Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Beware the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)
checksandbalances.com ^ | 5/28/03 | Checks and Blances

Posted on 05/28/2003 9:13:41 AM PDT by jdege

bewaree the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)

Written on: 5/28/03

It is interesting to see the Governor's Chief of Staff Charlie Weaver, a former Anoka County Prosecutor come out and telegraph the movement by Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) on the Conceal & Carry legislation he recently signed into law. As the public has learned more about the change there has been a natural backlash. The Special Session creates an opportunity to address the problems with the law, which goes into effect today.

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. In an attempt to smooth the edges of the most liberal gun legislation ever passed in the United States the Administration sees the need for an adjustment. Perhaps this is just an attempt to prevent the courts from finding the legislation unconstitutional, but it shows how ramroding legislation through the process is a poor way to govern.

The fact that this issue needs to be revisited shows how its initial passage was a rash act and signing it so rapidly was equally so. It was a purely partisan attempt to steamroll the Majority in the Senate and even though the Governor received a flawed bill and he signed it.

This creates an opportunity for the Senate Majority to embarrass both the Governor and Members of the House and the Minority Members of the Senate. When the bill was forced onto the agenda in the Senate there was little the DFL Majority could do to prevent the bill from passage. They held back on a stack of amendments at the Secretary's desk knowing full well the item had momentum.

The floor discussion by the Senate authors will now be available for full debate and now Sen. Mike McGinn (R-38, Eagan) will be able to correct his inadvertent pressing of the wrong button during final passage as his office stated. This debate may provide good fodder.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: banglist; minnesota; moosescankill; shallissue; sourgrapes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
A couple of months ago, C&B was pretending to be a non-partisan site.
1 posted on 05/28/2003 9:13:42 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list; **Minnesota
Bang!
2 posted on 05/28/2003 9:14:09 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
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.

3 posted on 05/28/2003 9:41:37 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
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.
4 posted on 05/28/2003 9:44:34 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
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.

5 posted on 05/28/2003 9:53:17 AM PDT by chuknospam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I thought you Libertarians believed that store owners had the right to run their business without interference from the government?????
6 posted on 05/28/2003 9:56:09 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jdege
"...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.

7 posted on 05/28/2003 9:56:20 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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.

8 posted on 05/28/2003 10:01:53 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jdege
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?

9 posted on 05/28/2003 10:03:41 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
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?

10 posted on 05/28/2003 10:07:04 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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.

11 posted on 05/28/2003 10:10:07 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jdege; Joe Brower; AAABEST; harpseal; Travis McGee; Shooter 2.5; Tijeras_Slim; TEXASPROUD; Eaker; ..
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 !

12 posted on 05/28/2003 10:24:34 AM PDT by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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? ;-))

13 posted on 05/28/2003 10:25:23 AM PDT by jmc813 (After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
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.

14 posted on 05/28/2003 10:26:57 AM PDT by jmc813 (After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
LUBY'S
'nuff said.
15 posted on 05/28/2003 10:30:45 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (WWJCD? What would Jeff Cooper do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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?

16 posted on 05/28/2003 10:41:19 AM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
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

17 posted on 05/28/2003 10:49:28 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (I'm just a cook.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; cinFLA
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.

18 posted on 05/28/2003 10:54:10 AM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jdege; Squantos
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.

19 posted on 05/28/2003 10:55:04 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
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.

20 posted on 05/28/2003 11:06:54 AM PDT by RRWCC (Even under a good king, a subject is still a subject.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson