Colion Nior..... For the first time I disagree!

124»

Replies

  • Mike WeberMike Weber Member Posts: 91 Member
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Weber View
    People in California lost open carry mainly due to the negative attention brought by groups of these clowns showing up at Starbucks and other businesses packing AK's and Ar's.

    People of California lost open carry in 1967 when the Black Panthers marched into Sacramento openly wearing handguns and carrying shotguns. Reagan signed the Mulford Act saying, “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

    Funny how politicians get to declare who the honest citizens are.

    That is not an entirely accurate statement. Open Carry was not banned in California in 1967 but it was heavily restricted. No longer were people allowed to open carry loaded firearms but they were still allowed to carry openly so long as the firearm was not loaded They were allowed to carry loaded magazines and in the event of a self defense scenario at least they had a chance. Since concealed carry permits are difficult to obtain in many juristdictions and subject to arbitrary denials. Even the restricted open carry offered people without CCW permits an option. That all changed when Govenor Jerry Moonbeam Brown signed an open carry ban that went into effect on January 1st 2012. As a direct result of negative media coverage brought about by the fools packing their AR's and AK's into business's in attempts to make a political statement.

    I suppose the G&A crowd will compare the recent OC'ers with the 1967 Black Panthers. I see some validity to that. Two groups that were "over-the-top" exercising their rights, marginalized by the press and their peers, and blamed for lawmakers passing stricter laws.

    Thats a pretty broad stretch comparing a group of criminal militants whose roots come from the street gangs and whose purpose of carry was to intimidate the public to law abiding if not misguided gun owners. We have a difficult enough time with the constant barrage of negative mainstream media coverage that attempts to portray us as irresponsible hillbillies and potential terrorists. We are never going to change the attitudes of the commited antigunners. There are a lot of non gun owners out there who are neutral on the issue and the image we present to them is what will influence their stance toward firearms. Waving black rifles and tactical shotguns in their faces will not win them over to our cause.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,571 Senior Member
    Mike Weber wrote: »
    People in California lost open carry mainly due to the negative attention brought by groups of these clowns showing up at Starbucks and other businesses packing AK's and Ar's.

    Wait, who has ARs and AKs in California? You mean the bullet-button guys? Are you actually blaming the passage of CA gun laws on a few guys OCing? I guess the statewide lead hunting ammo ban is because a few licensed hunters were hunting with lead...

    Mike Weber wrote: »
    That is not an entirely accurate statement. Open Carry was not banned in California in 1967 but it was heavily restricted.

    Did you ever open carry an unloaded handgun before 1-1-2012?


    Mike Weber wrote: »
    Thats a pretty broad stretch comparing a group of criminal militants whose roots come from the street gangs and whose purpose of carry was to intimidate the public to law abiding if not misguided gun owners. We have a difficult enough time with the constant barrage of negative mainstream media coverage that attempts to portray us as irresponsible hillbillies and potential terrorists. We are never going to change the attitudes of the commited antigunners. There are a lot of non gun owners out there who are neutral on the issue and the image we present to them is what will influence their stance toward firearms. Waving black rifles and tactical shotguns in their faces will not win them over to our cause.

    Gun owners already portrayed as hillbillies, murderers, terrorists, lunatics, responsible for the deaths of millions of children. That includes those of you that feel it is best to CC under your suit and tie. The media views you no different than the 400 lbs bubba wearing BDUs openly carrying an AK with a drum mag.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,726 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Since you chose to read only one of my previous posts in this thread, I'll give you a summary, then I'm done with it.

    •If a business is open to the public, then they should not be able to discriminate against anyone exercising civil rights. The business owner does not have the right to declare his property a sovereign nation, exempt from the BOR.

    •A business that openly invites the public inside the premises cannot refuse service to a black man simply because he’s black. Why refuse service to someone that is carrying? I’m not only talking about long guns, but businesses that post “No guns” signs and even CCWs cannot enter legally.

    •Businesses are required by law to provide handicap parking , toilets, and access, cannot refuse service animals no matter how poorly groomed the owners keep them, etc.. If a business must accept these burdens as a prerequisite of their business license, why should they be allowed to deny someone carrying a weapon (exercising a civil right)?

    I tend to err on the side of individual freedom. I can’t figure why some of you want to impose restrictions on how others decide to defend themselves or reducing them to second class citizens because they behave in a manner that YOU deemed outside the norm.

    A vocal minority may not come into my business on my private property and use my property to further their agenda, you come on my property open carrying, I am going to assume you are hostile until I can verify you are not, you will be seeing my concealed carry choice of the day. That being said, I have a dozen or so patients that concealed carry and inform me of such and unholster their guns and set them on my desk or on a filing cabinet, muzzles tend to point at me during treatment, I don't care if you are carrying, don't make me wonder what you are up to. The vast majority of my patients that carry do not carry into my office since it interferes with what we are trying to accomplish, just because you can do something, does not mean you should, there is some common sense that needs to be exercised. I do not disagree with your post, but my business has a purpose and I pay for that purpose, there has to be some property rights respected.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 9,459 Senior Member
    This is spot on... (saw on FB)........
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,726 Senior Member
    Good link jbp, thanks.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,465 Senior Member
    jbp, I think that video explains it about as well as it could be explained, and I agree with what was said.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    •If a business is open to the public, then they should not be able to discriminate against anyone exercising civil rights. The business owner does not have the right to declare his property a sovereign nation, exempt from the BOR.

    •A business that openly invites the public inside the premises cannot refuse service to a black man simply because he’s black.

    •Businesses are required by law to provide handicap parking , toilets, and access, cannot refuse service animals no matter how poorly groomed the owners keep them, etc.. If a business must accept these burdens as a prerequisite of their business license, why should they be allowed to deny someone carrying a weapon (exercising a civil right)?

    Some interesting points but there are some issues that have previously been pointed out, so I'll summarize and toss in my 2 bits...

    The BOR isn't some perfect document in pristine form and content, sacred as the Koran is to Muslims. It's a hard-fought and strongly debated set of compromises, and if you think this isn't true, you need to read more about its adoption (as well as the Constitution itself, debated hotly via the wonderful Federalist Papers). For example, the 2A clause that's caused much confusion, the mention of a militia, which seems to mitigate the intent of the 2A. That "militia" clause was inserted to placate those who really did not want ANY gun rights in the BOR.

    You cannot take the BOR as perfect doctrine any more than you can the Constitution. It was written by humans and the whole set of clauses are a huge bundle of compromises.

    Also understand that Judicial Review by Scotus came along (Marbury v Madison) and since then, Scotus has been the final arbiter of our law. And of course, ruled that the 2A was indeed an individual right (DC v Heller), so on that matter, Scotus came down on our side. Other times, like the eminent domain ruling, not so.

    To your first bullet item: Bottom line, you cannot simply announce your BOR privilege and, for example, open carry when the owner doesn't want you to. Nor even concealed carry if the owner says no, because we live in a society where ALL rights are a balance between various aspects. Private property, even if used to conduct a public business, allows the owner to set certain rules, including weapons carry. Scotus has ruled so, end of story. The "sovereign nation" statement is what is legally termed "specious" -- that is, not relevant. The business owner has certain rights, you as a customer have other rights. The intent is a balance.

    Bullet 2: You say that a business cannot discriminate against a black person who wishes to patronize that business. True. But what if the black person wishes to "camp out" in the business and conduct a civil rights demonstration, handing out fliers and speaking loudly to other patrons? No, that's not allowed. Nor is open carry for the purpose of a demonstration. I'm quite certain that you were critical of the "Occupy" movement trying to camp out in public parks and also "live" in buildings like the stock exchange. Pro-gun protesters who compromise the Starbucks' owner are doing exactly the same thing.

    3rd bullet: There is no connection with your analogy about providing amenities and allowing weapons carry. Legally, again, this is correctly termed "specious" -- and understand, this isn't a negative term nor critical, it's just the legal term for "not applicable".

    If you wish to enter a Starbucks and carry a concealed firearm, you can do so right now. However, you say that you don't go to Starbucks anyway. So, hey, the whole thing is rendered moot. When YOU are prevented from exercising your rights, let us know.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    What if the owner asked him leave because he was black? Or wearing a yarlmulke? Businesses that are open to the public do not get to discriminate against people that are exercising civil rights, unless someone is abusing those rights.

    Maybe you overlooked seeing this sign in a private business....."We have the right to refuse service"
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    What seems to be missing here (and I've reread the entire thread quickly so I may have missed something), is an understanding of the ethos of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are documents that listed what the Federal Government can and cannot do to people, whether they are citizens of this country or not. One must remember of which the time frame these Rules of Engagement were written.

    The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means that the Federal Government cannot keep you from having a weapon (there are subsequent rules for those who have broken the law and their rights got forfeited by a court of law), and that you have the right to bear those arms (this part is the fuzzy conundrum), but it was meant that one......you can have a weapon, and two, you can use it without fear of the Federal Government.

    What people seem to forget is that a municipality is not the Federal Government, and is a private nature of the state in which it resides in...so in effect, a city is like a private business that creates monies for itself, has it's own infrastructure, and gets to make it's own rules.

    Take for example......parks in Thornton CO prohibit open carry yet O.C. is legal in the state of Colorado. Since the City of Thornton keeps and maintains it's "public land" with it's own money, and is not subsidized by the Federal Government, it's their land, so in sense it's the private property of the City of Thornton, and they get to make the rules.

    It's been argued that a City's law can't trump State law, and State law can't trump Federal law, but only if the Federal Landlord is paying the rent. States are autonomous and so are Cities if they supplement themselves......just look at our marijuana business.....it violates Federal law in whole, but the State and the Cities allow it to a certain extant......you can have it, you can use it, just not in "public"......those are the rules of the house that provide everything from utilities and services to freedom and commerce.

    This is how concealed and open carry got passed for National Parks......it's the Federal Governments land, they maintain it through the National Park Service, and they were found to be infringing upon the 2A.

    It's like with Home Owners Associations........you pay a fee for them to maintain the area, yet they get to make rules on what color your house can be......but you bought into a neighborhood that keeps you from eyesores like a dilapidated house with junk in the yard that affects your property's value and overall sense of tranquility. You don't like it, then move into a van down by the river or somewhere else.

    Nobody here is asking for restrictions about open carry, in fact, there should be no restrictions for concealed carry either.......it should be like Vermont.....go ahead, carry a gun if you want, but once you use it, you put yourself in the spotlight of the law.

    It's been said before, living with people is a balance of compromises, we as responsible gun owners are not ashamed, but we are also aware of our surroundings and the people within them.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
124»
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.