MDA and their petitions to businesses to stop open carry/carry

[Work]

So, with Moms Demand Action trying so hard to stop open carry, or any carry, has anyone ever countered their attacks on our freedoms with a thanks to the businesses that have stood fast in their policies to adhere to local and state laws rather than concede to the unreasonable demands of progressive extremists?

If not, why don't we start one?
here's a petition to thank Kroger/Pay-Less for standing up to crazies.

Petition Thanks to Kroger and others for standing up for our rights

Sign it, pass it around.

This is where the thought came from

Oregon moms ask Fred Meyer to prohibit customers from openly carrying guns | OregonLive.com

They get signatures. we can too.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just to be clear a dialogue between 2 parties concerning the use of private property, isn't an attack on our freedoms.

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

I believe there are other petitions like this out there, but I signed it anyways.

 

[chipbennett]

Just to be clear a dialogue between 2 parties concerning the use of private property, isn't an attack on our freedoms.

Oh, you think that's what MDA are doing. How cute.

Don't like the policy? Don't patronize the business. MDA are trying to bully businesses into violating their customers' natural, second-amendment-protected rights. You can pretend otherwise, if you'd like. Personally, I have no problem calling bullies what they are: MDA are bullies.

 

[chipbennett]

For my part, whenever I shop at Kroger, I take a picture of my receipt and tweet it to @kroger, thanking them for supporting my 2A rights.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh, you think that's what MDA are doing. How cute.

Don't like the policy? Don't patronize the business. MDA are trying to bully businesses into violating their customers' natural, second-amendment-protected rights. You can pretend otherwise, if you'd like. Personally, I have no problem calling bullies what they are: MDA are bullies.

How does a business violate rights? You have a right to oppose MDA, but do not presume that rights are being infringed by MDA's members getting off their butts and working toward their goal.

 

[chipbennett]

How does a business violate rights? You have a right to oppose MDA, but do not presume that rights are being infringed by MDA's members getting off their butts and working toward their goal.

MDA's goal is civilian disarmament, which would be an explicit violation of the natural right to keep and bear arms. And they are attempting to do so by bullying private businesses. Because they are bullies.

How does a business violate rights? Is that a sincere question?

 

[Kutnupe14]

MDA's goal is civilian disarmament, which would be an explicit violation of the natural right to keep and bear arms. And they are attempting to do so by bullying private businesses. Because they are bullies.

How does a business violate rights? Is that a sincere question?

Yes, it's an sincere question.... Well actually rhetorical. Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, it's impossible. That has been well established. I think it's ironic that you citing gun rights, and that if you used the same logic, you'd be infringing on speech.

 

[OakRiver]

The goal of MDA is to prevent the exercising of the Second Amendment. They know that to do so directly is a fool's errand. They know that re-writing the Constitution is an arduous task that will not be easy. So instead they try to change the culture; lies and distortions to increase the social sigma of gun ownership, threats of harm for exercising your rights, inconveniencing people who carry so that they must avoid certain areas or places of business lest they risk a criminal record.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Yes, it's an sincere question.... Well actually rhetorical. Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, it's impossible. That has been well established. I think it's ironic that you citing gun rights, and that if you used the same logic, you'd be infringing on speech.

I always forget that the 2A is the only one that means anything to some people around here

And yes, MDA are bullies. And yes, businesses have the right to refuse you entry for any reason they see fit. And no, you don't have any rights on someone elses property.

 

[printcraft]

Yes, it's an sincere question.... Well actually rhetorical. Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, it's impossible. That has been well established. I think it's ironic that you citing gun rights, and that if you used the same logic, you'd be infringing on speech.

Well, if you are gay, getting married and want a business to bake you a cake and they refuse then they are violating your rights and will be forced to bake you a cake or be put out of business.
Some rights are worth protecting and some are not apparently. It depends on which side of the progressive political spectrum you are starting from.

 

[dbrier]

The goal of MDA is to prevent the exercising of the Second Amendment. They know that to do so directly is a fool's errand. They know that re-writing the Constitution is an arduous task that will not be easy. So instead they try to change the culture; lies and distortions to increase the social sigma of gun ownership, threats of harm for exercising your rights, inconveniencing people who carry so that they must avoid certain areas or places of business lest they risk a criminal record.

Well said and I agree. Their tactic is to change the viewpoint of the public over time. Law changes come after that. They are in this for the long haul, they know they won't get changes right away.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, it's an sincere question.... Well actually rhetorical. Insofar as the Constitution is concerned, it's impossible. That has been well established. I think it's ironic that you citing gun rights, and that if you used the same logic, you'd be infringing on speech.

So, restaurants and bars that refused service to blacks? They weren't violating rights? Buses that forced black people to sit in the back? They weren't violating rights? (Okay, that was more municipal than private business, probably.) It seems that even refusing to photograph or bake a cake for a homosexual marriage has been deemed a violation of rights (apparently, some rights are more violable than others, such as freedom of religion/conscience).

Need I go on? There are ample examples of alleged and real violation of rights by private businesses. I consider a "no guns" business to be in the same category.

How am I infringing on speech? I would classify what MDA are doing by barging into grocery stores with their (probably bogus) "petition" to be tortuous interference with those stores' business with their paying customers. Interfering with a contractual relationship (i.e. store and customer) is not protected speech. Neither is bullying.

 

[chipbennett]

I always forget that the 2A is the only one that means anything to some people around here

Not at all. But second amendment-protected rights have equal standing with all other natural and constitutionally protected rights.

And yes, MDA are bullies. And yes, businesses have the right to refuse you entry for any reason they see fit.

Are you sure about that? Try refusing entry to a black person. Or to a gay person. Or to a Muslim. (Need I go on...?)

And no, you don't have any rights on someone elses property.

I'm not so sure you've thought that assertion through. Any rights? *Any*? Are you sure you want to go there?

 

[Bluejeeper]

Not at all. But second amendment-protected rights have equal standing with all other natural and constitutionally protected rights.



Are you sure about that? Try refusing entry to a black person. Or to a gay person. Or to a Muslim. (Need I go on...?)

I'll rephrase. They should be able to refuse entry for any reason.

I'm not so sure you've thought that assertion through. Any rights? *Any*? Are you sure you want to go there?

What rights do you have on my property?

Replies in red

 

[igotdiesel2]

So far all the examples compare carrying a weapon to someones race, color, creed, or religion. All of those cannot be changed by the person, except maybe religion if being gay is really a at birth issue. I don't like some gay people sued a business and MADE them bake their cake or take their wedding photos but that is how the law works. Why doesn't someone sue Chuck E. Cheese (that is the only one I know of) for not letting a person carry a firearm in their establishment and see how it works? Or has it happened and lost. In my opinion it is no different than not allowing cameras in a concert or monster truck show. YOU are allowed in the business but you can't bring your firearm with you.
What about the "Government" not allowing one to carry a firearm into Lucas Oil Stadium or Bankers Life Fieldhouse?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, restaurants and bars that refused service to blacks? They weren't violating rights? Buses that forced black people to sit in the back? They weren't violating rights? (Okay, that was more municipal than private business, probably.) It seems that even refusing to photograph or bake a cake for a homosexual marriage has been deemed a violation of rights (apparently, some rights are more violable than others, such as freedom of religion/conscience).

Need I go on? There are ample examples of alleged and real violation of rights by private businesses. I consider a "no guns" business to be in the same category.

How am I infringing on speech? I would classify what MDA are doing by barging into grocery stores with their (probably bogus) "petition" to be tortuous interference with those stores' business with their paying customers. Interfering with a contractual relationship (i.e. store and customer) is not protected speech. Neither is bullying.

First sentence, nope, not at all a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Do you not agree?

 

[sig1473]

I refuse service to patrons all the time at the establishment I work at.

 

[terrehautian]

I missed the MDA petition, I would have signed it as Chris Kringle and Ted Striker. Also, I was at a Panera Bread today, no signs saying they don't want guns.

 

[chipbennett]

Replies in red

I retain all of my rights on your property, to be frank. We'll start with the right to life, just to make the point. Which of my rights do you believe that I abdicate on your property?

What I *don't* have, in the context of your private property, is a right to be present on your private property. You have the right to ask me to vacate your property, at any time and for any reason.

That said: a place of public business, even if privately owned, is willingly opened to the public by the proprietor. The business owner gives up certain, limited property rights in order to use that property to engage in public commerce. For example, a proprietor may not refuse service to someone based on skin color, but certainly can refuse service to someone who is being disorderly, because that disorder interferes with his business. Bearing in mind that the courts have consistently held that mere lawful exercise of RKBA is not inherently disorderly or evidence of any unlawful action, it is reasonable to conclude that it would be an unjustified violation of a patron's second amendment-protected rights to refuse service merely because he is carrying a firearm.