"Respecting" a public establishment's "Right" to deny gun carrier's access...

[Shellback]

Regarding bussing... I look to Walter E. Williams and his perspective.

The Atlantic magazine reported that public schools are nearly as segregated in 2012 as they were in the late 1960s. An Education Next series commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Coleman Report includes an article by Steven Rivkin, “Desegregation Since the Coleman Report,” that holds that American schools are still segregated. In 2001, Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project press release stated, “Almost half a century after the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Southern school segregation was unconstitutional and ‘inherently unequal’ … racial and ethnic segregation continued to intensify throughout the 1990s.”...

What about ice hockey games? Shall we call them “segregated”? I have never seen a proportional representation of black fans in the audience; in fact, most times I did not see any.

Based upon racial disparities, might we conclude that opera performances, dressage and wine tastings are also segregated? If you want to see more “segregation,” visit South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont. Not even 1 percent of their populations is black. What might our segregation scholars propose? Would they suggest rounding up blacks in the states where they are over-represented, such as in Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama, and bussing them to America’s “segregated” states? Might they suggest drafting blacks to attend operas, dressage and wine tastings?

They would not propose such nonsense, because they would recognize in these instances that racial homogeneity does not mean racial segregation. The test they would use is: If a black wants to use a water fountain, attend an opera or live in Montana, can he? That ought to be the same test for schools: If a black lives in a school district, is he free to attend? If the answer is yes then the school is not segregated, even if no blacks attend.

Terms related to segregation are “disparities,” “gaps” and “disproportionality,” all of which are taken as signs of injustice that must be corrected. The median income of women is less than that of men. Black and Hispanic students are suspended and expelled at higher rates than white students. There are race and sex disparities and gaps all over the place. For example, blacks are 13 percent of the population but 80 percent of professional basketball players and 66 percent of professional football players, and on top of that some of the most highly paid players. Those numbers do not mean that everything is hunky-dory for blacks. How many times have you seen a black player kick an extra point in professional football? What should be done about all of these glaring disparities? We might also ask what can be done to make basketball, football, dressage and ice hockey look more like America: in a word, using that beloved term, diverse...

[RoyGBiv]

When we lived in NC and my oldest was approaching school age, they started busing kids around town to achieve "economic balancing". They called it that because the courts had recently ruled that busing to achieve "integration" was a no-go. Hard to believe the stones on elected officials and the stupidity of voters.

We lived within a mile or three of schools my kids could have attended from K through 12, but with this busing plan it was possible they could get shipped 45 minutes across town so that, ostensibly, some kids from poorer families could be motivated by my kids upbringing and some of those kids could come over to my local schools and receive similar motivation. And the school assignments could change year-to-year. The 90 minutes a day in lost productivity was enough motivation by itself, but add to that my personal experience. Absolutely no way was I going to stand for that. We moved to Texas the winter before my oldest started kindergarten.

[GuanoLoco]

Precisely, but otherwise a business need only comply with the business laws of their own state and/or interstate commerce laws. And arguably, they should not have to comply with the ADA act. And in fact, the vast majority of places are not ADA compliant. And the ADA law relevant to this, makes statements only about efforts to be ADA compliant where "reasonable". (Sound familiar to anyone?). There have been a number of legal cases regarding ADA. I'm surprised the constitutionality of it hasn't been directly challenged in SCOTUS, to be honest. Given that Congress has no Constitutionally granted ability to regulate within-state commerce....

Moving on. I find this topic relatively distressing as a staunch libertarian. In my opinion, businesses should be as free from FEDERAL oversight as possible. If individual states do and choose to pass anti-discrimination laws that is their prerogative. But the FED needs to stay the fuck out of it. And I can't advocate a position that would allow the FED to supersede free commerce at any level. Not even for your individual rights. Because your individual constitutional rights apply to governments NOT ME. I can violate the fuck out of your personal rights, when you're standing on my lawn, as long as I don't break the law, there isn't fuck-all you can do about it, too. Similarly, I can violate the shit out of your rights in my business, as long as I don't break my licensing/business laws, there isn't fuck-all you can do about it.

That's what makes American great. You have a right to free speech - In the sense that no agent of the government can quiet your voice. You have a right to bear arms in the sense that no government agent can remove your right to keep and bear those weapons. But if you think the constitution means that a business owner can't tell you what not to do in THEIR SHOP? Wrong. And it SHOULD BE WRONG, PERIOD. Because a government big enough to tell a business owner what he can and can't do, is more than big enough to tell YOU, the individual, what you can and can't do.

FYI, I don't how many here have been/are/were small business owners. But try it some-time and my guess is you'll rapidly come around to my viewpoint. There is enough shit to deal with between the IRS, State Licensing, Federal Licensing, etc. To not be so inclined as to say things like, "We should force all businesses to accept us, because we carry guns."

Me? I keep my shit concealed and go to my favorite places that like me and my gun(s). If they don't like me, they can eat a dick. If they want me to leave, I'll leave. I want my rights respected just as I want to respect the rights of others. The Golden Rule - Rules Here.

So if I have a concealed gat, and you have no knowledge of it, and my behavior is that of any other desirable customer, why should you have any influence on my decision to carry/not carry?

If I am forced to use it because your business fails to protect me, you can trespass me off the property. After the fact.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My mother had to lie about belonging to the Dutch Reformed Church to get a job. My father was forced to register as a Republican to get a job. Those were the good old days.

I said my piece and now will eat popcorn at watch for the most part.

[Soggy]

My mother had to lie about belonging to the Dutch Reformed Church to get a job. My father was forced to register as a Republican to get a job. Those were the good old days.

I said my piece and now will eat popcorn at watch for the most part.

Now is a good time for me to wrap up as well. I will attempt to reduce my rant level by at least 85%.

This, to me, was a great moment in American history:
"As the sit-ins continued, tensions grew in Greensboro. Students began a far-reaching boycott of stores with segregated lunch counters. Sales at the boycotted stores dropped by a third, leading their owners to abandon segregation policies.[3] On Monday, July 25, 1960, after nearly $200,000 in losses ($1.6 million today), store manager Clarence Harris asked three black employees to change out of their work clothes and order a meal at the counter. They were, quietly, the first to be served at a Woolworth lunch counter.[14] Most stores were soon desegregated..." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

The bravery of those men and women who sat at those counters is, I hope we can all agree, inspirational. Please note it happened in 1960, several years into a civil rights movement that led to a lot very positive changes to our society. Please note also that government action did not play a role in Woolworths decision. Some of the protests, like the earlier Montgomery bus protests, where actually aimed at discriminatory government policies. Progress was being made.

The civil rights act came a few years later, with good intentions I'm sure, along with the housing act in 69 etc. All that legislation was supposed to give us racial peace in our time. Over two generations later, is that what we've got?

Racial solidarity is for suckers. Unfortunately, there are enough suckers around that you can make a pretty good living catering to them and keeping them inflamed. Our governments and universities fund a vast and powerful racial grievance industry. The media has discovered that sowing racial discord is good for ratings. The price paid in blood this year for all of the misreporting from Florida to Ferguson makes me sick.

Another poison injected into society is trying to win an argument by claiming people on the other side of an issue is a racist. I brought up bussing as an example. But you can pick a lot of other topics: Integrity of the vote, enforcing immigration laws, not voting for the female head of an international criminal conspiracy to sell influence. Even if the female is white. I don't think it is arguing in good faith. It is not healthy for society.

I am sure all of our ancestors, and maybe some of us, have had bad things happen to them because of prejudice. It is a sad fact of human nature. The lessons my folks taught me about it are: Life is not fair. We are lucky to live in America. Most importantly: Treat people with respect regardless of them background. "Run to the Government to solve your problems" was not on the curriculum. Maybe because of some of the unspeakably horrible shit they had to deal with was meted out by the government, I don't know. To be blunt, in my opinion people who think the government can make life fair are another species of sucker.

Glenn, I am sorry you Mom was discriminated against. It irks me that today, it is government policy to discriminate against your mother and others like her.

Apologies for ranting earlier in the thread as well.

Regards

[Tom Givens]

Why can't a property owner shoot a thief who is running away with his hard-earned personal property? It may be the total income from his business for the week in that bank bag, it may be something he can't replace. Why not? Because American common law and statutory law holds that no property has the intrinsic or extrinsic value of a human life. The right to life trumps property rights.

I see the issue the same way. My right to be armed is part of my right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". My right to defend my life is the most basic civil right and human right. Just because you own a parcel of property does not outweigh my right to be alive and whole.

[Soggy]

Why can't a property owner shoot a thief who is running away with his hard-earned personal property? It may be the total income from his business for the week in that bank bag, it may be something he can't replace. Why not? Because American common law and statutory law holds that no property has the intrinsic or extrinsic value of a human life. The right to life trumps property rights.

I see the issue the same way. My right to be armed is part of my right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". My right to defend my life is the most basic civil right and human right. Just because you own a parcel of property does not outweigh my right to be alive and whole.

Tom I am really torn. I am new to the forum, and rereading some of my prior posts I don't think I represented myself very well. It turns out discussing politics on the internet with strangers can sometimes make me sound like kind of a jerk. Who knew? Anyway after my last post on this issue I was resolved to just talk about guns and gear, which is why I joined.

On the other hand I have a lot of respect for you and don't want to ignore your legitimate question. I will ponder this for a couple of days, and see what others say. If there seems to be interest I'll try to put together an answer.

[JohnO]

I haven't seen anyone discuss the penalties associated with violating the signage/law. I'm sure jurisdictions are different. For example in Connecticut one can be slapped with a felony.

How about schools? Typically no signs but most know the gun free zone BS associated with schools. Being the parent of homeschooled kids I haven't had to deal with going on school property. However once a month my role in Boy Scouts takes me to a evening Roundtable meeting in a local middle school. I hate going due to the school factor.

[olstyn]

I haven't seen anyone discuss the penalties associated with violating the signage/law. I'm sure jurisdictions are different. For example in Connecticut one can be slapped with a felony.

In MN, the signs are almost completely ineffective. Max penalty is a $25 petty misdemeanor, and that's only applicable if you are verbally notified and refuse to leave the premises, which is of course only going to happen if someone notices you're carrying and cares to do something about it. The law also explicitly states that you retain ownership of your firearm if that happens. Obviously that doesn't apply to schools and federal buildings (grumble grumble stupid Post Office), and I imagine getting escorted out of the Mall of America might be a bit sporty, albeit of questionable legality on the part of the Mall, but in theory it's really no big deal here. As you said, other states, and potentially certain localities may be different. MN state law says that localities can't enact stricter rules than the state does in regard to guns, but other states may not be that way.

[farscott]

These kind of discussions always turn out to revolve around "zero tolerance" laws and tend to forget that law was originally meant to be applied via a judicial system that recognized that the law, as written, did not cover every contingency. Hence the origin of the phrase "the spirit of the law" and the original requirement for judges to apply the law. In our collective effort to not have only equal opportunity but equal outcomes, law has evolved to be "lowest common denominator" or "that is why we cannot have nice stuff".

In a place where a business can be sued, lose a court verdict, and pay damages if a shooting happens on its premises if the business does not do something to get out of the "strict liability" regime, it is not surprising to see that businesses display these signs and forbid employees from carrying weapons. If the law worked so that the person who actually used the weapon was the only person responsible, a lot of these businesses would not post as "no handguns". This is the same as the sexual harassment courses; those courses are to protect the business in a case where an employee harasses another employee. The purposes of those classes is to not change behavior or make the work environment better but to deflect liability.

So I see why businesses choose the path they do. I also obey, in the truest sense of the word, the spirit of the law.