Guns and 2nd Amendment continued: open carry backlash?

[BloodRider]

On 1/22/2016 at 6:56 AM, Lordsteve666 said:

What happens if Johnny pulls out his gun to shoot the perp and then Joe pull out his gun to shoot Johnny who he thinks is the real enemy? Suddenly there's a whole shit load more targets to get shot and that doesn't even include the poor civilians stuck in the crossfire. And that's before the poor police get there and have to identify a single true gunman from 5, 10 or even 20 other guys with guns out shooting each other.

These random gun battles happen too often.  But don't expect FNR to admit that.

[Tywin et al.]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

Businesses should exercise the right of private property owners to tell gun owners their weapons aren't welcome on their property.

Agreed.

Have there been any sucsessful legal challanges against businesses that have done this? I would assume property rights trump gun rights.

[BloodRider]

15 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Good thing we got expanded background checks.  i'm sure these numbers will plummet accordingly soon.

Are you seriously making a joke about domestic violence,

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tywin,

I'm unaware of any challenges to the rights of private property owners to ban firearms from their property.  I'd be interested to see how fast such a suit got tossed.

[Tywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

I'm unaware of any challenges to the rights of private property owners to ban firearms from their property.  I'd be interested to see how fast such a suit got tossed.

Lol Scot.

Just remember that there are people that view the right to conceal and carry as a civil liberty.

[Swordfish]

5 hours ago, BloodRider said:

Are you seriously making a joke about domestic violence,

i don't know what you mean.

It's clear we have a gun problem, not a domestic violence problem.

[TerraPrime]

3 hours ago, Swordfish said:

i don't know what you mean.

It's clear we have a gun problem, not a domestic violence problem.

In the UK, the most recent report said that they are 9 domestic violence deaths per month. Which is 1.67 deaths/million/year.

In the United States in 2007, 2340 deaths were linked to domestic violence. That averages out to be 7.34 deaths/million/year.

The DoJ stats showed that in domestic violence homicides, guns and firearms were used in about 2/3 of the cases.

So, clearly, this is not a gun issue, but a domestic violence issue.

 

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22610534

http://www.bing.com/search?q=population%20of%20UK&pc=cosp&ptag=N1234D011214A316A5D3C6E&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31

http://www.bing.com/search?q=population%20of%20USA&pc=cosp&ptag=N1234D011214A316A5D3C6E&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Murder

[Swordfish]

13 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

In the UK, the most recent report said that they are 9 domestic violence deaths per month. Which is 1.67 deaths/million/year.

In the United States in 2007, 2340 deaths were linked to domestic violence. That averages out to be 7.34 deaths/million/year.

The DoJ stats showed that in domestic violence homicides, guns and firearms were used in about 2/3 of the cases.

So, clearly, this is not a gun issue, but a domestic violence issue.

 

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22610534

http://www.bing.com/search?q=population%20of%20UK&pc=cosp&ptag=N1234D011214A316A5D3C6E&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31

http://www.bing.com/search?q=population%20of%20USA&pc=cosp&ptag=N1234D011214A316A5D3C6E&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Murder

Sure.  That's what i said.

If we just get rid of the guns, the domestic violence problem will go away.  

it's the guns.  Obviously.

[TerraPrime]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Sure.  That's what i said.

As much as it's what gun regulation supporters are saying in regards to eliminating domestic violence via gun control.

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

As much as it's what gun regulation supporters are saying in regards to eliminating domestic violence via gun control.

Sorry, I don't understand what this means.

 

[JonSnow4President]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed.

Have there been any sucsessful legal challanges against businesses that have done this? I would assume property rights trump gun rights.

I don't know if it's been challenged, but I know my apartment complex (IN TEXAS) has a sign saying under some law, open carry handguns are banned on the premises.  I also know Toby Keith, Duke of rednecks everywhere, has banned weapons of any kind at his restaurant (and this is old news).

As an auditor, I've worked on many large companies premises (world's largest paper company, massive British oil company, massive American oil company, massive American waste company, massive French oil construction company, massive American rig company) and every one banned guns on their premises.  So I imagine businesses can do whatever the hell they want on that front.

 

[baxus]

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol Scot.

Just remember that there are people that view the right to conceal and carry as a civil liberty.

Just remember that civil liberty does not mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want. 

Suspending the right to conceal and carry a gun is nothing new. You need to look no further than your closest airport for proof of that.

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, baxus said:

Just remember that civil liberty does not mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want. 

Suspending the right to conceal and carry a gun is nothing new. You need to look no further than your closest airport for proof of that.

Although I am certain that, if more businesses ban firearms on the premises, open-carry activists will start pushing for laws to protect them from such terrible, unthinkable discrimination. I can just hear them singing "We Shall Overcome"...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

That's a much harder sell than they think.  You can leave your firearm in your vehicle or at home.  No so easy a task with your skin.  As such "open carry activists" protests are a long way from analogus to the civil rights movement despite their delusions on such an issue.

That said, until someone makes that claim we arguing with strawmen.

[Tywin et al.]

Scot,

I didn't bring up the topic because I thought they could win. I just assumed some die hard gun lover would have tried to sue over it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Scot,

I didn't bring up the topic because I thought they could win. I just assumed some die hard gun lover would have tried to sue over it.

Tywin,

Understood.  It wouldn't shock me if someone made that argument.  It's simply a loser.  If it weren't "No shirt, no shoes, no service" would be illegally discrminatory.

[Tywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

Understood.  It wouldn't shock me if someone made that argument.  It's simply a loser.  If it weren't "No shirt, no shoes, no service" would be illegally discrminatory.

I agree they'd lose the case, but I don't think it's that easy to dismiss.

[BloodRider]

20 hours ago, Swordfish said:

i don't know what you mean.

Good Lord you say that a lot!  Once again, claiming ignorance is not an effective argument, nor does it absolve you from your sarcastic take on domestic violence shootings.

[TrackerNeil]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

That's a much harder sell than they think.  You can leave your firearm in your vehicle or at home.  No so easy a task with your skin.  As such "open carry activists" protests are a long way from analogus to the civil rights movement despite their delusions on such an issue.

That said, until someone makes that claim we arguing with strawmen.

I hope you are right, but we live in a nation where some claim that the freedom to fire somebody from a job because you don't like his/her inclination in romantic partners is religious liberty. That leads me to believe that someone will make the argument that gun rights are equivalent to race, sex, orientation, etc. Great Zeus.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

16 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I hope you are right, but we live in a nation where some claim that the freedom to fire somebody from a job because you don't like his/her inclination in romantic partners is religious liberty. That leads me to believe that someone will make the argument that gun rights are equivalent to race, sex, orientation, etc. Great Zeus.

I think there is total confusion about the intersection of the Constitution and statutory anti-discrimination laws going on here. 

Putting aside for a moment "Equal Protection" violations by state actors, what prohibits private employers from discriminating against someone based upon race, sex, religion, etc. is not the Constitution itself, but rather federal and state anti-discrimination laws.