Simon Mall

[brucecrain]

Feel free to sue them, see how that goes. What's a "public venue"? if I open a restaurant, why do I not have the right to allow who I want there?[/
Edit*

 

[Onebad06vtx]

Do any of them ever ask if you are the police when they see the OC gun?

And now you know one of many reasons I dont open carry!

 

[Expat]

Let's ask Ollie McClung.

I was thinking of Cynthia and Robert Gifford, but okay.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I was thinking of Cynthia and Robert Gifford, but okay.

This is what came to my mind.

 

[rhino]

Crawford's?

Shop Wright!

 

[markholst]

I don't really care for people, therefore, I'll conceal, and avoid the idiots.

AMEN BROTHER!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

 

[Tactically Fat]

Shop Wright!

Now I 'member! I grew up right around the corner from there. Well, lived there from like age 4-10. My great grandma lived in Cloverdale Heights for several years. We were by Shopwright all the time.

I DO now remember all the pictures of people they had up. Lots of them for back-check passers, too. Their little endorser stamp they had had a mini-camera in the handle of it. They'd endorse the check with a "whump" of the stamp and you got your picture taken at the same time.

Good ol' days.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

The Marathon at 34th and Moller was putting up pictures of little ****s that where shop lifting and I heard some kids parent sued them.

 

[rhino]

Now I 'member! I grew up right around the corner from there. Well, lived there from like age 4-10. My great grandma lived in Cloverdale Heights for several years. We were by Shopwright all the time.

I DO now remember all the pictures of people they had up. Lots of them for back-check passers, too. Their little endorser stamp they had had a mini-camera in the handle of it. They'd endorse the check with a "whump" of the stamp and you got your picture taken at the same time.

Good ol' days.

Yep!

 

[Viper1973]

So you're for freedom just not when it pertains to something you don't agree with? Seems to be a popular trend these days.

No... I don't believe a third-party should have ANY say in my personal safety.

As a business we don't have the right to refuse service to someone because I don't like them, their religion, their beliefs, etc. It's discrimination and everyone gets their knickers in a twist. However, if a public establishment throws me out simply for exercising my lawful right of carrying a firearm... same difference.

I'm not talking about the guy pulling his piece out of the holster every five minutes or waving it around. I'm talking about the responsible person with it parked in its holster until - God forbid - it's needed.

If someone is exercising their rights in a responsible and non-disruptive fashion they should be free to do so and no one should be able to prevent that.


Everyone likes to claim the private property rights card.... Newsflash, once you're open to the public you should not be able to hide behind that and use it as a method of discrimination. It's no different than the 'No Colors Allowed' or 'Whites Only' signs of the 50s and 60s. Those are illegal now. Prohibiting those carrying lawful firearms is the same exact thing but somehow folks want to pretend that it's not.

 

[Route 45]

Everyone likes to claim the private property rights card.... Newsflash, once you're open to the public you should not be able to hide behind that and use it as a method of discrimination. It's no different than the 'No Colors Allowed' or 'Whites Only' signs of the 50s and 60s. Those are illegal now. Prohibiting those carrying lawful firearms is the same exact thing but somehow folks want to pretend that it's not.

They actually are not the same thing. One is who you are. The other is a behavior. Not arguing about property rights vs. right to carry. Just pointing out the difference.

 

[HoughMade]

I like it when the gvt. stays out of things and policies we don't like are changed by the market if they are important enough to enough people. Removing one person's freedom to advance another's isn't much of a consistent approach.

 

[Vigilant]

I like it when the gvt. stays out of things and policies we don't like are changed by the market if they are important enough to enough people. Removing one person's freedom to advance another's isn't much of a consistent approach.

Me too, but when has that ever happened?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No... I don't believe a third-party should have ANY say in my personal safety.

As a business we don't have the right to refuse service to someone because I don't like them, their religion, their beliefs, etc. It's discrimination and everyone gets their knickers in a twist. However, if a public establishment throws me out simply for exercising my lawful right of carrying a firearm... same difference.

Everyone likes to claim the private property rights card.... Newsflash, once you're open to the public you should not be able to hide behind that and use it as a method of discrimination. It's no different than the 'No Colors Allowed' or 'Whites Only' signs of the 50s and 60s. Those are illegal now. Prohibiting those carrying lawful firearms is the same exact thing but somehow folks want to pretend that it's not.

You don't believe a third party should have any say in your personal safety, but yet you want a third party(the govt) to have a say by removing others rights? And a business that prohibits firearms doesn't have a say in your personal safety, you do. You choose to go in that business, they don't force you to do so.

And yes a business has the right to refuse service because they don't like a person, or a wide variety of other reasons. There are a few "protected classes" that can't be the basis for their refusal though. If a business throws you out for exercising your legal right to freedom of speech by loudly proclaiming how crappy they are and that xyz's is much better, should they not be allowed to?

And either of those signs should be legal, and I've seen "No colors allowed" signs. They refer to gang colors. I believe the sign you meant was "No coloreds". I've also seen signs that say "no shirt no shoes no service" or "jacket and tie required" or "No hats, hoodies, or sunglasses". Think of a "no guns" sign as a dress code requirement. Should a business be allowed to have and enforce a dress code?

They actually are not the same thing. One is who you are. The other is a behavior. Not arguing about property rights vs. right to carry. Just pointing out the difference.

What if you're a loud, obnoxious *******? And that's just who you are?

I like it when the gvt. stays out of things and policies we don't like are changed by the market if they are important enough to enough people. Removing one person's freedom to advance another's isn't much of a consistent approach.

Yep.

 

[brucecrain]

No... I don't believe a third-party should have ANY say in my personal safety.

As a business we don't have the right to refuse service to someone because I don't like them, their religion, their beliefs, etc. It's discrimination and everyone gets their knickers in a twist. However, if a public establishment throws me out simply for exercising my lawful right of carrying a firearm... same difference.

I'm not talking about the guy pulling his piece out of the holster every five minutes or waving it around. I'm talking about the responsible person with it parked in its holster until - God forbid - it's needed.

If someone is exercising their rights in a responsible and non-disruptive fashion they should be free to do so and no one should be able to prevent that.


Everyone likes to claim the private property rights card.... Newsflash, once you're open to the public you should not be able to hide behind that and use it as a method of discrimination. It's no different than the 'No Colors Allowed' or 'Whites Only' signs of the 50s and 60s. Those are illegal now. Prohibiting those carrying lawful firearms is the same exact thing but somehow folks want to pretend that it's not.

100% Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chezuki]

Lots of chest thumping without much critical thinking here.

 

[HoughMade]

Lots of chest thumping without much critical thinking here.

What do you mean? Petitioning the government to restrict other people's freedom always leads to more freedom for all. Right?

 

[chezuki]

What do you mean? Petitioning the government to restrict other people's freedom always leads to more freedom for all. Right?

Oh yeah, definitely.

 

[Expat]

Too much liberty is scary for some people.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Lots of chest thumping without much critical thinking here.

I see you're new to INGO. Welcome aboard!