Starbucks: no more open carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vurtle said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I'm very familiar with the Supremacy Clause. That doesn't change anything I or Spats have written.
 
So you can read that and still believe the founders did not intend for the constitution and the amendments to be applied to all governments within these United States.

I am at a loss of words if that is the case.
 
If someone wants to get righteous about open carry and insisting anyone and everyone who reacts negatively to it is being a drippy pansy, well.....I certainly hope they've never complained about someone else cruising through their neighborhood with the car stereo thumping and vibrating the house.

You have the right to open carry, but it's just not being nice to others to practice it in many situations. It's not necessary, either, since you can concealed carry and get the same security.
 
Vurtle said:
So you can read that and still believe the founders did not intend for the constitution and the amendments to be applied to all governments within these United States.

I am at a loss of words if that is the case.
Click to expand...
You are apparently unaware that the Constitution, including the Supremacy Clause, was originally written, and indeed ratified, without a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was added by agreement after ratification in what is known as the Massachusetts Compromise.
 
That is correct. They wrote the amendments knowing beforehand what the constitution stated.

I like you Frank. I hope I haven't offended you. If I have, I apologize. I am pretty sure I haven't though. You gotta have pretty thick skin to be in the legal biz.
 
Vurtle said:
So you can read that and still believe the founders did not intend for the constitution and the amendments to be applied to all governments within these United States.

I am at a loss of words if that is the case.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely no question that the COTUS and specifically the BoR were not intended by the founders to be applied against the states.

First is actual history. As an example, many of the states had official religions before the COTUS and BoR were passed and continued to have them without objection from the federal government and without constitutional challenge for quite some time.

Second, if a clause was intended to apply to the states and any and all other governments, it would not say "Congress shall make no...". The founders were learned and wise men. If they had meant "any and all legislatures" they would have said "any and all legislatures within the many states". The states, counties, cities, etc, are not "congress".
 
From a comfort point, I hate concealed carry. I am a lean build and concealment with proper fitting clothes does not come easy. I find myself constantly checking to make sure I haven't exposed my gun. Winter time is not too bad though.
 
I could see your point except that "Congress shall make no law ..." is only in the First Amendment. To counter your argument, if they meant all the Amendments, they would have said "Congress shall ..." in every amendment. It just goes back to my point of how clear the BoR and Constitution are. I will concede that I did say all Amendments applied to States also. Madison clearly defined that the first amendment was solely what congress could not do. Not what the states could not do. Ironically, the Supreme Court ruled that #1 as incorporated to the states. Weird!
 
I see that ColionNoir has made a video in response to the Starbucks statement. I have to say, I'm not impressed. I used to think he made some rational arguments but I didn't think he made sense this time. To compare gay people or inter-racial couples to open-carrying in a business establishment felt like a false equivalency to me. And this idea that if I'm a gun owner I should agree with all other gun owners on matters of interpretations of 2A is absurd. He states that there's in-fighting between OC advocates and CCW holders - of course there is. Does he expect us all to sit around singing kumbaya? ColionNoir is way off the mark IMO. It's ironic to me that OC advocates believe that carrying a gun in public will somehow keep criminals from committing a crime, but moreover, they carry out of fear and for their own safety. Imagine how a non-gun owner feels when they see someone with a gun strapped to their belt. I wonder how much the NRA is paying this guy to be their pitchman?
 
Posted by Vurtle: Madison clearly defined that the first amendment was solely what congress could not do. Not what the states could not do. Ironically, the Supreme Court ruled that #1 as incorporated to the states. Weird!
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Read up on the Fourteenth Amendment, without which that ruling would not have been made.
 
To compare gay people or inter-racial couples to open-carrying in a business establishment felt like a false equivalency to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. There's a big difference between someone who is denied access to businesses and services because of who they are, and someone who is denied because of a specific and optional behavior. Throwing a rifle over my shoulder to get a cup of coffee doesn't make me an oppressed minority.

He states that there's in-fighting between OC advocates and CCW holders - of course there is.
Click to expand...
He misinterprets this as well. We have a group of folks doing something that can incur negative consequences for the rest of us, and when we criticize them for it, they organize things into arbitrary categories and play the martyr card.
 
I don't believe all are carrying open or concealed because of fear. The gun is carried on your body to defend yourself from someone who is trying to harm you. As far as open carry deterring criminals, criminals openly admit they are looking for easy targets. Mostly people who appear to be unarmed, smaller stature, elderly, or just plain not paying attention. You would have to be an idiot criminal to go after someone who is obiviously armed.

There is only one interpretation for the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Any spin put on that is misrepresenting that incredibly simple statement. And it is a disservice to our ancestors who died so that we may have that right.
 
There is only one interpretation for the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringe. Any spin put on that is misrepresenting that incredibly simple statement. And it is a disservice to our ancestors who died so that we may have that right.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement, I just don't understand what it has to do with Starbucks. Or any other business or property owner, for that matter.
 
There is only one interpretation for the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Any spin put on that is misrepresenting that incredibly simple statement....
Click to expand...

So, if you don't like guns and I come to your house armed and you don't let me in simply cause I have a gun, do you feel I should have the right to sue you for infringement on my 2nd Amend Rts.?

Are the private property laws pertaining to arms a 'spin' on the 2nd Amendment?

If I am walking around at a park playground full of kids carrying my loaded Glock with my finger on the trigger and get arrested, has my 2nd Amend. rights been violated?

If I'm walking around with a long gun sweeping bystanders and get arrested, have my rights been violated?

Before answering remember, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about 'how' I can keep and 'where' I can bare arms...just that I can.
 
Last edited:
WyMark said:
I agree with this statement, I just don't understand what it has to do with Starbucks. Or any other business or property owner, for that matter.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. ColionNoir states that Starbucks is a business and is there to make money, but he fails to mention that he respects the rights if property owners and makes a blanket statement accusing them of being anti-gun. If he really is a lawyer he must be an ineffective one IMO
 
I recall a person going up to four police offices in a coffee shop and shooting all of them. I recall several folks going into police stations or courthouses full of armed folks and shooting up the place. Google such before just looking at the deterrent value. It might deter economically motivated criminals but the mass shootings aren't by such.

I wonder if the AR open carry fans are trained in long arm retention. I've said this before, if some person wants your gun - the odds are they can take. Yes, you have the fantasy that you will win the wrestling match most of the time.

You have the fantasy that your situational awareness is such that you will can't be taken by surprise.

If you are sitting in a Starbucks with an AR slung on your back - it is easily taken away with a modicum of planning and rapid action. For an economically motivated gun thief, a person with an AR is like a walking gold mine.

I would like all OC proponents to document their retention training and practice before they chortle on their deterrent capacities.

Next, as I said before - here's some scenarios:

1. You are in a store or mall. A guy comes in with an unslung AR, what do you do?

2. Or it is slung and he starts to unsling it?

I would probably think - why he is a proponent of the 2nd Amendment or I'd better start to respond appropriately.

Why should I take the chance?

After Holmes and Lanza, I should not be wary of some person entering a crowded venue with an AR? If you twitch in a manner indicating you are readying the weapons - unslinging it for instance - should you not be dealt with?
 
Before answering remember, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about how I can keep and where I can bare arms...just that I can.
Click to expand...

That seems like a very dangerous game to play. That type of thinking is sure to backfire hard because someone would inevitably take it too far.

I would like all OC proponents to document their retention training and practice before they chortle on their deterrent capacities.
Click to expand...

That also seems like it falls into the anti trap.
 
Posted by Vurtle: There is only one interpretation for the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Probably because the Second Amendment begins with a statement about a "well regulated militia", the interpretation was disputed for centuries.

It was not until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that it was legally established that "that incredibly single statement" was in fact the law of the land, and that the prefatory clause that refers to the militia does not limit the scope of the operative clause. At thatpointin time, there was no legal basis for asserting that the Second Amendment appled to state laws.

The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Any spin put on that is misrepresenting that incredibly simple statement.
Click to expand...
It would be incorrect and unwise to base an interpretation of that clause on a common dictionary definition of the word "infringed". The court has ruled "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
 
Problem solved. McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts both say they abide by open carry laws of the respective states. For those that drink coffee you have an alternative.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-p...-dunkin-2013-9
Click to expand...

...problem solved for now until a bunch of morons that need attention get together and decide to show their 'appreciation' by having a 'million man march' on these business's scaring people to death dressed like wanna-be Rambo's.
Instead sitting down and writing a nice 'Thank You' letter to corporate or politely thanking the owner/manager.
But I guess the later doesn't put me in the spotlight and show the world I'm willing to fight for my rights now does it. :rolleyes:

Ya can't fix stupid!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top