I'm Writing a Gun Bill. What Do You Think?

[MarcSpaz]

I am kicking around some idea's I plan to send to my reps to see if they will sponsor a new pro-2a bill. This bill would revolve specifically around preventing a company from denying service or entry to a business based on a person legally carrying a firearm. This would invalidate any "no firearms" or "No Weapons" signs and policies as well as removing the possibility of trespass charges.

I don't have the exact verbiage yet, but I need to make sure the premise is sound first. Let me know what you all think about this.

First and foremost, I must stress that I really do fully support people's individual property rights. What I want to have enacted is not intent on removing "individual" property rights.

I know that there is a federal precedent that already exists. There are Constitutional amendments and federal laws that prevents business owners from having full domain over who they can serve or deny service too. The "Federal Civil Rights Act" guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin." The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the "Americans with Disabilities Act", which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

The reason these acts should be considered as a precedent is because denial of service for the above stated reasons violates people's constitutional rights. If a business can be ordered to not deny me the ability to exercise "some" of my constitutional rights, then a business should be prevented from denying me the ability to exercise all of my constitutional rights.

Another aspect of business ownership is that not all businesses are owned by an individual. Just because private individuals have ownership rights, that does not make the property exclusively private. Corporations, for example, are often publicly held. Meaning, members of the general public own the business. This is the premise behind the National Park Service allowing CC in all National Parks. A crude one-liner... The parks are owned by the government; the government is owned/run by the people, thus making it public.

So, am I completely and hopelessly lost? Or worse, crazy? Will our state reps get a good laugh? Should I spend more time developing the premise, searching through case law, and prep a nice document to send to Richmond?

[FiremanBob]

I would not support such a bill. "A man's home is his castle" extends to property owned and operated by businesses and corporations. I'd rather let the justice of the market work out than delegate any more intrusive power to government, regardless of who the beneficiary is.

[Swampman]

I would agree that businesses have the right to be discriminating in who they wish to serve. This includes color, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Let the power of the purse cause harm to those who choose to discriminate against segments of society. Unfortunately, we are conditioned to expect to be served because the government has told us this is the way it should be. Giving the government the power to force a business/individual to provide a service or conduct business with a person/group they would otherwise choose not to is authoritarian by its very nature.

If Target, Chipotle, Starbucks, et al. have decided they don't want people carrying sidearms in their stores, that is their business and right. I don't shop at Target anyway, Chipotle puts too much salt in their food, and Starbucks coffee is bitter. We, as consumers, also have a choice. I will exercise my choice just as a business will exercise its choice.

If we allow the government to completely overrule the choices Americans make as individuals and business owners, then SCOTUS decisions like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby would never happen. The result will be a country that none of us want to see. We have to allow the distasteful with the pleasant if we are to maintain any semblance of freedom.

[ShotgunBlast]

I agree with the above replies. You are citing laws that shouldn't be on the books in the first place as precedence.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[jeeper46]

May be wrong,but didn't the law force a bakery,to do a wedding cake for gays?

[dorminWS]

I agree that this is not the way to go. There's already been way too much government interference with private property right and personal liberty. This sort of legislation would, I think, invite more.

My suggestion would be that any legislative efforts along these lines be directed at preventing any state, local or federal governmental agency from using its regulatory authority to interfere with commerce on any goods or services that are legal to buy and sell under the laws of the jurisdiction where they are being bought and sold. That would stop crap like "Operation Choke Point".

[Reverenddel]

I think the "Hobby Lobby Law" should be site for that bakery, and they should SUE THE PEOPLE WHO FORCED THEM TO BAKE THE CAKE!

I would love a law that simply states, "Private businesses have the conditional right to refuse service based on any reason."

[MarcSpaz]

Wow. Not what I expected for responses. Can't say I disagree. I think most laws created in the last 100 years pretty much stink. I am just looking for a means to allow us to exercise our right to carry without political obstruction.

If every business eventually bans weapons on their premisses, what good is our right to carry if we can't actually take them anywhere? And lets face it, the only reason to ban weapons at Target and Starbucks or any retail store is political. There is no "public safety" concern to prevent weapons. In fact, it is the exact opposite. So, why not fight politics with politics?

That is my line of thinking anyway.

[ShotgunBlast]

If every business eventually bans weapons on their premisses, what good is our right to carry if we can't actually take them anywhere? And lets face it, the only reason to ban weapons at Target and Starbucks or any retail store is political. There is no "public safety" concern to prevent weapons. In fact, it is the exact opposite. So, why not fight politics with politics?

That's the same argument used to force bakers and photographers to using their services for gay weddings. "Oh, if every baker and photographer bans their services for gay weddings how will those people ever get those services?" The reality is that not every baker or photographer will say no to gay weddings just like not every business will put up no carry signs because there will always be someone to cater to the market. It's up to the market through consumer purchases to determine if the alienation of a certain group of people is worth it or not.

All this is just noise because for every Target or Starbucks that makes a request (enough force to appease the gun haters, but not an outright ban), there are places like All Around Pizza in Va Beach that offer discounts for open carry customers.

[MarcSpaz]

I see your point. I guess I'll stow this one somewhere on the back of the shelf. Project Terminated.

[SHMIV]

You know, while I do agree that business owners have the right to allow or disallow whatever they want, and do or deny business with whoever they want, I wonder about incorporated businesses.

Seems to me, if I own stock in Target, Starbucks, or even Buffalo Wild Wings, as a part owner, I ought to have the right to carry on premises.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

It's funny you say that. I actually had that in my original post... but pulled it out because I didn't think it was relevant to a Bill proposal.

[dusterdude]

The stock idea does make sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarcSpaz]

Seriously... As a common stock holder, you are a legal property owner. You have voting power on how the business conducts itself. You are legally entitled full access to the books. Along with a claim on assets, you also have a claim on any profits.

Makes sense that unless there is a corporate charter rule stating owners (not to be confused with employees) can not carry weapons on company grounds, then they can "ban" whatever they want. As an owner, you have the legal desecration to break your own companies rules.

[dusterdude]

Marc,i like that argument


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dorminWS]

Seriously... As a common stock holder, you are a legal property owner. You have voting power on how the business conducts itself. You are legally entitled full access to the books. Along with a claim on assets, you also have a claim on any profits.

Makes sense that unless there is a corporate charter rule stating owners (not to be confused with employees) can not carry weapons on company grounds, then they can "ban" whatever they want. As an owner, you have the legal desecration to break your own companies rules.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry, but legally speaking, it just doesn't work that way. As a common stockholder, the only property you own individually is the stock. That alone does not entitle you to anything the Board of Directors (or the stockholders at a properly constituted meeting) does not vote to do for you. You have no direct ownership interest in the real or personal property owned by the corporation and your claim on earnings is subject to the Board of Director's discretion to declare or not declare dividends (unless the corporation is liquidated and there are funds left after all creditors have been paid). Stockholders as individuals have no management authority. Even directors as individuals have no management authority unless the Board grants it (in which case it is not by virtue of being a Director, but because of authority delegated by the Board). So, as a common stockholder, you are subject to the rules, regulations and policies promulgated by the corporation's management same as anybody else. If you don't like them, your remedy is to either rally the support of enough other stockholders to constitute a controlling interest and take over the Board of Directors or sell your stock.

[dusterdude]

Damn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarcSpaz]

STOP CRUSHING MY DREAMS!!!



You are correct. I mistakenly mentioned Common, not Preferred. Common Stock is what most people have and is most commonly traded publicly. For my theory to hold any water, it would have to be Preferred Stock.

I own several businesses that are incorporated with SCC around the country. I own all of the shares, which are in Preferred Stock.

[FiremanBob]

No, preferred stock refers only to liquidation preference in a winding up or bankruptcy. Often, preferred stock has no voting rights at all.

Remember, Starbucks and Target have not banned firearms, as I read their press releases. They have banned loudmouth fools from using their premises for political stunts.

If a large number of businesses proclaimed themselves "gun-free zones", I'm sure there will be an equally large number of smarter businesses who advertise their gun-friendly policies.

[MarcSpaz]

100% of all of my companies stock is preferred stock. There are only two types of stock, preferred and common. The two items you mentioned are the most widely understood differences but not the only differences.

Keep in mind... the common means in which stock is used is not the only means. The corporation itself determines what authority and benefits the different types of shareholders have.

Maybe my mistake is taking a joke too far. Some of you guys get really serious too fast. Sheesh.