Posted on 02/19/2014 5:20:12 AM PST by TurboZamboni
Minnesota's largest police group and police union are suing the NFL and the Vikings, claiming the league's new ban on off-duty cops carrying their guns to games is illegal.
The Minnesota law that allows businesses to bar weapons specifically exempts "active licensed" peace officers, and state law trumps NFL rules, the lawsuit says.
But the National Football League disagrees, saying the law doesn't apply to it. Although an NFL spokesman declined to comment on the suit, when police officials complained about the policy last fall, the league's security chief said a ticket to a game is a license that teams can revoke at will -- and being an armed off-duty cop is reason enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
I agree with the NFL. Private property is private. An off duty or retired LEO is not an exception to property rights.
I can ban anyone or no one at my discretion regarding my private property.
I also prefer that any other LEOs disarm when entering my property, for my safety, since LE types are the worst offenders short of career criminals..... Since I am not frequented by LEOs, I can’t really say my policy is effective though.
I live in MO, and proprietors have the discretion to ban CCWS in their establishments, however, the law also makes otherwise lawful carry only a citation offense ( but who would know?) if a CCW type was asked to leave and would not comply. (RSMO 511)
It’s a sport where the ultimate game isn’t even played in the territory of one of the teams involved. That’s why no one cares about the practice of providing only 1 percent of Super Bowl tickets for sale to the public.
Freegards
I agree with every point you made...
I think you need to qualify this statement with a demurrer, something like:
". . . if it is open to the general public."
Even the police are not ordinarily welcome past the threshold of my property unless (a) I invite them, or (b) I am holding an "open house" event. Is this not so?
If the NFL owns the stadium, they can ban the guns on their property. I don’t agree with banning guns on their property, but it’s certainly there right. The police have no standing here.
On another note, you just can’t make this stuff up. The irony is amazing.
Apparently, the NFL believes that the “national” in their name exempts them from state laws. The arrogance of the NFL is a sight to behold. IMO, if the state feels that allowing law enforcement officers to carry while off-duty is good public policy that should trump the NFL’s property rights and its bow to political correctness. Such an exemption is not an unreasonable restriction on their property rights.
Laws forcing private businesses to serve blacks set a precedent that currently has Christian bakers and photographers being forced to participate in homosexual weddings. Where that slippery slope ends I don't know. If you blieve in property rights, you believe in them even when property owners are foolish, bigoted, or otherwise unpopular. If not, then you believe property owners are simply slaves to serve the popular whims of society.
>>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.
Blacks pay the taxes that built the streets, sewers, and water supply to that business. If that business wants to exclude those people then they can do without those services.
I’m sure a lot of businesses that ban guns rent their building. The NFL in essence rent these stadiums.
“If the NFL owns the stadium, they can ban the guns on their property.”
Can they ban white Christians, or blacks? Then why can they ban guns?
“Some animals are more equal than others...”
Actually, I do. Which is why I don’t give those businesses my money.
The “public accomodations” flaw in the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Goldwater warned us about it.
Actually, it should. If you are a property own want to ban clothing on your property, it’s your Right.
It’s also your Right to lose all your business and go away.
Caveat... If you OPEN your property as a business and invite the public in, then you should expect the public to come in under mutually agreeable terms.
The underlying principle for this is: Public or Private property. To a greater extent, I concur that a Private property owner can make restrictions whereas a Public property owner could not. However, the grey area is when a Private property owner violates law. The slippery slope would be in the creation of those laws that could eventually nullify the rights of a Private property owner.
The answer to all your questions is yes.
Actually those businesses pay a great deal more than any individual citizen for the services you list so why is their right to refuse service less valid that the government granted right to be served? If we follow your thought to it’s logical conclusion then no business owner can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Pedophiles pay taxes, should Chuck-E-Cheese be forced to serve them. Men pay taxes, should Curves be forced to accept men into the women’s gym? Homosexuals pay taxes, should churches be forced to host their “marriages?”
What in the world is 'a Public property owner'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.