Walmart Open Carry Ban - Lexington, Kentucky

Ron Mest Sports ^ | 09/07/19 | Ron Mest Sports

[Trailerpark Badass]

Uh, literally no one who trains professionally agRees with you.

[Leaning Right]

> The Second Amendment does not take rights away from private property owners. <

Well said. And the Bill of Rights was set up to protect you from bad government policies. It was not set up to protect you from bad Walmart policies.

[Openurmind]

I have my list too. Just added Burger King and KFC because of their attempt to insult my intelligence as a meat eater and slip politically motivated veganism in on everyone.

[TXnMA]

In Texas, if "No Open Carry" is more than a "request",WalMart will post "30.07" signs at all public entrances:

I prefer concealed carry for both "social" and tactical reasons. So, I keep a jacket or straight-cut sport shirt hanging in the back of my vehicle, and slip it on when I exit.

We shop in a small town where WalMart already dominates, and, I already try to give my business to local merchants as much as possible. But, if I must enter WalMart for something I can't get without a long drive to a city, on goes the cover. (No change in practice...)

Now, I'm actively seeking out additional alternatives to Wal-Mart.

And, I've used this W-M stupidity as impetus to set up my reloading bench, again...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WalMart has now lost the majority of my business. Should they become so stupid as to put up "30.06" signs:

I'll drive an extra 20 miles, rather than enter any WalMart Gun-free Zone"!

TXnMA
  

[frank ballenger]

The list has to have one line on it: Security, use facial recognition camera data to stop people.

Not there yet but getting close. They watch your car at intersections from overhead cameras. They have a database for airport security camera views. They can use cellphone video and Samsung smart TV camera archives. NSA and CIA can store where Middle Eastern guys came and went while being tracked while under suspicion.

A little while and companies will pay for such services. “Known shoplifters” “Ejected from Evanston Wal Mart for fistfight” and so on.

[zipper]

I have long felt that concealed carry should require no permit, but open carry should.

Right, because, as we all know, our Constitutional rights are superceded by "feelings".

[Leaning Right]

> so what if they say ‘no Cuban leaf’s?...just for example? <

Actually, that would be perfectly legal. There are, I believe, seven protected classes by federal law. You cannot discriminate against anyone based on one of those classes. One of them is religion. So, for example, a public business could not put up a sign saying “No Catholics allowed.”

But if something is not on the federal (or state) list, it’s legal. So a public business could put up a sign saying “No Freepers allowed.” Or “No redheads allowed.” Weird, huh?

[frank ballenger]

I demand they put that in English, Spanish and Arabic. Actual terrorists are highly likely to be the third group.

[KrisKrinkle]

“And once you leave the street and walk into a private business, you are subject to their rules.”

Where that authoritatively written?

“That is a first amendment thing.”

How is that so? Stipulating it for now, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a second amendment thing and more clearly stated than what you call “a first amendment thing”.

What you present is a conflict of rights between the first and second amendments. How do we resolve that?

If the government passes a law that you can not keep and bear arms on someone else’s property if they don’t want you to, is that a government infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?

“It’s really simple.”

I disagree.

[gundog]

Open carry by seniors, locally, would make them tweeker magnets.

And it’s getting to the point where an anonymous complaint can get one red-flagged.

[zipper]

All true, and wait until the “social points” system being perfected in China by Facebook, Google, et. al. comes here — we are only one errant election away.

[frank ballenger]

Right, because, as we all know, our Constitutional rights are superceded by "feelings".

We all need to be in an audience of The View and have a good cry over it all. "Someone has to do something, I don't know what, but something about all those guns everywhere." (Huge applause)

After the good cry we'll all feel better./s

[zipper]

"....China plans to rank all its citizens based on their "social credit" by 2020.... People can be rewarded or punished according to their scores...." Like private financial credit scores, a person's social scores can move up and down...

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4/ng to their behavior.

[zeugma]

I agree that open carry is the best defensive posture, but in the real world it is best used when actually being attacked.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the second. I think we'd all be better off if many more people carried openly. There is strength in numbers, and numbers are a deterrent. The general reluctance we have to open carry is generally just a matter of conditioning. More folks carrying openly will eventually break that conditioning down. JMHO.

[cuban leaf]

It’s very simple. If I don’t want people to open carry guns on my property, I have the right to tell them to leave my property if they are open carrying. Also, If I don’t what people wearing red shirts, I can do the same. It’s my property. I get to make the rules.

And all property owned by someone other than the government is private property. That includes private property as “public spaces” like your local barber shop, or wal-mart, or a private school.

The constitution strongly protects propery rights:
https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/property-rights-constitution

And I didn’t mention Conceal Carry. A business also has the right to say nobody can carry a concealed gun, or wear blue underwear, on their property. However, those two are harder to find. And if found, the property owner has the right to require you to leave their property.

This is very simple stuff once one understands the foundational principles on which our rights are protected. On your property, your rights trump the rights of others on your property, assuming you are not violating their rights by forcing them to be on your property.

[BlackbirdSST]

IMHO every business has the right to ban guns from their premises and I have the right to shop somewhere else.

If every business does it, where do you plan on shopping?

[cuban leaf]

How is that so? Stipulating it for now, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a second amendment thing and more clearly stated than what you call “a first amendment thing”

---

If a person is in your house with a gun, you have every right to ask them to either put the gun outside somewhere or require them to leave the premises. That is true with all privately owned property. The property owner is sorta god on their own property, even if it is a publicly accessible place, like the common areas of a shopping mall. If one disagrees with their rule, they have the option of not going there.

[Leaning Right]

The 2A gives citizens the absolute right to carry firearms. I believe in that so firmly that I even think felons should be able to carry once they have completed their probation or parole.

Now suppose a state - for whatever reason - allows concealed carry only. I don’t see how that violates the 2A. It would be like a state saying you can give a political speech on a public sidewalk if you want. It’s a 1A thing. Just don’t use a 200 dB megaphone.

[zipper]

Yes! A good cry because Deep Thoughts.

[mrmeyer]

Or follow illegal orders to preserve their pensions.