Rethinking 30.06

[EEllis]

Again, my focus is upon the fact that one is a constitutional right and I believe it is beyond unfair to suspend my rights on property wherein the public has been invited.

But carrying concealed isn't a constitutional right. Then there is the fact that speech, which is a constitutional right, doesn't mean that business owners can't stop all speech in a business by use of trespass if they so feel. IMHO not a effective legal or moral argument.

I think though that there is a difference. Let's assume for a moment that the business opened its doors for a specific purpose - say, to sell widgets. If someone enters that business for the purpose of exercising their right to free speech, that is in a sense a breach, as the purpose of the business was not to provide a place for freedom of speech. It was to sell widgets. And the business has a valid reason for asking the customer to leave. And opening the doors to the public for the purpose of inviting that public to potentially purchase a widget is an offering for purpose. Said customer enters for that purpose, if said business owner then for no valid business purpose arbitrarily rescinds that offer, a consumer can likely have a recourse. And I know a gun rights attorney in VA who has made that same argument regarding gun purchases and offers to sell then being breached. Think of it as advertising and entering is an acceptance by the customer. A customer could claim breach. So the purpose of the free speeches is clearly different than that of a customer who accepted the offer to sell a widget.

Please note that I didn't say that CC was a constitutional right, just that there is a right to bear arms. It is the state that has imposed a restriction upon how that right is exercised. My point in the above is that IF you go to a business that has extended an offer to you for the purpose of purchasing a widget, then the fact that you are exercising your right to bear arms has no relevance upon that acceptance. And for that reason I believe that a business open to the public has an obligation (a good lawyer can discuss the legal implication of an offer to sell and then refusing to do so) to then let you in to complete that purchase. I can't imagine a consumer being excused from completing a purchase having for example, made a deposit via the phone, because they are barred from entering with a weapon. So should the business owner be compelled to account for my constitutional right to carry my weapon. Otherwise, show me where I received any advance warning of that irrational fear of my gun and how that should be allowed to prevent me from completing the transaction or from accepting the implied offer to transact by being open to the public. If they refuse to allow for guns, then where is that advance warning that a person exercising their right to bear arms cannot shop there. A 30.06 notification addresses a trespass, not a restriction upon any implied offer to transact business.

I just doubt there is a lick of legal support for your position. If you were making a legal argument you have to find some case that agrees with you proposed argument. Good luck because some of the things are such a stretch .......... well I have never heard any legal theory that would make me think your argument has the slightest bit of hope. You basically want to force businesses to operate according to your belief because they don't have the right to not do business if they offered to do so by having a business? Is that's right? But then again a legal scholar I'm not. Good Luck.

[C-dub]

You should because you claim that it doesn't. I challenged you to offer anything from it that does allow for the method of bearing arms to be restricted. And you have also ignored the fact that the scotus has been wrong before and unless you can point to something in the 2A that backs up your claim, could be wrong on this issue. Give me something other than because they say so, please.

Being able to bear arms anywhere was supported when the BoR was ratified. It only slowly began to be whittled away much later after the founders were no longer around to defend it. People and courts reasoned that they couldn't have possibly meant this or that or here or there, yet there were no such qualifiers written into the 2A. None. There is no ambiguity in it. There has only been speculation that the authors and those that ratified it couldn't possibly have foreseen all the future advancements or issues. You think they didn't have criminals or crazy people back then? In fact, IIRC, many states used to have laws that required them to provide convicts being released from prison a firearm with bullets and a horse after the completion of their sentence because they had wording to this effect in their constitutions; "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question."

I claim? It isn't my opinion it's a fact that SCOTUS decides and what they say doesn't agree with you. I will not debate or defend what is anymore than I would argue about gravity. No if in another thread I would be glad to discuss it but in this context I don't agree that I must somehow defend every position that SCOTUS ever takes if someone disagrees with them. Oh and you also are wrong on the facts. If there were no ambiguity then we wouldn't be having the discussion. The 2nd was never legally held to mean what you believe and it was never held as such by the majority of the people. That is just the facts. Telling me that I now need to prove it? Believe what you want. I actually checked and researched the issue before making my statement. Did you check or are you repeating things people have said?

Yes. You claimed so in the other thread where you and I have been discussing PC vs. RS. Let me refresh your memory where I asked you about it there and you still haven't provided anything more than "because they say so." Please tell me you have something more than "because they say so." I've stated my opinion that the SCOTUS is not always right and provided you with examples of when the SCOTUS was wrong and reversed themselves. Please explain to us which part of the 2A YOU believe denies or does not recognize the right to carry anyway or anywhere.

I don't believe the second states, protects, whatever, the right to carry anyway anywhere.

Which part makes you believe this? Given that the Bill or Rights is a document that limits the government and isn't really a set of laws for the people, if we go on the assumption of that which is not forbidden by law is allowed, why do you think this? Is it because of subsequent laws that have infringed upon our second amendment right?

BTW, to all, hasn't there already been court rulings that have been upheld that state that, where legal, the act of openly carrying a firearm does not meet the legal threshold of RS or PC to stop someone to verify if they are licensed or not?

[EEllis]

Yes. You claimed so in the other thread where you and I have been discussing PC vs. RS. Let me refresh your memory where I asked you about it there and you still haven't provided anything more than "because they say so." Please tell me you have something more than "because they say so." I've stated my opinion that the SCOTUS is not always right and provided you with examples of when the SCOTUS was wrong and reversed themselves. Please explain to us which part of the 2A YOU believe denies or does not recognize the right to carry anyway or anywhere.

What SCOTUS says right or wrong is legally correct. I don't have to personally agree with that decision for that to be true or to state that as a fact. Saying SCOTUS has been wrong says nothing, makes no point, about their being wrong in any other case. I don't need to go any deeper or say squat all else but that. I don't need to do anything I don't feel is necessary. And I don't need to justify why I might believe like the majority of the population of the US believe and every SCOTUS opinion ever made state. And I have to say those facts are a bit more than "because they say so". It's even more distracting and off putting when the topic just barely touches the issue and has little practical point except my hopeless attempt to state the actual truth and somehow mitigate the number of times people will attack an issue because of some point that has no real practical point. Open a thread if you want to discuss the issue because I am done going back and forth here.

[joe817]

Has this thread run its useful lifespan?

[C-dub]

Yes. You claimed so in the other thread where you and I have been discussing PC vs. RS. Let me refresh your memory where I asked you about it there and you still haven't provided anything more than "because they say so." Please tell me you have something more than "because they say so." I've stated my opinion that the SCOTUS is not always right and provided you with examples of when the SCOTUS was wrong and reversed themselves. Please explain to us which part of the 2A YOU believe denies or does not recognize the right to carry anyway or anywhere.

What SCOTUS says right or wrong is legally correct.

Oh, but it isn't always so. When they reverse themselves they acknowledge just that. In Bowers vs. Hardwick 1986, Justice Kennedy even said so in his majority opinion.

As for the rest, I'll accept that you either can't or won't offer your opinion to defend your opinion because it is indefensible. You haven't even given us the reason that the courts have said they believe the 2A doesn't allow any method of carry anywhere, but I have not asked you for that.

[C-dub]

Has this thread run its useful lifespan?

Yes. It has. Sorry.

I'm going to bed. Good night all.

[der Teufel]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

My dad used to say "The boss ain't always right, but he's always the boss!"

[EEllis]

Oh, but it isn't always so. When they reverse themselves they acknowledge just that. In Bowers vs. Hardwick 1986, Justice Kennedy even said so in his majority opinion.

As for the rest, I'll accept that you either can't or won't offer your opinion to defend your opinion because it is indefensible. You haven't even given us the reason that the courts have said they believe the 2A doesn't allow any method of carry anywhere, but I have not asked you for that.

You are wrong Kennedy wasn't on the court for Bowers vs. Hardwick it was Lawrence v. Texas and it doesn't mean what you think or have any effect on my statement. Finally I restate this is not the time or place and that is my reason for not continuing. Anyone who knows my history on here knows this is about restraint on my part not some inability to discuss this further. I also must say while my comments may seem brusk I have endeavored to remain polite and tried to moderate myself as to keep the discussion civil. Your last comment is anything but and is very derogatory and on it's face just about trying to insult me. It's unnecessary.

[Glockster]

Again, my focus is upon the fact that one is a constitutional right and I believe it is beyond unfair to suspend my rights on property wherein the public has been invited.

But carrying concealed isn't a constitutional right. Then there is the fact that speech, which is a constitutional right, doesn't mean that business owners can't stop all speech in a business by use of trespass if they so feel. IMHO not a effective legal or moral argument.

I think though that there is a difference. Let's assume for a moment that the business opened its doors for a specific purpose - say, to sell widgets. If someone enters that business for the purpose of exercising their right to free speech, that is in a sense a breach, as the purpose of the business was not to provide a place for freedom of speech. It was to sell widgets. And the business has a valid reason for asking the customer to leave. And opening the doors to the public for the purpose of inviting that public to potentially purchase a widget is an offering for purpose. Said customer enters for that purpose, if said business owner then for no valid business purpose arbitrarily rescinds that offer, a consumer can likely have a recourse. And I know a gun rights attorney in VA who has made that same argument regarding gun purchases and offers to sell then being breached. Think of it as advertising and entering is an acceptance by the customer. A customer could claim breach. So the purpose of the free speeches is clearly different than that of a customer who accepted the offer to sell a widget.

Please note that I didn't say that CC was a constitutional right, just that there is a right to bear arms. It is the state that has imposed a restriction upon how that right is exercised. My point in the above is that IF you go to a business that has extended an offer to you for the purpose of purchasing a widget, then the fact that you are exercising your right to bear arms has no relevance upon that acceptance. And for that reason I believe that a business open to the public has an obligation (a good lawyer can discuss the legal implication of an offer to sell and then refusing to do so) to then let you in to complete that purchase. I can't imagine a consumer being excused from completing a purchase having for example, made a deposit via the phone, because they are barred from entering with a weapon. So should the business owner be compelled to account for my constitutional right to carry my weapon. Otherwise, show me where I received any advance warning of that irrational fear of my gun and how that should be allowed to prevent me from completing the transaction or from accepting the implied offer to transact by being open to the public. If they refuse to allow for guns, then where is that advance warning that a person exercising their right to bear arms cannot shop there. A 30.06 notification addresses a trespass, not a restriction upon any implied offer to transact business.

I just doubt there is a lick of legal support for your position. If you were making a legal argument you have to find some case that agrees with you proposed argument. Good luck because some of the things are such a stretch .......... well I have never heard any legal theory that would make me think your argument has the slightest bit of hope. You basically want to force businesses to operate according to your belief because they don't have the right to not do business if they offered to do so by having a business? Is that's right? But then again a legal scholar I'm not. Good Luck.

Let me give it a try....

My basis for that comes from:
TX Deceptive Trade Practices, Sec. 17.46. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL.
(b)(9) "advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised"

Again, not a lawyer, but I do know at least one lawyer who has successfully pursued a cause of action based on the same in another state. The point that he successfully made is that if a business makes an offer to sell and then fails to make good on that offer, you have a claim. Expanding upon that, if the business has exceptions or exclusions, under that law the business must disclose those in advance or it then becomes deceptive as a consumer has a reasonable expectation that has been denied. Absent that, the claim can be made that the business made an offer for any customer to come to that place of business for the purchase of that item. If I am offered the opportunity to come to the business for the purpose of purchasing what was offered, only to find out that the business won't sell it to me simply because they have previously decided to not allow customers to exercise their RTBA, I believe that they have violated the above. There is no rational basis for me to believe as a potential customer that I would be denied my ability to exercise a constitutional right, and their failure to disclose that in advance is wrong. And clearly this is different than, for example, a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing as that is a health code issue.

I'm simply trying to expand upon the OP's point and I think that it is a good one. And what I'm bringing up is to that point, the pondering of this, the what if, and the why not about why this couldn't become a way to push back on 30.06.

[EEllis]

Let me give it a try....

My basis for that comes from:
TX Deceptive Trade Practices, Sec. 17.46. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL.
(b)(9) "advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised"

Again, not a lawyer, but I do know at least one lawyer who has successfully pursued a cause of action based on the same in another state. The point that he successfully made is that if a business makes an offer to sell and then fails to make good on that offer, you have a claim. Expanding upon that, if the business has exceptions or exclusions, under that law the business must disclose those in advance or it then becomes deceptive as a consumer has a reasonable expectation that has been denied. Absent that, the claim can be made that the business made an offer for any customer to come to that place of business for the purchase of that item. If I am offered the opportunity to come to the business for the purpose of purchasing what was offered, only to find out that the business won't sell it to me simply because they have previously decided to not allow customers to exercise their RTBA, I believe that they have violated the above. There is no rational basis for me to believe as a potential customer that I would be denied my ability to exercise a constitutional right, and their failure to disclose that in advance is wrong. And clearly this is different than, for example, a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing as that is a health code issue.

I'm simply trying to expand upon the OP's point and I think that it is a good one. And what I'm bringing up is to that point, the pondering of this, the what if, and the why not about why this couldn't become a way to push back on 30.06.

So you would use the bait and switch law as a means to collect civil penalties for anyone who refuses to do business with a lawfully armed person? Hmm. .......

[EEllis]

By the way I don't think the shoes and shirt thing has anything to do with health codes. I have worked locations that had safety concerns and required shoes for that reason so baring RKBA issues I think it would be more similar than different to the shoes and shirt senario

[Glockster]

Let me give it a try....

My basis for that comes from:
TX Deceptive Trade Practices, Sec. 17.46. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL.
(b)(9) "advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised"

Again, not a lawyer, but I do know at least one lawyer who has successfully pursued a cause of action based on the same in another state. The point that he successfully made is that if a business makes an offer to sell and then fails to make good on that offer, you have a claim. Expanding upon that, if the business has exceptions or exclusions, under that law the business must disclose those in advance or it then becomes deceptive as a consumer has a reasonable expectation that has been denied. Absent that, the claim can be made that the business made an offer for any customer to come to that place of business for the purchase of that item. If I am offered the opportunity to come to the business for the purpose of purchasing what was offered, only to find out that the business won't sell it to me simply because they have previously decided to not allow customers to exercise their RTBA, I believe that they have violated the above. There is no rational basis for me to believe as a potential customer that I would be denied my ability to exercise a constitutional right, and their failure to disclose that in advance is wrong. And clearly this is different than, for example, a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" thing as that is a health code issue.

I'm simply trying to expand upon the OP's point and I think that it is a good one. And what I'm bringing up is to that point, the pondering of this, the what if, and the why not about why this couldn't become a way to push back on 30.06.

So you would use the bait and switch law as a means to collect civil penalties for anyone who refuses to do business with a lawfully armed person? Hmm. .......

No, I didn't say that. Bait and switch is another section of that law and not the same. And the point isn't that I said that I would collect civil penalties, but that I believe that unless they have in advance disclosed their intent to restrict my rights, that I have a reasonable expectation which then could be used to cause them to remove their restriction on that otherwise lawful carry. The law is there to "encourage" that those in business do so in a prescribed manner that has been determined as the "right" way to conduct business. Do I believe that the risk of monetary cost may cause business to remove 30.06 signage - sure, of course.

You indicated that you couldn't see any legal basis ("not a lick of legal support") for my argument and I provided this framework as one such legal basis.

[Scott Farkus]

Just to make clear, we are talking about private property that has been opened to the public for some reason - typically for commerce. The rules are already different there. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be able to carry into another person's home or private non-commercial property against that person's wishes.

I'm aware of that. Doesn't change anything. We don't have a "right" to go to Walmart.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. When you open your doors to the public, there is, or at least seems like there should be (I'm not a lawyer), at least some minimum level of expectation that the public does, in fact, have a "right" to be there, since you've essentially invited them. I think that's what Glockster is trying to say.

Now maybe you should in theory be able to dictate the terms which your guests must follow while they are on your property, but that's kind of the crux of my question. The government already tells you, to a large degree and getting larger, what those terms have to be. You already don't get to set them yourself. Given what some of those terms are and the arguments the other groups used to get them, I don't find it a huge stretch that we gun owners ask that licensed concealed carry be one of those "terms".

[C-dub]

Oh, but it isn't always so. When they reverse themselves they acknowledge just that. In Bowers vs. Hardwick 1986, Justice Kennedy even said so in his majority opinion.

As for the rest, I'll accept that you either can't or won't offer your opinion to defend your opinion because it is indefensible. You haven't even given us the reason that the courts have said they believe the 2A doesn't allow any method of carry anywhere, but I have not asked you for that.

You are wrong Kennedy wasn't on the court for Bowers vs. Hardwick it was Lawrence v. Texas and it doesn't mean what you think or have any effect on my statement. Finally I restate this is not the time or place and that is my reason for not continuing. Anyone who knows my history on here knows this is about restraint on my part not some inability to discuss this further. I also must say while my comments may seem brusk I have endeavored to remain polite and tried to moderate myself as to keep the discussion civil. Your last comment is anything but and is very derogatory and on it's face just about trying to insult me. It's unnecessary.

I worded my statement incorrectly. Kennedy stated in his majority opinion that the court was wrong and had no legal basis in the 2003 case, as you've pointed out. How could it not mean what I think? It means EXACTLY what I think. The SCOTUS is not always right and I've given you evidence to prove it.

As for the rest, it appears you are unwilling to participate and provide YOUR opinion to back up your assertion.

Good day.

[Glockster]

Just to make clear, we are talking about private property that has been opened to the public for some reason - typically for commerce. The rules are already different there. Nobody is suggesting anybody should be able to carry into another person's home or private non-commercial property against that person's wishes.

I'm aware of that. Doesn't change anything. We don't have a "right" to go to Walmart.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. When you open your doors to the public, there is, or at least seems like there should be (I'm not a lawyer), at least some minimum level of expectation that the public does, in fact, have a "right" to be there, since you've essentially invited them. I think that's what Glockster is trying to say.

Now maybe you should in theory be able to dictate the terms which your guests must follow while they are on your property, but that's kind of the crux of my question. The government already tells you, to a large degree and getting larger, what those terms have to be. You already don't get to set them yourself. Given what some of those terms are and the arguments the other groups used to get them, I don't find it a huge stretch that we gun owners ask that licensed concealed carry be one of those "terms".

Exactly.