HB1244 - Firearms on business premises

[GodFearinGunTotin]

SB107 is in the other chamber. It doesn't go as far as the HB does and seems to be more in line with my beliefs.

SB107
Provides that a person who does not prohibit: (1) an individual from possessing a firearm on the person's property; or (2) the person's employees from possessing a firearm while the employees are acting within the scope of their employment; is immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on the person's failure to adopt such a policy.

 

[dusty88]

The business owner has lost no rights. "Not being uncomfortable" is not a right.



They do have the right to make that choice: revert the property to private use, in which case any person can be considered as trespassing for any reason whatsoever, including for being armed.

So what you are saying is that when you decide to conduct commerce, you give up rights? Exactly. Business owners and employers give up rights due to government mandates.

 

[dusty88]

SB107 is in the other chamber. It doesn't go as far as the HB does and seems to be more in line with my beliefs.

SB107
Provides that a person who does not prohibit: (1) an individual from possessing a firearm on the person's property; or (2) the person's employees from possessing a firearm while the employees are acting within the scope of their employment; is immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on the person's failure to adopt such a policy.

Yeah, makes a lot more sense. Too bad it even needs to be said. Or does it? In that regard I'm ignorant as to who can file (or win) lawsuits under what circumstances.

 

[chipbennett]

I think we have come to a point where all I can do is respectfully disagree. The person carrying a firearm is given an option: comply with the rules of the property you intend to enter or do not enter. In the skin color scenario, no option is given. There is a difference there to my eyes.

And the Muslim has an option: convert to Christianity, or do not enter. And the black person has an option: find a white person to go in for you, or do not enter.

The difference is public versus private use of the property. On your own private property, used for your own private purposes, you can refuse lawful presence to anyone for any reason (carrying a firearm, being black, smelling funny, being a Bears fan, whatever).

Note: you cannot demand someone to disarm. You cannot demand someone convert to a different religion. You cannot take someone's life. Even on your own private property, your property rights do not trump the rights of those on your property. All you can do, legally and morally, is declare the person to be trespassing if you do not wish them to be present on your property.

You have the inherent right to free speech, but I hope you would agree that a business owner should be able to remove and prohibit the return of a patron who walks around cursing at mothers and their small children on store property because they are causing a disturbance. Could your firearm not cause the same kind of disturbance?

The right to free speech does not extend to tortuous interference with someone's business. The right to free speech does not extend to creating a public nuisance and disturbing the peace.

No. A firearm cannot cause the same kind of disturbance. Causing a disturbance requires intent. A firearm is an inanimate object.

 

[chipbennett]

So what you are saying is that when you decide to conduct commerce, you give up rights? Exactly. Business owners and employers give up rights due to government mandates.

That's sort of how civil society works:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Government is necessary to ensure that the exercise of one's rights does not infringe on the exercise of rights of another, particularly in the public engagement between those two parties. Government is evil, because it will inevitably seek to abuse its power; but it is a necessary evil, because anarchy is worse.

When you decide to conduct commerce, you don't "give up rights". You change the nature of your actions and property from "private" to "public". The rights attendant to your private actions and property are subject to some degree of government regulation when those actions and property change from "private" to "public".

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, makes a lot more sense. Too bad it even needs to be said. Or does it? In that regard I'm ignorant as to who can file (or win) lawsuits under what circumstances.

It is aimed at MDA's attempts to bully businesses like Kroger, by bolstering their liability indemnification for honoring their customers' right to defend themselves.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's sort of how civil society works:



Government is necessary to ensure that the exercise of one's rights does not infringe on the exercise of rights of another, particularly in the public engagement between those two parties. Government is evil, because it will inevitably seek to abuse its power; but it is a necessary evil, because anarchy is worse.

When you decide to conduct commerce, you don't "give up rights". You change the nature of your actions and property from "private" to "public". The rights attendant to your private actions and property are subject to some degree of government regulation when those actions and property change from "private" to "public".

Is there a Constitutional cite for this? Or is this line of thinking based on the CRA?

 

[MilliJac]

And the Muslim has an option: convert to Christianity, or do not enter. And the black person has an option: find a white person to go in for you, or do not enter.

The difference is public versus private use of the property. On your own private property, used for your own private purposes, you can refuse lawful presence to anyone for any reason (carrying a firearm, being black, smelling funny, being a Bears fan, whatever).

I will disagree with this. I do not believe the act of performing commerce relieves you of all property rights. Sorry.

Note: you cannot demand someone to disarm. You cannot demand someone convert to a different religion. You cannot take someone's life. Even on your own private property, your property rights do not trump the rights of those on your property. All you can do, legally and morally, is declare the person to be trespassing if you do not wish them to be present on your property.

The business owner in this example is not forcing you to disarm. They are giving you the option to disarm to use their services. That is it. Nothing more.

The right to free speech does not extend to tortuous interference with someone's business. The right to free speech does not extend to creating a public nuisance and disturbing the peace.

And if your firearm disturbs the peace? That is just fundamentally different for some reason? And why does your free speech not extend to interference with someones business but your RKBA does? You are making a choice on how you use your right to speech by cursing. Are you not making a choice on your right to self defense by carrying a gun?

No. A firearm cannot cause the same kind of disturbance.

Incorrect. Like it or not, there are people in this world who are afraid of your firearm and will cause trouble because of it.

Causing a disturbance requires intent.

That is not true by any stretch of the imagination. If you accidentally knock over a display of salsa jars, breaking $1000 worth of merchandise and spilling salsa and broken glass everywhere, that isn't a disturbance because you didn't intend to do it? Ridiculous.

A firearm is an inanimate object.

Yes, but carrying a firearm is a choice you are making. Just like making the choice to curse at small children.

 

[dusty88]

That's sort of how civil society works:

"that's just the cost of doing business" huh? I've heard that one in these types of arguments before.

It's now how "civil society" works. It's how a government-controlled fascist society works.

Government is necessary to ensure that the exercise of one's rights does not infringe on the exercise of rights of another, particularly in the public engagement between those two parties. Government is evil, because it will inevitably seek to abuse its power; but it is a necessary evil, because anarchy is worse.

No one's rights are violated if you simply choose who to invite into your business, and the customer chooses whether or not to go in.

 

[chipbennett]

I will disagree with this. I do not believe the act of performing commerce relieves you of all property rights. Sorry.

Where did anyone say that the act of performing commerce relieves you of ALL property rights?

The business owner in this example is not forcing you to disarm. They are giving you the option to disarm to use their services. That is it. Nothing more.

In order to engage in the same public commerce as everyone else, the person exercising RKBA is forced to disarm.

And if your firearm disturbs the peace? That is just fundamentally different for some reason? And why does your free speech not extend to interference with someones business but your RKBA does? You are making a choice on how you use your right to speech by cursing. Are you not making a choice on your right to self defense by carrying a gun?

A firearm all by itself cannot disturb the peace, any more than a hammer, a Bible, or a can of salsa all by themselves can disturb the peace.

Incorrect. Like it or not, there are people in this world who are afraid of your firearm and will cause trouble because of it.

Irrational fear is not a disturbance of the peace. You cannot control the irrational fear or the reactions of the perpetually aggrieved, nor are you legally or morally responsible for doing so. If such a person causes trouble in response to nothing more than the lawful exercise of a constitutionally protected right, then THAT person runs afoul of the law, not the person lawfully conducting his affairs.

That is not true by any stretch of the imagination. If you accidentally knock over a display of salsa jars, breaking $1000 worth of merchandise and spilling salsa and broken glass everywhere, that isn't a disturbance because you didn't intend to do it? Ridiculous.

No. It is true, by statute and by relevant case law.

The offense of disturbing the peace requires the *intent* of the accused to cause a disturbance. There is ample case law that protects the lawful exercise of a constitutionally protected right as being by definition not an inherent disturbance.

If you accidentally destroy $1,000 of merchandise (N.B. that's a heck of a lot of salsa), you may be held civilly responsible for compensation; but you have not committed the offense of disturbing the peace.

Yes, but carrying a firearm is a choice you are making. Just like making the choice to curse at small children.

Acting in defense of one's right to life, by lawful exercise of RKBA, is not a "choice". It is a *right*.

 

[chipbennett]

"that's just the cost of doing business" huh? I've heard that one in these types of arguments before.

It's now how "civil society" works. It's how a government-controlled fascist society works.

Government-controlled fascist society versus anarchy is a false dilemma.

No one's rights are violated if you simply choose who to invite into your business, and the customer chooses whether or not to go in.

You have essentially said: no rights are violated if you willingly allow someone else to deny your rights.

If I choose to go into a business, and the business owner attempts to disarm me, my rights are violated.

Carrying a firearm into a place of public business violates not a single right of the business owner, and has no material or immaterial impact on the business owner.

 

[chipbennett]

Is there a Constitutional cite for this? Or is this line of thinking based on the CRA?

Personally, I base it on the Equal Protection clause, and my understanding of the difference between private and public actions and property.

 

[dusty88]

Government-controlled fascist society versus anarchy is a false dilemma.

I didn't present such a dilemma. You assert that the current government control of businesses is "normal" as if it were necessary for a civil society to function. I do not accept that.

You have essentially said: no rights are violated if you willingly allow someone else to deny your rights.

You have no right to enter a specific private property

Carrying a firearm into a place of public business violates not a single right of the business owner, and has no material or immaterial impact on the business owner.

It's not for you to decide what impacts him. It's for him to decide who or what he wants to allow on his property.

 

[chipbennett]

I didn't present such a dilemma. You assert that the current government control of businesses is "normal" as if it were necessary for a civil society to function. I do not accept that.

You originally asked if government regulation (intervention) - in general - was acceptable. You did not ask about current/specific government regulation per se, nor did I comment on such. I merely stated that, in principle, government regulation is part of maintaining a civil society.

You have no right to enter a specific private property.

By definition a place of public business is not private. The owner has willingly invited the general public onto the property, for the purpose of conducting commerce with the public.

It's not for you to decide what impacts him. It's for him to decide who or what he wants to allow on his property.

I'm not deciding; I'm stating. Someone merely carrying a gun in a lawful manner in your presence has zero impact on you whatsoever.

As for deciding whom to allow on his property: the property owner has already made and expressed that decision, by opening up the property to public commerce.

 

[dusty88]

So we'll settle on agreeing that you are comfortable with the government defining who can enter a business and who cannot. The business owner does not get to define that.

 

[chipbennett]

So we'll settle on agreeing that you are comfortable with the government defining who can enter a business and who cannot. The business owner does not get to define that.

I believe that every law-abiding person is free to enter into a place of public business, and that the government does have the authority to play a role in ensuring that such freedom is protected.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Well, its not like the CRA is going away anytime soon, so we may as well just add to it. You should be able to express yourself however you want in one's business...errr I mean the government's business..., short of breaking the law of course!

 

[chipbennett]

Well, its not like the CRA is going away anytime soon, so we may as well just add to it. You should be able to express yourself however you want in one's business...errr I mean the government's business..., short of breaking the law of course!

Well, I suppose straw men are easier to demolish than actual arguments.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Well, I suppose straw men are easier to demolish than actual arguments.

I understand the line of reasoning you and others present when making a case for a bill such as this. However, I fundamentally disagree with the CRA and any bill that forces a business to accept societal norms.

Case in point, if I were to go to Babies"R'Us, or any expecting mothers store, wearing a shirt that states Abortions Are Cool (or Miscarriages Are Cool, etc.), I should be thrown out if the owner/manager does not like my shirt (which I doubt they would). No bill should cover such expression on another's property.

 

[chipbennett]

Case in point, if I were to go to Babies"R'Us, or any expecting mothers store, wearing a shirt that states Abortions Are Cool (or Miscarriages Are Cool, etc.), I should be thrown out if the owner/manager does not like my shirt (which I doubt they would). No bill should cover such expression on another's property.

Why not?

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California

Yes, this case applies specifically to government suppression of speech. But the principle regarding liberty remains the same. Do not exalt order at the cost of liberty. The remedy for evil speech is more speech.

Unless there is a tangible impact to the business (e.g. customers leave due to the exercised expression, thereby denying the business owner sales from those customers), I have a very hard time supporting the suppression of freedom of expression in a public place.