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 ...
If you don't like the property owner's position vis-à-vis your religion, politics, etc. don't enter his property.
The person responsible for the property in question. Whether that be the administrator or actual owner of property that is open to the public.
I cannot detain you against your will on my property whether it is open to the public or not.
___________________________________________________________
As far as I'm concerned you can take off the sarcasm tag.
I do believe that it is reprehensible to deny service to someone of a different race or religion but don't understand why it is the business of government to get involved.
I truly believe that a business should have the right to serve or not serve whomever they want. If I don't believe in what they do then I have the right to not patronize the business.
If a business has a sign posted that they do not allow weapons, then I don't patronize that business. I don't see why a business has the right to deny me service but they can't deny people they know to be queer service. I don't know why a business who knows that a person is an extremist Islamic Jihadist has to give him service.
I still don't understand why the government got involved in smoking. I don't but if I don't want to sit in an establishment where smoking is happening then I don't have to, I can stay home if I want to.
Our government is into our lives in a way that was never intended. The government needs to leave us alone and stop redistributing our money to others they deem to need it more than me.
I’m a relatively libertarian/conservitarian kind of guy. I think the “public” areas should be relatively few, if non-existent. Government thinking it owns everything never leads anywhere good.
That being said, yes... Private property owners set the rules for their land. Don’t like it, leave.
If you invite the Public in though, you gotta expect them to bring their Rights with them. You can impose limits on that, and if I don’t like them... I can do business elsewhere.
It’s a “freedom” thing.
I would stipulate that if they operate a business or a facility that is open to the public they should be required to post signs indicating who/what is/isn't allowed, so we will all know where we (and they) stand. But as a private property owner they should be free to choose those with whom they are willing to do business.
The market can (and WILL) tell them if they are too bigoted or weird in their restrictions.
Exactly!
You seem to be saying you don’t believe in private property.
My taxes helped build the road that leads to me next-door neighbor’s driveway, but that doesn’t mean I have a right to park my car on it.
That was why I said "to a greater extent" because I concur. Except when you have some job that requires that you visit private property, I do not believe you surrender your rights in that instance (and we could spend all day going down a rabbit hole on that subject).
Your thoughts on "public" areas are right in line with how I feel as well, guess I would be considered libertarian in that arena, but as retired military, I undertand the necessity for government owned land that you do not want civilians wandering about unrestricted.
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.
The same law (the MPPA) says citizens who have a valid permit cannot carry into a courthouse. (but police can)
“If the NFL owns the stadium, they can ban the guns on their property.”
If that be true, why do the cops have standing to carry a loaded deadly weapon on MY property?
Government does need to own it's buildings. I just don't agree with Eminent Domain abuse as exemplified by Kelo and other on going seizures for stupid crap.
If the NFL wants to restrict carry at their games, then I think 100 million gun owners should let them know what they think of their decision.
Agreed, with one caveat. The NFL does not own the stadiums with which the games are played. Most are privately owned by corporations or publically owned and lease them to the team. In the latter instance, firearms should be allowed.
They don’t. You can ask them to leave unless they are there for a lawful purpose.
I don’t allow strangers in my house if they are armed. Yes, my rights to protect my family trump the Constitution.
Not when it comes to public safety. The police can enter your home, given probable cause, whether you 'allow' it or not. Not saying I agree with that, but I can understand the need.
Agreed but when there is no ‘safety’ involved I have the discretion to decide what limits I want in my house.
Also agree, but I can see the crest of the slippery slope with more three-letter agencies becoming more SWAT-like in their organizational design. Hell, even the SPCA has armed police, and it ain’t for putting the lame horse down.
“Can they ban white Christians, or blacks? Then why can they ban guns?”
I’ll choose to take your comment seriously. There is a difference between your conduct on other’s property and the color of your skin. Carrying a gun is conduct. You can choose to exclude people based upon their conduct. You cannot choose to exclude people based upon the color of their skin.
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.