San Anotonio 30.06 Establishments

[duckknot]

Holy crap....leave for a day and y'all go at each other.....I'm going back to my beer!

 

[Recoil45]

Chicago's ban on ranges was struck down exactly because the government denied the property owner the right to use his property as he saw fit.

If every property owner in Chicago voluntarily chose to not have a gun range the decision would not have been delivered as it was.

Here is the actual reason the Chicago gun range ban was struck down and it has nothing to do with property rights as you claim.

http://www.volokh.com/2011/07/08/ezell/


I now realize we are arguing two different things but wanted to make sure you were educated on such an important 2A case.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I'll read your link, but you've yet to address any of my points .

 

[Recoil45]

There is no point. We disagree.

 

[TXARGUY]

*clicks on link expecting to find a discussion of San Antonio establishments marked 30.06, possibly a list in progress.*


*Loses faith in humanity instead.*

Yep. I clicked on the right forum.

 

[winchster]

*clicks on link expecting to find a discussion of San Antonio establishments marked 30.06, possibly a list in progress.*


*Loses faith in humanity instead.*

Yep. I clicked on the right forum.

*^^^^Should know better by now

 

[stdreb27]

*clicks on link expecting to find a discussion of San Antonio establishments marked 30.06, possibly a list in progress.*


*Loses faith in humanity instead.*

Yep. I clicked on the right forum.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. Although I do find it more than a little ironic, that you have libertarians arguing on the side of 30.06 signs under the guise of property rights.

 

[winchster]

I'm just playing devil's advocate. Although I do find it more than a little ironic, that you have libertarians arguing on the side of 30.06 signs under the guise of property rights.

This all started because somebody said being properly posted infringed on their 2A rights. That is patently false, hence the reason for debate.

 

[Younggun]

I'm just playing devil's advocate. Although I do find it more than a little ironic, that you have libertarians arguing on the side of 30.06 signs under the guise of property rights.

The fact that actual libertarian types are arguing for one side should tell you something. Especially libertarian gun owners who appose pretty much any laws regarding gun ownership.

This isn't even a specifically 2A debate, it is about everything from CC to baking wedding cakes for gays.

Having the gov force a business to serve or allow anyone on their property for any reason under any circumstance is giving the gov MORE control. Allowing the business owner to make those choices gives the citizens more control.

Gov involvement to force a business owner to serve or allow anything is an infringement on their rights. I support people's rights, not wants. That includes my own rights and wants.


You have been so concerned about being able to CC in to quickie mart that does want you that you have failed to see that you are asking for more government. That or you don't want to admit you see it because you don't want to admit that you are OK for more government regulation so long as it benefits you and your wants, regardless of it's effect on the rights of another.

You call it a guise, as if you have any rights on someone else's property. You do realize that property rights ARE individual rights, don't you? That property rights are nothing more than the right of a person to say what goes on on their property.

Then you claim that because it is a business that you some how get to trample over their rights.

Sorry, but that's a load if bull. You just don't mind it because it benefits you to not have to respect that persons rights. Yet you are quick to scream when your rights are violated. What good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

 

[TXARGUY]

I'm just playing devil's advocate. Although I do find it more than a little ironic, that you have libertarians arguing on the side of 30.06 signs under the guise of property rights.

I'm not the guy someone wants to get in a private property rights argument with LOL.

I'm not a Libertarian any other type of "an" but by God if I post a 30.06 sign on a building I own it would be wise to either adhere or move on down the road.

 

[winchster]

Put another way, this can be compared to a smoking ban.
Example 1: If a business owner chooses to ban smoking, that's fine. His property his rules. Don't like it, go elsewhere.

Example 2: The government forces a business to ban smoking. This is wrong. The government should not force a business to make this decision. Forcing the ban on the business violates the business owners rights.

Neither of these examples infringe on my right to smoke.


I think some of you believe the 30.06 is the same as the second example. It's not.

 

[Younggun]

Put another way, this can be compared to a smoking ban.
Example 1: If a business owner chooses to ban smoking, that's fine. His property his rules. Don't like it, go elsewhere.

Example 2: The government forces a business to ban smoking. This is wrong and a violation of individuals rights.


I think some of you believe the 30.06 is the same as the second example. It's not.

Better be clear about this.

#2 is not a violation of the right to smoke, it is a violation of the right of the business owner to allow smoking on his property.

 

[TXARGUY]

Better be clear about this.

#2 is not a violation of the right to smoke, it is a violation of the right of the business owner to allow smoking on his property.

Exactly.

 

[winchster]

Better be clear about this.

#2 is not a violation of the right to smoke, it is a violation of the right of the business owner to allow smoking on his property.

Edited

 

[stdreb27]

Put another way, this can be compared to a smoking ban.
Example 1: If a business owner chooses to ban smoking, that's fine. His property his rules. Don't like it, go elsewhere.

Example 2: The government forces a business to ban smoking. This is wrong. The government should not force a business to make this decision. Forcing the ban on the business violates the business owners rights.

Neither of these examples infringe on my right to smoke.


I think some of you believe the 30.06 is the same as the second example. It's not.

Last time I checked, I didn't read, congress shall make no laws infringing on smoking a cigarette. which in my opinion is absolutely KEY...

 

[winchster]

Last time I checked, I didn't read, congress shall make no laws infringing on smoking a cigarette. which in my opinion is absolutely KEY...

And your right to keep and bear is never infringed by the government when a private business says you can't carry there.
The Bill of Rights protects you from the government, not an individual.

 

[TXARGUY]

And your right to keep and bear is never infringed by the government when a private business says you can't carry there.
The Bill of Rights protects you from the government, not an individual.

Just like your freedom of expression won't protect you from getting your lights knocked out.

 

[stdreb27]

And your right to keep and bear is never infringed by the government when a private business says you can't carry there.
The Bill of Rights protects you from the government, not an individual.

I take it you're not familiar with the police? Government run group of folks with sedans and glocks, that show up, put hand cuffs on you, put all your guns on the table say you have an arsenal.
Then take you infront of another government run operation called the DA?

 

[Younggun]

I take it you're not familiar with the police? Government run group of folks with sedans and glocks, that show up, put hand cuffs on you, put all your guns on the table say you have an arsenal.
Then take you infront of another government run operation called the DA?

And if they suddenly did away with 30.06, said you could carry anywhere and every where you wanted too. Lets say you wanted to go in to a store and the owner blocked the door and refused to let you inside his building. What is your recourse? If you REALLY wanted in, what would you do about it?

 

[winchster]

I take it you're not familiar with the police? Government run group of folks with sedans and glocks, that show up, put hand cuffs on you, put all your guns on the table say you have an arsenal.
Then take you infront of another government run operation called the DA?

You realize that only happens if you refuse to leave right?
If it reaches the point where the police are doing that, you've obviously refused to leave when asked. Furthering my point that you appear to believe you are entitled to something that you are not.