The legality of non-government mandated gun-free zones

[Ghost1958]

I did not mention closed, I mentioned doors locked. Sam's, to name but one private business from the OP's op, locks it doors to the general public during their normal operating hours. We enter at their pleasure and our 1A and 2A right is subordinate to their private property right. We can be asked to leave their property due to nothing more than our being armed, as is their right. To avoid these situations I only patronize businesses that acknowledge and respect our 2A guarantee. You hold a differing position regarding private property rights...no biggie.

I remain perplexed that individual liberty seeking, rights respecting citizens do not display consistency on this particular topic.

We are talking past each other. I'm talking about a closed business vs open business and you drag in a members only store.

I don't know your state . Mine the property owner can tell me to leave for no reason at all.

But while I am ON the property I have the right to be armed, period.
The property owner nor the police can legally disarm me for simply carrying there.

I'm totally consistant. I and you and everyone else has an absolute,right to be armed and to SD.

That should not and as far as I'm concerned does not depend on anyone else's whim.

 

[The Big Guy]

Even though the Supreme's have said that any corporation is in fact the same as an individual, I believe they're in error. In my opinion there is a big difference between a wholly owned and operated single proprietor than a huge publicly held corporation. I would certainly think that the federal statutes TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 would hold in that case.

 

[OC for ME]

The members only store is not dragged into our conversation, see the "ect." part. Costco is a members only store, I selected Sam's because Sam's respects armed citizens, even though they do not now respect OC. Costco does not respect our 2A...I do not support their anti-2A business.

I have not discussed any private business disarming any citizen. You are stating that they will snatch your pistol off your hip, which would be a serious crime. Being asked to disarm or leave is not disarming you, only you can disarm you...or a anti-2A cop.

You staying beyond being asked to leave is a crime.

You entering when you know the business is anti-2A is you being disrespectful...legal, but disrespectful.

Using the power of the state to compel the private business owner to respect our rights while we disrespect his rights...hypocrisy, defined.

 

[Ghost1958]

The members only store is not dragged into our conversation, see the "ect." part. Costco is a members only store, I selected Sam's because Sam's respects armed citizens, even though they do not now respect OC. Costco does not respect our 2A...I do not support their anti-2A business.

I have not discussed any private business disarming any citizen. You are stating that they will snatch your pistol off your hip, which would be a serious crime. Being asked to disarm or leave is not disarming you, only you can disarm you...or a anti-2A cop.

You staying beyond being asked to leave is a crime.

You entering when you know the business is anti-2A is you being disrespectful...legal, but disrespectful.

Using the power of the state to compel the private business owner to respect our rights while we disrespect his rights...hypocrisy, defined.

You have your opinion and your entitled to have and act upon it.

I have mine . And I will act upon it also.
And I suppose your right . I have no respect for those who wish to curtail the RTKABA by creating killing fields in their businesses.

Just because I'm standing on your property does not mandate I be defenseless against someone else there attempting to do me or mine harm simply because it's your wish I that I am.

You and your is being used generically.

 

[OC for ME]

You have your opinion and your entitled to have and act upon it.

I have mine . And I will act upon it also.
And I suppose your right . I have no respect for those who wish to curtail the RTKABA by creating killing fields in their businesses.

Just because I'm standing on your property does not mandate I be defenseless against someone else there attempting to do me or mine harm simply because it's your wish I that I am.

You and your is being used generically.

Technically, you are either disarmed by your own hand to remain on the private property, or else you must leave if that is the owner's desire...or, will you challenge the business owner's lawful exercise of his property rights while on his property.

I choose to avoid the situation all together. As you rightly stated, your opinions/acts and mine...no biggie.

 

[Ghost1958]

Technically, you are either disarmed by your own hand to remain on the private property, or else you must leave if that is the owner's desire...or, will you challenge the business owner's lawful exercise of his property rights while on his property.

I choose to avoid the situation all together. As you rightly stated, your opinions/acts and mine...no biggie.

What the owner doesn't know is both legal and won't hurt him either .

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Per the FBI: "This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same)." https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes

Per the Justice Department: "Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime." https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights

If you can't get the gov. to enforce the violation of the law then you could bring a private action. But I don't think the lower courts will let you get to first base.

The FBI is very willing to go after white males for violating this section.

As written one should be able to go after many businesses, and many in goverment for violation of ones 2nd amendment rights.

But once again the 2nd is the bastard step child that the elites do not want to recognize because it inters with their ideals of taking over this country.

 

[solus]

Hummmm, the term/concept LEOSA is rolling around my cynical wittle bitty mind.

 

[Ghost1958]

Another small catch is both the U.S. code and LEOSA are acts of congress .

Any states wishing to can constitutionally , refuse to acknowledge , or enforce either.
Enforcement of federal law, should a state not acknowledge it is up to Federal agents.

 

[NMOCr]

Even though the Supreme's have said that any corporation is in fact the same as an individual, I believe they're in error. In my opinion there is a big difference between a wholly owned and operated single proprietor than a huge publicly held corporation. I would certainly think that the federal statutes TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 would hold in that case.

Prior to the 1890s, the right of business to exclude ANYONE was understood in the law, as an absolute right of private property owners. The Constitution was written to define specific Federal Government rights and prohibitions of the Federal Government toward the people. It did not regulate anything, nor any actions BETWEEN THE PEOPLE!

A lot of that changed with the 1890s progressive movements, that started to regulate business and break up monopolies. Only after the courts "agreed" with that, did the Federal Government magically get powers over the people and business.

The civil rights laws of the 1960s further changed the private property laws, to force businesses to accept people, because of certain classes (sex, color, creed, age). Unfortunately, they have not done so for the 2nd Amendment, by requiring business to accept that class as a "right".

I grant you that it is a result of progressivism pandering to one group, while ignoring other rights. But that is the world we live in today. But you wont get a Republican state legislature, to pass such a gun law forcing business to allow guns.. because it is in fact a Liberal ideal to force policies upon the people and business.. not a Republican ideal.

 

[color of law]

..........

The civil rights laws of the 1960s further changed the private property laws, to force businesses to accept people, because of certain classes (sex, color, creed, age). Unfortunately, they have not done so for the 2nd Amendment, by requiring business to accept that class as a "right".

.....

Being United States citizens and owning and using firearms, then gun owners are members of “ a class of persons who are part of a national community” and are protected by the 2nd Amendment. See United States v. Meza-Roddriguez, 798 F.2d 664, 670 (7th Cir. 2015), quoting United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274-275, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990).

 

[Ghost1958]

Prior to the 1890s, the right of business to exclude ANYONE was understood in the law, as an absolute right of private property owners. The Constitution was written to define specific Federal Government rights and prohibitions of the Federal Government toward the people. It did not regulate anything, nor any actions BETWEEN THE PEOPLE!

A lot of that changed with the 1890s progressive movements, that started to regulate business and break up monopolies. Only after the courts "agreed" with that, did the Federal Government magically get powers over the people and business.

The civil rights laws of the 1960s further changed the private property laws, to force businesses to accept people, because of certain classes (sex, color, creed, age). Unfortunately, they have not done so for the 2nd Amendment, by requiring business to accept that class as a "right".

I grant you that it is a result of progressivism pandering to one group, while ignoring other rights. But that is the world we live in today. But you wont get a Republican state legislature, to pass such a gun law forcing business to allow guns.. because it is in fact a Liberal ideal to force policies upon the people and business.. not a Republican ideal.

You would if the Republican state legislature supported the RTKABA and constitution rather than business.

 

[wabbit]

Alas, historically the land of disenchantment is primarily demo

 

[NMOCr]

You would if the Republican state legislature supported the RTKABA and constitution rather than business.

Historically.. The 2nd Amendment was not incorporated against the states until 2010 Heller. Even if you argue that the 14th Amendment incorporated it.. that was over 70 years after the 2nd Amendment was made into law.. The problem with people today, is that they do not understand that the first 10 Amendments, were not laws against the states. It was against the Federal Government. I dont like it, but that is the fact of the law. That means that business owners, and property owners, were pretty much GODs in their control of their property. If they did not want YOU on it.. for ANY REASON... they could make you leave! A strict Constitutionalist would point this out, that the LETTER of the law, prohibited Government from telling Businesses from doing a lot of stuff.. until the Socialist movements of the 1890s change that with the breaking up of Monopolies. Nothing in the Constitution, actually allows for the Government to tell Standard oil to breakup.. but they did... and did that with other businesses with other reasons for doing it (like Civil Rights laws).

 

[Ghost1958]

Historically.. The 2nd Amendment was not incorporated against the states until 2010 Heller. Even if you argue that the 14th Amendment incorporated it.. that was over 70 years after the 2nd Amendment was made into law.. The problem with people today, is that they do not understand that the first 10 Amendments, were not laws against the states. It was against the Federal Government. I dont like it, but that is the fact of the law. That means that business owners, and property owners, were pretty much GODs in their control of their property. If they did not want YOU on it.. for ANY REASON... they could make you leave! A strict Constitutionalist would point this out, that the LETTER of the law, prohibited Government from telling Businesses from doing a lot of stuff.. until the Socialist movements of the 1890s change that with the breaking up of Monopolies. Nothing in the Constitution, actually allows for the Government to tell Standard oil to breakup.. but they did... and did that with other businesses with other reasons for doing it (like Civil Rights laws).

I've seen that theory that the constitution didn't apply to the states when written.

However it most certainly DID apply to the states and individuals. Nowhere that I've ever read in it says different certainly not the BOR.

 

[The Big Guy]

Historically.. The 2nd Amendment was not incorporated against the states until 2010 Heller. Even if you argue that the 14th Amendment incorporated it.. that was over 70 years after the 2nd Amendment was made into law.. The problem with people today, is that they do not understand that the first 10 Amendments, were not laws against the states. It was against the Federal Government. I dont like it, but that is the fact of the law. That means that business owners, and property owners, were pretty much GODs in their control of their property. If they did not want YOU on it.. for ANY REASON... they could make you leave! A strict Constitutionalist would point this out, that the LETTER of the law, prohibited Government from telling Businesses from doing a lot of stuff.. until the Socialist movements of the 1890s change that with the breaking up of Monopolies. Nothing in the Constitution, actually allows for the Government to tell Standard oil to breakup.. but they did... and did that with other businesses with other reasons for doing it (like Civil Rights laws).

I have some questions.

When the Constitution was ratified by the 13 states were they not bound by that Constitution? When each successive territory became a state, didn't they agree that the US Constitution was the supreme law of the land and that they would be bound by it?

Article 4 Sec 2 of the Constitution states:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. I believe that to mean "Privileges and Immunities" refers to the Constitution and the "several states" meaning the United States in total.

I believe that the Bill of Rights refer, as it says, to inalienable or God given rights. I would say that means that no government, federal or state or local, nor individuals can take that right away from you.

Doesn't this mean that the states must follow the US Constitution? Doesn't the US Supreme Court routinely over rule states laws declaring them to be not in compliance with the US Constitution? Also don't State Supreme Courts turn over laws on US Constitutional grounds?

Am I misunderstanding what you were saying?

Regarding the breakup of Standard oil they used the Commerce Act allowing them to regulate interstate commerce. Who was more interstate than Standard Oil? Having said that, you may be correct as strictly speaking I would interpret the Commerce Clause to regulate commerce between states which unfairly regulate trade across boarders. Unfortunately The Commerce Clause has become the catch all of federal regulation. i.e. firearms travel in interstate commerce therefore the US Government deems it has total power over that commodity.

The Big Guy