Oklahoma wins one in Fed court.

[Matthew Carberry]

On business property, you essentially invite the public to your place of business (Some businesses more then others - say retail vs a manufacturing facility).  You still cannot curtail the rights of the public.  You cannot exclude *insert group here*, from becoming a vendor, customer or employee. 

Sure ya can.

"You're not hired."

"Why?"

"Because you won't sign this contract to not have your gun on my privately held parking lot" (insert additional criteria for said lot as necessary).

"Wanting to carry a gun" is not a protected class.  I can fire or not hire gun carriers at will in most states.


I can also inform folks that carry is not allowed for any patrons and enforce it as well. 

"I am refusing you service and requiring you to leave the premises."

"Why?"

"Because I have the right to refuse service for any reason, the reason being you are knowingly carrying a gun on my property after seeing my posting stating that doing so will be treated as trespassing."

"No, I won't leave."

"Hello, police?  I have a trespasser on the premises who has refused a request to leave."

[wmenorr67]

Sure ya can.

"You're not hired."

"Why?"

"Because you won't sign this contract to not have your gun on my privately held parking lot" (insert additional criteria for said lot as necessary).

"Wanting to carry a gun" is not a protected class.  I can fire or not hire gun carriers at will in most states.


I can also inform folks that carry is not allowed for any patrons and enforce it as well. 

"I am refusing you service and requiring you to leave the premises."

"Why?"

"Because I have the right to refuse service for any reason, the reason being you are knowingly carrying a gun on my property after seeing my posting stating that doing so will be treated as trespassing."

"No, I won't leave."

"Hello, police?  I have a trespasser on the premises who has refused a request to leave."

And I can chose not to do business with you and tell all my friends and family not to do business with you.

[Matthew Carberry]

And I can chose not to do business with you and tell all my friends and family not to do business with you.

Exactly.

If my business suffers due to my prejudice against gun owners, then I fail or change my policies.

That is in fact the Capitalist and American Way.

No need to intrude on my right to do business as I see fit, the market will provide the correction, or not.

[PTK]

No need to intrude on my right to do business as I see fit, the market will provide the correction, or not.

I wish people would understand this very basic truth. 

[SteveS]

Uh, it is a rather large difference, both practically & legally.  Hop on thr.us and pm The Rabbi and he can give you a few examples, seeing that he is a business owner.

There are quite a few things, probably best addressed by accountants (taxation, expenses, reporting, sales tax numbers, etc.) & lawyer (legal liability on corp vs the SP's shoulders) types.  But, I can address one aspect: that a corporation is an artificial entity the does not exist until the state says so.  Before my wife submitted the legalese paperwork to the state of Texas and got back their legalese thumbs up, her corporation was just a notion in our brains.

Excellent points.  The reality is that throughout the history of the US, businesses have always been subject to some level of control by the State, though the level of control is certainly higher now than it used to be.  You are certainly free to argue for the right of a business owner or corporation to operate their business in any way they see fit, but this has never been the rule in the US.

[Jamisjockey]

Reality and Idealisim don't intersect, especially in these times we live in now...
Ideally the government would have little to say in matters of private business and private property rights.  But in reality, they have much to say about both. 

[Matthew Carberry]

So the solution is to accept the current reality of overly intrusive gov't interference and in fact expand it, granting it greater precedent and longevity, just because this happens to be a bit of interference we happen to like?

How about saying, "This is wrong, as are these other infringements on business owners rights, they should all be overturned."

It will pass or it won't, this did, and we will live with the consequences, in this case "good" in a narrow-visioned, short-term way (like smoking bans for us non-smokers), but to be consistent in our beliefs on rights we should be dissenting on such infringements on principle.  Acceding only after losing the public argument through Constitutional means.

[Werewolf]

So the solution is to accept the current reality of overly intrusive gov't interference and in fact expand it, granting it greater precedent and longevity, just because this happens to be a bit of interference we happen to like?

How about saying, "This is wrong, as are these other infringements on business owners rights, they should all be overturned."

It will pass or it won't, this did, and we will live with the consequences, in this case "good" in a narrow-visioned, short-term way (like smoking bans for us non-smokers), but to be consistent in our beliefs on rights we should be dissenting on such infringements on principle.  Acceding only after losing the public argument through Constitutional means.

Morally, ethically you are absolutely RIGHT!

BUT!

If the RKBA crowd had been playing by those rules for the last 75 years the only guns in the hands of the public would be - well - no guns.

Sometimes one must bow to reality and accept a practical solution over an ethical and moral one.

[Matthew Carberry]

"No guns in cars on your employer's (or anyone else's) private property" is not a "gun rights" issue.  It is a property rights issue as it doesn't infringe on your gun freedom one iota.

All you have to do to avoid the infringement on your gun possession is get another job or not go onto that property, you don't have an absolute right to have that particular job or to access that particular private space.

No guns in cars or on your person on public property?  Gun rights issue, as it involves "bearing arms" and local, state or federal infringement.

Your "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" stops cold at my private property line, be it home, land or business.  The same is true in reverse.

[digitalandanalog]

If the RKBA crowd had been playing by those rules for the last 75 years the only guns in the hands of the public would be - well - no guns.

Sometimes one must bow to reality and accept a practical solution over an ethical and moral one.

And what makes being disarmed moral or ethical?

"No guns in cars on your employer's (or anyone else's) private property" is not a "gun rights" issue.  It is a property rights issue as it doesn't infringe on your gun freedom one iota.

Wrong. It is a self defense issue.

All you have to do to avoid the infringement on your gun possession is get another job or not go onto that property, you don't have an absolute right to have that particular job or to access that particular private space.

Remember what I said about all of the gas stations banning firearms on their properties?

Are you saying that you have no right to self defense if you need to fill up?

I'm sure you are willing to leave your gun at home in order to get the fuel you need in order to survive in the modern world.

Don't worry, just put the "Getting Gas" sign in your car windows and the criminals will leave you alone until you have a chance to go home and get your gun before carrying with the rest of your errands.

No guns in cars or on your person on public property?  Gun rights issue, as it involves "bearing arms" and local, state or federal infringement.

So feel free to park on the public streets and fill your gas can. Then you can gas up your car. Don't forget to bring the big container. Wouldn't want you to have to make more than one trip...

Unless you are older and weaker then you can pay and fill however many times it takes to get the needle up to the F with the smaller can that you can actually manage.

Your "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" stops cold at my private property line, be it home, land or business.  The same is true in reverse.

I know what it is that you are saying in the first sentence. What does the second sentence mean? It makes no sense to me.

[seeker_two]

But....do your property rights also extend to searching the property of others?  If a person parks his/her vehicle on your property, do you have the right to search it solely based on the fact that it is on your property?  Or do property rights extend to protect everyone?....


 

[Matthew Carberry]

But....do your property rights also extend to searching the property of others?  If a person parks his/her vehicle on your property, do you have the right to search it solely based on the fact that it is on your property?  Or do property rights extend to protect everyone?....


 

That depends.  If I inform you that a condition of entering or remaining on my property includes a search you can either agree to the search or not come onto my property. 

I'll say it again, your argument rests on the presumption you have a right to be on my property in the first place.  You don't, that's why it is private property.

I should be allowed to restrict access to whomever I choose.  If you don't like it, don't come. 


Look, I am as against anti-gun idiots as much as the next guy, but the way to fix them is to show that there are market consequences for their choices, not by using the legislature or courts to trample their property rights.

Once you allow property rights to be infringed for reasons you agree with; you make it possible for others to do the same to you about things you don't like.

[Matthew Carberry]

And what makes being disarmed moral or ethical?

Wrong. It is a self defense issue.

Nope, if you don't come onto my property, which is voluntary on your part, you can carry whatever you want under the law.  You do NOT have any right to enter my property just because you want to.

Remember what I said about all of the gas stations banning firearms on their properties?

Are you saying that you have no right to self defense if you need to fill up?

I'm sure you are willing to leave your gun at home in order to get the fuel you need in order to survive in the modern world.

Don't worry, just put the "Getting Gas" sign in your car windows and the criminals will leave you alone until you have a chance to go home and get your gun before carrying with the rest of your errands.

So feel free to park on the public streets and fill your gas can. Then you can gas up your car. Don't forget to bring the big container. Wouldn't want you to have to make more than one trip...

Unless you are older and weaker then you can pay and fill however many times it takes to get the needle up to the F with the smaller can that you can actually manage.

How about you open your OWN gas station if you don't like my rules, instead of infringing on my rights for your convenience? 

If you care so much about the weak or elderly, why not set up a charity to help them get gas instead of putting the onus on me to set aside my beliefs on property rights, again, for your convenience?

If you lack the will or ability to do so, then maybe you might need to plan ahead and get your gas further away, or set up a tank on your property and get it delivered in bulk or any number of other ways of taking personal responsibility instead of trampling on my right to run my business as I see fit.

And your example is ludicrous anyway.  If there are enough gun carriers who want to carry at a station, that provides a market niche.  A savvy business owner will then allow gun carrying and get ALL the business.  The market will fix itself.

I know what it is that you are saying in the first sentence. What does the second sentence mean? It makes no sense to me.

I'm saying that I can't carry onto your property, or set up a tent, or dig a hole, or any number of things I might want to do any more than you can on mine.  I have no right to be on there in the first place, much less carry a gun or dig a hole or sunbathe naked.

[RoadKingLarry]

Carebear,
Care to share with us the name of your business so we can exercise our rights to not do business with you?

"No guns in cars on your employer's (or anyone else's) private property" is not a "gun rights" issue.  It is a property rights issue as it doesn't infringe on your gun freedom one iota.

OK, I'll go with that but what the heck business is it of you or anyone else what legally possessed item I have locked in my privately owned vehicle(private property don't ya know) no matter where it is so long as I leave it locked in my car.
You do realize that if someone is determined to shoot up the place that your specious rule probably isn't going to stop them don't you?
And I did exercise my rights not to park on company property before this law was ruled on last week. Besides, it is a shorter walk to park on the street in front of my workplace than it is to park in back in the employee lot.

[Balog]

As Carebear has pointed out, if you sign an employment contract then pissy about abiding by it, that is not a civil rights violation.

[Matthew Carberry]

Carebear,
Care to share with us the name of your business so we can exercise our rights to not do business with you?

OK, I'll go with that but what the heck business is it of you or anyone else what legally possessed item I have locked in my privately owned vehicle(private property don't ya know) no matter where it is so long as I leave it locked in my car.
You do realize that if someone is determined to shoot up the place that your specious rule probably isn't going to stop them don't you?
And I did exercise my rights not to park on company property before this law was ruled on last week. Besides, it is a shorter walk to park on the street in front of my workplace than it is to park in back in the employee lot.

Oh, any business I own would definitely allow firearms.  But that's the point, it would be my business, my property, and I should be able to make that rule.

And it doesn't matter whether I have any business knowing what's in your car, it is irrelevent.  It is my right as the property owner to bar guns.  Full stop, no discussion, no justification needed. 

The exact parallel is that it is no one's business why we as gun owners want to buy .50 cal rifles, or more than one gun a month or why we need more than 10 round magazines.  Rights don't need justification.

It's my private property, I say "no guns" and I don't need to justify it.  You agree to my terms or you stay off my property.

[roo_ster]

Sorry, carebear, your logic only works for maybe sole proprietorships.

Every other business format (S-corp, C-Corp, LLC, etc.) exchanges benefits for gov't requirements.  Don't want the requirements, don't take the benefits.

There is no coercion at work, just a willing agreement between two parties.

Owners/investors gain protection for their personal assets from lawsuits & bankruptcy, as well as the choice of whether to have the income taxed as personal income (S-corp) or as business income (C-corp).

About the only format where your logic holds any water is in the sole proprietorship, where every ridiculous lawsuit threatens penury for your family & liquidation of your kids' college funds, and business failure ensures your house is in the sights of your business's creditors.

Want the right to refuse legally-packed firearms in your employees and customers vehicles?  You get to forgo the benefits of incorporation.

Want the benefits of incorporation?  Deal with the requirements imposed in exchange for those benefits.

[Matthew Carberry]

Again, I understand that is how it is, but that isn't how it should be and maybe if we tried to push back a little more earlier we wouldn't have so many regulatory issues now.

For instance, smoking bans are BS, but they followed naturally from the allowed intercessions in private business by government on worker's rights and civil rights issues.

An initial "good intercession" was stretched to allow more, and more, and more intrusions with less and less connection to the rationale used to justify the first few.

Legislation allowing guns in cars on private property can easily be used as precedent to NOT allow guns in cars on private property.  All it takes is the balance of power in the legislature to shift.

Better to have precedent that the government can go pound sand when it comes to private business, whether that makes it inconvenient for some emplyees or not.

[sanglant]

you know, i think i have an easy solution. the businesses that want to disarm there employs on there ride to and from work can pay armed security guards to drive there employs to and from work :rolleyes:

[roo_ster]

Again, I understand that is how it is, but that isn't how it should be and maybe if we tried to push back a little more earlier we wouldn't have so many regulatory issues now.

What is the beef?  At its root is a willing contract between two entities: business owner(s)/shareholders and gov't.  No one forces folks to incorporate.  I thought it was all about free choice?  Are not folks allowed to trade and make the best deal from their perspective?

Favorable treatment WRT taxes, bankruptcy, and lawsuits did not happen over the objections of business owners.  The fact that they have to give something to get something else in return is not unreasonable.

Business formats change, too, when the owners/shareholders decide it is in their best interests.  Chrysler, FTR, is no longer publicly traded and has fewer obligations vis a vis gov't than do publicly traded companies.

Your argument is reasonable for a sole proprietor who gets no bennies from gov't and gets to face legal liabilities square-on, like any private citizen. 

[Desertdog]

You have no right to bring guns onto private property, against the owner's wishes.  How is this difficult to understand? 

Do you have a 1st Amendment right on private property, or did you lose that right when you drive or step on private property?

The 2nd Amendment is also in the Bill of Rights, as well as the 1st Amendment.

Of the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights, how many do you care to have not apply to since you don't want me to have the 2nd Amendment to apply to me?

[ronnyreagan]

Do you have a 1st Amendment right on private property, or did you lose that right when you drive or step on private property?

You're comparing apples and oranges. One is government restriction, the other isn't. You still have the 1st Amendment rights on private property - meaning you are protected from government restriction. There are no limits in the bill of rights regarding private restrictions. The government can't ban weapons, speech, or religion but the property owner can.

[Gewehr98]

RR speaks true.

The 1st Amendment protects us from government infringement of free speech.

As anybody who's run afoul of internet forum rules would know, the 1st Amendment does not apply to privately-owned venues.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No, corporations are basically the dictators (or at least trying very hard to be) and they expect us to be good servants and never question their policies.

Remind me never to hire you...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Sorry, carebear, your logic only works for maybe sole proprietorships.

Every other business format (S-corp, C-Corp, LLC, etc.) exchanges benefits for gov't requirements.  Don't want the requirements, don't take the benefits.

There is no coercion at work, just a willing agreement between two parties.

Owners/investors gain protection for their personal assets from lawsuits & bankruptcy, as well as the choice of whether to have the income taxed as personal income (S-corp) or as business income (C-corp).

About the only format where your logic holds any water is in the sole proprietorship, where every ridiculous lawsuit threatens penury for your family & liquidation of your kids' college funds, and business failure ensures your house is in the sights of your business's creditors.

Want the right to refuse legally-packed firearms in your employees and customers vehicles?  You get to forgo the benefits of incorporation.

Want the benefits of incorporation?  Deal with the requirements imposed in exchange for those benefits.

This argument rests upon the premise that free association is a privilege granted by government, not a right held by the people.