Panera Bread bans Firearms carrying Citizens

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by tinbucket, Feb 13, 2016.

  1. Appalachained

    Appalachained New Member

    8
    0
    0
    Actually in KY (in this scenario) it's only considered trespassing if they notice your gun, ask you to leave and you refuse. They would never see my gun anyway.
    Also if you'll read my last sentence I said "why would I since they don't want my business."
     
  2. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Neither is carrying a firearm in public.

    Cc and Oc are both "privleges" bought and payed for ,just like any other licence.
     

  3. primer1

    primer1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    11,695
    3,855
    113
    Not in all states. So you are saying on a firearm forum saying the 2nd amendment isn't a right? :confused:
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2016
  4. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    13,570
    2,302
    113
    I've been in one once.

    I was not impressed.
     
  5. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    4
    0
    No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying the government is ignoring the 2nd amendment. Otherwise we would not need to buy a permit to carry a weapon. When I say the government is ignoring I mean state, local and federal. We have what, two states that actually honor the second amendment.
     
  6. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    What other Constitutional Right do you have to take a class for, Pay a fee for, are restricted from most public buildings and schools and can be taken away for violating Certain Rules and taken away with the stroke of a Presidents or Governors pen?
     
  7. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    13,570
    2,302
    113
    Just added something.
     
  8. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,052
    2,529
    113
    I don't need to drive an 18 wheel truck to protect myself
    I don't need to prescribe medicine to myself to protect myself

    Why the hell would anybody want to get married? LOL... if my wife see's this, I'm only kidding dear.

    However, none of these are constitutionally protected, and non of these are personal protection.

    Try again with your red herring argument, I know you can come up with a better example.
     
  9. primer1

    primer1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    11,695
    3,855
    113
    I don't like the hoops we jump through, restrictions we have to adhere to, and legislation that comes with that right, but its still a right.
     
  10. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,396
    6,249
    113
    And I promise i'll say i told you so when you mess up and get caught. Right after the conviction.

    I'll tell you what PD. The day you are obligated to run towards the bullets as part of your job, you can also have that "Special Privledge." Most of my friends, and some of my family are or were LEOs in good standing, and i not only respect them, which you don't seem to do, but I myself get just why it is that they can go places with their sidearm that i can not. Do you have the potential of running into a guy who will want to try to kill you because he just spent 10 years locked away in an 8 X 10 cell after you found him with 3 ounces of coke, packaged for individual sale? Do you walk up on a car you don't know the occupants of in the middle of the night, not knowing if you are going to find Mother Goose trying to get home or Charles Manson wearing some kids head for a hat? Do you have to enter a C-Store to remove a guy having a psychotic episode that may have a large knife under his coat, and an urge to drink the blood he drains out of you?

    Didn't think so. Nut up or shut up. before you ***** about some "Preferncial treatment", do their job for a couple of years. Then, and only then, will you have earned that right.
     
  11. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,052
    2,529
    113
    Thank you for the strawman argument.

    No police officer is LEGALLY required to run towards bullets.

    Most police officer spend an entire career with never drawing their firearm.

    Non of your arguments have anything to do with SELF DEFENSE outside of law enforcement DUTIES.

    Try again.
     
  12. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,396
    6,249
    113
    No. Thank You for the Strawman argument. LE carry a sidearm for self defense, and they are called to respond to crimes among other job duties that may require needed said firearm, regardless of where they are. The very nature of the job has them interacting with a more dangerous element than you or I at any time, and is also one that puts them in more danger than you or I because they can be specifically targeted, and it is more likely that they will.

    If you ever decide to improve your odds of being able to breathe, you just might actually see that. Where you may only have one or two folks out there that would specifically target you and yours, members of LE have a higher risk of that happening. That's a fact. Please show me ONE case where LE has been dispatched, refused to confront a subject (not because no one came to the door, as Warren DC was) that was posing an active threat, and I will concede that you just might have a point there. Especially if said officer was able to keep his beat job afterwards.

    I'll wait.
     
  13. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,052
    2,529
    113
    Law enforcement doesn't even make the top 10 list of most dangerous jobs

    Eating lunch at Panera Bread is no more dangerous for LEO than it is to mere mortal citizens. If they are allowed to violate "corporate policy" because they need to protect themselves, then EVERYBODY should be allowed the same level of self protection.

    Ford v Town of Grafton is just but one of several court cases, including the Warren Scotus decision
    The general rule of law in the United States is that government owes a duty to protect the public in general, but owes no legal duty to protect any particular person from criminal attack. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime. As a federal appeals court bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.

    Scotus decision was made absolutely clear
    The government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack.
     
  14. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    What is "a Right"?

    To Keep and bear arms?

    Define "bear" as it pertains to carry in public.

    Find any courts case be it district, appellate, circuit or Supreme where the right to Carry in Public has been ruled?

    As much as we would all love for the Second to be all encompassing and declare, once and for all, our legal Right" to carry a firearm in public, it does not.

    If CC and OC was a Constitution Right we would not have any "Infringements", yet we have thousands.

    Like it or not, CC and OC is NOT a right, but a Privilege afforded those that choose to "Purchase" that privilege.
     
  15. primer1

    primer1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    11,695
    3,855
    113
  16. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,052
    2,529
    113
    :woohoo:
    Seriously?

    Summary of various court decisions concerning gun rights
    Decisions that explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to purchase, possess or carry firearms, and it limits the authority of both federal and state governments:

    Parker vs. D.C., Fed (2007), confirmed an individual right to keep arms and overturning a handgun ban.
    U.S. vs. Emerson, 5 Fed (1999), confirmed an individual right requiring compelling government interest for regulation.
    Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846) (struck down a ban on sale of small, easily concealed handguns as violating Second Amendment).
    State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged that open carry was protected by Second Amendment).
    Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but recognized as protected by Second Amendment “arms there spoken of are such as are borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly”).
    State v. Jumel, 13 La.An. 399, 400 (1858) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged a Second Amendment right to carry openly).
    Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402 (1859) (upheld an enhanced penalty for manslaughter with a Bowie knife, but acknowledged that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to possess arms for collective overthrow of the government).
    In Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 Pac. 609, 101 Am.St.Rep. 215, 216 (1902) (struck down a ban on open carry of a revolver in Lewiston, Idaho as violating both Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee).
    State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945) (upheld a ban on concealed carry as long as open carry was allowed based on both Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee).
    State v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157, 166 (1952) (striking down a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, acknowledging a right to carry based on Second Amendment and Montana Const. guarantee).
    U.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000) (cite in dictum that “an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939).

    Decisions that recognized the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess or carry firearms, but only limiting the Federal government’s authority:

    U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) (limiting use of the Enforcement Act of 1870 so that Klansmen could not be punished for mass murder and disarming of freedmen).
    State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 373 (1891) (upholding a ban on carry of various concealable arms).
    State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921) (overturning a ban on open carry of pistols based on North Carolina Const., but acknowledging Second Amendment protected individual right from federal laws).

    Decisions in which the Second Amendment was argued or raised as a limitation on state laws, and in which the court ruled that it only limited the Federal government, tacitly acknowledging that the right was individual in nature:

    Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165, 172, 173 (1871).
    Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556, 557, 558 (1876); State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472, 473, 474 (1874).
    Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120, 140, 141 (1879); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 266 (1886) (upholding a ban on armed bodies marching through the streets).
    People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 403 (1912); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 636, 226 P. 914 (1924) (upholding a ban on resident aliens possessing handguns).

    Decisions in which the Second Amendment was implied to guarantee an individual right, though unclear as to whether it limited only the Federal government or states as well, because the type of arm in question wasn’t protected:

    English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476, 477 (1872).
    State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458, 459 (1875) (upholding a ban on carrying of handguns, Bowie knives, sword-canes, spears, and brass knuckles).
    People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950) (overturning a conviction for carrying a concealed handgun and acknowledging that the right in the Second Amendment was individual).
    Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 827, 828 (1975) (denying that “concealable hand weapons” were protected by the Second Amendment, but acknowledging that an individual right protects other firearms).

    Decisions in which the Second Amendment has been classed with other individual rights, with no indication that it was not an individual right:

    Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282, 17 S.Ct. 826, 829 (1897); U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 1061 (1990).

    Decisions that could have been very much shorter if the court had simply denied that the Second Amendment protected AN INDIVIDUAL right:

    U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the Supreme Court upholding the National Firearms Act of 1934, after district judge released defendants on the grounds that it violated Second Amendment).

    source


    SIXTH: Several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right of states to form a militia. The federal court decisions cite United States v. Miller as precedent. The 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, did not make that ruling. Even in Miller, where only the prosecution filed a brief and the defendant’s position was not even briefed or argued to the Court, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could only regulate firearms that had no military purpose. [307 U.S. 174 (1939)] [See JPFO special report about Miller case]

    A. Nowadays, gun prohibitionists want to illegalize firearms unless they have a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” idea was part of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. JPFO has shown that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 imported much of its organization, content, and phrasing, from the Nazi Weapons Law. [See ... Zelman, Gateway to Tyranny]
    B. In contrast, even under the U.S. v. Miller case, the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear military firearms. Learn how the federal courts deceptively and misleadingly employed the Miller decision to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms in Barnett, Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 Cumberland Law Review 961-1004 (1996).
    C. A federal judge recently struck down a federal “gun control” statute as unconstitutional in United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). In his scholarly written opinion, District Judge Cummings exten-sively reviewed the law and historical foundations of the Second Amendment to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Emerson decision remains pending an appeal in the Fifth Circuit as of this date.
    source
     
  17. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Without answering this simple request?

    Interesting?
     
  18. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,401
    113
    so it's you're assessment that being a law enforcement officer isn't dangerous? I surely hope not!

    I know for a fact that being in law enforcement is not the most dangerous job in the list of dangerous careers, but there is an inherent danger you are not considering. all of those other jobs are in logging, construction, farming, mining and ect., where yes they may be more dangerous, the dangers are pretty clear-cut and known to those who take on those jobs. the difference from being in law enforcement is the unknown dangers. like when a cop makes a traffic stop in the dead of night. is the person he's fixing to walk up on, a cop killer on the run, or a mother on her way home from work? what about answering a domestic violence call? how are the subjects going to react to him barging into their business? what about the attempted hold-up at the local convenience store? is he going to run into a guy with a knife or gun?

    and yes your quote of the SCOTUS ruling is entirely correct, but you seem to be missing the message. the key word in those quotes is "individual". they have sworn duty to enforce the laws, and to protect the welfare of the public.

    and you keep trying to come up with more and more excuses to justify not obeying rules. why are you so bent on trying to justify something you know is wrong? personally, I question whether you should even be carrying a gun to begin with. because trying to justify what you know is wrong, illegal or that violates another person's rights, would cause some to question you moral character. no matter how you try and justify wrong behavior, it's still wrong. you are only trying to do so as to ease you own conscience, into believing your in the right.

    you keep right on trying, but i'll let you know right now, you not on moral high ground when you feel it's okay to violate other people's rights, simply because you feel you have a right to carry, regardless of their wishes or their rights as property owner.

    put the shoe on the other foot. what if you owned a business and for hypothetical debate that for whatever reason you decided that you didn't feel comfortable with someone carrying a gun into your business and posted a sign saying "No Guns Allowed" and people carried into your business anyways? would that be okay? simply because they felt their right to carry trumped your rights as business owner and on your won private property?

    if you want people to respect you, then you need to learn how to give them respect in turn. but that seems to elude you.

    you have nice night, since i'm done trying to debate with someone who feels they have the right to trample other people's rights and feelings.
     
  19. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,396
    6,249
    113
    Thank you for proving my point.

    Protect the public in General. That means having to respond, and justifies them carrying, where ever, and whenever, as need can arise at any time. There is no duty to the individual, but that has no bearing on your claim of they are in no more danger than we are.

    Next BS claim? ;) maybe with a link to the actual events of said case so folks can decide for them self? LEOSA exists for a reason. they face dangers most of us do not, by the nature of the job they perform, even after they retire. that's what i was saying. Now, Prove me wrong on that count. It's harder than you think it is, and I've been to the funerals that prove that fact.
     
  20. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    This is gunna be fun.

    I'll go through each of these cases and report back when I'm done.

    Thanks. Like I said this is gunna be fun.