Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

intrepid
It's ridiculous to compare basic human rights to this issue.

Ridiculous to you .... obviously. But it is a 2nd amendment issue. The 2nd Amendment is law.
So there is a question ...

macman
reply to post by jimmyx

 

That is your response??? To file a lawsuit for an action I agree with, on the grounds of personal property?

If that is all you got, then I guess that is all you got.

look...you carry your gun around with all you want, I don't care,...strap it on every time you leave the house, if that is the only way you can feel safe.

reply to post by jimmyx


I take it you don't believe in fire extinguishers.

kaylaluv

macman
reply to post by jimmyx

 

So refusing service based upon your own viewpoints and/or beliefs is okay.

This particular thread doesn't have anything to do with personal viewpoints and/or beliefs. It has to do with a business decision to protect customers and to protect the business from getting sued if someone gets shot on the premises.

25 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation. Someone with a gun in a restaurant would be told to leave, and EVERYONE would applaud the decision.

Even Military, sans combat zone, don't take their weapons into the chow hall. They stack them neatly outside, or turn it into the armory.

A person should be able protect their own, but having inadequately trained yukety yuks walk around like Rambo is stupid.

escalating a bad situation is easy when more guns get involved.

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

So, again, the refusal of service is okay in one situation, but not another. All based on your viewpoint.

Yes, because refusing service based on protecting your business or your customers is very different than refusing service based on your personal feelings. Refusing service to someone who has a bomb strapped to their back with their finger on the button is different than refusing service to someone simply for being black or Muslim or gay... that's why laws allow the former but not the latter.

reply to post by jimmyx


And that is not the issue at hand. Nor is it a valid retort.
Do you have anything else except frustration on parade?

reply to post by kaylaluv


It is always different, isn’t it.
Since when did bombs get into play? Now you are equating firearm ownership to owning a bomb. I love it when the ridiculous is pitched by Anti-gun rights people.

What about a nuclear bomb? Or a landmine? Or would he allow me to park my tank in his parking lot?

Is this really all you have?

Carrying guns means no drinking! I don't drink when I carry, and I've had a concealed permit for almost 30 years. One thing: I will no longer go to star bucks because of their "no gun" rule...I estimate there are over 30 million concealed weapons license holders that no longer use starbucks; so if you do the math>> lets say each one bought at least one Frappacheeno a year that's 150 million that Starbucks won't be getting as long as they have the signs up. I won't do business with anyplace that has a "no concealed weapons allowed" sign; they are not getting my money. That's the choice, you just don't go there! Besides the crooks are going to really obey the signs...uh huh!!

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

It is always different, isn’t it.
Since when did bombs get into play? Now you are equating firearm ownership to owning a bomb. I love it when the ridiculous is pitched by Anti-gun rights people.

What about a nuclear bomb? Or a landmine? Or would he allow me to park my tank in his parking lot?

Is this really all you have?

It's all I need. Protecting your business and customers from harm is one thing - discriminating against a group because you don't like them is entirely another. If you can't really see the difference between the two, I can't help you.

COMMON SENSE .... if a restaurant is so dangerous or questionable that you feel you need a gun for self protection to go eat there .... then I'd think you'd not want to eat there anyways.

COMMON SENSE ... if alcohol is flowing freely at a restaurant then people should leave their guns home. Accidents happen.

BUT ... the 2nd amendment says that people are allowed to carry. So is it breaking the law to post a common sense sign of 'no guns' at a restaurant that serves alcohol?? That's my question.

Schools are 'no gun zones'. But that's by additional laws.
Can restaurants self proclaim themselves to be gun free zones and still be following the law.

I have no idea. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer.
So I'm asking the question.

usernameconspiracy
You certainly can't carry ( carry permit or not) inside any establishment that sells alcohol in Texas. It's illegal.

Most other places are at the option of the owner, but liquor stores and bars are completely off limits.

It's if the place makes over 51% of sales on alcohol.

beezzer
reply to post by jimmyx

 

I take it you don't believe in fire extinguishers.

yes I do, I don't carry one on me though...what does that have to do with the 2nd amendment, anyway

FlyersFan
BUT ... the 2nd amendment says that people are allowed to carry. So is it breaking the law to post a common sense sign of 'no guns' at a restaurant that serves alcohol?? That's my question.

Schools are 'no gun zones'. But that's by additional laws.
Can restaurants self proclaim themselves to be gun free zones and still be following the law.

I have no idea. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer.
So I'm asking the question.

From the VA Statutes

Prohibited Conduct and Where Unlawful to Carry - Section 18.2-308.012

Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of Section 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of Section 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of Section 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 46.2-341.24.

No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in Section 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer.

Section 18.2-308.01: Private property when prohibited by the owner of the property, or where posted as prohibited.

Section18.2-283: To a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place, without good and sufficient reason.

Section18.2-283.1: Courthouse.

Section18.2-308.1: School property. Exemptions to this statute include a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school.

Section18.2-287.01: Carrying weapon in air carrier airport terminal.

According to the state there are restrictions where you can have a concealed wepon.

reply to post by Elton

A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer.

No drinking in a restaurant while armed unless you are a cop. got it.

macman
reply to post by jimmyx

 

And that is not the issue at hand. Nor is it a valid retort.
Do you have anything else except frustration on parade?

nope that's about it....you believe you can carry your gun anywhere in America regardless of where it is, or who is there, on private, public, or governmental property...I don't...no frustration on my part, you're the one that is frustrated on being told you can't carry it into a restaurant

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

It is always different, isn’t it.
Since when did bombs get into play? Now you are equating firearm ownership to owning a bomb. I love it when the ridiculous is pitched by Anti-gun rights people.

What about a nuclear bomb? Or a landmine? Or would he allow me to park my tank in his parking lot?

Is this really all you have?

how is that any different than you equating a single-fire, 20-second-loading-time musket (most advanced firearm at the time that the constitution was written) to a modern day firearm?...now that is ridiculous.

Sovaka
This is no different to when a cafe banned mothers from openly breast feeding in their establishments.

Only in this case, it is guns.

An establishment banning both is against openly breastfeeding their guns.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


I would not be committing a felony whatsoever. At the most, I would be committing a misdemeanor. And again, I I am carrying concealed, they would have no idea that I am armed.

But if the restaurant wants to also install metal detectors and pat downs of their customers...that's their business. I wouldn't be frequenting those establishments if that was the case.

I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

reply to post by jimmyx


It's already pretty well established that you want to do away with the Constitution. That old piece of paper that gets in your way of domination for the betterment of all mankind.

Or is it just certain parts that you don't agree with that you would do away with.

How's this. I'll give away my 2nd Amendment rights if we also make abortion illegal and akin to murder? Or lets say we take away the rights of women or minorities when it concerns votes.

I only say that as you seem to pick and choose what you do and do not like regarding laws.

The Progs keep taking and taking and it is NEVER ENOUGH!

NavyDoc

crazyewok

NavyDoc



Now, I wonder what the response would be if one changed "gun owners" to "gays" or "African Americans." Would people still say, "his store, his rules?"

You can leave a gun at home if you really want to go. You cant stop being black, a women or gay (though diffrent debate on that one) ect Basicaly huge diffrent between a OBJECT you can leave or a inbuilt human traite you cant change. So unless you were born with a gun for a hand your argument dont hold water.

It holds plenty of water. I both cases the business owners decide to refuse business to different sets of people simply because they do not like them. It is hypocritical to say that one business owner should make that decision for himself but another business owner does not. You are making a decision based on what you like and what you don't feel comfortable with.

I agree that any business should make their own decisions whether I like them or not. If I do not agree with their decision, I will take my business elsewhere. This is freedom.

Actually, it's not the same. As Ewok said, you can leave your guns in the car or at home. The sign says no guns allowed, not no gun owners allowed. There's a huge difference between banning a person and banning a object.

I agree that business owners have the right to discriminate, but comparing those two situations is a pretty simple minded thing to do.