Parkrose Hardware just lost my business

[Jammer Six]

I'll tell you both why I disagree with you.
If something were to come up & I needed my gun to ensure my life continues
The owner, by posting this sign has now guaranteed my safety in his store, at all
times & under any condition. But I don't believe The owner has the actual ability to safeguard
my life and my wallet under threat of robbery from someone who disregarded the fancy sign.
The owner has just turned my country into a dictatorship with me now not having the rights that The Bill of Rights promised me. That is a problem for me and many others.

Man, are you confused...

None of those statements are true.

 

[The B]

If your constitutional rights don't apply on private property then (for arguments sake) I should be able to exclude anyone I want including Blacks, Hispanics, Orientals, Catholics, Jews, Indians, and Gays. If I put a sign up at a business I owned stating that I was not going to allow the above mentioned people on my property I would be shut down so fast it would make your head spin. The trouble is the laws are selectively enforced and your constitutional rights are also selectively enforced. You have to enforce all or else you don't really have any rights at all. All the amendments to the Constitution and the Constitution itself have equal right and validity, If you are an elected official and you start a run around it to avoid a certain portion of it you are committing treason because you have sworn to uphold the constitution of the US no matter what.

Well the federal government, in all their wisdom, decided that civil rights, granted by them, trump private property rights with businesses operating in "public accommodation." So if you provide a service to the general public, you can't discriminate based on age, sex, race, nationality, or religion. I think most states have also adopted their own versions of the federal civil rights acts, but the way SCOTUS has broadened the definition of "interstate commerce," I doubt it would make any difference at all.

 

[unklekippy]

No, Constitutional Rights still exist on private property. Or can I be illegally searched just for entering any given store?

A business CHOOSING to operate completely open to the public doesn't void anyone's rights.

 

[titsonritz]

Has anyone received a response from the Owners/Management explaining the sign yet?

Anyone?

 

[The B]

No, Constitutional Rights still exist on private property. Or can I be illegally searched just for entering any given store?

A business CHOOSING to operate completely open to the public doesn't void anyone's rights.

Then a better way to put it - You can be asked to leave private property FOR exercising your constitutional rights, if the host finds your exercise offensive. Or any other reason not prohibited by the various Civil Rights Acts. Legally.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this concept. Sure, we disagree with this specific sentiment. But we'd have to be extremely hypocritical to try to force owners of private property to anything on their property they don't want. Do you disagree?

 

[unklekippy]

Then a better way to put it - You can be asked to leave private property FOR exercising your constitutional rights, if the host finds your exercise offensive. Or any other reason not prohibited by the various Civil Rights Acts. Legally.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this concept. Sure, we disagree with this specific sentiment. But we'd have to be extremely hypocritical to try to force owners of private property to anything on their property they don't want. Do you disagree?

I disagree when the "private" property is a "public" store. That store owner's house would fall under what you describe. His open-to-the-public store, I do in fact disagree.

 

[oknow]

You have a RIGHT to swear, and you have a RIGHT to carry a gun. You do NOT have a right to be on my private property.

Are you a business open to the public?

your silence is saying NO you are not a public business so I agree with you. but this is a topic about a public business.

 

[oknow]

Then a better way to put it - You can be asked to leave private property FOR exercising your constitutional rights, if the host finds your exercise offensive. Or any other reason not prohibited by the various Civil Rights Acts. Legally.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this concept. Sure, we disagree with this specific sentiment. But we'd have to be extremely hypocritical to try to force owners of private property to anything on their property they don't want. Do you disagree?

why do you want to follow a Civil Rights Act but choose to disregard a Constitutional Right?

 

[unklekippy]

The rules of the country STILL state that no infringement is allowed. PERIOD. Stores are not exempt, public streets are not exempt and "for the children" is not exempt. If you have a problem with free, armed Americans, it is up to you to stay in your home with the curtains drawn. It is not the problem of free men that those in self-induced chains can't stand to see people publicly "flaunt" their freedom. As far as they are concerned, you are required to be as scared as they are.

This is what happens when you apply moral standards to inanimate objects. Once you do that, nothing seems crazy.

Since it is virtually the same(except WITHOUT Constitutional protection), imagine the blank stare the sheep would give you if you wanted to outlaw cars because of "the children"?

Incredibly stupid. That is why we are crumbling from within. We spend too much time trying to make sure that free Americans don't have the nerve to actually use their rights, while creating rights that don't exist(the right to "not be afraid", the right to break into peoples homes and rape and murder them without fear of armed Americans. That is what anyone in effect wants when they impose illegal gun control, no matter the lies they tell and their fake concern "for the children".). We arm Al Qaeda to fight a "tyrannical government", while trying to strip American's rights to do the same. Absolutely disgusting.

 

[CoastRange57]

why do you want to follow a Civil Rights Act but choose to disregard a Constitutional Right?

Because there is a huge difference in a Civil Rights act and a Constitutional right ??

 

[oknow]

Because there is a huge difference in a Civil Rights act and a Constitutional right ??

your right one is god given and the other is lawyer given. but they are both RIGHTS you are just cherry picking the ones you want

 

[The B]

I disagree when the "private" property is a "public" store. That store owner's house would fall under what you describe. His open-to-the-public store, I do in fact disagree.

To my knowledge, there is absolutely nothing in this country that can be defined as a "public store." Maybe the USPS office? I don't think the government owns any stores. That means ALL stores are private. Some could be constructively defined as "public accommodation," and fall under the civil rights acts (which are also bullbubblegum), and prevent them from discriminating against race, religion, sex, etc., but there is absolutely nothing on the federal books that requires any privately owned property to accept all constitutionally protected behavior.

As to the one who commented on my "silence," - in college, I caught shoplifters as a plain clothes security officer for a major retailer, and dealt with this topic very frequently. I asked people to leave (and frequently, subsequently, apprehended and citizens-arrested for criminal trespass) with a degree of regularity for exercising their 1st amendment "rights" in the form of profane speech, offensive t-shirts, etc. I was never made aware of a company policy prohibiting carrying firearms by customers, so I never made issue of it the few times it came up, but other stores did. And the law was on our side. You can refuse service to anyone, for any reason, aside from those exclusions in the civil rights acts and any state laws that might apply.

Some of you guys seem to confuse your own ideals for law... You can disagree with me and think you should be able to force people to allow people with guns onto their privately owned property, but you're just being stupid if you "disagree" that this is something you CAN'T do. The constitution protects you from your federal government, and by amendment, from your state government. There's absolutely NOTHiNg in the constitution that compels private citizens to allow other private citizens on their private property.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

You have a RIGHT to swear, and you have a RIGHT to carry a gun. You do NOT have a right to be on my private property.

I don't think.anyone is arguing that rather obvious point.

 

[Jammer Six]

I disagree when the "private" property is a "public" store. That store owner's house would fall under what you describe. His open-to-the-public store, I do in fact disagree.

Disagree all you want. On your way out.

 

[Cooliorz]

I emailed and politely told them their sign has ZERO effect on anyone who might carry/use a gun illegally in their store. But as a CHL holder, the sign completely alienates me (and my money). I urged them to reconsider and take it down, or post something more like you see at Fisherman's (basically, if you carry concealed keep it that way).

I have a hunch that they're not too bothered with the concealed carry customers.
They're just trying to appease the anti-guns folks and make them feal more comfortable in the store.
That said, I hope I'm right because I really like that store...best metric hardware selection in town.

 

[The B]

I don't think.anyone is arguing that rather obvious point.

See post No. 87.

 

[billdeserthills]

Man, are you confused...

None of those statements are true.

I had an argument with Costco once about them not allowing me my Constitutional rights while inside their store. The counterperson told me about the time he was working in california at a Costco there & an angry person with an AK-47 came walking up towards the store, he said "We were able to protect every customer by simply closing the doors, that kept the nut with the gun outside."
I asked him about all the people who had been disarmed by Costco & were now out in the parking lot with a armed gunman?

Seems they weren't his problem or yours

 

[The B]

I had an argument with Costco once about them not allowing me my Constitutional rights while inside their store. The counterperson told me about the time he was working in california at a Costco there & an angry person with an AK-47 came walking up towards the store, he said "We were able to protect every customer by simply closing the doors, that kept the nut with the gun outside."
I asked him about all the people who had been disarmed by Costco & were now out in the parking lot with a armed gunman?

Seems they weren't his problem or yours

Vote with your dollars.

 

[billdeserthills]

Then a better way to put it - You can be asked to leave private property FOR exercising your constitutional rights, if the host finds your exercise offensive. Or any other reason not prohibited by the various Civil Rights Acts. Legally.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this concept. Sure, we disagree with this specific sentiment. But we'd have to be extremely hypocritical to try to force owners of private property to anything on their property they don't want. Do you disagree?

If a pair of lesbians can get a bakery fined & shut down then I want an end to gun-free zones
Gun free zones of any kind have only served to help criminals lately. I cannot attribute even One civilian life saved thru the use of a Gun Free Zone, Can You?

I'm sure you heard what happened at the Colorado movie theatre? Plenty of schools have had similar happenings. I see how voting with your $$$ works & it isn't near as fast as having a lesbian hissy fit & contacting the state seems to.

Why can't I aspire to hold the same rights that the "queer eye for the straight guy" folks have?

Good, then for my second request I want the Right to Demand Satisfaction re-instated...

 

[The B]

If a pair of lesbians can get a bakery fined & shut down then I want an end to gun-free zones
Gun free zones of any kind have only served to help criminals lately.

I'm sure you heard what happened at the Colorado movie theatre? Plenty of schools have had similar happenings. I see how voting with your $$$ works & it isn't near as fast as having a lesbian hissy fit & contacting the state seems to.

Why can't I aspire to hold the same rights that the "queer eye for the straight guy" folks have?

The only time gun-free zones become a problem is when they apply to places you have no choice but to frequent- cities that ban guns, states that ban guns, city or state offices, schools, etc. You could even make a pretty good case for your place of employment, though I'd stull side with property rights, on that one. You can chose where you work, just like you can chose where you shop. You CAN'T chose whether or not to go to court if you get a ticket, nor whether or not to go to city hall if you want to get married, or work if you're in the military, and it's a bit more ridiculous to expect people to MOVE from their home city/state just to be able to exercise their rights (especially considering the Constitution EXPRESSLY protects against these infringements anyway).

But do you see the difference? You can TOTALLY chose not to go to Costco. I've had a membership for like 10 years, and I've only personally been in that place like 3 times. It's not hard.