jminnich66 wrote:SugarBoy13 wrote:
And here I thought I was going to get him to agree...
The sad reality is that a move such as this may be justified based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where employers and/or facilities that serve the general public ("public accommodations") must accommodate everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, finger size, "member" size, etc. It is rather scary how much the commerce clause has expanded.
Now, don't get me wrong, discrimination should not be acceptable in this society and certainly can not be tolerated coming from a governmental agency. However, Congress does not have the authority to dictate who an individual or private property owner chooses to associate with when we view the Constitution from an Originalist's perspective.
i just dont understand how someones private policy can prevent us from one of our rights??
and i dont see how that is comforting seeing what happened in CO ( 
) (God bless all the families!) the way i see it they are makin it easier for that dissaster to happen over again!! how are some people so ignorant and naive!!
At least in DE they don't! It may be a private policy, but you can't get arrested for it. I ignore these goons all the time and carry anyway with my government sponsored permission slip to carry concealed.
Anyway...
Our right to bear arms is based on the 2nd amendment to the Constitution and that is, basically, a contract between the people and its government. It sets the bounds of fair play for both the state and federal governments, more limits on the federal and less on the state with the people (supposedly) having the least restrictions. Individual rights, if we consider the first 8 amendments, spell out or highlight rather sensitive subjects for the framers at the time of its drafting. the 9th amendment was meant to protect those that were not specifically mentioned but, emphasized that an individual's right were expanding while the government's were "well" defined and limited.
So, now we get to private property rights...Well, with the exception of emanate domain and the ever-expanding commerce clause (Article I, Section 8 + bullshit Supreme Court jurisprudence = crazy batshit justification to tell business owners what to do) the Constitution does not cover private, non-government related relationships. In other words, your Constitutional rights do not apply when on someone's property. For example, you can not sue Wawa for taking down protest signs you erected on their property claiming a violation of free speech.
You do not have a right to erect a sign on someone else's property without their permission! Your right to free speech does not trump the property owner's right to maintain his property and protect his own speech rights by preventing your propaganda from showing up on his lawn and misrepresenting his views.
As Chip mentioned earlier, your rights extend until they infringe on someone else's. No one's rights trump another's (well, here we go again but, the courts have determined that there are privileged classes such as minorities, cops, politicians, high paying lobbists, etc.).
Anyway, the moral of the story is that there is a difference between the gobermint infringing your Constitutional rights and an individual, private business or property owner. The government must abide by the Constitution and individuals must comply with the law (provided that such laws are Constitutional), hence my little exercise earlier...
Hope that helps, we could go on and on with discussion, but I have to work...
