drsysadmin
Regular Member
OK - we all know of a few businesses that don't support 2a rights. Often times, it is stated that companies may choose to limit 2a rights on their property because they are "private" entities. While this may be true of your mom and pop outfit, companies like Target (which is considering suspension of 2a rights in its stores) are not, under any legal definition - "private". A private company is one that is not traded openly in the stock market. Since Target is part of the S&P 500, it is considered a "public" company. Additionally, its stores are considered "public" locations, in that it welcomes the general public to its place of business at all hours of operation. Finally, the fact that Target does not charge any form of "membership" fee or "non-member surcharge" like Costco or Sam's club removes any claim they could have about being a "private" entity.
So on what basis can a public company claim it has the right to infringe on the exercise of 2a rights, when the same company is prohibited from any other discriminatory acts (such as a refusal to serve people of color or homosexuals)? Which leads to the next question. A bakery (true private entity) was just ordered to make a wedding cake for a gay couple (in a state in which gay marriage is illegal) over the religious objections of the owner. Now being gay is not against the law anywhere in the US that I know of (though many homosexual acts are still outlawed in many places), just as 2a rights are rightfully respected in many jurisdictions. So, what is the difference between a sign that requires you to "check your weapon at the door" and one that requires a person to "check their gayness at the door"? Both would be discriminatory when viewed through a lens of "equal treatment", are they not?
Now yes, some folks will say "Why would you go to a store that wants to infringe on your rights?". Simple - for the same reason that the gay couple sued the baker - to create a change in what they (and in the case of 2a - what we) deem as an injustice and a violation of our constitutional rights. So perhaps its time to really look at the legalities of some companies actions and start holding them accountable for their violation of our rights. Right now, much of society frowns on the exercise of 2a rights simple because they have been taught badly. A major case of constitutional rights violations would undoubtedly inform a lot of people about the rightness (horrible term, I know) and legality of 2a.
Thoughts?
So on what basis can a public company claim it has the right to infringe on the exercise of 2a rights, when the same company is prohibited from any other discriminatory acts (such as a refusal to serve people of color or homosexuals)? Which leads to the next question. A bakery (true private entity) was just ordered to make a wedding cake for a gay couple (in a state in which gay marriage is illegal) over the religious objections of the owner. Now being gay is not against the law anywhere in the US that I know of (though many homosexual acts are still outlawed in many places), just as 2a rights are rightfully respected in many jurisdictions. So, what is the difference between a sign that requires you to "check your weapon at the door" and one that requires a person to "check their gayness at the door"? Both would be discriminatory when viewed through a lens of "equal treatment", are they not?
Now yes, some folks will say "Why would you go to a store that wants to infringe on your rights?". Simple - for the same reason that the gay couple sued the baker - to create a change in what they (and in the case of 2a - what we) deem as an injustice and a violation of our constitutional rights. So perhaps its time to really look at the legalities of some companies actions and start holding them accountable for their violation of our rights. Right now, much of society frowns on the exercise of 2a rights simple because they have been taught badly. A major case of constitutional rights violations would undoubtedly inform a lot of people about the rightness (horrible term, I know) and legality of 2a.
Thoughts?
Last edited: