Missouri House Bill 96
- Thread starter motorhead0922
- Start date
I get it, we think carry is a good idea. It's our right. But if you recognize something as a right, you have to also recognize other things as a right, as well, even when they are distastefull to you, personally.
And, you have to recognize that ALL our rights are in one place vs. the government, and a different place vs. private citizens.
The law being what it currently is, there is some overlap when you are talking about a business open to the public.
No one seems to get bent out of shape at a store that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service". But it is the same fundamental right being affected, your freedom of choice.
And we must respect that, because the property owner ALSO has freedom of choice, and if we demand the authority to violate theirs, FOR OUR CONVENIENCE, then they get the authority to violate OURS for THEIR convenience.
Simply put, we don't have a right to access their property in a manner that does not meet with their approval. Even businesses "open to the public". We don't have a right to go there, we are allowed to go there, in a manner consistent with law, AND the property owner's approval.
How much of an expense and inconvenience we suffer in order to go there is not a matter of concern to the law.
Ok, so? It's a choice made by armed citizens that they can accept or decline. The fact that accepting it means some expense (money or time, or just the hassle of complying) is a willful choice. NO LAW requires you to go to that private business to shop, or watch a sports team, or listen to a particular band, etc. (now, there is the argument about government places where you ARE required by law to go, and not being allowed our constitutional right to arms THERE, which is, I think, A very valid argument, and an actual infringement of our rights, but that is a discussion for a different thread)
The basic principles are simple and clear, but it gets complex and muddy when you to specific of individual cases and various laws covering "protected classes" of people.
There are "test cases" some currently ongoing, I'm sure, about whether or not a business "open to the public" has to violate their own rights (such as a religious belief) in order to accommodate the rights of SOME members of the public. Unfortunately for us, being an armed citizen is not one of the listed protected groups. So, any legal precedent set by these cases does NOT apply (directly at any rate) to firearms and carry rights.
I can easily see where the proposed law is a huge overreach in some people's opinions. It seems to me to be an ethically fair concept, but not a legally workable one in today's society.
And, you have to recognize that ALL our rights are in one place vs. the government, and a different place vs. private citizens.
The law being what it currently is, there is some overlap when you are talking about a business open to the public.
No one seems to get bent out of shape at a store that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service". But it is the same fundamental right being affected, your freedom of choice.
And we must respect that, because the property owner ALSO has freedom of choice, and if we demand the authority to violate theirs, FOR OUR CONVENIENCE, then they get the authority to violate OURS for THEIR convenience.
Simply put, we don't have a right to access their property in a manner that does not meet with their approval. Even businesses "open to the public". We don't have a right to go there, we are allowed to go there, in a manner consistent with law, AND the property owner's approval.
How much of an expense and inconvenience we suffer in order to go there is not a matter of concern to the law.
Ok, so? It's a choice made by armed citizens that they can accept or decline. The fact that accepting it means some expense (money or time, or just the hassle of complying) is a willful choice. NO LAW requires you to go to that private business to shop, or watch a sports team, or listen to a particular band, etc. (now, there is the argument about government places where you ARE required by law to go, and not being allowed our constitutional right to arms THERE, which is, I think, A very valid argument, and an actual infringement of our rights, but that is a discussion for a different thread)
The basic principles are simple and clear, but it gets complex and muddy when you to specific of individual cases and various laws covering "protected classes" of people.
There are "test cases" some currently ongoing, I'm sure, about whether or not a business "open to the public" has to violate their own rights (such as a religious belief) in order to accommodate the rights of SOME members of the public. Unfortunately for us, being an armed citizen is not one of the listed protected groups. So, any legal precedent set by these cases does NOT apply (directly at any rate) to firearms and carry rights.
I can easily see where the proposed law is a huge overreach in some people's opinions. It seems to me to be an ethically fair concept, but not a legally workable one in today's society.
steve4102 said:
I think there is a different set of circumstances between a situation involving an individual property owner and that of a business open to the public. Even if you think there is no important enough reason for the general public to ever carry a gun at a business that is no-gun, what about the employees? A choice to work or not? They might be able to work somewhere else if there are jobs somewhere else and that place isn't no-gun
"Open to the Public" means what exactly?
A business invites you in to partake in what they have to offer, be it food, merchandise, services or whatever, but it is not "open" for you to enter whenever you wish, to leave whenever you wish, to carry whatever you wish, to say whatever you wish and to do whatever you wish.
You are invited in as long as you abide by Their rules, if you do not abide by their rules, then you are no longer invited in.
A business invites you in to partake in what they have to offer, be it food, merchandise, services or whatever, but it is not "open" for you to enter whenever you wish, to leave whenever you wish, to carry whatever you wish, to say whatever you wish and to do whatever you wish.
You are invited in as long as you abide by Their rules, if you do not abide by their rules, then you are no longer invited in.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The courts, both federal and state, have long upheld the concept that businesses that are open to the public ("places of public accommodation," as they are generally referred to in the laws) are subject to limitations under law as to whom they may or may not discriminate against in denying entry when they are open for business. I don't see how this departs from that concept. You argue that the customer has a choice: disarm to enter, or choose to stay out. This law says the property owner has a choice: allow armed customers to enter, or accept responsibility for their safety in exchange for exercising your right to require them to disarm.steve4102 said:
"But that adds to their cost of doing business," you might say. Being required to install toilet rooms, emergency lights, exit signs, and maybe fire sprinklers also add to the cost of doing business, but all these things are required by building codes (which are "laws"), and nobody complains that the business owner's right to conduct business as he wishes is being violated when the building inspector requires all these features in a business before it's allowed to open.
Choice <==> choice. I don't understand your objections.
And the courts have also ruled that the police have no legal responsibility to protect us. (note the key word here is legal)
This is where it turns from a clear cut principle into a can of worms, nest of snakes, and slippery slope.
Because, in the real world, the business IS responsible, and the legal system is used to determine to what degree they are responsible. And remember that there is a distinction made between "responsible" and "liable for damages".
There are many situations where these two are entirely congruent, and some where they are clearly separated. And some situations where they should be separate, but are not, all mixed together under our current legal system.
Here's another way to look at the proposed law, it's a WARNING.
The trouble is, it's probably too subtle to be recognized by the people it's aimed at.
The gun banners want to sue gun makers for "cost to society from gun violence". Isn't this proposed law simply using that same base principle (that someone else is responsible for the acts of a 3rd party) just pointed in the opposite direction?
Could it be that the bill was introduced, believing that it wouldn't pass (and shouldn't pass) but to get people talking, arguing, and examining basic legal and moral principles, in order to remind us all that there are things that should not be made law??
Aguila Blanca
Staff
In discussing this proposed law, opponents make much of the rights of property owners to control who does what on their property. IMHO (and, I believe, under law) there are differences in how businesses open to the public are treated with regard to this and how private homeowners are treated. There are a few states that have laws requiring specific consent of the property owner to enter their house armed.
Pennsylvania is not one of those states but, several years ago, after reading a discussion on this and seeing a vocal minority of people getting on board and saying "Hell, yeah, nobody better come into MY house with a gun unless I know it and I've given permission," I started worrying about potentially offending one of my Jeeping buddies. He's also a shooter and a reloader, so we have a lot in common, and never run out of things to talk about. But I was worried, so I called him up.
"Hey, ___, I've been reading an article about states that require the owner's specific permission to enter his house with a gun. Just so we're good, do you have any problem with me being armed when I come to visit you?"
"Heck, no. If you're not carrying, then I have to look out for you as well as myself. Lock and load!"
So here's just a guy. Out of the blue, he came up with the concept of the property owner having a responsibility to protect his guests. Why should it be different, with less responsibility, in the case of a for-profit business? If a patron is injured on/in their premises due to a wide variety of other causes ... they're responsible. Why should they be allowed to duck out of responsibility for personal protection, when the patron is perfectly willing to assume that responsibility but the business won't let him/her do so?
Pennsylvania is not one of those states but, several years ago, after reading a discussion on this and seeing a vocal minority of people getting on board and saying "Hell, yeah, nobody better come into MY house with a gun unless I know it and I've given permission," I started worrying about potentially offending one of my Jeeping buddies. He's also a shooter and a reloader, so we have a lot in common, and never run out of things to talk about. But I was worried, so I called him up.
"Hey, ___, I've been reading an article about states that require the owner's specific permission to enter his house with a gun. Just so we're good, do you have any problem with me being armed when I come to visit you?"
"Heck, no. If you're not carrying, then I have to look out for you as well as myself. Lock and load!"
So here's just a guy. Out of the blue, he came up with the concept of the property owner having a responsibility to protect his guests. Why should it be different, with less responsibility, in the case of a for-profit business? If a patron is injured on/in their premises due to a wide variety of other causes ... they're responsible. Why should they be allowed to duck out of responsibility for personal protection, when the patron is perfectly willing to assume that responsibility but the business won't let him/her do so?
I keep writing out long examples of the business having the right to refuse services but before I'm done I debunk them . I'm getting frustrated with the debate in my own head . I can see both sides having the right . There in lies the debate I guess .
Why not have a law that says something like a business can refuse services to people carrying a firearm . . Therefore you can go in and shop if cancelled but if noticed the business can ask you to leave . Therefore our right to self defense in not infringed and there right as a "private" business is not infringed . win win
They can refuse to serve if you don't have your shirt or shoes on . Why can't they refuse to serve for some other thing you are or are not wearing ?
Can you say we reserve the right to refuse service to all that are "NOT" carrying a firearm ?
Why not have a law that says something like a business can refuse services to people carrying a firearm . . Therefore you can go in and shop if cancelled but if noticed the business can ask you to leave . Therefore our right to self defense in not infringed and there right as a "private" business is not infringed . win win
They can refuse to serve if you don't have your shirt or shoes on . Why can't they refuse to serve for some other thing you are or are not wearing ?
Can you say we reserve the right to refuse service to all that are "NOT" carrying a firearm ?
Last edited:
Yes, we have the right to forbid weapons in our place of business. Yes, we probably have the right to require weapons be carried in our business if we choose. This is not a civil rights issue. This is not a 2A issue. This is not a building code, or public health and safety issue. And no, forbidding weapons in a place of business does not make the owner responsible for any or all consequences of entering unarmed.
This is just another example of government trying to regulate conduct that is not within its Constitutional authority to control. We do not need or want government to micromanage our businesses or lives. That is far more dangerous than me leaving my pistol in the truck while having dinner in my opinion.
This is just another example of government trying to regulate conduct that is not within its Constitutional authority to control. We do not need or want government to micromanage our businesses or lives. That is far more dangerous than me leaving my pistol in the truck while having dinner in my opinion.
K Mac said:
Logically speaking if it is yes to the first, then it should be as much yes to the second; There is no "probably" to it.
K Mac said:
Are you saying that it isn't or shouldn't be these issues? If it is an issue of being able to defend yourself from being gunned down, then it is most certainly a safety issue. What the law says on it is another issue.
K Mac said:
Why because you say so? A business not being responsible for a customer's safety and not allowing the customer to be responsible for their own safety is the ultimate in unaccountability.
K Mac said:
Are you O.K. with safety stuff like building codes? I mean, how often does a store burn down? Not very often. Yeah it happens but so do shootings
You could argue building codes help prevent fires but I could also argue that pro-gun policies help prevent shootings...ATN082268,
Yes, I probably should not have qualified my remark with probably.
It certainly is not a civil rights issue by any accepted definition. Your right to protect yourself does not supersede my right to restrict your bringing weapons into my business. You certainly have the right to bear arms to protect yourself and the right to avoid any business that restricts that right. Requiring sprinklers, emergency exits, occupancy limits, etc. for the public good is not the same as requiring firearms be allowed. It is also not the same as holding business owners liable for the illegal acts of others.
You and I are accountable for our own safety to a large extent. If a business limits our ability to do that, and we knowingly accept conditions that we feel put us at risk, then why would we have legal recourse if something goes bad? More to the point is how much authority does government have in how we live, and the choices we make.
There will always be tension between public health and safety, and our individual rights to live as we choose. For example, I think making laws to prohibit smoking in a bar is government going too far, yet I would fight for the bar owner's right to do so if he chooses. In the same way, I think forbidding weapons in most businesses is a bad idea, but I do not want government mandating compliance.
We often howl about new gun laws, and rightly so. This is another in a long line of proposed laws that gives government more control while chipping away at our individual liberty in my humble opinion.
Yes, I probably should not have qualified my remark with probably.
It certainly is not a civil rights issue by any accepted definition. Your right to protect yourself does not supersede my right to restrict your bringing weapons into my business. You certainly have the right to bear arms to protect yourself and the right to avoid any business that restricts that right. Requiring sprinklers, emergency exits, occupancy limits, etc. for the public good is not the same as requiring firearms be allowed. It is also not the same as holding business owners liable for the illegal acts of others.
You and I are accountable for our own safety to a large extent. If a business limits our ability to do that, and we knowingly accept conditions that we feel put us at risk, then why would we have legal recourse if something goes bad? More to the point is how much authority does government have in how we live, and the choices we make.
There will always be tension between public health and safety, and our individual rights to live as we choose. For example, I think making laws to prohibit smoking in a bar is government going too far, yet I would fight for the bar owner's right to do so if he chooses. In the same way, I think forbidding weapons in most businesses is a bad idea, but I do not want government mandating compliance.
We often howl about new gun laws, and rightly so. This is another in a long line of proposed laws that gives government more control while chipping away at our individual liberty in my humble opinion.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The bearing of arms is a right, supposedly guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Since it isn't a military matter, it can be argued that it is a civil rights issue. The reason businesses can't ban certain classes of people based on their color, race, religion, gender, etc., is only because some legislature, somewhere, passed a law making it unlawful to discriminate against those protected classes of people. Thus, if another law adds arms carriers to the list of classes of people who cannot be discriminated against, it just reinforces the concept that bearing arms IS a "civil right."K Mac said:
Agreed. But it is analagous to such issues once you start arguing that the government can't tell a business how to run their business.K Mac said:
It will if the law passes. Why shouldn't it? If you operate a business that's open to the public and a patron is injured on your premises, more than likely you will be liable for his/her injuries. Trip on a pavement crack? Slip and fall because the tile floor was wet? Got conked because a heavy box fell off a high shelf while the patron was looking at something on a lower shelf? In all such cases, and myriad other possible scenarios, it's almost certain the business would be found liable. So businesses do, in general, have a duty to look out for the safety of their patrons. This law simply establishes one more possible scenario to add to the myriad of such possible scenarios that already exist.K Mac said:
That seems to make sense . hmm what if another customer trips you ? What if another customer throws grease on the floor right in front of you as you walk ? What if another customer pushes that high box off the shelf ??????
Are my examples any different then another customer pulling a gun and shooting you ????
Aquila, I think it is a stretch to compare getting hurt in a business due to negligence or oversight, and being hurt by the illegal action of a criminal.
I also think insisting it is a civil right to carry a gun is as credible as those insisting that anyone carrying a gun
violates their civil right to not be around such evil things.
I have made my position as clear as I am able. A business owner that forbids weapons is unlikely to get my business. That is my right, and his. I am good with that.
I also think insisting it is a civil right to carry a gun is as credible as those insisting that anyone carrying a gun
violates their civil right to not be around such evil things.
I have made my position as clear as I am able. A business owner that forbids weapons is unlikely to get my business. That is my right, and his. I am good with that.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The U.S. Constitution (supposedly) guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does NOT guarantee anyone a right to not have to see a man carrying a gun.K Mac said:
Aquila, do you really believe that the right to bear arms not be infringed means that there can be no restrictions on carrying a gun?
At what point do we take responsibility for our own actions? If you don't like the conditions of doing business with someone take your business elsewhere. We can't decry government restricting the things we hold dear while advocating for increased governmental involvement in the business of others.
At what point do we take responsibility for our own actions? If you don't like the conditions of doing business with someone take your business elsewhere. We can't decry government restricting the things we hold dear while advocating for increased governmental involvement in the business of others.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes, of course I believe that. What do YOU believe "shall not be infringed" means?K Mac said:
I believe you can (and should) study the meaning the word. In do so, you will learn that to infringe is, "to exceed the limits of." You may not like the definition or the reality; that does not change a thing.
I have enjoyed this discussion and appreciate the exchange of ideas and beliefs. Merry Christmas.