• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I don't understand...

Status
Not open for further replies.

neoinarien

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
25
Location
, ,
So I noticed the thread tacked at the top of this forum, "Stores who infringe upon our rights."

How are they infringing by denying open carry? Don't they have a property right? If they don't want OC and someone OC's, isn't the OCer infringing on their property rights?

Maybe I'm missing something...

:)
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
My personal thoughts only:

I own a grocery store. I place a sign out front, no Jews, no Blacks, no Gays, no Democrats, no Guns.

Now all EXCEPT "no Guns" is already illegal.

When a business opens its door to the public, then it (the business) surrenders many of the private property rights.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
Yes, property owners do have the ability to refuse to allow armed people into their stores.
The meaning of the thread is so people know which stores do not allow legally armed citizens into their establishments so they will not patronize them.

Basically it means "You disallow me to legally carry a firearm, I will not spend money in your establishment"
Fair is fair, right?
 

SprayAndPray

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
177
Location
, ,
My personal thoughts only:

I own a grocery store. I place a sign out front, no Jews, no Blacks, no Gays, no Democrats, no Guns.

Now all EXCEPT "no Guns" is already illegal.

When a business opens its door to the public, then it (the business) surrenders many of the private property rights.
they should be able to hang whatever sign they want
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
My personal thoughts only:

I own a grocery store. I place a sign out front, no Jews, no Blacks, no Gays, no Democrats, no Guns.

Now all EXCEPT "no Guns" is already illegal.

When a business opens its door to the public, then it (the business) surrenders many of the private property rights.
It's not illegal to ban "Democrats" from a store in Wisconsin as a whole. It is in Madison, however.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Not according to the courts. Part of the civil rights act was: The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation.

Those who carry ARE a minority, we just don't have protected status YET. We will because of places like those listed.
 

neoinarien

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
25
Location
, ,
My personal thoughts only:

I own a grocery store. I place a sign out front, no Jews, no Blacks, no Gays, no Democrats, no Guns.

Now all EXCEPT "no Guns" is already illegal.

When a business opens its door to the public, then it (the business) surrenders many of the private property rights.
But it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of skin color, gender, religion, etc. It is not illegal to discriminate on the basis of firearms (for now).

So while I get what you're saying, it still doesn't make legal sense.
 

neoinarien

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
25
Location
, ,
My personal thoughts only:

I own a grocery store. I place a sign out front, no Jews, no Blacks, no Gays, no Democrats, no Guns.

Now all EXCEPT "no Guns" is already illegal.

When a business opens its door to the public, then it (the business) surrenders many of the private property rights.
Yes, property owners do have the ability to refuse to allow armed people into their stores.
The meaning of the thread is so people know which stores do not allow legally armed citizens into their establishments so they will not patronize them.

Basically it means "You disallow me to legally carry a firearm, I will not spend money in your establishment"
Fair is fair, right?
Yes, fair is fair: certainly no denying that. I understand the purpose of the thread and have NO objection on that basis.

The title is simply misleading given the status of the law, that's all.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
The federal public accommodations law make it illegal for a business to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The ADA makes it illegal to discriminate based on disability--- perhaps Democrats can claim that basis.

The state law adds sexual orientation. Age is usually covered with a couple of exceptions.

Madison's public accommodations ordinance covers race, sex, religion, color, national origin/ancestry, age, handicap/disability, marital status, source of income, arrest record,conviction record, less than honorable discharge, physical appearance, sexual orientation, political beliefs, familial status, domestic partners, disclosure of social security numbers, and the fact that such person is a student.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
The federal public accommodations law make it illegal for a business to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The ADA makes it illegal to discriminate based on disability--- perhaps Democrats can claim that basis.

The state law adds sexual orientation. Age is usually covered with a couple of exceptions.

Madison's public accommodations ordinance covers race, sex, religion, color, national origin/ancestry, age, handicap/disability, marital status, source of income, arrest record,conviction record, less than honorable discharge, physical appearance, sexual orientation, political beliefs, familial status, domestic partners, disclosure of social security numbers, and the fact that such person is a student.
So when LEO informs some business that they can put up a "no guns" sign, that would be false.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
So when LEO informs some business that they can put up a "no guns" sign, that would be false.
It is a little weird that in Madison they can't refuse service to a felon but they can refuse service to a law-abiding person who is exercising their constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
they should be able to hang whatever sign they want
I couldn't agree with that more, unless it's a needed utility, business owners should be allowed to discriminate. While I personally don't think that discrimination is a good thing I do believe government stepping in to tell a company who they have to allow into their business is one step off from government telling us who we have to allow into our homes.

When it comes down to the situation, the people should rely on their moral compass and guidance from God - not the overbearing oversight of bureaucrats and lawyers.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
You should be able to say who goes into your property, protected status is hogwash.
So your saying that If I own a business I should legally be able to to refuse entry to Hispanics or African Americans?

That means anyone in this forum who is an advocate for CCW, permits and fees should be kicked out, banned, removed!
 
Last edited:

Spartacus

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,185
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
My GF and I did Trader Joes and the Whole Foods Market last year without incident except for a bit of media attention.

"Uninfringed" in the 2A context does NOT mean you can carry anywhere at anytime so the whole thread is off kilter from the start.

If so, why don't some of you people who are so up-in-arms about the gubmint infringing rights start griping that they can tell you to accept business from any race or religion, etc.? Thats a HUGE "infringement", right?
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
You should be able to say who goes into your property, protected status is hogwash.
So your saying that If I own a business I should legally be able to to refuse entry to Hispanics or African Americans?

That means anyone in this forum who is an advocate for CCW, permits and fees should be kicked out, banned, removed!
I'm going to agree with Springfield.

Sure, you should be able to refuse entry to anyone you dang well please. It's your property. Although some people don't see it because it benifits them, protected status is just another government intrusion on our rights.

That being said, I don't advocate discrimination based on someones race, gender, or orientation at all and it would be stupid for a buisness owner to refuse entry to paying customers in this day and age. Discrimination has become socially and morally unacceptable to most in the country and you wouldn't be in buisness long; however, it's not the goverments place to tell you who can be on your property.
 

The Don

Guest
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
397
Location
in your pants
My GF and I did Trader Joes and the Whole Foods Market last year without incident except for a bit of media attention.

"Uninfringed" in the 2A context does NOT mean you can carry anywhere at anytime so the whole thread is off kilter from the start.

If so, why don't some of you people who are so up-in-arms about the gubmint infringing rights start griping that they can tell you to accept business from any race or religion, etc.? Thats a HUGE "infringement", right?
I'm not sure what "gubmint" means since it's a ridiculous made up word, but if you'd bother to read the thread, a lot of people have, in fact, been saying that the businesses should not be prohibited from declining service to whomever they choose.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
It was as late as the 1950's that there were signs still posted outside businesses that said, "Help wanted, No Blacks or Irish Need Apply"
I might remind everyone that we have moved passed those days. Oh and by the way it was the Irish that helped make this country what it is today. Years ago, during the great migration many here wouldn't hire Negroes but they would hire Irish and that is how the train tracks were laid, mines were dug and any other 5hit work that White Americans did not want to do was done. Ever hear of the story of Duffy's Cut? Where the Irish accomplished a job that no one else could and then they were murdered so they didn't have to be paid. The whole thing was covered up by the railroad.
Do we really want to get into this?
Gun Control came about because the White american was trying to keep the Negroes from arming themselves for self defense.
White Americans stopped hiring Irish because they did not like it because the Irish were getting credit for the progress in America. In fact both the Irish and the Negro's should get much of the credit.
This is about firearms. Let's keep it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top