Panera Bread bans Firearms carrying Citizens

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

  1. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,011
    2,449
    113
    How many police officers are killed in public places while not on duty, as a result of being a police officer? Can you name more than two?

    Bet it pales to the number of citizens killed in public.
     
  2. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,361
    6,202
    113
    yes it does. Just put me on ignore if you don't like what I have to say, and I'll do the same for you. Apparently, you feel that the argument id valid, when you are talking apples to oranges. After all, that's like asking how many 1929 model A Fords have been totaled in the last 5 years when compared to Honda Civics. I'll let you figure out why.

    hint: Run the numbers. Less of one, more of the other. might as well be comparing civilian deaths to the number of our troops killed in combat, or back here at home. one is 90% of the population, and the other is 10% or less. might as well just change your name to Obama the way you're trying to twist the facts. Also, you might want to clarify when you say LE shouldn't be allowed, as to if it's on duty, as the shooting mentioned in this thread is, or off duty, then pick one and stick with it. Your earlier post came across as ON DUTY, not off. Clarity might help the next time you try to pass of opinion for fact.

    Enjoy your temper tantrum, and put me on ignore. nothing more to say to you.
     

  3. tinbucket

    tinbucket Well-Known Member

    2,922
    574
    113
    My view is it doesn't limit Government, it forbid Government, to infringe on the basic right, to own, possess, and bear firearms , for defense and lawful uses.
     
  4. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    22,011
    13,323
    113
    If you read Mr. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller V DC the 2A gives you the right to keep and bear arms. However it does not prevent local, state or federal government from regulating how that right is exercised in the furtherance of public safety and the general welfare of the community.

    Nor does it give you the right to disregard the private property rights of other citizens.
     
  5. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,399
    113
    I would love to make an example of some of these people who think their right to carry trumps my rights as a property owner! I wonder how much their lawyer and bondsman is going to charge them? :p
     
  6. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,361
    6,202
    113
    Spot on Loc. Spot on.

    Can't say i'd want to see anyone lose their freedom, but there are a couple on here I'd love to watch sweat it out.
     
  7. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    4
    0
    That makes no sense at all. Can local governments trample on your 1st amendment rights? Can they bust down your door and search your house without a warrant? Can they arbitrarily regulate any of your other constitutional rights? If they can do it with the 2nd amendment why not the rest of them? You either have the right or you don't. The no gun signs are pretty much useless as it doesn't give them any extra rights or power. If they don't want you there for any reason they can ask you to leave, sign or no sign.

    Dallas your private property is an entirely different thing than a business. The government can't tell you that you can't smoke in your home. The government can't require you to have wheelchair access to your home. Even if you have "no trespassing" signs on your property, someone can still come up and knock on your door and that is not trespass. If you ask them to leave and they don't, then it's trespassing. You have to understand what the legal definition of trespass is. Someone ignoring a sign is not trespass, there has to be damage/loss to person or property.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2016
  8. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards. Staff Member Admin Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    9,301
    2,911
    113
    RJD, a home is not the only kind of private property. A store owner owns his store. It is his private property where he allows people to come in and do business with him. He posts his rules relating to entry on the entrance. So when entering, you are already told that you are not welcome if you are carrying. You have already been asked to not enter, so the "ask to leave" step has already happened. If the store owner chooses to do so, he can ask the police to arrest you for trespassing.
     
  9. CaptMidnight

    CaptMidnight New Member Supporter

    4,534
    45
    0
    Chipotle restaurants kill and wound more patrons with their food than firearms. :( The food from any of these "Greasy Spoons" have a sever down range effect on those who regularly dine there.
     
  10. tinbucket

    tinbucket Well-Known Member

    2,922
    574
    113
    As far as Dallas, no one is trying to force him to let people onto his property with firearms.
    This is a component of the Bloomberg's Groups tactics.
    This is the Elephant in the room that is being left out.
    Bloomberg's groups responsible for this , in this case and others.
    They are trying to pressure or influence businesses, like Kroger and Panera etc and individuals continously and repeatedly, to prohibit Carry Permit Holders on their property, in addition to governments owned or controlled properties.
    Also they are pressuring to make it felonies to carry onto properties.
    This is one reason Tennessee Legislature is or was considering a Bill to make Posters responsible for injuries and death , if CC Holders were forced to leave their firearms, "in the car while they eat" or shop etc.
    This argument of my property rights trump your carry rights is Bloomberg's bs.
    Creating a fight among Citizens, and Businesses to deny the Right To Bear Arms.
    2A and all of our Constitution patriots must push back like in Tn.
    We must stop their assaults on the Constitution, our Constitution, our Rights and Freedom to Bear Arms, for self defense and all lawful uses.
    They are trying to make as many lawful uses, unlawful too.
    Bloomberg and others are dedicated not Socialsits, and to put emphisis on their tactics, they are in the Nazi vein.
    They will not stop at lawful and have not stopped at lawful efforts but will and have used not lawful means.
    Remember Bloomberg came into Tn and Virginia and elsewhere by his Aagents, unlawfully, committing fraud to try to buy firearms and did buy firearms, unlawfully, in his campaning, as Mayor of NY against the Second Amendment, trying to prosecute Lawfully Firearms Dealers in those states for straw purchases firearms into NY.
    It is vitally important in considering what we are up aginst that we deny these business our business and influence others to deny them their business, and to counter the campaign and protest of the Bloomberg Nazis, who will not stop until Bloomberg runs out of money as well as others.
    He had dedicated several millions of dollars in the new group he created, and I can't think of the name right now,to get Business and Governments and Individuals to stop the lawful Bearing of Arms, by using property rights and getting severe punishments, passed if we do carry, eventually, everywhere ,in their vision.
    So, stop it.
     
  11. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Case #1, Parker vs. D.C., Fed (2007), confirmed an individual right to keep arms and overturning a handgun ban.

    Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as “functional firearms,” by which they mean ones that could be “readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary” for self-defense in the home.   They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes.   Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms. -

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1388980.html

    So, in Parker, the 5th Circuit, Did Not , rule on carry outside the home. They confirmed an "individual" right to possess a functional firearm "Inside" the home.

    Parker does not apply to CC or OC.
     
  12. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
  13. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Heller (like all SC rulings) was very narrow.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/570.html

    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

    Even in Heller, the Right to possess/carry for Self Defense applies only to "within the home".

    No ruling in Heller on the "Right" to CC or OC in public.
    -
     
  14. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Case #3 & 4.

    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).

    1846 and 1850 State Supreme Court rulings that give citizens within these two States the Right to carry outside the home. Nothing here on the Federal level. Although we are getting closer.
     
  15. limbkiller

    limbkiller Active Member

    1,511
    1
    36
    In Ky. Signs are basically worthless in most places. They can ask you to leave if spotted and it would be the best thing to do. But no business, county, or city can trump state law.
     
  16. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    What "Law" statute are you referring to?

    Can you post up this "law" that restricts businesses from exercising their Rights?
     
  17. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,011
    2,449
    113
    Private property rights should always trump... but that's not true for protected classes.

    WRT county and city trumping state law, only if your state has pre-emption, and not all states do. there are three separate cases in MI right now, and two are likely going to be merged at state appellate court. It will go to state supreme court.
     
  18. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,011
    2,449
    113
    The irony is rich here

    D53 - I'm allowed to carry because I'm special
    D53 - People's rights don't trump property owners rights

    Apparently other's private property rights don't apply to you?

    Ya can't make this stuff up.
     
  19. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,550
    3,790
    113
    NOTHING you mentions have anything to do with individual civil rights! Thus nothing you said as anything to do with what we are discussing. :(
     
  20. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,550
    3,790
    113
    That is why this decisions is basically worthless when it comes to the RTKABA'S!!! With out addressing the violation of the 10th amendment you are not addressing the problem!:mad: