Should private businesses be allowed to ban guns?

[ronstar]

There seems to be some people who believe that private businesses should not be allowed to ban people from possessing guns if they have a permit to do so.

Some even argue banning possession of guns violates the Civil Rights Act.

What do you think? Should private businesses be allowed to ban people from possessing firearms even if concealed?

 

[Blimey]

Yes, as much as an inconvenience it would be for gun owners. They can ban anything that is not a protected class and gun ownership is not one.

No public place should be allowed to prohibit them unless it is independently hardened and has a specifically heightened threat (e.g. a courthouse with guards and metal detectors).

 

[Blackjack]

I feel they can do whatever they want. But need to post that they do not allow them. You don’t have to use their business.

None of this blanket no 2a for all businesses bull shit that’s completely illegal and 100% the opposite of the 2a.

If you bring a gun because you didn’t see the sign and somehow someone accused you of having one all they should be able to do is tell you to leave and if you don’t it’s trespassing.

Unless your a murdering criminal of course then you can shoot up anyplace anytime at your will.

 

[ronstar]

I feel they can do whatever they want. But need to post that they do not allow them. You don’t have to use their business.

None of this blanket no 2a for all businesses bull shit that’s completely illegal and 100% the opposite of the 2a.

If you bring a gun because you didn’t see the sign and somehow someone accused you of having one all they should be able to do is tell you to leave and if you don’t it’s trespassing.

Unless your a murdering criminal of course then you can shoot up anyplace anytime at your will.

If you conceal it well there is very little chance they will know you have it, unless of course you use it to protect yourself and another customer and then the store will thank you.

 

[Phazer]

If you have a private business, on private property, that derives no support from the government, then you can set property policy for your property.

From a constitutionalist point of view, you should be able to ban anyone, for any reason, from entering your store. Those reasons could be construed as racist or sexist. It is your business and your property. That said, it would be bad business and bad policy. But, you should be free to live your life and to legally conduct your business as you see fit. The rest of us would be within our rights to stand on the public sidewalk outside of your business and call you racist or sexist. As long as no violence is involved, live and let live.

 

[dwa12479]

Private business should be able to ban anyone from their property for any reason. Then let the people decide if they'd like to patronize that business.

In the case of NY recently making everywhere a default "No 2A zone" unless otherwise stated, they have overstepped their authority in a huge way and are violating Americans civil rights.

 

[8w7]

There seems to be some people who believe that private businesses should not be allowed to ban people from possessing guns if they have a permit to do so.

Some even argue banning possession of guns violates the Civil Rights Act.

What do you think? Should private businesses be allowed to ban people from possessing firearms even if concealed?

The Civil Rights act is unconstitutional. As a private business owner on private property, you should be able to allow or not allow whatever you want in your business.

No shirt, no shoes, no service. Christians only. Muslims only. Whites only. Blacks only.

And that includes guns too.

 

[Cavalry]

Yes, and forums should be able to ban lefty trolls.

 

[Saltwater60]

I think the complaint is that the government forced them to ban guns by default unless they put up a sign saying guns are allowed. Very few will do this and they complaint is that it is now a felony.
I have no issue with private companies saying no guns allowed, but the funny thing is none ever did that. Some may have had a policy buried on their corporate web site, but very rarely would you see one on the physical structure. Als back before, well yesterday all it meant is they asked you to leave, you apologized and said I’m leaving and it was done. Now it’s a felony with great implications. These are the gripes we have.

 

[Stuckinny]

As stated above, a private business should be able to refuse a customer for any reason. If they don't like guns, then they can ask you to leave, if you are shirtless, they can ask you to leave, if they don't want to bake your cake for your wedding, so be it. Don't leave, then you can get tresspassed. Consumers have choice and can exercise that choice. Businesses should be able to uphold their morals, and if their morals cause them to go teets up, oh well. If this is in reference to the latest CC law though, your question does not reflect what happened.

 

[ManualF150]

This topic of private businesses of allowing gun bans really only applies to open carry.

Concealed is concealed. Meaning no one but you knows what is on your person and it should stay that way.

Now if your shirt or pants uncover your weapon (heck, knife, gun, baton, etc) then they have probable grounds to do something. Otherwise, no one knows but you.

I know of a person that had a girlfriend (now their wife), she did not know he was carrying for months. That is how well he concealed it.

 

[subsonic]

I think the law should be what it was in New York (minus the permitting scheme) and is in most of the country (Texas conspicuously excluded). That is, a private business can set and enforce whatever rules it wants, can kick you out or ban you, and if you refuse to leave you when asked or return after banned the owner can get police involved and charge you with trespassing (or worse if you use force or the gun to try to break in or resist leaving).

However concealed carrying in a "no guns" private business should not be an independent offense punished by the state affecting your liberty or firearm rights. If a private business wants to keep concealed weapons out from law-abiding citizens then they need to put in bouncers to frisk or metal detectors. No different whether it is a handgun or a pocket/boot knife.

 

[Cooolone]

Well it's funny you ask, because a business can't ban gays, or people of a particular race! But the automatic refusal by law, and permission given by a commercial Enterprise or whomever just happens to be on call that day at the coffee counter is insane!

 

[dsdmmat]

In 1993 The local Kmart in Sierra Vista AZ got a new manager and he banned open carry in the store. It was almost forced to close less than a month later and the manager was fired.

buy thing where people support your rights.

 

[spat]

There seems to be some people who believe that private businesses should not be allowed to ban people from possessing guns if they have a permit to do so.

Some even argue banning possession of guns violates the Civil Rights Act.

What do you think? Should private businesses be allowed to ban people from possessing firearms even if concealed?

Allowed is not the same thing as coerced into doing so.


It's just like the mask thing. If you want to require them as a private business, that's your right.

But as soon as the government starts pressuring you into it, then you are no longer capable of making an independent decision about it.

Just like a prison inmate can't consent to sex, a business facing government sanctions can't voluntarily decide to require or prohibit anything.


Now, whether they are civilly liable for the hazard they create by disarming their customers is another deal entirely.

 

[pshift]

You can do whatever you want on PRIVATE property. You can always post a sign that states what is or is not allowed. The problem occurs when your rights interfere with my rights, that's when we have an issue. There is no need to disagree on this. As long as rights are respected, there should be no issues. Of course, that does not apply to the sycophant's in SLAWbany. (Stupid Lawless Abhorrent Witch).

 

[8w7]

You can do whatever you want on PRIVATE property. You can always post a sign that states what is or is not allowed. The problem occurs when your rights interfere with my rights, that's when we have an issue. There is no need to disagree on this. As long as rights are respected, there should be no issues. Of course, that does not apply to the sycophant's in SLAWbany. (Stupid Lawless Abhorrent Witch).

You have no rights on private property. That would be like me being in your home using profound language in front of your children with nothing that you can do about it because it would interfere with my rights.

And I see that you “Wow!”ed my post. What do you disagree about it? Do you think that if your wife wanted to open up a club for battered women only that men should have to be allowed to attend?

Her club her rules. yet it goes against the civil rights act which is not supposed to exist.

The way it’s supposed to work is that if you and others don’t like how a private business operates, you boycott them. Not strong arm them into doing something that they don’t want to do.

 

[meketrefe]

There seems to be some people who believe that private businesses should not be allowed to ban people from possessing guns if they have a permit to do so.

Some even argue banning possession of guns violates the Civil Rights Act.

What do you think? Should private businesses be allowed to ban people from possessing firearms even if concealed?

A private place should be able to put any rules they want, a different story is how are they going to enforce them?
If you tell someone you cannot defend yourself in here and they fail to provide the security resulting in someone hurt or dead, then they are opening themselves to huge civil and potentially criminal liabilities.
So when they say this is a safe zone they have to go all in with a secured perimeter, metal detectors, etc ...
A bad guy whether is a criminal, a lunatic or a terrorist is not going to be stopped by a sign.
That is how they are allowing these wackos and criminals to continue murdering by doing nothing that is actually effective..
The saddest part is that we the 2A supporters and organizations are not doing anything neither.
This is incomprehensible to me.

We are fat, lazy and complacent.

 

[pshift]

You have no rights on private property. That would be like me being in your home using profound language in front of your children with nothing that you can do about it because it would interfere with my rights.

And I see that you “Wow!”ed my post. What do you disagree about it? Do you think that if your wife wanted to open up a club for battered women only that men should have to be allowed to attend?

Her club her rules. yet it goes against the civil rights act which is not supposed to exist.

The way it’s supposed to work is that if you and others don’t like how a private business operates, you boycott them. Not strong arm them into doing something that they don’t want to do.

I was talking about MY rights on MY property.

 

[spat]

You have no rights on private property. That would be like me being in your home using profound language in front of your children with nothing that you can do about it because it would interfere with my rights.

And I see that you “Wow!”ed my post. What do you disagree about it? Do you think that if your wife wanted to open up a club for battered women only that men should have to be allowed to attend?

Her club her rules. yet it goes against the civil rights act which is not supposed to exist.

The way it’s supposed to work is that if you and others don’t like how a private business operates, you boycott them. Not strong arm them into doing something that they don’t want to do.

You retain all your rights in private property.

You do not however have a right to remain on that property if the owner doesn't want you there for *whatever* reason.

That's it. They can't disarm you, but they *can* tell you to leave.

 

[Stuckinny]

A bad guy whether is a criminal, a lunatic or a terrorist is not going to be stopped by a sign.
That is how they are allowing these wackos and criminals to continue murdering by doing nothing that is actually effective..

But now no sign needed, no guns by default, that should stop any shootings.

 

[8w7]

You retain all your rights in private property.

You do not however have a right to remain on that property if the owner doesn't want you there for *whatever* reason.

That's it. They can't disarm you, but they *can* tell you to leave.

If you have to leave to exercise your rights somewhere else because you can’t exercise them there, you have no rights in that place.

 

[Vinson57]

No, get security guards and metal detectors if so paranoid against guns. No more training CCW people like dogs and their invisible fences, stuck in their yards.

The ruling that needs to come, should say as much. This way, with security, both bad guys and good guys have to comply.

 

[holdover]

There seems to be some people who believe that private businesses should not be allowed to ban people from possessing guns if they have a permit to do so.

Some even argue banning possession of guns violates the Civil Rights Act.

What do you think? Should private businesses be allowed to ban people from possessing firearms even if concealed?

Should private businesses be allowed to ban black people?

I was thinking it would violate their civil rights.

 

[holdover]

You retain all your rights in private property.

You do not however have a right to remain on that property if the owner doesn't want you there for *whatever* reason.

So if they dont allow blacks in their store its OK?

 

[dsdmmat]

There seems to be some people who believe that private businesses should not be allowed to ban people from possessing guns if they have a permit to do so.

Some even argue banning possession of guns violates the Civil Rights Act.

What do you think? Should private businesses be allowed to ban people from possessing firearms even if concealed?

I am opposed to the government telling businesses they have to post what is allowed on their property.

If it were a different topic say, “talking.” Should the government make a business post a sign that says “talking is allowed in this establishment?”

pretty stupid law.

 

[cgrutt]

Private business should be able to do whatever they damn well please just as a private citizen should be able to do whatever they damn well please within confines of lawful activity. So private business says no guns fine no issue. Private citizen lawfully carrying concealed can choose to honor businesses request and shop elsewhere or ignore it and carry on lawfully. If caught private business can ask private citizen to leave. If he refuses then its a trespass issue.

Problem arises of course when .gov mandates private business to comply with whatever social constructs are flavor of day. No wheelchair access shut down until you provide it. Don't bake a cake for gay couple because its against your religious beliefs we'll see you in court and you'll lose everything you've ever worked for fighting the man. Don't want to serve whomever for whatever reason revoke your license to make a living. It can't be both ways either open up shop and take all comers who are behaving lawfully or do whatever you damn well please and have .gov stay out of your private establishment.

 

[meketrefe]

If you have to leave to exercise your rights somewhere else because you can’t exercise them there, you have no rights in that place.

Not everything is black and white.
We cannot have one right destroy another. If we recognize freedom of speech, the right to have a property and no trespassing then we cannot consider having permission or not to be a violation of our right. It is not ones property in the first place.
Government telling you what to do with every single aspect of ones property that is at thr other hand very intrusive.
A smart business may put a sign saying you might conceal carry at your own risk and discretion.

 

[8w7]

Not everything is black and white.
We cannot have one right destroy another. If we recognize freedom of speech, the right to have a property and no trespassing then we cannot consider having permission or not to be a violation of our right. It is not ones property in the first place.
Government telling you what to do with every single aspect of ones property that is at thr other hand very intrusive.
A smart business may put a sign saying you might conceal carry at your own risk and discretion.

Oh but it is black and white. If I forbid you from carrying a weapon in my business or home or from reading pornography, you don’t have that right on my property. Plain and simple.

Not sure what the rest of what you are saying pertains to the statement I made.

 

[holdover]

Were saying limitations on civil rights are bullshit.

Your going to deny someone of thier rights of self defense because You dont like it? Well open your business in China.

Because once you open that can of worms , You can be denied rights of entry because your black gay Mexican purple. That sword swings both ways . These are not privileges given by you or the government. They are in alienable , And If you open your business to the public , YOU have to Honor those rights . These are Long established Human rights .