[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.

[cinFLA]

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

[dljordan]

I'm a strong 2A guy but it seems that this particular question is about the business owners property rights. He OWNS of leases the property and thus has a say in what is allowed to happen on his property. Your right to carry doesn't override his property rights.

[Mulder]

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

Well said. I spent a few hours on this very subject with some of the numbnuts who disagree with that.

Here's part of what I posted :

If a business owner doesn't want to deal with the general public, then they need to either close up shop, or go the internet route.

If they choose to open their doors to the general public, then they have to deal with the "general public". This involves them dealing with minorities, gays, old folks, young folks, dumb folks, immigrants, people who stink, people who wear too much perfume, hippies with long hair, and yes, people who are armed.

The bottom line is:

I refuse to be treated like a second-class citizen simply because I am armed

If a business owner doesn't like the way I look and they want me to leave, I'll gladly leave. If they have a private club, and I'm not "on the list" (such as Costco or Sams), I won't enter.

Otherwise, they either deal with the general public or they don't.

[SauronOfMordor]

If businesses can ban firearms from their property, the next step is for their insurance companies to tell them that they MUST ban firearms, or lose liability coverage. If businesses can ban firearms easily, then some lawyers will argue that failure to ban means that they allow firearms, and thus will be liable for any shooting that happens on their property