Protected One
Member
Last edited:
my response to "no guns allowed" sign
- Thread starter wheelyfun66
- Start date
bluegrassarms
Member
Very interesting discussion.
As a died in the wool Libertarian I'm a huge believer in property rights, but all rights have to find a balance with each other as well.
I've seen references to the "no guns" sign as a "simple" request. IMO it's not so simple. Likewise so is the "take my business elsewhere" part. In cities maybe there are lots of options and alternatives, but it's not always easy.
My property rights as a commercial property owner or business operator are quite different from my private rights as a homeowner. I am constrained by all kinds of laws on discrimination, handicapped access, employee and labor laws. It's well established there are myriad things I cannot require of my patrons or employees. Not just race or "Protected groups" either. I can refuse anyone come in my home unless they have a warrant. I cannot refuse a patron b/c I just don't like how he/she looks.
I'll offer a good example in Ky that is gun specific. The Ky Supreme Ct has ruled that businesses can limit if employees can carry in the workplace, but found that businesses cannot keep them from having a firearm in their vehicle even if on business property. Why? B/c if they banned guns in the cars it would effectively extend their right and control that person's decisions off that property, making them unable to carry on their way to and from work b/c they have no place to put the firearm.
So the private property right of the business owner has to be infringed slightly to balance it with the other rights of those who work there. Notice that the answer wasn't "well then just dont' work there if you don't like their rules on their property". Why? B/c it's now long established that the "private property" rights of public businesses are far from absolute, they cannot deny employees or patrons on the basis of their sheer whim b/c they want a certain policy. they must justify it in some way. The Court held that guns in cars were not enough of a risk compared to the breach of the 2nd Amendment rights of the employees when away from work that they could have that restriction. Their property right was in conflict with the 2nd Amendment rights of the employees, they lost at least as far as the parking lot is concerned.
That's why gun laws and the gun signs are a tougher nut to crack. B/c by having them the business isn't just controlling their business, they are a) determining the safety level of customers and employees to threats beyond their control, and b) potentially impacting their rights and safety beyond the doors of the business.
If I park on the street to go in and they have a sign I'm to put my gun in the car somewhere and go in, and hope it isn't stolen. But I'm not 100% on their property for that whole trip. When I step off that curb I'm now in a public place unable to carry b/c of their private rights, it has created an externality by having their right be absolute my right when totally away from them has been impaired. That externality created by those signs is the key here IMO, what behavior it would force on a customer or employee beyond their doors.
The answer then comes to "go elsewhere", but we have established in property rights of businesses that this is not necessarily the answer. It wasn't the answer when a business refused to hire minorities or women, it wasn't the answer in Ky when employees wanted to carry a firearm in their vehicle, and I dont' think it's the answer if I park on the street. We have basically established that within a set of constraints that patrons have a "right" to patronize a public business. They can require I have a shirt or shoes on, but they can't refuse service b/c I didn't shave that day. All of those constraints have been decided in the courts based on the fact that a public business is far different from a home or farm.
the legal distinction between a public business and truly private property is quite clear and is repeated in literally thousands of laws and regulations. A farmer can refuse to let me on my property b/c I'm a minority or he just doesn't like me or any other reason. A business owner can't, nor can he put restrictions on patronage that would become externalities that impact me beyond the scope of their store, esp. if those reasons are not a justified business purpose.
So we can debate whether the gun restriction is reasonable or justified within the framework of all the other restrictions on a business's behavior, but IMO comparing it to a farm or house is not useful. They are held to totally different standards legally and have been for a very long time. We can debate if that's right or not, but even as a big libertarian I will say with confidence that clock isn't getting turned back and if it's not turned back for the 100s of other things I see no reason to single out 2nd Amendment protections as an exception.
Personally I avoid any place with a "no guns" sign whenever possible on simple principle, but it's not always avoidable. If it's the only grocery store within a given distance or the only car dealer that will service your car, etc. It's easy to say "go elsewhere" and that's great, but I've run into cases where that is tough. You call in an order to a place and have no idea they have that sign on their door. You go to pick it up and now you're faced with leaving your gun in your car and hoping it's not seen or ignoring the sign or making a huge row and refusing the order (that you may have already paid for) and fighting to get your money back. Maybe nice in principle, but there are only so many hours in the day to engage in those things when you can just walk in while carrying, no one will know, and you're gone in 2 minutes with no fuss and can make alternate plans later if possible.
Fortunately In Ky there is no legal violation for ignoring the signs. It's trespass if you're asked to leave and you don't, but you just leave. But let me be clear - it's NOT Trespass to ignore the sign. You aren't trespassing in Ky and not getting caught. You're only trespassing when you're asked to leave and you refuse. So you are not breaking any laws or violating any established property right in Ky. You may be ignoring their wishes, but like I said in rare cases it's better than the alternatives.
I will dispute that any business in any state is really "private property" in the old school sense. There are 100s of encroachments on that for far less important reasons than making sure someone can defend themselves. A state may recognize that right re guns or not, but there are 100s of restrictions on a business owner/employer that a private homeowner wouldn't have. Those days are long gone, now we're just down to picking and choosing what we let them do, but presumption is sure not with the business owner any longer. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
As a died in the wool Libertarian I'm a huge believer in property rights, but all rights have to find a balance with each other as well.
I've seen references to the "no guns" sign as a "simple" request. IMO it's not so simple. Likewise so is the "take my business elsewhere" part. In cities maybe there are lots of options and alternatives, but it's not always easy.
My property rights as a commercial property owner or business operator are quite different from my private rights as a homeowner. I am constrained by all kinds of laws on discrimination, handicapped access, employee and labor laws. It's well established there are myriad things I cannot require of my patrons or employees. Not just race or "Protected groups" either. I can refuse anyone come in my home unless they have a warrant. I cannot refuse a patron b/c I just don't like how he/she looks.
I'll offer a good example in Ky that is gun specific. The Ky Supreme Ct has ruled that businesses can limit if employees can carry in the workplace, but found that businesses cannot keep them from having a firearm in their vehicle even if on business property. Why? B/c if they banned guns in the cars it would effectively extend their right and control that person's decisions off that property, making them unable to carry on their way to and from work b/c they have no place to put the firearm.
So the private property right of the business owner has to be infringed slightly to balance it with the other rights of those who work there. Notice that the answer wasn't "well then just dont' work there if you don't like their rules on their property". Why? B/c it's now long established that the "private property" rights of public businesses are far from absolute, they cannot deny employees or patrons on the basis of their sheer whim b/c they want a certain policy. they must justify it in some way. The Court held that guns in cars were not enough of a risk compared to the breach of the 2nd Amendment rights of the employees when away from work that they could have that restriction. Their property right was in conflict with the 2nd Amendment rights of the employees, they lost at least as far as the parking lot is concerned.
That's why gun laws and the gun signs are a tougher nut to crack. B/c by having them the business isn't just controlling their business, they are a) determining the safety level of customers and employees to threats beyond their control, and b) potentially impacting their rights and safety beyond the doors of the business.
If I park on the street to go in and they have a sign I'm to put my gun in the car somewhere and go in, and hope it isn't stolen. But I'm not 100% on their property for that whole trip. When I step off that curb I'm now in a public place unable to carry b/c of their private rights, it has created an externality by having their right be absolute my right when totally away from them has been impaired. That externality created by those signs is the key here IMO, what behavior it would force on a customer or employee beyond their doors.
The answer then comes to "go elsewhere", but we have established in property rights of businesses that this is not necessarily the answer. It wasn't the answer when a business refused to hire minorities or women, it wasn't the answer in Ky when employees wanted to carry a firearm in their vehicle, and I dont' think it's the answer if I park on the street. We have basically established that within a set of constraints that patrons have a "right" to patronize a public business. They can require I have a shirt or shoes on, but they can't refuse service b/c I didn't shave that day. All of those constraints have been decided in the courts based on the fact that a public business is far different from a home or farm.
the legal distinction between a public business and truly private property is quite clear and is repeated in literally thousands of laws and regulations. A farmer can refuse to let me on my property b/c I'm a minority or he just doesn't like me or any other reason. A business owner can't, nor can he put restrictions on patronage that would become externalities that impact me beyond the scope of their store, esp. if those reasons are not a justified business purpose.
So we can debate whether the gun restriction is reasonable or justified within the framework of all the other restrictions on a business's behavior, but IMO comparing it to a farm or house is not useful. They are held to totally different standards legally and have been for a very long time. We can debate if that's right or not, but even as a big libertarian I will say with confidence that clock isn't getting turned back and if it's not turned back for the 100s of other things I see no reason to single out 2nd Amendment protections as an exception.
Personally I avoid any place with a "no guns" sign whenever possible on simple principle, but it's not always avoidable. If it's the only grocery store within a given distance or the only car dealer that will service your car, etc. It's easy to say "go elsewhere" and that's great, but I've run into cases where that is tough. You call in an order to a place and have no idea they have that sign on their door. You go to pick it up and now you're faced with leaving your gun in your car and hoping it's not seen or ignoring the sign or making a huge row and refusing the order (that you may have already paid for) and fighting to get your money back. Maybe nice in principle, but there are only so many hours in the day to engage in those things when you can just walk in while carrying, no one will know, and you're gone in 2 minutes with no fuss and can make alternate plans later if possible.
Fortunately In Ky there is no legal violation for ignoring the signs. It's trespass if you're asked to leave and you don't, but you just leave. But let me be clear - it's NOT Trespass to ignore the sign. You aren't trespassing in Ky and not getting caught. You're only trespassing when you're asked to leave and you refuse. So you are not breaking any laws or violating any established property right in Ky. You may be ignoring their wishes, but like I said in rare cases it's better than the alternatives.
I will dispute that any business in any state is really "private property" in the old school sense. There are 100s of encroachments on that for far less important reasons than making sure someone can defend themselves. A state may recognize that right re guns or not, but there are 100s of restrictions on a business owner/employer that a private homeowner wouldn't have. Those days are long gone, now we're just down to picking and choosing what we let them do, but presumption is sure not with the business owner any longer. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
snowman
Member
Chuck,
Thank you for taking the time to put together that thoughtful and helpful post.
Andy
Thank you for taking the time to put together that thoughtful and helpful post.
Andy
This private property and business rules thing cracks me, up especially when someone says its their business and they can decide about rights.
Ok, it's your property and your business. I am not saying I support any of these actions but, tell a black man he can't come in, tell a woman she can't come in your all male store, post a sign that says no turbans allowed and see what happens. Recently a baker said he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Guess what the law said and who got the cake. HA HA.
Why should anybody think that its OK to deny the second amendment rights and yet force businesses to allow all these other rights?
Ok, it's your property and your business. I am not saying I support any of these actions but, tell a black man he can't come in, tell a woman she can't come in your all male store, post a sign that says no turbans allowed and see what happens. Recently a baker said he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Guess what the law said and who got the cake. HA HA.
Why should anybody think that its OK to deny the second amendment rights and yet force businesses to allow all these other rights?
SgtLumpy
Member
I'd like to see citations of court cases that support your arguments above.
Clearly, a business DOES NOT have the right to deny service to protected classes (blacks, women, religious groups).
But I'm not familiar with cases where a business DOES NOT have the right to deny service to someone in a non-protected class (didn't shave that day).
Sgt Lumpy
Rastoff
US Veteran
This is what really gets me about this whole conversation. I mean, why do people feel it's necessary to force this issue? This "gay" couple for example. Is that the only bakery? I'm sure they could have gotten a cake any number of other places, but instead they chose to make a big stink about it. What's the point other than making a stink?
It's the same with no guns signs. Why is it such a big deal to just go elsewhere? Do you guys ignore the Postal Service policy and take your gun in the post office? Or do you just leave it in the car for that trip?
I think it's become popular in our culture be a drama queen.Our fathers and grandfathers would be embarrassed.
SgtLumpy
Member
I'd like to see a cite for this example. I don't believe that gay is a protected class anywhere and I don't believe that a baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple.
Where and when did this allegedly happen?
Sgt Lumpy
In Denver,the ruling was a couple of weeks ago.
Protected One
Member
Here are just two instances...there are MANY!
Bakery Closes after Refusing to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple | National Review Online
Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple - Washington Times
Rastoff
US Veteran
How sad for Colorado. I'm sure the ruling would have gone the same in CA.
I thought the right to bear arms was protected by the Bill of Rights, like the right to be black, female, gay, etc etc. What number were all those again????
I got it and I avoid anti gun businesses, states and people. No problem here. But, I did want to point out the fallacy that a business is private property and owner has the "right" to set policies on that property. That gentlemen is a JOKE in this country. Truth is you can refuse a right, as long as you are politically correct. Is that it????
I personally believe you should be able to serve and exclude whoever you want. You may well be an idiot to do so, but, if you own the business you should have the right to be an idiot at least till it goes broke.
But wait!
The infinite power has just communicated to me that he wants me to go armed everywhere. That I should built a church in his honor (complete with moving targets). I call upon you of the faith to contribute so this miracle can happen. Am I protected now???
I got it and I avoid anti gun businesses, states and people. No problem here. But, I did want to point out the fallacy that a business is private property and owner has the "right" to set policies on that property. That gentlemen is a JOKE in this country. Truth is you can refuse a right, as long as you are politically correct. Is that it????
I personally believe you should be able to serve and exclude whoever you want. You may well be an idiot to do so, but, if you own the business you should have the right to be an idiot at least till it goes broke.
But wait!
The infinite power has just communicated to me that he wants me to go armed everywhere. That I should built a church in his honor (complete with moving targets). I call upon you of the faith to contribute so this miracle can happen. Am I protected now???
SgtLumpy
Member
OK. Thanks for the links. That's what I asked for.
The Colorado Case -
"The judge ruled that the bakery had violated the state's public-accommodations statute, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation."
The report is a little weak on details, but it appears the judge at least is interpreting "sexual orientation" to include "gay". I'm not sure if the CO statutes include gay as a statuatory component of sexual orientation.
The Gresham Oregon case -
"...The lesbian couple that originally asked for the cake also filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. Last month, the bureau announced it would investigate the complaint.
"Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean that folks have the right to discriminate," the commissioner said. "The goal is to rehabilitate..."
This one is pretty strange, to me. Apparently a branch of the state government feels that the baker's religious beliefs (his Xtian belief doesn't support the idea of gay marriage) needs "rehabilitation". That's a pretty bold statement by a state government agency commissioner. "Your religious beliefs need rehabilitating".
The death threats in retaliation are an interesting side show. I wonder if those people need "rehabilitation".
I hope this one goes to appeal in an actual court.
Sgt Lumpy
bluegrassarms
Member
Preface -- sorry for the length, I hope it isn't seen as being obnoxious in any way. I think your point is a very good one and I want to try to answer it as thoroughly as I can and try to explain where I see this balance falling and why.
I agree on a federal level the law as written would only cover protected groups, but in the day to day enforcement of the laws I'd argue it goes far past that.
First, women are a protected group, roughly 50% of people who would potentially come in the doors. All protected minority groups combined is about the same. So in reality if you tell the protected minority they can't come in b/c they didn't shave or whatever they're going to claim it's on the basis of race or gender or a protected class, and you've already lost the case in the real world. Your real world lawyer fees and grief will be so high there is no way a sane owner would have a "no facial hair" rule b/c it's just a matter of time before it blows up.
so just like my externality point above on carry, in this case the protected class law clearly creates a de facto situation that limits business action far beyond the letter of the law.
Second, some religious groups require facial hair. If I had a "no facial hair" rule and an Amish man walked in I'm clearly in trouble to refuse him service on that basis.
The courts would hold, probably correctly in this case, that my rule was specious and had no weight versus the potential discrimination. In fact IMO you could probably have the ACLU come after you even if no one walked in and had an issue b/c the rule on its face is discriminatory to certain faiths.
So even just sticking to "protected groups" the reality is that ANYTHING that could conceivably touch on a protected group is also in play. The ACLU has filed against many a business for rules they think could touch on such a group in some way, which means that in reality there are LOTS of limits.
Second, the definition of protected groups has been expanded by many states and localities, so it's not just federal groups but any in your area, and then you had better keep up with that stuff if you plan on having any wacky "no facial hair" rules.
For example California specifically says you can't discriminate based on "unconventional dress". That's about the most extreme one I have heard, but it's the law there. It's the "Unruh Civil Rights Act" and basically bans "discrimination" for about any reason deemed arbitrary.
So in Cali they can't in fact refuse you, at law, for looking funny.
I admit Cali is the most extreme example, I'm not claiming that would hold in any state court, but I do think it has a broad chilling impact on any business owner anywhere as it's most definitely the wave of the future. What owner wants to be the case law on that?
The point of all that being, as I said, that in reality those laws prevent you from just arbitrarily refusing service to almost anyone. You will have a potential hailstorm of legal problems even if for some reason you wanted to drive off perfectly good customers, so you don't really have that "right" any more. Even the parts that technically are still under your control are so high potential risk at law you don't do it.
However, there are cases, like the gay marriage cake thing, that highlight the situation. In fact I'll take it one further, to the photographer forced to do pictures at a gay wedding when he disapproves of gay marriage.
Personally as a libertarian type I am not particularly pro or con on that issue, but I am very concerned a business owner can be forced to perform personal services as an individual on that basis. This went beyond him not having property rights, he had no PERSONAL rights either.
If We Don?t Have The Right To Refuse Service, Aren?t We All Slaves? | Say Anything
That link references the actual case, there are no doubt better discussions of the case out there, but the idea is clear - not even personal choice is protected for a business, much less property.
There are others of that ilk. Here's one with a florist and same sex wedding. Clearly a hot area:
State Sues Florist Who Refused Service to a Gay Wedding | Slog
What's interesting in that case is that the state itself initiated the suit, having to bring it as a "consumer protection" case technically b/c the private parties nor the HRC had brought the case.
However, even after all that, courts have in fact held that specious reasons to refuse service won't hold up. Here's a legal site that uses the example of a "lazy eye".
Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service | LegalMatch Law Library
here's another legal site that references some odd cases but again points out that courts will look at the rule and determine if it is arbitrary, and IMO be pretty broad about what constitutes "discrimination" or not:
The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom
Here's the last one:
Have You Reserved Your Right to Refuse Service? - Free Enterprise
Courts also tend not to favor arbitrary discrimination. In the past, judges have used consumer protection, unfair business practice, and tort laws to punish such practices.
None of this means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.
I think they sum it up far better than I do. You won't find any lawyer telling you the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign has any real meaning. You can refuse service for good business cause, like being disruptive or drunk or threatening, etc., but you'd better have a good and legit reason, not an arbitrary one, even outside California.
Again, I'm not necessarily agreeing with that position. I believe strongly in private property rights. My point is that in a world where business property/ownership rights are already constrained beyond any semblance of them really having any left, we are to let it stand that a business can determine rules that through externality impact my safety and 2nd Amendment rights but we wont' let them set rules on something as innocuous as dress and deportment?
IMO the question of whether a business can have a "no guns" policy should be held to the same standard as any other rule, which means whether that rule is arbitrary and capricious or has some basis and justification. If the courts rule it does then fine, but if in some states the courts hold that those signs do NOTHING to improve public safety (and they don't) and in fact may impede it as well as impede the 2nd Amendment rights of customers outside their store, then those signs should come down just like any other sign enforcing some other rule that isn't justified as needed business practice.
Just hold the 2nd Amendment to the same standard as everything else is all I ask. I see no reason to push it on a business owner, but I see no reason it should be a 2nd class citizen next to all the other things required of them.
Rastoff, the Post Office is a poor example. Taking a firearm there is a FEDERAL OFFENSE; not just a sign!!
Going elsewhere is NOT always an option. If you live in a small town the there is only one bank, one hardware store, one drug store; get it?? The signs in those places are placed there by the company lawyers to cover their butts - just in case! They can always have the robber charged with trespass!
If I choose to obey all of the lawyer signs I can spend all day taking off my firearm and locking it in my car (Not a safe policy). Or, I can just give in to the anti's and leave my firearm at home.............ain't going to happen.
The reference of comparing a business sign to a land owners posted sign is apples and oranges: The land owner is posting his PRIVATE PROPERTY against anyone entering. The business is a PUBLIC BUILDING and the legal folks are attempting to dictate who can and cannot enter and under what conditions the public may do so.
CONCEALED means don't let anyone know.........and I don't
Rastoff
US Veteran
Nevermind.
Last edited:
Rahjerz
Member
There is a young man, Colin Goddard, that works for the Brady Foundation. He was a victim of the shooter at Virginia Tech. He travels around spouting that gun control is the answer to end school shootings. He laid on the floor of a classroom and let Seung-Hui Cho shoot him. He says that God was with him and that is why he didn't die. The only reason he didn't die was that Seung-Hui Cho didn't shoot him again. I will not lay down, my gun goes every where I go.
Similar threads
- Locked
