Is there a CC double standard?

[VidGuy]

I realize I'll catch a lot of flak from some people on this, but here goes...

I'm having a philosophical conundrum trying to understand why so many people complain about their right to carry being violated, when so many of them have no issue with ignoring the property rights of businesses by CCing where it is posted "No Firearms".

In other words, you're complaining about your rights being violated when YOU disregard the rights of private business owners, by CCing on their property.

Can someone please explain this to me?

(And please, let's keep it civil! )

 

[littletommy]

Personally, I try to NOT patronize businesses that put up "no gun" signs, fortunately, around here, I rarely see those signs.

 

[glockednlocked]

As a business owner I do tend to agree about the property rights of businesses and agree that they should be able to set the "house rules". As a consumer I can decide to vote with my $ and not frequent a business that I dont agree with, and they can choose to not offer goods or services to me. That said I think the recent election shows the great devide in this country and really helps me prioritize. I feel that my only real loyalty is to my family and my ability to protect them will not be infringed by anyone! So in short if a choice to go to no gun or pro gun I will choose pro gun but if a choice is not given I will not neglect my responsibility to my family.

 

[AndersonIN]

Hope you're not planning on getting your answer soon!

Most of us on this forum are out googling "philosophical" and "conundrum".

But an answer to your question is "Yes"!

 

[Rookie]

It might be no. I'm not sure.

 

[iChokePeople]

This should be fun.

 

[noname1]

I think you have a point, but I care about my rights more than anyone else and if you were about to get shot by an armed robber in your store, I think you would rapidly revise your policy to support my right to carry.

 

[BravoMike]

As a business owner I do tend to agree about the property rights of businesses and agree that they should be able to set the "house rules". As a consumer I can decide to vote with my $ and not frequent a business that I dont agree with, and they can choose to not offer goods or services to me. That said I think the recent election shows the great devide in this country and really helps me prioritize. I feel that my only real loyalty is to my family and my ability to protect them will not be infringed by anyone! So in short if a choice to go to no gun or pro gun I will choose pro gun but if a choice is not given I will not neglect my responsibility to my family.

Can your "house rules" trump civil liberties? I'm just curious because I know that there are certain things that a business, who holds itself out to the public, cannot deny services to.

 

[VidGuy]

Can your "house rules" trump civil liberties? I'm just curious because I know that there are certain things that a business, who holds itself out to the public, cannot deny services to.

If you shop there voluntarily, I believe you have to follow their rules. If you don't like their rules, don't shop there at all.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

As a business owner I do tend to agree about the property rights of businesses and agree that they should be able to set the "house rules". As a consumer I can decide to vote with my $ and not frequent a business that I dont agree with, and they can choose to not offer goods or services to me. That said I think the recent election shows the great devide in this country and really helps me prioritize. I feel that my only real loyalty is to my family and my ability to protect them will not be infringed by anyone! So in short if a choice to go to no gun or pro gun I will choose pro gun but if a choice is not given I will not neglect my responsibility to my family.

+1

 

[griffin]

Can someone please explain this to me?

I know true Libertarians that believe private property rights trump all, and not only should you be able to ban firearms from your store, but you should be able to ban anyone for any reason, including race.

The .gov has already barred some discrimination based on a few defined privileged classes such as race and religion.

There are sound legal arguments that a public accommodation cannot prevent you from being armed to protect yourself. A Best Buy is not akin to someone's private home.

Is refusing to disarm any worse than speeding? Especially in states where signage does not carry the force of law? Refusing to disarm is not even illegal. Speeding is. If the store owner/management demands you leave and you don't, then you are trespassing. Otherwise...

 

[VidGuy]

Is refusing to disarm any worse than speeding? Especially in states where signage does not carry the force of law? Refusing to disarm is not even illegal. Speeding is. If the store owner/management demands you leave and you don't, then you are trespassing. Otherwise...

I'm talking about "self-enforcement" before you're even caught. I understand that a sign doesn't carry the force of law, but doesn't the business owner have the right to disallow weapons? And as people that are obsessed with our OWN rights, shouldn't that courtesy be extended to others, especially if we voluntarily venture onto THEIR property?

It seems hypocritical to me, if someone complains about his personal rights being violated, yet doesn't respect the property rights of others.

 

[BravoMike]

I know true Libertarians that believe private property rights trump all, and not only should you be able to ban firearms from your store, but you should be able to ban anyone for any reason, including race.

The .gov has already barred some discrimination based on a few defined privileged classes such as race and religion.

There are sound legal arguments that a public accommodation cannot prevent you from being armed to protect yourself. A Best Buy is not akin to someone's private home.

Is refusing to disarm any worse than speeding? Especially in states where signage does not carry the force of law? Refusing to disarm is not even illegal. Speeding is. If the store owner/management demands you leave and you don't, then you are trespassing. Otherwise...

Yup this is what I was getting at. There is "legally" a different set of rules once you open a business that holds itself out to the public. Like it or not, you cannot deny someone services because of certain civil liberties. I see my gun as my means to self-defense and I see that as a civil liberties issue. That is why I don't lose any sleep over it. Now, legally can a business request me to leave if it becomes known that I am carrying? Sure they can. I wouldn't agree with it, but I know that's how it is. I also try to not to patronize a business that shows that they want to infringe on my rights.

 

[VidGuy]

Yup this is what I was getting at. There is "legally" a different set of rules once you open a business that holds itself out to the public. Like it or not, you cannot deny someone services because of certain civil liberties. I see my gun as my means to self-defense and I see that as a civil liberties issue. That is why I don't lose any sleep over it. Now, legally can a business request me to leave if it becomes known that I am carrying? Sure they can. I wouldn't agree with it, but I know that's how it is. I also try to not to patronize a business that shows that they want to infringe on my rights.

I see what you're saying... but I don't think you can equate denying service to a CCer with denying service to a black woman.

You're being denied service because of what you're carrying, not because of what you are.

 

[Jack Burton]

I don't see what is all that hard about this...

1) rights sometimes come into conflict with each other.

2) when they do, a choice needs to be made as to which right gives way to the other

3) since this is an individual situation, involving individuals, then it has to be resolved at the individual level.

4) each individual therefore has a choice to make, does my right trump, or does the other right trump. Each is a valid right but in this circumstance one must give way to the other.

5) there is no definitive statement or reason why one or the other right must trump the other, so whichever choice the individual makes is his "right" to make.

6) if the LTC carrier chooses to retain his rights there is no harm done to the store or business owner. I am assuming CC here since I think most open carriers would understand that they are causing disruption by entering. No harm - no foul has always been understood to be a reasonable way to judge actions of a minor nature.

7) Since the LTC carrier is exercising his equal right, and no harm to anyone has come by considering his right as trumping another right, then it is a logical and ethical decision to do so. The shop owner is just as happy what ever decision the LTC carrier has made, and indeed, is probably happier that he has a shopper in the store as opposed to one who turned away. Keeping the shop owner happier is a plus for society overall.

 

[AndersonIN]

And while you're answering his 'moral' question maybe you answer mine too???

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

 

[BravoMike]

I see what you're saying... but I don't think you can equate denying service to a CCer with denying service to a black woman.

Understood and I answered your question as honestly as I could. You posed it as a question of morality and this is why I don't have a problem with it. I won't let a business' "house rules" trump my right to self-defense. I will do my best to not shop there, but there have been a couple of times that I have and my moral conscience has not had any regrets. Fortunately in IN this is not too difficult to go to a different business that does not have such signage.

 

[shibumiseeker]

It seems hypocritical to me, if someone complains about his personal rights being violated, yet doesn't respect the property rights of others.

That works if you assume all rights as being absolutely equal. In reality and in practice, they are not. I consider an individual's right to defend themselves to be one of the highest priorities and when that individual is taking measures that in no way harms anyone else then when a business owner to set the rules for their shop when that rule conflicts with the other, the higher priority right takes precedence. Now, if the action of the person carrying a weapon were to negatively impact the business owner then the right of the business owner to set that rule become greater.

It becomes even murkier when that business is the only one that exists within reason so that you have no choice to take your business elsewhere. Then there is no option.

Add to that, a business invites the public in. This is how a business works and as such we as a society have accepted that they must accommodate things that the general public may do. This is the cost and difference between personal rights that exist in the home, which have been ruled to be greater, and those that exist in a more public setting.

In practice, I try to not do business with places that restrict firearms. That's not always possible though.

 

[VidGuy]

And while you're answering his 'moral' question maybe you answer mine too???

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Just what are you implying???

 

[pokersamurai]

I realize I'll catch a lot of flak from some people on this, but here goes...

I'm having a philosophical conundrum trying to understand why so many people complain about their right to carry being violated, when so many of them have no issue with ignoring the property rights of businesses by CCing where it is posted "No Firearms".

In other words, you're complaining about your rights being violated when YOU disregard the rights of private business owners, by CCing on their property.

Can someone please explain this to me?

(And please, let's keep it civil! )

Why should businesses' "property rights" have the ability to remove one of my constitutional rights? Last time I checked their businesses are still part of the US and subject to our laws.

Would you still be defending businesses if they chose to violate your constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by strip searching every customer before they came in and taking from them anything they didn't want in their store?