Posted on 06/06/2003 2:03:14 PM PDT by jdege
What do you mean "public business"? The mere fact that a business is generally open to the public does not forbid the owner from uninviting certain people.
If a business owner wants to forbid firearms on his property, he has every right to do so, provided that those who do not wish to disarm are not compelled to enter his property (places that a person might be contractually required to enter would be another story, if such contracts were entered into before the prohibition went into effect).
I just stated they could ask him to leave, and if he didn't the police could arrest him for tresspass. Or did you not read that part?
A public business can "toss out" anyone for any reason they wish, but they should not be able to ban certain groups (like gun owners or blacks) from entering. If they don't want members of the public in their establishment, they should become a private club.
In MY house (business, property), you should have to live by MY rules. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
But your rules ("no tresspassing" excepted) should not be backed up by the law. For instance, if you required that only tall blondes with 36D or larger hooters be allowed onto your property, and you called the police because a brunette showed up at your door, they would laugh in your face.
They might even arrest you for filing a false report. At the very least you could expect a serious tail-chewing for wasting their time.
If you don't want people on your property, fine. Post "no trespassing" signs. I'd abide by them, and even call the police if I saw someone violating your "no tresspassing" sign.
If you want a long laundry list of "do's and don'ts" on your property, then put armed guards at the door (at your expense), form a private club, and make folks pay $$$ to join.
But if you want to run a business open to the public, don't expect the rest of us to foot the bill to have the police and district attorney enforce your ridiculous laundry list.
What do you mean "public business"? The mere fact that a business is generally open to the public does not forbid the owner from uninviting certain people.
No, it doesn't.
But it does mean that the owner must make it clear to those people he does not want in a clear and unmistakable manner.
Have you been in establishments that had "No shirts, no shoes, no service" signs posted? Or "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs?
Are you under the impression that businesses can post these signs in any size or place that they choose and still have them have legal affect?
'Tain't so.
A property owner has the right to decide under what circumstances someone may enter his property. People who do not wish to meet the property owner's conditions should simply refrain from entering his property.
There are some rightful limitations on this: (1) a landlord may not impose additional conditions on a tenant during a lease; (2) if someone's property must be crossed to access someone else's property, the former property owner has a limited right to impose conditions upon those wishing to access the latter's property; (3) if a person requires to enter his property for purposes of honoring a contract, he has a limited right to impose any new conditions upon those who are compelled to enter.
He or she can ask the "unwelcome patron" to leave. This is backed up by hundreds of years of Western law related to property and tresspass.
If a business owner wants to forbid firearms on his property, he has every right to do so,
But he doesn't have the right to have that request backed up by the law. He can certainly ask them to leave, but he can't make a criminal out of someone for simply setting foot inside while armed.
What the anti-gunners want is to turn the traditional laws relating to tresspass upside down by making it a criminal act to violate the sign of a business. (Of course, this only applies to guns, not to "shirts required" or "shoes required" signs). Traditionally, only "no tresspass" signs and perhaps "members only" signs have been recognized by the law.
They aren't pro-business, or pro-property. Rather, they are anti-gun zealots who want the make the lives of gun owners absolute hell.
Are you under the impression that businesses can post these signs in any size or place that they choose and still have them have legal affect?
The general principle is that in general a business may kick almost anyone out for almost any reason; the effect of a "no shirt/shoes/service" sign is primarily to tell people that if they do not meet the stated dress requirements they'll be asked to leave immediately and may as well not even bother entering. They aren't posted particularly for "legal effect", but rather to minimize the number of ill-dressed people whom the manager has to kick out.
A property owner has no right (moral or legal) to expect these conditions to be backed up by the law.
Only when he posts a "no trespass" sign, or asks the individual to leave, should the law get involved.
That's the way it's been for hundreds of years (except in some segregational areas decades ago) and that's the way it should be.
Indeed he can ask such a person to leave.
If a business owner wants to forbid firearms on his property, he has every right to do so,
But he doesn't have the right to have that request backed up by the law. He can certainly ask them to leave, but he can't make a criminal out of someone for simply setting foot inside while armed.
From what I understand, the signs in MN have no legal effect since a patron who is found to be armed but leaves when asked is not chargeable with any sort of offense. In TX, if I recall, someone who is caught carrying in a posted business may be charged, but the charge is a petty non-criminal offense [akin to a parking ticket].
I guess my biggest question is why CCW-holders would want to set foot in businesses where they know they are unwelcome, except to such extent as may be contractually necessary to terminate business there.
Not really. What she did took a hell of a lot more courage than some guy with a CCW permit walking in a business with a "no guns" sign, while carrying a well-concealed weapon.
Said Free man should be aware the he may have to relinguish not only his future right to carry but also his future right to even own a firearm.
And many supposedly "pro-gun" people here would being celebrating.
On a side note, Free men can't "lose" Rights. Governments can only fail to recognize them.
I have no problem with that.
I guess my biggest question is why CCW-holders would want to set foot in businesses where they know they are unwelcome, except to such extent as may be contractually necessary to terminate business there.
Usually conveinience. For instance, you fill up your tank with gas, then go inside to pay and see a "no guns" sign. Or you're in a hurry and go into the first store you see. Or you can go in and load up your cart with thousands of dollars of merchandise, and then leave after "discovering" the sign :)
But seriously, these signs (when backed up by legal sanction for violators) result in fewer people carrying, thus increasing the chance that a good guy or gal gets hurt by a bad guy.
That is why the Texas legislature mandated what the sign looked like and had to say. An justly so.
You have to make the rules known before you start enforcing them.
When KKKommunists are running the show, it IS.
It is just like racism to say, "We invite the public, please come in with your money, unless you are an evil gun owner."
I don't spend money at racist establishments, or anti-gun establishments.
Now we agree, let the free market decide.
FReegards, FRiend.
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.