You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NO FIRE ARMS ALLOWED signs
- Thread starter ricky74
- Start date
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Wyosmith said:If those businesses were to post a sigh that said “No Jews”
Or “No Women”
Or “No Catholics”
Or “No Blacks”
What do you think would happen?
Gun owners need to start using the legal system. Pool enough of your money with 10-20 other gun owners in your area and sue them out of existence.
None of those "No...." signs would violate any constitutional rights. The constitution restricts GOVERNMENT behavior, not the behavior of any private party.
Those signs may well violate some LAW, but they do not violate the constitution. It is, for example, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, by businesses and government. Note that private individuals are still completely free to discriminate on any of those grounds. Any homeowner may put a sign on their door that says "No black, catholic women allowed" and it would be completely legal. Stupid, but legal.
Since "gun owners" are not a class of people that are explicitly protected by law, you would have no legal standing on which to "sue them out of existence. "
In fact, I believe that forcing business owners to allow firearms is in fact trampling on one of the most important rights in existence, that being the right to private property and to control access to that private property.
Now, I also think it's stupid for a business owner to prohibit lawful firearms. Stupid isn't the same a illegal. If it were, an awful lot of people would be in jail.
I will just go somewhere that does not post such signs... I'll let my wallet protest for me.
While I agree with the sentiment, I must mention an important fact. The business you are protesting with your wallet needs to KNOW they are being protested against.
They need to be told WHY you are not spending your money at their place. Otherwise, the only person your protest reaches is you.
Don't be confrontational. If its any kind of a chain store, the manager might not be responsible for the sign. He may have no choice in the matter. But what he can do is pass along negative feedback, IF he gets it.
Just sincerely explain that while you otherwise would be spending your money in their establishment, because of their sign and the policy it represents, you will be giving your business to one of their competitors.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Absolutely 110% wrong. Or do you have some actually legal authority to support that claim?Wyosmith said:...Any business that is incorporated within the States in fact a "Creation of the State" by law. So state and federal non-discrimination laws DO apply.
If a business was truly owner-operated they would be immune from a class action suit, but as soon as they incorporate that immunity disappears.
That is uniform in the laws of incorporation in every state of the union, and also within all territories of the USA.
In fact:
- Rights protected by the Constitution are essentially irrelevant when dealing with a non-governmental actor. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added): ....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....
- In general, discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.
- Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.
- Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.
- Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category. In general, gun owners aren't a protected class.
- The statutes are specific as to rights protected, against what conduct, and for whom. If something you think is a right isn't included in the statute, and if some private conduct should be included but isn't, and if some class of people you think ought to be protected isn't included in the statute, that "right" and/or that class of people aren't protected by the statute against that conduct.
- If you think that's wrong, get politically active and try to get the law changed.
And let's take a somewhat closer look at your mistakes:
-
Not really.Wyosmith said:Any business that is incorporated within the States in fact a "Creation of the State" by law...
The corporate form existed well before the creation of our nation and was known at Common Law. It is one of several ways by which people can associate together to do certain things. Other such forms include partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships and unincorporated associations.
Today each State has certain rules and procedures for the formation of such arrangements, as well as certain rules regarding their internal governance, how they conduct business and how they pay taxes. Then again, there are rules that apply to sole proprietorships also.
-
State and federal non-discrimination laws apply not because something is a corporation. Rather they apply because they are engaged in an activity that is covered by a non-discrimination law.Wyosmith said:...So state and federal non-discrimination laws DO apply....
For example, a hotel may not discriminate on the bases of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and certain other specific characteristics, in who it will accept as a guest. It may not do so because there are federal and state statutes prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations on such bases. The non-discrimination statutes apply whether the hotel is owned and operated by a corporation, limited partnership, sole proprietorship or any other form of business organization.
-
That is false. A sole proprietor can be a defendant in a class action suit just as well as any other form of business organization. Whether a class action suit will lie depends on the nature of the claims, not the way in which the defendant is organized to conduct business.Wyosmith said:...If a business was truly owner-operated they would be immune from a class action suit,....
If people don't want firearms on their private property, then that should be respected. If I did not want someone in my house with a firearm I would expect visitors to respect that and if they did not respect my wishes they would not be welcome.
That's fine for your home, but I doubt you are in a public place where shootings can take place at any time.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And as I wrote in post 25:Wyosmith said:...Corporation n.
an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities),operating within the laws of the state, which can sue or be sued,...
Frank Ettin said:...Today each State has certain rules and procedures for the formation of such arrangements, as well as certain rules regarding their internal governance, how they conduct business and how they pay taxes. Then again, there are rules that apply to sole proprietorships also....
I'm not sure why you think you understand the law in this regard or how you might have learned what you think you know.
On the other hand, I am an actual lawyer, now retired after over thirty years of practice, with considerable experience in corporate law and business law. I've done this for a living for real stakes for real clients in the real world. I've done this under the scrutiny of judges, regulators and other lawyers -- some of whom are our adversaries or competitors.
So please let's not side track this thread with by putting me in the position of having to correct misinformation about basic law.
Are you sure you've really done that, though?It’s worth the two bucks just to know I’ve screwed the anti gun people out of another one of there efforts to ban guns.
Many of those signs come from corporate lawyers who've warned their employers that allowing guns equates to potential liability. The political battle over that was fought three decades ago, and to some extent, we lost. That was when the VPC and other involved parties convinced legal and HR departments that we were all simmering crockpots of potential violence.
The reason most employers don't allow their employees to carry stems from that perception. This isn't a recent push; it's an ingrained response to old propaganda. The recent Starbuck's debacle shows that our side is notoriously tone-deaf when it comes to fighting the perception battle.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Remember the Constitution for the united States of America was not accepted by any state until the Bill of Rights was added and accepted."
Say what, now?
Or, should I say, that is absolutely 100% WRONG.
The Constitution was ratified by 11 of the states, and thus became the guiding document of government for the United States, on March 4, 1789.
The legislative articles that, in total, comprise the Bill of Rights were adopted in the 1st Congress (remember, the 1st Congress was created by ratification of the Constitution) by the House of Representatives in late August 1789, and sent to the states for ratification.
Ratification of 10 of the original 12 proposed amendments (the original amendments 1 and 2 were not ratified, so 3 became 1, and 4 became 2 in the final version) didn't happen until December 15, 1791, or nearly THREE YEARS AFTER the Constitution became the guiding law of the United States.
The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They were not part of the original Constitution, but were added in a series of agreements between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
In order to gain Anti-Federalist support for the Constitution, the Federalists had to agree to amend the document once it was ratified.
Say what, now?
Or, should I say, that is absolutely 100% WRONG.
The Constitution was ratified by 11 of the states, and thus became the guiding document of government for the United States, on March 4, 1789.
The legislative articles that, in total, comprise the Bill of Rights were adopted in the 1st Congress (remember, the 1st Congress was created by ratification of the Constitution) by the House of Representatives in late August 1789, and sent to the states for ratification.
Ratification of 10 of the original 12 proposed amendments (the original amendments 1 and 2 were not ratified, so 3 became 1, and 4 became 2 in the final version) didn't happen until December 15, 1791, or nearly THREE YEARS AFTER the Constitution became the guiding law of the United States.
The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They were not part of the original Constitution, but were added in a series of agreements between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
In order to gain Anti-Federalist support for the Constitution, the Federalists had to agree to amend the document once it was ratified.
Last edited:
Andy Blozinski
New member
An earlier poster made a connection between a no blacks sign and a no guns sign. Not the same.
Businesses that are not private memberships, but open to the public are often required by state level laws to serve all customers from the public without discrimination under the same circumstances. Circumstances is the key word. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" gets applied to everyone as a circumstance. "No Italians" is not a circumstance limitation.
Businesses that are not private memberships, but open to the public are often required by state level laws to serve all customers from the public without discrimination under the same circumstances. Circumstances is the key word. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" gets applied to everyone as a circumstance. "No Italians" is not a circumstance limitation.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Andy Blozinski said:An earlier poster made a connection between a no blacks sign and a no guns sign. Not the same.
Businesses that are not private memberships, but open to the public are often required by state level laws to serve all customers from the public without discrimination under the same circumstances. Circumstances is the key word. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" gets applied to everyone as a circumstance. "No Italians" is not a circumstance limitation.
You're right that "no guns" and "no blacks" are not the same. You're wrong in the reasoning.
I don't know the laws of every state, but a good many (I suspect all) do not require as you say. Have you ever seen a sign in a business that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime."?
Generally speaking, the ONLY people that a business is not allowed to discriminate against are PROTECTED CLASSES that are specifically spelled out by The Civil Rights Act or other federal law or by some similar state law.
It is completely legal (in general, specific state laws may apply), for a business to refuse to serve people with purple hair, or nose rings, or over 6' tall, or hair below their shoulders, or people with blonde hair, or people carrying guns, or people carrying books, or people with iPhones, etc, etc.
None of those things are Protected Classes and all may be discriminated against at will. The business owner will likely find themselves in hot water and will likely soon not BE a business owner, but that's another one of our fundamental principles.... capitalism.
I see a lot of these threads. They usually get blown up into legal opinions and "what if".
My feeling isn't a matter of law, it's respect for another's property.
A store owner invites the public in. The public doesn't own or control his property. They are invited guests. A good guest respects the host's wishes about these things. I insist my guests respect my wishes, whether yes or no.
It's not even a matter of "rights". Without mutual respect of each other's rights, none of us have any rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Try reading some of these signs. The one I saw yesterday said "No Unlicensed Firearms Allowed". That's code for "Licensed Firearms Are OK". Those signs are meant for the gangbangers, not licensed carriers.
My feeling isn't a matter of law, it's respect for another's property.
A store owner invites the public in. The public doesn't own or control his property. They are invited guests. A good guest respects the host's wishes about these things. I insist my guests respect my wishes, whether yes or no.
It's not even a matter of "rights". Without mutual respect of each other's rights, none of us have any rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Try reading some of these signs. The one I saw yesterday said "No Unlicensed Firearms Allowed". That's code for "Licensed Firearms Are OK". Those signs are meant for the gangbangers, not licensed carriers.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
jnichols2 said:The one I saw yesterday said "No Unlicensed Firearms Allowed". That's code for "Licensed Firearms Are OK". Those signs are meant for the gangbangers, not licensed carriers.
I agree that is the intent but I find them to be rather... stupid. The "gangbangers" don't care anyway, which should be obvious to everybody. What good does that sign do? None.
A much better sign would say something like "We welcome customers who carry firearms for personal protection." or some variation thereof. That tells the gangbangers that anyone inside might be armed and sends a fairly decent "political" message as well, without trying to tell someone who doesn't give a damn anyway that they can't bring their illegal gun inside to rob you.
A much better sign would say something like "We welcome customers who carry firearms for personal protection." or some variation thereof. That tells the gangbangers that anyone inside might be armed and sends a fairly decent "political" message as well, without trying to tell someone who doesn't give a damn anyway that they can't bring their illegal gun inside to rob you.
That sounds like a good way to lose their business license in some cities. Endless health inspections finding imaginary violations, rumors getting started about rats in the kitchen, bad reviews in the local paper, etc. A local bicycle shop has a sign like that, though...
A related story: Wife put a sign in our yard supporting a state "defense of marriage" amendment. Not only did someone steal the sign at night, the next day they filed a complaint with the police about our nuisance barking dogs. The police wouldn't tell us who filed it. (we weren't home at the time, but the dogs were inside the house with the windows closed and the curtains closed) I will leave it to you to figure out how it relates.
arizonaopa
New member
Arizona viewpoint
I guess that the situation differs in every state. Here in AZ, CCW holders can even go into places that get most of their income from alcohol sales, they just can't imbibe. Non-CCW holders can still carry concealed but cannot go into alcohol establishments.
As far as signs, the AZ statutes have specific requirements that a sign must have in order to be legally binding. When I come across a business with a no gun sign that does not meet the requirements, I leave my gun secured in my vehicle, enter the establishment and speak with the owner. I tell the owner that they have lost my business because of their sign and tell them that other gun owners will probably not shop with them. I then inform them that their signs do not meet state requirements and point out the site they need to go to in order to get the correct signs. Although I do not agree with their policies, if they are going to have them, I want them to be in compliance with the law.
I guess that the situation differs in every state. Here in AZ, CCW holders can even go into places that get most of their income from alcohol sales, they just can't imbibe. Non-CCW holders can still carry concealed but cannot go into alcohol establishments.
As far as signs, the AZ statutes have specific requirements that a sign must have in order to be legally binding. When I come across a business with a no gun sign that does not meet the requirements, I leave my gun secured in my vehicle, enter the establishment and speak with the owner. I tell the owner that they have lost my business because of their sign and tell them that other gun owners will probably not shop with them. I then inform them that their signs do not meet state requirements and point out the site they need to go to in order to get the correct signs. Although I do not agree with their policies, if they are going to have them, I want them to be in compliance with the law.