly a “private business”.
If it were, I wouldn’t be forced to pay for the VikeQueens stadium. Nevermind I’ll never be able to afford to go to a game there.
Since when? When do property rights trump the Constitution? Simply because you own property (which is ironic in this case because the stadium was built with public funds) does not give you cart blanche with regard to rules. Do you, as a property owner, have the right to detain someone against their will? Can a property owner forbid your religion? Or make you observe theirs?
Yes. But I support changing the law so that it recognizes that right.
I do not support the flaunting of a law by an arrogant monopolistic corporation which declares itself above the law.
That is an interesting debate. I have contemplated it and agree in 99% of instances. Within the confines of private property rights and associated "trespassing" violations regarding an establishment's right to deny service, I normally agree with you.
However, we have established there are limits on who a business can serve in cases where individual rights tend to trump business rights (whether right or wrong). A business is not allowed to refuse service or hospitality based on race or religion. That's discrimination. So can a business' property rights trump individual rights?
I'm not just talking about police here but all legal carry citizens. I also think there is a difference based on the service provided. One way or another, I won't patronize establishments that will not allow me to legally carry concealed.
That makes so much sense! Then businesses open to the general public can ban black citizens from their premises. ( /sarc )
Most stadiums that host NFL games are owned by the public, not by the NFL.
Last summer, I went to a Kansas City Royals day game. No guns allowed in the parking lot or in the stadium, so it stayed home. After the game, I encountered a road rage situation leaving the stadium. Some guy who hadn't been to the game was upset with the traffic jam and started pushing through the jam with his truck. I refused to move and was threatened with my life. The 911 operator was not helpful, and even though police were only about 2 blocks away, no help was sent. Fortunately, the guy wasn't armed, if he had been, the police would have been tracing my body in chalk.
>>Freepers who believe in property rights should support the right of businesses to ban guns on their premises.
Who owns the premises in this case? The Vikings or the public via a stadium authority or some such?
“Freepers who believe in property rights should support the right of businesses to ban guns on their premises.”
Freepers that believe in property rights believe the person as the ultimate property and land owners must respect personal property rights and stay out of our pockets.
If a land owner cannot respect the person then they shouldn’t invite in the public.
Actually, I do. Which is why I don’t give those businesses my money.
When the Vikings build or buy a stadium to play their games in, they can ban guns at those games. The UM stadium they're playing in now and the new pro stadium being built are both paid for by tax dollars and 100% owned by the state of Minnesota or political subsidiaries thereof.
Since the NFL is just renting from the public, the public's rules as owners supersede theirs, and the state of Minnesota allows carry in public places.