Its blue for people who aren't blind.
Lloyd Corp v Tanner; Nollan v Cal Coastal Comm; Dolan v City of Tigard; Kaiser Aetna v. US, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp...
And thats just to name a few. And by the way, there isn't a SINGLE court that views this as a public safety issue. Thats you and you alone.
No its not. Smoking bans are enacted because of health standards. Health standards have nothing to do with firearms. Yet another example of drawing comparisons which just aren't applicable.
And the basis of this is health. You can't light up indoors without affecting someone else. It stays in the air and gets in the food.
And while I disagree with this in principle, it still isn't applicable to firearms. Again, this goes to the nature of a business. If you are going to run one, you are going to have to have it accessible to everyone. However, there is no liability or danger involved in making your shop accessible to disabled people. Disabled people are not objects, they are people. It would be one thing if we were comparing race to disability, but we aren't. As such, this is both legally and logically irreelvant.
Still the nature of the business. Still no liability. Still not dangerous. Still irrelevant.
No I'm not a pro gun guy, I'm a pro rights guy. WORLD of difference.
As for this law, it does NOT go to the nature of the business. It has NOTHING to do with the business. It does present liability, and it is dangerous. It also violates the employers right to exclude and control what is on his property. Massive honking difference.
But there is even a larger issue that makes your position so ridiculous. If your argument was valid, then you would see it in at least ONE of these private property cases. You don't. In fact, OSHA is the reason why the OK law was invalidated. Clearly if there were a shred of applicablility of these restrictions to firearms in parking lots, the attorneys would have made this argument. They didn't because there isn't.
Who is absolutely protecting property rights? You've spent countless posts showing us how business owners can't do this or must do that. There is no absolute protection on property rights. There is, however, protection, and that includes prohibiting weapons from your property.
Already have
-no such thing as property rights
-courts never rule for property rights
-Pruneyard is controlling precedent for gun cases
-states can legislate away property rights on a whim
Becasue why. You keep ignoring this part. The equivalent of this is a championship game in which the team that was favored to win by 50 points didn't show up and the other team wins by forfeit. Sure they "won", but its not legitimate. Everyone knows that they would have lost had the game been played.
Thats EXACTLY what happened here. The court ITSELF says that property rights would have been a winning argument had evidence been presented. You hold this case up as evidence that property rights is a failing argument. Thats your dishonesty and you keep doing it.
It won't.
I suggest that you read the 5-6 pages of the opinion where the judge determines that this law infringes on property rights for the EXACT reasons that I've been arguing in this thread.
However the irony and beauty of this case is that when the OSHA ground is upheld, it will be binding on ALL the other states, including yours, because of preemption. Thus the OK court has done all the work to invalidate your law. Had the court decided just on property rights and not reached the OSHA issue, it would have been more difficult to use this as precedent in other states.
Since it did however, it will be easy peasy booting your law into oblivion.
High School graduate only. Manual labor, middle class, $80k/yr., former EM1(SS) on a fast attack submarine and gun fanatic.