Thoughts on a 'No Firearms Allowed' business

Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by WGTactical, Nov 7, 2010.

  1. WGTactical

    WGTactical Member

    846
    21
    18
    Considering we only have one amendment having to do with recognizing our right to keep and bear an object, you’d think the fact someone even bothered to write it down would be enough reason to protect, even if you were somehow able to ignore it being high on the list.

    No Firearms Allowed on this Property

    Well, if you are a homeowner or property owner and this is your wishes, so be it. However if you have a walk-in business that requires you to have a business license, I believe that you should be required to accommodate the folks that a rule like this will affect.

    I am a business owner since 1997, and I am fully aware of the procedures and ever changing rules that come with maintaining one, as well as how to get and renew a business license. Even before I could get a certificate of occupancy, there were certain criteria that must be met. Among these were handicap provisions, including a restroom with ADA compliant toilet, sink, mirror, building access and parking. It costs more to do this and I have no problem with that, even though I cant think of a single handicapped person that has visited my property in 13 years of business. But if they ever do, I can certainly accommodate their visit.

    My confusion comes with trying to make sense of how can someone have the power to deny someone else their constitutional right(s) while in the course of doing business with that person, without the necessity to accommodate them for this temporary suspension of their rights. As a business owner, I need my customer’s money and/or my employee’s help if I am to stay in business. Either way, neither one is of value to me once they’ve been killed on their way to or from my business as a result of trying to be compliant with my no firearms policy while here.

    I am not suggesting that business property owners shouldn’t be able to make rules, but I am saying that if your rules will affect what happens to the individual trying to follow them once they leave your business property, then you should be responsible for being able to restore whatever condition your rules took away.

    My idea is some type secured lobby with lock boxes for any business with a no firearms policy. Yes, it would be a costly expense, but think of the price already paid for the right that they want us to leave at home. Just a way of saying “don’t make any rule you can’t afford to accommodate.â€

    Before this gets steered in the direction of being one of those concealed carry issues, meaning out of sight, out of mind kinda thing…I’m talking more as it relates to the employees that work at these places, where if they are caught breaking the firearms policy, they get fired.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. commodore_dude

    commodore_dude Active Member

    2,568
    0
    36
    No. Private property > a Bill of Rights which only outlines the relationship between you and the government, NOT private business owners.
     

  3. WGTactical

    WGTactical Member

    846
    21
    18
    So I should be able to fire any employee that asks a blessing over his food on his paid lunch break if I have a policy on that too?
     
  4. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,605
    39
    48
  5. Pandashire

    Pandashire New Member

    282
    0
    0
    Can you fire any employee who constantly tells your customers that they should take their business to your competitor?

    "Welcome to McDonalds. Our food tastes like pure human feces and will make you even fatter than you are now. I suggest going to Subway or something."
     
  6. JMan

    JMan New Member

    4,352
    0
    0
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
  7. WGTactical

    WGTactical Member

    846
    21
    18
    I'd say yes based on the example you mentioned. However, judging by the folks I usually see working at McDonalds, its apparent that management evidently has to overlook quite a bit in order to keep a staff. But thats just my guess as I really don't know much about that type business. I do like McDonald's coffee though :righton:
     
  8. AzB

    AzB Well-Known Member

    2,360
    60
    48
    You're assuming that your right to bear arms is greater than my right to do what I want with my personal property. Even though I am open to the public, I have the right to refuse to business to anyone, and any customer has the right to take their business somewhere else.

    The 2nd ammendment really has nothing to do with this.

    Your rights end at the end of my nose.

    Az
     
  9. Mr_Z

    Mr_Z Member

    535
    0
    16
    Yes. It is your company and you should have the right to hire or fire anyone. Just because the Govt meddles in one aspect does not mean you should encourage them to meddle more.
     
  10. commodore_dude

    commodore_dude Active Member

    2,568
    0
    36
    Yes. It is your company and you should have the right to hire or fire anyone. Just because the Govt meddles in one aspect does not mean you should encourage them to meddle more.[/quote:3nt7lsd7]

    +1, I don't care what your reasoning is, in a world without activist judges, private property rights should trump anything like this.
     
  11. Pandashire

    Pandashire New Member

    282
    0
    0
    So people can be fired for things they say.
     
  12. WGTactical

    WGTactical Member

    846
    21
    18
    You’re right, you can take your business anyplace you want. However, if you work for someone (and all of us do on one level or another) the options of where you make your money are much more limited than the places you can spend your money. Again, the employee affected by the whimsical rules of corporate folks was the subject of my initial post, not some chicken wing joint that doesn’t want me to carry in their store :lol:

    As an employer, I can see the need for checks and balances especially where the name of the game is money. I’ve personally seen the things that people will offer to do in order to provide a living for their families…especially in a economy like we have now. There are some things I’d like to put in a book one day, but I’m afraid I’d need to be on my death bed before I could disclose them. Those of you in a position to have witnessed high level business dealings know exactly what I’m talking about. Still for others, things like that are suspicions or rumors at best. I guess having children of my own has made me consider a few things that otherwise would have probably never crossed my mind.

    Anyway, I’m not down on anyone…just a bit surprised at how easily folks hand over their rights and whatever else they might have to offer to someone who has little more than a few coins.
     
  13. WGTactical

    WGTactical Member

    846
    21
    18
    My opinion is yes for the example that was given. But then again, thats only if you believe that having stuff like that told to your customers by a employee could be harmful to your ability to keep the doors open :p
     
  14. Pandashire

    Pandashire New Member

    282
    0
    0
    And some employers feel that guns will make customers/employees uncomfortable and possibly have a negative impact on their business. If someone can be fired for 1A stuff, why not 2A?
     
  15. WGTactical

    WGTactical Member

    846
    21
    18
    Yes, I get that...remember, I am an employer too :p

    While you are being paid, I think you should be required to follow any and all the rules set forth by the company you work for. This includes not using the time the company is paying you to bash them :wink:

    As far as our second amendment rights are concerned, these are not suspended as we roll onto the company property, but they are suspended upon leaving our own house...that is if we were to be in compliance of the rules once we get to work.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with it either way, mainly because I don't have such a policy. Even if I did, I already own all the properties between my work and my home with my own private road. So it's not very likely that my wife or kids will meet any shady folks while going to or coming home after work :lol:

    Anyway, thanks for everyone's contribution to the thread :righton:
     
  16. SoonerPast

    SoonerPast New Member

    32
    0
    0
    I know there's plenty of attorneys who participate in this forum, but seems to me that your first concern are related to any obligations you may have to provide a safe environment for your customers and staff. Large industrial operations adopted "no guns" policies just to go on "record" that they don't allow guns. So if that terrible possibility that an irate former associate or anyone else returned with harm in mind, the sign said that they weren't supposed to bring the gun on the property.
     
  17. jlcnuke

    jlcnuke New Member

    2,051
    1
    0
    This has always been a position that I have been on the line with. I support everyone's right to defend themselves but I also support the right of someone who owns a physical thing (home, business, inanimate object etc) to do what they want with their property and establish the rules for what is allowed on their property. A business that lets the public in to that private property to me is not much different than a private home that is allowing the public in for a open house hoping to make money.

    If I was against guns at my home I could ask my real estate agent to not carry a weapon on my property and refuse entry to those carrying. I could refuse to sell my house to anyone that I didn't want to sell it to (regardless of my reason whether it was "ethical" or "moral" or "discriminatory") without being required to give a reason. I can refuse to let someone into my home because of what they say, what they do or any reason I want because it is my property. Why is the private property of business owners treated differently? If I want to own a business and refuse myself some customers who does that hurt besides myself? Why can the government decide that because I offer my services or products to some people I must offer it to all? Why can the government decide that because I hire some people I must hire people regardless of my views on their race/religion/physical abilities/lifestyle choice/etc? Why can the government decide that I must spend extra money to accommodate people I may not even want in my property. Why must private businesses lose their ability to decide who they will do business with simply because they have a business license when private individuals can refuse anything to whomever they want with regards to their property?

    FTR, I'm not racist and do not condone it. I'm a disabled vet with handicapped family members. I support gay rights and the right of people to practice whatever religion they want.

    I do however support the individuals right to form their own opinions and do what they feel is right with their property whether it be their home or private business. I believe that walking away from a business that doesn't allow me to practice my 2nd Amendment rights is no different than not going to a church and privately or publicly telling them I don't agree with their beliefs on that issue. I will respect that they have the right to have their opinions and enforce them on their property and will not infringe on their beliefs regarding whichever issue is at stake. I'm sure I've missed out on some motivational material from religious groups or religious stores and I'll miss out on some deals at private businesses that have sales I could take advantage of but their right to hold their views and opinions on their property, imo, trumps my right to their products, services or materials.

    As for "employees" rights in a private business I'll stick with the same analogy. Just because an employee may have a doctorate in theology doesn't mean that qualification for a job and desire for a paycheck should trump the employees views when they are contradictory to the employers. I would no more advocate a PHD in theology who is Roman Catholic taking a job at a Muslim mosque than I would a gun enthusiast taking a job for the Brady campaign headquarters. Differing opinions between employer and employee is perfectly good reason in some cases to not hire or accept a job.
     
  18. 45_Fan

    45_Fan Well-Known Member

    7,885
    31
    48
  19. 45_Fan

    45_Fan Well-Known Member

    7,885
    31
    48
    I support the right of a property or business owner to put a sign up on their property or business supporting a particular political candidate no matter how wrong that candidate is. They do not retain that right on my property or in my business -- I do.

    The same goes for a property or business owner declaring their property or business as a self-defense free zone. That property or business owner does not retain the right to disarm me on my property or in my business -- I do.

    Yes, there are logistical and monetary considerations, but that is the cost of doing business and not an issue of rights. It is only a violation of somebody's rights when the government compels my attendance at a property or business that is in conflict with my right to defend myself. The question is then whether my rights or the property or business owner's rights are being violated.

    The insanity starts when you discuss corporate personhood for a publicly held multi-national corporation and individual (in)accountability. That is the elephant in the room though and not just the small privately owned and managed business.
     
  20. Nullifier

    Nullifier Active Member

    4,414
    10
    38
    Examples: Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder, and Juan Williams (most recently).

    As for "our food tastes like human feces", everytime someone says something like that, I think, how would that person know exactly what human feces tastes like, anyway? There's only one way for them to know that.....and if they were stupid enough to have firsthand knowledge by actually eating human feces, then I would discount that person's intellect and common sense, and hence, their opinion would be worthless. But maybe I am thinking too much....