Not having a gun won't be what get's you killed. If you think that restaurant is so dangerous that something in it might kill you, don't go there. Claiming a person and their gun are not the same thing is not going to extremes. Claiming you need to rely on a gun less than a blind person needs to rely on that which replaces their sight is not going to extremes. Believing otherwise is.
Suzanna Hupp was mentioned in a previous post. She had a firearm and a license to carry, but she respected the wishes of the establishment and left her firearm in the car after she saw the gun free zone sign. Complying with that sign got her parents killed and the lives of others when the mass shooting occurred in that restaurant. Most all mass shootings happen in gun free zones, and it is possible that damage could be mitigated if they were not declared gun free zones. So Yea, not having a gun CAN and does get people killed.
No it didn't. If it was determined Suzanna's actions got her parents killed, she would have been charged with that crime. George Hennard got them killed.
The restaurant's policy kept Hupp from protecting her family. I have fire insurance on my home in case it burns down. Do I think it will burn down? Highly unlikely. I have insurance on my car. I wear a seat belt on the premise it might protect me. People have a Right to keep and bear Arms. We all have an unalienable Right to Life. What we don't need are people telling us that we should forfeit a constitutional guarantee. If and when they do, then this thread makes it abundantly clear: Sue the owner of a business when patrons are shot by a shooter and nobody could defend themselves because of a silly policy that prevented them from carrying their insurance policy (their weapon.) If it costs business owners that make stupid policies for their business, we won't have to argue over this.
Her actions did not get them killed, and if she had a firearm, it is possible that the shooter would have turned tail and ran when rounds came back at him. Hence, saving lives.
No it didn't. The policies of not allowing you to bring your own self inflating life raft onto an airplane or your own bazooka into DisneyLand also do not prevent you from protecting your family. If you believe restaurants, airplanes, and DisneyLand are dangerousprotect your family. Take them elsewhere.
if you really feel the need to carry a firearm, either dont go to that restaurant or carry concealed.
Nope, nor would any reasonable person expect you too. You may want to check out that app, as I recall it wasn't free but really inexpensive (like < $3), and it updates itself as laws change.
this would be an interesting case. "do public areas such as restaurants, malls, bars, have the right to ban the possession of legally owned firearms with a ccw permit?"?
Codswallop. Having a gun in a gunfight is no guarantee of victory. But it's a whole lot better than NOT having a gun in a gunfight. - - - Updated - - - In some states yes, in others no. In some, a business can ban firearms with the force of law, but only if their sign meets strict standards of size, placement, and language.
Do you enjoy making an ass of yourself? You're getting pretty good at it. When self inflating rafts on an airplane and bazookas become constitutional guarantees, it might have relevance to this thread. But, it don't and you have failed. You need to go somewhere else to troll. Either that, or present some coherent and lucid counter-argument.
Restaurants, malls and bars are not "public areas". They are privately owned businesses. As such, they can set their own policies. That doesn't necessarily mean that violations of company policy is an arrest-able offense.
If she did not comply, or if it was not posted as a gun free zone, they may be alive today, along with other people. Gun free zones do not prevent those with ill will from carrying out their attack.
sorry, by the Civil Rights Act of 1968 determined that areas of public business cannot discriminate based on sex, race, nationality. and the courts have agreed. only private homes and private clubs can discriminate.
Taking a gun anywhere you want is not constitutionally guaranteed. Try to walk one on an aircraft or into a courtroom if you believe otherwise. And be polite if you want me to respond to your comments.
Which are they discriminating against? Race? Religion? Nationality? Or Sex? - - - Updated - - - Quit being ridiculous. She was not responsible for the shooters actions. Only her own. If she did not comply, or if it was not posted as a gun free zone, they may be alive today, along with other people.
And christian bakers don't lock out people either, they just lock out the gayness. They're free to shop as they wish, until they pull their gayness out. What I wrote is just as ludicrous as what you wrote. You have the right to be gay, you have the right to carry a firearm.
First, whether you respond to a thread is your decision. When you do, if you talk down to people, expect that they will talk down to you. I used to be a nice guy when I first came here. Then I got conned, picked up some enemies and we'd be here all day if I gave you the highlights of the things they do to me. Moving along, up until May of this year, it was legal to carry a firearm in the airport where I live. There was some point (I'm not exactly sure where it ended) that you could not continue if you had a weapon. I do recall some dim bulb carrying his AR 15 just to make some idiotic political point. http://patch.com/georgia/atlanta/atlanta-airport-has-new-policy-concealed-carry-weapons-0 I suppose you could make a national security issue out of carrying weapons on public conveyance. Then again, if you did that, I'd expect that there would be armed guards to protect you. The problem is, restaurants, malls, etc. are not generally national security interests. I know that it is up to the anti-gunners to exploit every ***** in the armor that they can. All I can tell you is that if you're so opposed to the Second Amendment, I promise to never use a firearm to protect you or any of your loved ones so as not to offend you. The next thing that you should bear in mind is that America is controlled by at least two different governments. The first government is the de jure / lawful government. That government is a constitutional Republic and governed so as to guarantee unalienable Rights, among other things. The other government is a de facto / illegal government that is little more than a Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. That government has usurped the authority of the American people; compromised the Constitution; reduced our Rights to mere privileges doled out by a power hungry government with no consideration to the intent of our forefathers. Know this. Although the United States Supreme Court has degenerated into a legislature of its own, even proclaiming that the Court, NOT we, the people are the final arbiters of what the law is, we are the final say. The Supreme Court once opined: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
You implied that businesses, malls, and the like are discriminating against CCW if they dont allow them. You posted: Which are they discriminating against? Race? Religion? Nationality? Or Sex?
