Beware the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)

checksandbalances.com ^ | 5/28/03 | Checks and Blances

[jdege]

A couple of months ago, C&B was pretending to be a non-partisan site.

[jdege]

Bang!

[Blood of Tyrants]

While it is reasonable for a person or a business to protect their property, when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards.

The rights of the owners to do exactly what? Force the disarmament of their customers?

Perhaps this is just an attempt to prevent the courts from finding the legislation unconstitutional,

I find no special wording in the Constitution that allows one person's irrational fears to outweigh another person's right to self defense.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. the "Unintended Consequences" they hint at are the same old tired song and dance the anti-gunners always drag out; i.e. Dodge City shootouts over parking spaces, fender benders, and the last blouse ont he sale rack, and they are always wrong.

A store owner is not in any particular danger when a law abiding citizen with a concealed gun enters.

[chuknospam]

While it is reasonable for a person or a business to protect their property, when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards.

If a store owner will post a sign stating that they guarantee my safety & security and will assume all liability for my injury or death resulting from an illegal act, I will leave my gun in the car. Of course I expect an armed escort to and from my car to the store entrance as well.

[cinFLA]

I thought you Libertarians believed that store owners had the right to run their business without interference from the government?????

[Redbob]

"...when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards."

Not at all.
When you open a business to the public, you surrender many 'rights' that you would have otherwise.

For example, a business owner usually can't expect to limit his patrons to a single racial or religious group.
Nor can he reasonably require his patrons to surrender other Constitutional rights in order to enter his place of business - like the right to defend yourself and your family from attack.

[jdege]

Yes, we do.

But if you open your doors to the public, you have to expect the public to enter. If you open your doors to all of the public except for certain individuals, you have to tell those individuals you don't want them.

[cinFLA]

But if you open your doors to the public, you have to expect the public to enter. If you open your doors to all of the public except for certain individuals, you have to tell those individuals you don't want them.

All are invited. They just have to abide by the owner's rules. Or do you disagree that the business owner has the right to set his rules for customers to follow?

[freeeee]

When you open a business to the public, you surrender many 'rights' that you would have otherwise.

Why should anyone have to surrender unalienable rights to open a business?

[jdege]

The business owner has that right - but he has an obligation to inform his customers of those rules in order to have a reasonable expectation that they will follow them.

He cannot expect the law to provide a penalty for a customer not following his rules when he has not informed the customer of what they are.

[Squantos]

So does no shoes , no shirt, no service still apply legally ?

I just refuse to be a patron in any facility that has a sign posted that says no firearms allowed. They posted a bunch here in Texas and albeit a few still exist many were removed when CHL and non-CHL patrons bitched about the free robbbery zone the store owners had established and took their money elsewhere.

Fear mongers profiting from BS lies of blood in the streets while promoting their own socialist agenda of sedition won't wash based on history........too many states have too many responsible citizens that carry per the RKBA's rental agreement called CHL-CCW !

But then 69 million, (+/-) gun owners didn't kill anyone yesterday and that wasn't considered nooooze worthy as the few criminals that did kill someone who more than likely didn't have the means to defend themselves.

Sorry for the rant.....Stay Safe !

[jmc813]

I thought you Libertarians believed that store owners had the right to run their business without interference from the government?????

I'm about as libertarian and pro-2nd Amendment as they come, but I agree with you on this cin (sign of the apocolypse? ;-))

[jmc813]

Why should anyone have to surrender unalienable rights to open a business?

Freedom of speech is an unalienable right, but if I owned a business and a bunch of lefties came in and started telling all of my customers how evil conservatives are, I would most certainly have the right to throw 'em out.

[Tijeras_Slim]

LUBY'S
'nuff said.

[Just another Joe]

All are invited. They just have to abide by the owner's rules. Or do you disagree that the business owner has the right to set his rules for customers to follow?

Not quite steady on this point, are you?
Would you say the same thing on a smoking ban thread?

[JRandomFreeper]

It depends on who is doing the banning. Typically smoking bans are enforced by the government. Alowing CHL carry is up to the individual business owner. I don't have a problem with an individual business owner declaring his business non-smoking. I also don't have a problem with a business owner saying no weapons. I don't have to do business with either. It's about freedom to associate, which includes the freedom to NOT associate.

/john

[Just another Joe]

I don't have a problem with an individual business owner declaring his business non-smoking. I also don't have a problem with a business owner saying no weapons. I don't have to do business with either. It's about freedom to associate, which includes the freedom to NOT associate.

I don't have a problem with an individual owner declaring his business smoke-free either.

On many a thread cinFLA has said that he/she agrees that the govt can, and should, ban smoking in private businesses and has his/her approval while doing it. All becuase they don't like the smell of burning tobacco.

[Jeff Head]

A business owner does have the right to establish the rules for his premises. This includes limiting patrons for any reasons. The term "This business reserves the right to refuse service to any one for any reason" is pretty much all that needs to be said or posted.

The owner then has to live with the freemarket consequences of such a decision and a posting.

While the owner of a small business (printing and office supply) in a small town in Montana a number of years ago, I had some gay activists come to town and demand that I print up some very weird and filthy brochures for them to hand out. I pointed to the sign above my counter and told them they could leave. They were informed by the local DA that such a sign was legal and appropriate and established my rights as a business owner in advance. They had no traction. I lived with the consequence of folks of that persuasion not doing business with me. Fine.

If an individual desires no firearms in his/her business, he/she has a right to make that the rule for their premises. If there is a backlash in the free market (as Squantos discussed above) then that is the consequence.

I do not believe a business owner should be forced to operate in such ways by the government, on either side of the issue.

As for me ... I'm armed in my computer business and welcome Conceal Carry...or even open carry by respectable and law-abiding patrons. But that's my decision on my property.

[RRWCC]

I've got to hop in here. I'm neither Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian. I'm a Constitutionalist which puts me at odds pretty much with all political groups.

I believe that the shop belongs to the shop owner and he can decide who he/she does or does not serve based on any criteria he/she desires. Generally, public pressure and a lack of business will eventually require that the shop conform to the standards that that community holds.

On the other hand, a concealed is just that…concealed! I never go anywhere unarmed. Our malls have signs that say no firearms allowed but I just ignore them. I caught, we would be asked to leave. I have carried in many Northeastern cities that are rabidly anti-gun. If I needed my weapon I would have used it but since I didn’t, no one ever knew.