Starbucks: no more open carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vurtle, the problem here is no one is infringing on your rights, Starbucks stores are private property and they can regulate what goes on in their stores. By refusing to oblige to their polite request they can eventually prohibit all weapons on their premises at which would make us all trespassers and subject to the law, just one more place we cant go.

I find it ironic that we demand our rights then refuse to allow others to exercise theirs.
 
I absolutely agree. I run a business and I wouldn't want a bunch of Star Wars goobers hanging out and scaring off customers. Starbucks hasn't done anything wrong. My post is to those who think open carry should be regulated. It appears that there are some here who believe that only the way they choose to carry should be allowed or exercised.
 
I think some people fail to understand "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". To clarify, any law that regulates how you carry is infringing. Maybe some of the people here should become politicians. Seeing as how you can have something so clearly written and you still try to make it say something else.
Click to expand...

I don't have a horse in this race as I live outside the US, but I think that you need to really look at the reality of the situation, not just what was written in the Bill of Rights.
Regardless of what it says in terms of infringement, the truth is that there are already a fair few infringements, irrespective of one's opinions on them.

They exist. It has already happened.
So claiming that it can't or won't is therefore fruitless.

In a sense one could even argue that the need to buy a firearm is an infringement: some are too poor to own a gun and so their RTBA is infringed by the fact guns have a price tag!! I suspect that will not change!

So the fact that the Bill of Rights is not impervious to legislative action has already been proved.

Law-making is no longer simply about what is good or right or acting in the best interests of the people, it is now a very valuable chip in a very lucrative media-lead popularity contest.

If you ever want to reclaim what has been "lost" to changes in the law, you will first need to get back into the good books of the general public and so put the brakes on the current tide of negative image that gun-ownership seems to have with significant portions of the country.

IMO, stirring the pot with OC demos in private establishments that expressly asked for them not to take place isn't the way to do it.
 
To clarify, any law that regulates how you carry is infringing. Maybe some of the people here should become politicians.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, some people should defer to realism. While the wording of the Constitution seems clear, we have elected and facilitated the appointments of officials who have made plain meaning murky and simple matters complex.

That is where we are. We have to operate within those parameters.

I didn't think I was around people who would give up their libertys to help people "feel" safe and comfortable.
Click to expand...
If you want to cast blanket aspersions at fellow members, you're falling into the same logical traps our opponents do. If you think our commitment and contributions to the 2nd Amendment are any less than yours, you are very mistaken.
 
Vurtle said:
My post is to those who think open carry should be regulated. It appears that there are some here who believe that only the way they choose to carry should be allowed or exercised.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this point. It seems that all concessions are supposed to be made by the gun owners. The problem lies when OC folks go about OCing in a manner that most reasonable folks wouldn't do. And most laws are written under the understanding of what a reasonable person would do, not do, expect to be done, etc. While I like to OC myself, either just plain off duty, or during plainclothes duty, unlike what has been mentioned by someone previously, that really isn't out of the ordinary for LEOs unless their department has a specific policy to the contrary, I don't do it with my AR or Saiga 12. Or even my Marlin 60. I definitely wouldn't go into a store that way, but some folks just had to do it. And it's costing us. Reasonable folks just don't do that, or expect that. OC with your pistol on your hip and I'll wager it'll go a lot easier.

Well, that's my opinion anyway.
 
Posted by Vurtle. I think some people fail to understand "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". To clarify, any law that regulates how you carry is infringing.
Click to expand...
Under the Constitution, that determination is properly made by the courts.

And they've been there, done that.
 
Vurtle said:
I think some people fail to understand "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". To clarify, any law that regulates how you carry is infringing. Maybe some of the people here should become politicians. Seeing as how you can have something so clearly written and you still try to make it say something else....
Click to expand...
And you fail to understand legal reality.

In the Constitution (Article III) the Founding Fathers assigned the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts. And they furthermore explicitly assigned to the federal courts the authority to exercise that judicial power to decide cases arising, among other things, under the Constitution. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and understood exactly what that meant.

Over the years the Supreme Court has, under its constitutional authority to exercise judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution, ruled that constitutionally protected rights are nonetheless subject to limited regulation. And that is the way things actually are in the real world.

So while you might question whether open carry should be regulated, the reality is that it is entirely possible that some regulation of open carry will be sustained by the courts.

You might want to have a look at Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer.
 
So if I understand correctly, it is okay for the Supreme Court to rule that free speech is okay, but so long as you do it in "free speech zones". So basically, no matter how clearly the Bill of Rights says about one of your rights, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that goes against that right, then whatever they say is okay. Did I understand that right? And because that's just the way it is, we should accept a mild form of tyranny.

P.S. Men in Black is on my reading list right now.
 
Posted by Vurtle: So if I understand correctly, it is okay for the Supreme Court to rule that free speech is okay, but so long as you do it in "free speech zones". So basically, no matter how clearly the Bill of Rights says about one of your rights, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that goes against that right, then whatever they say is okay. Did I understand that right?
Click to expand...

No.

Have you attempted to understand Spats' treatise?
 
I have not. I have a hard time believing that this book is going to convince me that the Supreme Court will make a ruling that is inline with our constitution.

As far as Supreme Court being the law of the land, they just ruled that Obama care is legal. That means that businesses in the healthcare industry can be regulated to how much they can profit vs their expenses. So, are we saying that just because the Supreme Court gave their opinion, it is okay that the government regulate how much a business can earn. They have ruled that it is okay to kill babies that have a heart beat. The people have not held them accountable. They get away with whatever they want because they are not worried about the people.

We have a government where two branches have openly admitted to not supporting the constitution and the third branch is barely hanging on. So whatever they rule is okay?

To the moderators: my apologies for getting this discussion away from the topic of Starbucks.
 
Vurtle said:
So if I understand correctly, it is okay for the Supreme Court to rule that free speech is okay, but so long as you do it in "free speech zones". So basically, no matter how clearly the Bill of Rights says about one of your rights,...
Click to expand...
Not exactly. But let's look at First Amendment jurisprudence.

While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion, we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:

  • Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.

  • If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regular enforced.

  • Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official. See, for example:

    • Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
      ...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...
      Click to expand...

    • Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:
      ...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...
      Click to expand...

  • In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion.

Vurtle said:
...if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that goes against that right, then whatever they say is okay...
Click to expand...
It makes it real life. The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such things do not.

Vurtle said:
...And because that's just the way it is, we should accept a mild form of tyranny...
Click to expand...
Our system provides various means to try to change the way things are. But simply proclaiming "that's not right" will not change reality. Changing the way things are requires knowledgeable and skillful legal action and political advocacy.
 
Posted by Vurtle:
I have not. I have a hard time believing that this book is going to convince me that the Supreme Court will make a ruling that is inline with our constitution.

As far as Supreme Court being the law of the land,...
Click to expand...
You really should make some effort to learn something about our system of government before making assertions about what is "inline with our constitution".

Start by understanding that the Supreme Court is not the law of the land.
 
I just figured out who Spats McGee is. Forget that I said book. He mentions that some amendments apply to all states and some only apply to the federal government. I disagree. All amendments apply to all states within the United States. #10 of the Amendments of the United States reads "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".
It is the states rights to do whatever it wants that does not violate the Constitution. Spats article is a good read, but all of the Bill of Rights serves as a perimeter to all forms of government within the United States. Otherwise, the founding fathers would not have written #10 and they would have clarified that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government.
 
I don't think the Supreme Court is the law of the land. I think the Supreme Court has failed in most circumstances to protect liberty and freedom. However, people quote the courts opinions as though they are law. There are two sets of laws that have influence in my Life. The Ten Commandments for what i do to others and the Bill of Rights which tells my government what they are not allowed to do to me.
 
He mentions that some amendments apply to all states and some only apply to the federal government. I disagree.
Click to expand...
If by saying you disagree, you are saying that you don't care for the way the constitutional amendments are currently officially interpreted and administered, that's one thing.

If you're saying that you believe that all of the constitutional amendments are fully incorporated then you're welcome to say so, but your statement is very clearly in error.

Not all amendments have been incorporated and therefore they don't all apply to all states as well as to the federal government.

Here's a simple writeup on the topic.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_ame...to_the_states_through_selective_incorporation
...the Bill of Rights which tells my government what they are not allowed to do to me.
Click to expand...
That is all the more reason that you need to understand how the government interprets the Bill of Rights so you aren't under any sort of misapprehension.
 
Vurtle said:
I just figured out who Spats McGee is. Forget that I said book. He mentions that some amendments apply to all states and some only apply to the federal government. I disagree. All amendments apply to all states within the United States...
Click to expand...
Understand that Spats McGee is a lawyer. Understand that I am a lawyer. We have good reason to know and understand the law. That's how we make our living (well I'm retired). You might have a different opinion, but all opinions aren't equal. He (and I) have the education, training and experience to give weight to our opinions on legal matters.

As for the Amendments applying to the States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1833 the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). It wasn't until the end of the 19th Century that the Court began applying the Bill of Rights to the States on a piecemeal basis through the 14th Amendment.

In 1876 the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)). The Second Amendment was not applied to the States until 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)).

Vurtle said:
...people quote the courts opinions as though they are law. There are two sets of laws that have influence in my Life. The Ten Commandments for what i do to others and the Bill of Rights which tells my government what they are not allowed to do to me...
Click to expand...
You appear to have strong beliefs on this subject. But your beliefs simply do not comport with reality.

There might be a universe somewhere where things are as you believe them to be. But it's not this universe.
 
Interesting, so until 1833, it was believed by the founders and the people that the Bill of Rights did apply to the states, but then the Supreme Court decided that it doesn't. Now the court has selectively chosen which ones do apply to the states and that the others don't.
Imagine that I am writing a set of laws and only a few of them apply to one group while the others apply to both groups. I even write something at the end that states that groups I am writing to must follow within these laws and they can choose to add laws outside of this to fit their needs. But I failed to tell them that only certain laws that I wrote apply to them. What imaginary land am I living in again?
 
Vurtle said:
Interesting, so until 1833, it was believed by the founders and the people that the Bill of Rights did apply to the states,...
Click to expand...
No, actually it seems pretty clear from the history that the general sense was that the Bill of Rights would be constraints only on the federal government. Indeed the Bill of Rights was adopted as a compromise to secure ratification of the Constitution by quelling concerns that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government.

The ruling in Barron came about because that appears to have been the first time the issue got in front of the court.

You might want to study some history while your studying the law.
 
Article VI, Section 2, which states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Huh. I guess they left this part out in law school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top