At lunch today, I was involved in a discussion with some fellow 2A supporters, and the subject of the Eric Scott shooting (Costco in Las Vegas ) came up. More specifically, the issue of whether Costco was right to ask Scott to leave because he was armed. Somehow, these two believe that Costco had no right to ask him to leave. The logic, it's a location open to the public, he was breaking no laws, so they couldn't ask him to leave.
My response was that the owner of property, or his/her agent has an absolute right to decide who can and cannot be on the property. If I don't like people with blond hair, I can tell blodie to get off my property. It has nothing to do with 2A.
The comeback was that it was pure 2A violation, and discrimiation against an armed citizen. I counter that it's not a 2A violation (no State action), and that discrimination is perfectly legal, so long as it's not based on a protected class (race, religion, gender, age, etc.). But it has nothing to do with that, it's the right of a property owner, whether he opens the property to the general public or not, to decide who can and cannot be present, and what rules he/she places on those that are allowed on the property.
Any thoughts?, or am I just being too much of a lawyer on this one?
By teh way, they bought lunch, so I let them win the argument.