Public "private property"...wait...what?

[LanceRobbins24]

OK....so here is something that has bothered me for quite some time. I OC the majority of time I am out and about with the wife and kids or when I'm rolling "Han Solo". Say I go to a place of business that is open to the public and they do not like that I'm carrying a firearm and ask me to leave. I leave as to not be charged with trespass (as you can be assured they will never see another dollar of my money, even if I'm not carrying)...so be it.

So the business has made the choice to ask me to leave because they don't want me in their store because I'm openly exercising a Constitutional right. What if I'm not carrying a firearm and they made the choice to ask me to leave just because, lets say....I'm black. Are they in the right then? Can they just choose whoever they want in their business? I know this is a bit of comparing apples and oranges here, but can they refuse my business for whatever reason they want to?

My thinking is that if they open themselves up to the public as a place of business, don't they then open themselves up to adhering to the letter of the law in not discriminating against people for whatever reason? If I am creating a disturbance or being belligerent, fine, show me the door. If I'm a law abiding citizen going about my daily life, how in the heck do you show me the door?


Your thoughts?

 

[88GT]

Actually, I think they should be able to discriminate for any reason, even skin color.

 

[Jack Burton]

Lance, you have to distinguish between what you want the law to be and what it really is. There are specific laws against discrimination against certain characteristics in certain situations. Amoung the laws are places of public business and color of skin. There is no such law protecting gun owners. One can complain about it, but that is the way it is.

 

[Tink]

Even though you can legally carry, some establishments can ask you to leave. (I see these signs in alot of places in Mi.) They should have a sign posted at the door if this is their policy though.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Can they just choose whoever they want in their business?

Short answer: Yes, they can.

Long answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The CRA64 created a class of businesses called "places of public accommodation" which includes such varied businesses as hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments which engage in interstate commerce (read: any commerce), and protected access to them for broad categories of human demographics such as race, color, religion, or national origin. Over the years, those demographics have been expanded with gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Organizations which are ostensibly private and limit their services and facilities to a select membership: clubs, churches, social organizations, organized crime, are exempted from these requirements.

So, while you might be able to get away with claiming you just didn't like your business serving this person for a non-CRA64 reason and that person for another non-CRA64 reason, if you are a bigotted son of a ***** to enough people that their collective data on you forms a clear pattern of discrimination on a CRA64 basis, you can, and will, get your business sued out from under you... you bigotted son of a *****, you.

People engaged in the legal carrying of personal protection sidearms are not, as of yet, one of those protected demographics, and given the general political tenor of firearms carriers vis-a-vis those who wield the CRA64 like a sword at the throat of society, I wouldn't look for any serious push to so add it to the list in my lifetime, if ever.

 

[Hoosierdood]

From the IN.gov web site FAQ:

Discrimination is treating someone differently than someone else. However, not all discrimination is against the law. Only different treatment of a person on account of his or her race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, age or disability is unlawful according to state and federal civil rights laws.

As much as I am an advocate of individual rights, I am also an advocate of property rights. A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone they wish to refuse. If they don't like the color of your hair, they don't like the fact that you only have 5 teeth, whatever.

Example: Let's say you were to walk into a Discount Tire store and begin screaming "Your tires are all crap! You charge twice what you should, and your customer service sucks! Your employees know nothing about your tires, and they all live in trailers. Everyone in here needs to go down the street and buy tires from XXXX Company." Would you force that company to allow you to exercise your First Amendment rights in their store? Or would you expect them to promptly escort you off their property.

The same can be said about our Second Amendment. Your rights have not been infringed by the government (in this situation). You still have the right to bear arms. However, the store also has the right to refuse service. You and I have the choice of whether or not to do business with that company. If you don't like their policies, then don't do business with them.

I know it sucks that a store can ask you to leave all because you choose to exercise your constitutional rights. But we can't really pick and choose which rights to fight for. We are either for Freedom, or we are against it.

 

[LanceRobbins24]

+1 to CathyInBlue and Hoosierdood....I agree with you whole heartedly. As much as I am about individual rights, I agree with property rights as well....I just wasn't sure how those property rights might be slightly different being open to the public in case of a business. As I said, if a business does not want me there as a law abiding citizen that happens to be carrying a firearm, they will not get any of my hard earned money in the future and hopefully change their outlook on their view of the gun community as they see money and future customers not coming through their doors.

Hoosierdood, your example made me laugh since I'm a tire salesman (pretty sure you knew that and threw the example out there because of it). But as I mentioned, if I'm creating a disturbance or being belligerent....as your example gives....then, yes....get the boot. I guess I'd like to see more businesses have more of a pro gun attitude to match mine.

It's not like I've ever really had any issue with this, but it has come up in conversation with buddies at work that are also licensed to carry.

 

[Quad]

I just think we are fortunate to live in a state where "No Firearms" signs hold no weight of law. Just imagine how complicated it could get real quick in a state with that law on the books!

 

[CathyInBlue]

I view any variety of bigotry against your perspective customer base as it's own punishment.

That being said, I would like to see all spaces separated into four classes: public, private, public domain, and secure.

Private: Duh. I think we all have an idea of what constitutes a truly private space.

Public: All of the spaces owned by the public at large/government, including easements of travel, i.e. public thoroughfares.

Secure: All of those spaces owned by the government that would otherwise be deemed public spaces, but for which there is a compelling public safety interest in excluding the general public. Prisons, jails, military installations, etc.

Public Domain: All of those spaces that are deemed private property now, but which are held forth by their proprietors for the admission of the public. This is where the places of public accommodation come in. I would exempt public domain spaces from the possibility of trespass charges, as I would public spaces that do not convert to secure spaces when they lock up every night. As long as a person is not committing any crime other than ostensibly trespass, they would have every right to be there.

In the Hoosierdood's example, the person in question would be committing the crime of disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct, and so could be arrested and removed from the public domain space of the tire seller's business premises. At the same time, the back room and service bays of the same business could remain always private since in order to be granted access to them, one must first join the club of store employees by passing the membership procedures of application, interview, offer, and acceptance.

The only problem I see with this system is in terms of keeping a lid on protests of the business. i.e. on the sidewalk and in the parking lot and not in the store proper, and in terms of managing limitted parking in shared parking lots, i.e. "This Space Reserved for Customers of Joe's Store Only".

 

[CX1]

Public Domain: All of those spaces that are deemed private property now, but which are held forth by their proprietors for the admission of the public. This is where the places of public accommodation come in. I would exempt public domain spaces from the possibility of trespass charges, as I would public spaces that do not convert to secure spaces when they lock up every night. As long as a person is not committing any crime other than ostensibly trespass, they would have every right to be there.

I can't personally get behind this idea.
A property owner should have some means of removing an unwanted person even if they are not breaking any laws.

Example:A small clothing store with a single dressing area. Under your idea the shop owner would have no method of removing me from the dressing room should I decide to spend the day there because my a/c unit went out.

Example:I am bored so I head down to Kroger. I fill my cart with bread and start depositing the loaves on various shelves around the store. Once I'm out of bread I fill the cart up with what ever is there handy and repeat the deposit process with the new item.

In either example I am not breaking any laws. But I am being a PITA for the store owner. And as it is their property they should have some legal means of forcing me to leave. Trespassing laws are about the only solution.

 

[Ryano23_98]

a place of business can refuse service to anyone and is there right

 

[88GT]

I can't personally get behind this idea.
A property owner should have some means of removing an unwanted person even if they are not breaking any laws.

Example:A small clothing store with a single dressing area. Under your idea the shop owner would have no method of removing me from the dressing room should I decide to spend the day there because my a/c unit went out.

Example:I am bored so I head down to Kroger. I fill my cart with bread and start depositing the loaves on various shelves around the store. Once I'm out of bread I fill the cart up with what ever is there handy and repeat the deposit process with the new item.

In either example I am not breaking any laws. But I am being a PITA for the store owner. And as it is their property they should have some legal means of forcing me to leave. Trespassing laws are about the only solution.

Going beyond the trespass/removal of unwanted persons, fettering the ability of the property owner to control his property as he sees fits undermines the whole premise of property rights as the foundation of freedom. No matter how much we are free to act, speak, or think, if we can own nothing, we are still not free. We are just perpetual customers at the company store.

 

[88GT]

a place of business can refuse service to anyone and is there right

But not for any reason.

 

[Ryano23_98]

you dont have to give a reason to refuse service

 

[88GT]

you dont have to give a reason to refuse service

When the feds drop a federal civil rights suit against, you'd better be able to give a reason.

 

[tk6968]

I believe that a business that would ask you to leave because you are lawfully carrying a handgun is no different than asking you to leave because you are black, or catholic, or pregnant, or fat, or have red hair, or any other reason. If we as a country are not going to allow discrimination, then it should not be allowed in any form. If we choose as a country to say that a business has the right to choose, then they should be able to choose for any reason including skin color. A gun owners rights should be no different than any other civil right. One could make the argument that a gun carrying customer presents a danger, but statistically the opposite is true. On the other hand it is statistically proven than black males are more likely to commit a crime than a person with a LTCH is. It is easy to make the argument that the gun owner can just choose a different business. But what if all business owners decided to not allow gun owners? We all have to buy gas, groceries, and clothes. Lawful gun owner’s rights are violated daily by the police, and business owners alike. My right to keep and bear arms should be treated like any other right. It amazes me that lawful gun owners buy the argument that the business has a right to choose. As for the police, why is it OK the stop someone because they have a gun, but not OK to stop them just because they are black.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Well, you can't exactly leave your skin color or whatever locked in the trunk of your car. Carrying a firearm isn't a personal characteristic; it's an activity.

 

[Tombs]

I believe that a business that would ask you to leave because you are lawfully carrying a handgun is no different than asking you to leave because you are black, or catholic, or pregnant, or fat, or have red hair, or any other reason. If we as a country are not going to allow discrimination, then it should not be allowed in any form. If we choose as a country to say that a business has the right to choose, then they should be able to choose for any reason including skin color. A gun owners rights should be no different than any other civil right. One could make the argument that a gun carrying customer presents a danger, but statistically the opposite is true. On the other hand it is statistically proven than black males are more likely to commit a crime than a person with a LTCH is. It is easy to make the argument that the gun owner can just choose a different business. But what if all business owners decided to not allow gun owners? We all have to buy gas, groceries, and clothes. Lawful gun owner’s rights are violated daily by the police, and business owners alike. My right to keep and bear arms should be treated like any other right. It amazes me that lawful gun owners buy the argument that the business has a right to choose. As for the police, why is it OK the stop someone because they have a gun, but not OK to stop them just because they are black.

It's actually not OK to stop someone just for carrying a gun unless there is other activity involved to give reason for suspicion. Where police tend to make this a gray area is when they assume a right is reason for suspicion. The difference is, the law clearly states the case and the law is not always followed.

Business needs the right to choose, if you take that away you're going to see just how far that gets exploited. A good example may be an individual with an axe to grind against the business constantly harassing customers or driving them away.

No, a gun should not be treated any different than race or hair color. But the right to deny service to certain individuals should not require a legal excuse, considering the possible reasons for denying them service.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Let's look at this private property right from another angle. If a property owner chooses to negate your right to provide for your self defense by refusing you the use of his property while armed, should the property holder be held liable if you are injured by a third party who disobeys the law and the property owner's wishes?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Yes.