a reply to: RickyD
I would love to see someone try to bring the type of lawsuit you speak of over that...the judge will laugh you outta court...probably before
you ever even get in front of a bench.
That was kinda my point? No judge is going to allow a person to carry openly in another person's home against their wishes; that would be ludicrous. A
policeman, for whatever reason, can be denied entry into one's home as long as they do not have a warrant from a judge to enter. Ergo, a residence
would allow the maximum amount of personal control over the property.
Also...another example...bars, if they say no you best believe if you test it even if not drinking you are going to jail that night... I'll put
money on that every time.
I will admit that a bar is a special circumstance there my position is tenuous at best. People in a bar are often inebriated and assumed unable to
safely handle a weapon. However, does a bar allow police officers to drink inside the bar while open-carrying their weapon? There is an assumption
that a patron of a bar is coming there to drink. I'll have to admit that is a consideration I left out.
The cake thing and other examples you mentioned are protected classes of people like handicapped or religion, of which gun owners are not a
protected class...maybe they should be these days though.
This is where I disagree with you. There should be no protected class of people! That is extending special rights to one group, which is the same as
diminishing rights to all others.
And that is the problem I have with businesses making such decisions in their stores. The business is not the government, but is at that time acting
as the governing body in charge of the patrons inside it. Notice that the 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." while the 2nd Amendment
states "shall not be infringed" without specifying who is to not infringe. Thus, the business is required to not infringe 2nd Amendment rights in
public as well as the Congress, but can limit free speech, religious practices, etc because they are not Congress. When a business acknowledges rights
of one class (police not in direct performance of their duty) and denies those same rights to others, it is unjustly violating the rights of those
I can even see a reason behind this difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendments. One is not expected to remain inside a business for an extended
period, unless as an employee (a special circumstance which is also voluntary). The limit on exercise of freedom of speech and religion is therefore
not impacted dramatically, as one may simply walk outside and exercise those at will. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, one who is confronted with a
criminal assault on one's person does not have that luxury. They must defend themselves at that moment, regardless of the venue. The inability to
defend oneself at the moment when that defense is needed renders the purpose of the 2nd Amendment null and void.
Police are allowed special powers, but only in direct performance of their duties. They have high-speed cars with sirens that override existing law
when utilized, allowing them to run traffic lights, stop signs, speed, and commit other violations with impunity. However, while not in direct
performance of their duties, they do not have the right to utilize those special powers. They are beholden to the law just like anyone else.