Public universities shouldn't be inhibiting our rights anyway or be able to make no-gun policiesExcellent tool for use against universities and schools that bar firearms from legal carriers.
It is tough, because we are pitting the convenience of the patron over the rights of the property owner in this case. Nobody is FORCING the patron to do business with the property owner, therefore the rights of the patrons aren't being infringed. However, this isn't forcing property owners to allow guns on their property either. It is simply opening them up to potential consequences for placing their patrons at risk.
It is tough, because we are pitting the convenience of the patron over the rights of the property owner in this case. Nobody is FORCING the patron to do business with the property owner, therefore the rights of the patrons aren't being infringed.
And nobody is FORCING the private property owner to open his property to the public for the purpose of commerce.
I do not agree that property rights trump RKBA in a place of public business.
Whoa.
Commerce is an exchange between 2 people. Government should not dictate to which people you do commerce with. It would be no different than forcing an employee to work for employers they were not comfortable with.
And nobody is FORCING the private property owner to open his property to the public for the purpose of commerce.
Right, but if you believe that RKBA trumps everything everywhere all the time, aren't you FORCING an entrepreneur to not "open his property to the public for the purpose of commerce" if he doesn't want guns on his property?
A patron can always go somewhere else, but if the business owner doesn't want guns on his property, you are effectively telling him "too bad, my right to convenience is more important than your right to live your life the way you want to".
Am I misreading that?
How is any forcing involved?
Refusing to do business with someone merely due to lawful exercise of RKBA is a civil rights violation no different from refusing to do business with someone due to race, religion, etc.
Are you employed? If so you are offering your services to someone. Should you get to choose the characteristics of your employer, or should government tell you that you must offer your services at the same price to everyone?That is but one of the trade-offs of choosing to use your private property for commercial profit.
Yes, you're misreading that. RKBA doesn't trump property rights. Property rights don't trump RKBA. Rights are co-equal.
A patron can always go somewhere else: does that apply also to black people? Muslims? Homosexuals?
When you open your property to public commerce, you have to deal with the Equal Protection rights of the public whom you invite onto your property. That is but one of the trade-offs of choosing to use your private property for commercial profit.
Well I don't agree with the race, religion laws either. My opening of a cake shop does not prevent someone from going to another cake shop. However, forcing me to sell the cake to a person of a particular race does trump my rights. Forcing me to allow you to walk in the door with your weapons may force me to choose between running my business or being uncomfortable.
Conducting commerce is an exchange between 2 people. It should not mean that in order to conduct commerce with 1 person, you must conduct commerce with all.
Are you employed? If so you are offering your services to someone. Should you get to choose the characteristics of your employer, or should government tell you that you must offer your services at the same price to everyone?
Edit: if you (the taxpayer) are going to dictate how my property is used, should you not also pay for the property? Then it becomes truly "public" and you can make such rules.
That is well thought out position, and I respect that. However, I must disagree with the notion that bearing arms is equal to race or creed. I can put my handgun in my glovebox. Can a black person put their black skin aside and become white to access a business that prohibits black patrons? No.
The fundamental difference is that both you and the owner are making a choice, you to not disarm, and the owner to not allow you on to their property. In the race equivalency you tried to draw, only one is making a choice. That is a big difference.
The employer/employee contractual relationship is not analogous to the business/customer contractual relationship - at least not in any way that is relevant to this discussion.
You don't see it any differently, but someone who does not want an armed person on their property sees it differently, and should have a right to make that choice.Someone carrying a firearm does not inherently "use" your property any differently from the way that someone not carrying a firearm "uses" your property. (Just as a black person doesn't inherently "use" your property differently from the way a white person "uses" your property.)
Forcing someone to forego their ability to protect their right to life (by exercising RKBA) or to forego conduct public commerce is no different from forcing someone to forego public commerce due to their skin color.
That one is an intrinsic characteristic and the other is a natural, God-given right is a distinction without a difference.
It's only different because of government interference. If one person agrees to a cost for a service or item, that transaction is only different for an employee vs a business owner because government has interfered.
I realize that we are working within the context of that interference when discussing this law, but I have trouble supporting something that takes rights away from the business owner, even if it's "something" I agree with.
You don't see it any differently, but someone who does not want an armed person on their property sees it differently, and should have a right to make that choice.