Hamburg Wal-Mart. OC'er tresspassed from ALL Wal-Marts.

[Dario]

Hmm but he wasn't charged with shoplifting which means he isn't a "wrongdoer." Because you have to attempt to LEAVE without paying for it to be a crime. It seems to be more problematic that everyone wants to be a hall monitor than drinking a coke while shopping. Good grief. If they really called the cops because of that it's pretty damn pathetic and petty.

 

[garyh9900]

There are a lot of viewpoints here, so I will just say:

Laws and Constitutions are written. As long as they retain the same text their meaning is more simple than complex. What people want is complex and time dependent. Government entities want their things (funding, power). Business owners want their thing (make money and CEO's/employees who have personal opinions). Individuals want their thing (freedom to carry or freedom to use some other power to keep others from carrying). At the time the Laws and Constitutions were written the authors knew what they wanted and did a pretty good job in context. Then they went on to the next thing and outside influences began to morph their creations. Now we the people have noticed how much our rights have deteriorated so we have started to exercise those rights - to test them. Things do not change over night. The Bundy situation was an exercise in that. I have had conversations about being in a weapons restricted place with armed officers while I was armed (always outnumbered). Sometimes I won and sometimes they won, but I can now carry in more places than I could 10 years ago.

Whether Walmart has the "right" to control my "right" to the extent that they seem to be going to depends on the weight you assign to the 14th and 2nd amendment and/or the respective state constitutions and laws. But whether I will carry in Walmart 10 years down the road depends only upon me and those with similar determination.

HLB

The 2nd and 14th Amendments restrain the government, not Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart can ban weapons carried in any form, and deny admittance to anyone who has one, and have anyone who refuses to leave arrested for trespassing. There is no law permitting someone ignore the rights of private property holders in determining if they want weapons in their businesses.

 

[OC for ME]

...some folks would have the very government they deride for infringing upon their rights compel, by force if necessary, a private property owner to recognize their rights...ironic and hypocritical...

 

[color of law]

The 2nd and 14th Amendments restrain the government, not Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart can ban weapons carried University Of Kentucky T-Shirts in any form, and deny admittance to anyone who has wears one, and have anyone who refuses to leave arrested for trespassing. There is no law permitting someone ignore the rights of private property holders in determining if they want weapons University Of Kentucky T-Shirts in their businesses.

Here, I fixed it for you. reductio ad absurdum

 

[color of law]

...some folks would have the very government they deride for infringing upon their rights compel, by force if necessary, a private property owner to recognize their rights...ironic and hypocritical...

Well then petition congress to repeal the civil rights act if you believe so strongly about businesses open to the public to be allowed to discriminate against anything or anyone.

 

[color of law]

It just amazes me how people will defend the first amendment and refuse to defend the second amendment.

The open carry of a firearm is a first amendment protected right just like wearing a Cross on on a t-shirt.

I was arrested and prosecuted for trespass, while shopping in a Kroger, for open carrying. I was acquitted because I committed no crime.

 

[OC for ME]

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - An Act: To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Context...look it up...thanks for demonstrating (reminding us of) the liberal tactic of diversion when their argument fails any logical test...

As to the above act, immutable traits vs. personal property carried upon your person...moral equivalence...look it up...

 

[OC for ME]

...

I was arrested and prosecuted for trespass, while shopping in a Kroger, for open carrying. I was acquitted because I committed no crime.

Well there ya go. Did you get a big fat payday from the private property owner/cops for the wrongful application of the law? Or, did the jury (judge?) side with you despite the law...

Your personal experience does not relate to the 1A unless you were acquitted because your 1A was violated by the state.

 

[OC for ME]

... The open carry of a firearm is a first amendment protected right just like wearing a Cross on on a t-shirt. ...

Cite please.

 

[garyh9900]

Here, I fixed it for you. reductio ad absurdum

Your modifications would be correct, they could indeed ban people wearing a UK T-shirt if they so chose. The constitution protects people from the government, not from private individuals and businesses.

 

[gutshot II]

If I'm on your ignore list I understand you keep asking this same question. Schools are NOT open to the public. And, gun or no gun, you can be trespassed just for being someplace without privilege. We are discussing places open to the public, not private places.

WE? So, you now decide what the discussion is about? MY discussion is about people that claim the the state CAN'T regulate OC. Neither that person nor I made any distinction between public and private places on that point. I don't need you to tell me what MY discussion is about. If you don't want to join in MY discussion, don't join into it.

 

[Ghost1958]

Well there ya go. Did you get a big fat payday from the private property owner/cops for the wrongful application of the law? Or, did the jury (judge?) side with you despite the law...

Your personal experience does not relate to the 1A unless you were acquitted because your 1A was violated by the state.

One cannot be denied entry to a business because of their religion, freedom of religion don't ya know.

Religion is a choice guranteed by the BOR. Also a pre-existing right .

Like the RTKABA.
Carrying a gun is a CHOICE also guranteed by the BOR and prexisted this nation.

Same thing . Open to the public business has no right, at all, to 1 claim its public and private at the same time.

Or deny the RTKABA anymore than it does to ban a person because of religious dress of symbols worn.

 

[HPmatt]

I open carry at Walmart, but typically in the store early morning, with just workers stocking shelves, never had an issue here in Dallas.

 

[color of law]

WE? So, you now decide what the discussion is about? MY discussion is about people that claim the the state CAN'T regulate OC. Neither that person nor I made any distinction between public and private places on that point. I don't need you to tell me what MY discussion is about. If you don't want to join in MY discussion, don't join into it.

We are discussing an OC'er being trespassed from ALL Wal-Marts. You are trying to hijack this thread by discussing schools not open to the public and bars that are licensed by the state and heavily regulated. My understanding is that you are free to start your own thread discussing those subjects. But at present we are discussing trespass at Wal-Mart or in general trespassed from private businesses open to the public.

 

[garyh9900]

One cannot be denied entry to a business because of their religion, freedom of religion don't ya know.

Religion is a choice guranteed by the BOR. Also a pre-existing right .

Like the RTKABA.
Carrying a gun is a CHOICE also guranteed by the BOR and prexisted this nation.

Same thing . Open to the public business has no right, at all, to 1 claim its public and private at the same time.

Or deny the RTKABA anymore than it does to ban a person because of religious dress of symbols worn.

Maybe this would be easier if I explained it with crayons. But alas it’s not possible on this forum. No constitutional right gives you the right to bear arms in a privately owned building against the wishes of the owner. The constitution protects you from the government, not from individuals or businesses. Walmart can put a sign up banning firearms, and ask anyone they see with one to leave, and if they refuse to do so they can be arrested. You’re religion example is not because of freedom of religion, it’s because of the public accommodation laws in the civil rights act.
“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

If it’s covered by the Constitution, why would congress have to pass a law covering religion, race, and so on? Notice that being armed is not included.

 

[Ghost1958]

Maybe this would be easier if I explained it with crayons. But alas it’s not possible on this forum. No constitutional right gives you the right to bear arms in a privately owned building against the wishes of the owner. The constitution protects you from the government, not from individuals or businesses. Walmart can put a sign up banning firearms, and ask anyone they see with one to leave, and if they refuse to do so they can be arrested. You’re religion example is not because of freedom of religion, it’s because of the public accommodation laws in the civil rights act.
“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

If it’s covered by the Constitution, why would congress have to pass a law covering religion, race, and so on? Notice that being armed is not included.

Ehhhh the RTKABA isn't granted by the COTUS, it prexisted it. It's only guranteed by the 2a which applies to everyone not just the gov.

I don't mind the back and forth but knock off the Crayon quips.
You aren't that bright to be tossing that,crap around.
Just because a gov or business violates, unalienable right doesn't make them right.

 

[garyh9900]

Ehhhh the RTKABA isn't granted by the COTUS, it prexisted it. It's only guranteed by the 2a which applies to everyone not just the gov.

I don't mind the back and forth but knock off the Crayon quips.
You aren't that bright to be tossing that,crap around.
Just because a gov or business violates, unalienable right doesn't make them right.

From what I can read, I've hit the nail on the head with that crap. Your rights, don't supersede my rights, or the rights of someone who owns a business. They have the right to determine the rules for their establishment, within the confines of the law.

 

[gutshot II]

We are discussing an OC'er being trespassed from ALL Wal-Marts. You are trying to hijack this thread by discussing schools not open to the public and bars that are licensed by the state and heavily regulated. My understanding is that you are free to start your own thread discussing those subjects. But at present we are discussing trespass at Wal-Mart or in general trespassed from private businesses open to the public.

And some of the comments in that discussion that are trying to assert that no one has the authority to do that can be shown to be patently false by referring to state statutes that do just that. Once we can get rid of that bit of ignorance, we can move to the matter of private property. How can we ever have a reasonable discussion of the more complex issue of whether a private property owner can prohibit firearms from his property when some people continue to insist that no one can do that? You can't continue with a intelligent conversation on the issue of private property and ignore the claim that it can't be done anywhere. In any case I can't ignore them, and I won't. If that is not acceptable to you, too bad. You can always just not read my posts.

 

[Ghost1958]

From what I can read, I've hit the nail on the head with that crap. Your rights, don't supersede my rights, or the rights of someone who owns a business. They have the right to determine the rules for their establishment, within the confines of the law.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. The RTKABA prexisted this nation, constition and laws.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledged that. Right before it attempted to limit something it has no authority to limit.

 

[Ghost1958]

And some of the comments in that discussion that are trying to assert that no one has the authority to do that can be shown to be patently false by referring to state statutes that do just that. Once we can get rid of that bit of ignorance, we can move to the matter of private property. How can we ever have a reasonable discussion of the more complex issue of whether a private property owner can prohibit firearms from his property when some people continue to insist that no one can do that? You can't continue with a intelligent conversation on the issue of private property and ignore the claim that it can't be done anywhere. In any case I can't ignore them, and I won't. If that is not acceptable to you, too bad. You can always just not read my posts.

Unconstitutional laws and laws that attempt to violate basic human rights are passed all the time.

As the Supreme Court has opinied any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void when written, and no court ruling can make it valid.