Target: Please don't bring firearms into our stores

[Tilted]

Of course. You should able to, in your home, your personal property, be able to discriminate as you see fit. No gays, no heteros, no Christians or what have you, no requirement to serve cake, no kids or no deviants such as Dallas Cowboy fans.

A business, again, SHOULD be subject to more requirements as a condition of being able to do business including accepting all law abiding citizens.

TARGET should no more be able to prohibit second amendment rights than they should be able to suspend any other right.

Target isn't prohibiting Second Amendment rights anymore than I would be by asking guests not to bring firearms into my home. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee that you can take a firearm wherever you want (e.g. on others' property), it only limits what the government can do when it comes to individuals owning and carrying arms. Target not being allowed to establish rules such as this would itself be highly anti-liberty.

Should David and vrai be allowed to establish rules regarding what people can post in the Somd.com forums? For instance, should they be allowed to prohibit political discussions or insist that people not be rude to each other?

 

[nutz]

Target isn't prohibiting Second Amendment rights anymore than I would be by asking guests not to bring firearms into my home. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee that you can take a firearm wherever you want (e.g. on others' property), it only limits what the government can do when it comes to individuals owning and carrying arms. Target not being allowed to establish rules such as this would itself be highly anti-liberty.

Should David and vrai be allowed to establish rules regarding what people can post in the Somd.com forums? For instance, should they be allowed to prohibit political discussions or insist that people not be rude to each other?

Not really an apples to apples comparison. Target (any retail based store) is open to the public, my home is not.

 

[Tilted]

Wait, why was Target public property when it came to smoking, yet private property when it comes to guns?

It's private property in both cases. But governments further distinguish (what might be referred to as) public use private property from private use private property and sometimes assert the authority to exercise greater control over the former than the latter. Since Target is offering accommodations to the public in general (even though it retains many private property rights), the government presumes that it has the authority to tell Target that it can't, for instance, refuse to serve people or treat people differently based on their race.

But to answer your question more technically, it's because government is an ass.

 

[Tilted]

Not really an apples to apples comparison. Target (any retail based store) is open to the public, my home is not.

I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, I'm pointing out that the same reality exists regarding both situations (which I'm using because they are different in some regards, just not regards that are relevant on this point) when it comes to whether Second Amendment rights are being prohibited. The point is, it can't be a violation of the Second Amendment if the actor in question is not the government.

So, yes, we compare things that aren't the same (perhaps aren't the same in a lot of ways) with the issue often being whether they are the same in some relevant regard. In this case they are. They are both non-governmental actors and thus the Second Amendment isn't being violated in either case.

 

[nutz]

I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, I'm pointing out that the same reality exists regarding both situations (which I'm using because they are different in some regards, just not regards that are relevant on this point) when it comes to whether Second Amendment rights are being prohibited. The point is, it can't be a violation of the Second Amendment if the actor in question is not the government.

So, yes, we compare things that aren't the same (perhaps aren't the same in a lot of ways) with the issue often being whether they are the same in some relevant regard. In this case they are. They are both non-governmental actors and thus the Second Amendment isn't being violated in either case.

Ok, maybe my statement was a bit harsh. If we disregard the 2A side of the argument, when does a public place of business get to override public law?

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Gotcha. OK, so, you are fine with cake bakers refusing homosexuals, business refusing service based on skin color or any other reason? Making up their own zoning and inspection rules, if they choose to have any? Right? Their property, their rules, yes?


See, your home is not a place of business. You're not asking to be able to do business. It's private and personal. A business is seeking to conduct business within a community and that community has the right to impose rules and restrictions be it zoning, licensing, inspections, accommodations and so forth including civil standards such as not being able to discriminate. If you choose to conceal carry, TARGET is imposing you not only violations on your second amendment rights but, adding to it stigmatizing you and inconveniencing you as you may like to be out and about and the wife asks you to swing by TARGET to get some stuff when you had not planned to go and had accordingly brought your weapon along. Or whatever reason.

Maybe you're one of those folks that likes to think of corporations as people and as having the same rights as citizens? Or, maybe you think a business is a different thing than a citizen?

To me, there is a world of difference between the two. This is not esoteric stuff.

To your first point, yes. I believe in voluntary transaction. Anyone should be able choose to do or not to do business with anyone else. Now, whether choosing not to is a wise business decision or not is up for debate. Personally, I go for longevity and sustainability in my business dealings. But if a baker doesn't want a bake a gay cake, the government should have no say in forcing them to do so. Same with blacks, Jews, etc.

Reading ahead, I think you and maybe some others (nutz) are conflating a couple of different concepts.

- public vs. private property
- public accommodation

Unless owned by government, a retail outlet like Target is private property. I have never head of a retail outlet being owned by government (maybe a gift shop or book store at a public art museum perhaps), but certainly Target is not owned by any government. There could be examples of a Target or Starbuck's, for example, being situated on a military base, selling products to members of the military. That is of course on public property, but there is likely a rental agreement which means that the store itself is conveyed the usual rights of private property owners.

A public accommodation is a place that is open to and used by the public, even though it is private property. This includes hotels, restaurants, and of course, the point of this discussion, retail outlets such as Target. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are a few limits on the restrictions a public accommodation can put on the people who use a their services. For example:

A PA cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin. They are, in fact, still allowed to refuse service to anyone based on disruptive behavior or because they don't like the clothes you wear (including guns). I'm sure you know how this work, if an Arab enters your store wearing a garish Hawaiian shirt, you can ask him to leave because of the garish Hawaiian shirt, but not because he is an Arab.

There's also the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) which makes it illegal for a PA to kick someone out for disabilities -- in a wheelchair with a colostomy. And I think women who want to breastfeed in a PA might be covered here.

So yes, there is still considerable leeway here. In my view, this falls under the category of a private property owner can ban guns if they want to, but if it is going to severely impact their business, why would they want to. Banning smoking is no different.

Bottom line, this isn't a Second Amendment issue. Not even a little bit.

 

[GURPS]

But to answer your question more technically, it's because government is an ass.

 

[Larry Gude]

Target isn't prohibiting Second Amendment rights anymore than I would be by asking guests not to bring firearms into my home. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee that you can take a firearm wherever you want (e.g. on others' property), it only limits what the government can do when it comes to individuals owning and carrying arms. Target not being allowed to establish rules such as this would itself be highly anti-liberty.

Should David and vrai be allowed to establish rules regarding what people can post in the Somd.com forums? For instance, should they be allowed to prohibit political discussions or insist that people not be rude to each other?

Again, I differentiate between corporations and individuals. A distinction, in my view, sorely lacking in this nation, supposedly, of individuals. As such, I see an enormous, common sense difference between SOMD and two people v. TARGET.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bottom line, this isn't a Second Amendment issue. Not even a little bit.

Again, I differentiate between corporations and the above is like saying the civil war had not even a little bit to do with slavery.

I have no problem if you believe the rights you have in your home should be extended to large corporations. I just think that's a crazy idea and part of what is wrong with America; the individual is nothing unless he is part of a group.

Discriminating against folks who choose to carry is no different than discriminating against any other group. TARGET is only doing this now because they feel the weight of the issue has tipped in favor of getting away with it. That we're even talking about this in context of your rights at home v. theirs as a corporation should make the point but, sadly, it does not even seem to be making a dent.

 

[Larry Gude]

Wait, why was Target public property when it came to smoking, yet private property when it comes to guns?

Thank you.

 

[Midnightrider]

View attachment 103601


that had NOTHING to do with rally out front ... from huffpo

View attachment 103600





bottom line it is private property ... target can do what they want inside, but they had better be ready for the lawsuit for not protecting the public after banning armed citizens

You really are an idiot.....

I guess you think those people are openly carrying long arms in target for their protection and not as part of their 'protest'?

Ingot news for you, the dullards down in Texas chose to take this issue to retailers and began open carrying in lots of stores and restaurants. The result was they got everybody asked to stop carrying weapons in many of those places. Your quote even suggests exactly that....

 

[Midnightrider]

How in the flying hell is carrying a concealed firearm remotely like taking a crap on your table???? I'm an NRA certified basic pistol instructor. Maybe we can fix that for you???

To be clear, what started this and gained the ire of target, was open carrying of long arms. Concealed carry, and open carry of handguns, isn't nearly as an alarming site. Not that the gun itself represents any more danger, but the tool that thinks its 'ok' to open carry his/her AR in a department store or fast food place might.....

 

[Larry Gude]

To be clear, what started this and gained the ire of target, was open carrying of long arms. Concealed carry, and open carry of handguns, isn't nearly as an alarming site. Not that the gun itself represents any more danger, but the tool that thinks its 'ok' to open carry his/her AR in a department store or fast food place might.....

If I were Target and that was the problem, I would request CONCEAL CARRY only. In big sings. That makes it clear you respect the second amendment. And not just to your customers, if you get my meaning.

A major retail chain is not a private citizen. That folks want to directly compare the two as equals goes a long way, in my view, of illustrating at least a good sized part of what is wrong with us as a nation. No ones home is filled with corporate counsel pushing an agenda they happen to share with some of the other kids at law school, kids that may well have good jobs down the road for the right people who have done the 'right' things along the way. Like oppose the second amendment.

All this is is discrimination against a specific group and, worse, it's not even based on something observable, like skin color or gender, or unobservable, like religion or sexuality. It's based on what someone MIGHT do.

That is awful. At least in a free country.

 

[Midnightrider]

If I were Target and that was the problem, I would request CONCEAL CARRY only. In big sings. That makes it clear you respect the second amendment. And not just to your customers, if you get my meaning.

A major retail chain is not a private citizen. That folks want to directly compare the two as equals goes a long way, in my view, of illustrating at least a good sized part of what is wrong with us as a nation. No ones home is filled with corporate counsel pushing an agenda they happen to share with some of the other kids at law school, kids that may well have good jobs down the road for the right people who have done the 'right' things along the way. Like oppose the second amendment.

All this is is discrimination against a specific group and, worse, it's not even based on something observable, like skin color or gender, or unobservable, like religion or sexuality. It's based on what someone MIGHT do.

That is awful. At least in a free country.

As you and I both know, if you are carrying concealed, and doing it properly, no one ever knows.

This isn't discrimination, its a request, and its based on something hat did happen and was quite observable. That was the whole point of octx's actions.

 

[Larry Gude]

As you and I both know, if you are carrying concealed, and doing it properly, no one ever knows.

This isn't discrimination, its a request, and its based on something hat did happen and was quite observable. That was the whole point of octx's actions.

I get that part but, they're not saying "Conceal Carry Only". They're saying "Attention Criminals; We don't allow guns in our stores so, take that for what it is worth."

 

[Midnightrider]

I get that part but, they're not saying "Conceal Carry Only". They're saying "Attention Criminals; We don't allow guns in our stores so, take that for what it is worth."

No, they are saying 'attention law abiding protesters, stop putting us in the middle of this.'

Targets were getting robbed before and they will continue to be.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So this new GA gun law went into effect, and this thread made me think of that.

Opponents of the bill, generally liberals, tend to be the same people who opposed the Hobby Lobby ruling, while conservatives who applauded the Hobby Lobby ruling for protecting religious liberty applaud Georgia's law for protecting their Second Amendment rights.

The partisan break on Hobby Lobby and Georgia's gun law doesn't make sense if principles mattered. After all, if an employer has a right not to be coerced by the government to purchase something for an employee, that same employer ought to have a right not to be coerced by the government to permit something on his property. Whether the specific objections are religious shouldn't even matter—either you have a right to run your workplace and business as you please or it belongs to the government.

 

[Larry Gude]

So this new GA gun law went into effect, and this thread made me think of that.

Opponents of the bill, generally liberals, tend to be the same people who opposed the Hobby Lobby ruling, while conservatives who applauded the Hobby Lobby ruling for protecting religious liberty applaud Georgia's law for protecting their Second Amendment rights.

The partisan break on Hobby Lobby and Georgia's gun law doesn't make sense if principles mattered. After all, if an employer has a right not to be coerced by the government to purchase something for an employee, that same employer ought to have a right not to be coerced by the government to permit something on his property. Whether the specific objections are religious shouldn't even matter—either you have a right to run your workplace and business as you please or it belongs to the government.

Excellent point and another good reason to end employer provided benefits, especially health care.

 

[Larry Gude]

No, they are saying 'attention law abiding protesters, stop putting us in the middle of this.'

Targets were getting robbed before and they will continue to be.

If they were protesting for their rights based on skin color or gender or sexuality, would TARGET still be saying that or would they be saying "Welcome!" ?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Excellent point and another good reason to end employer provided benefits, especially health care.

Or on a more fundamental level, allow birth control pills to be over the counter.

We're one of a select few countries that does not allow them to be sold OTC. Ironically, we do allow Plan B pills to be sold OTC and they're essentially a huge dose of hormones found in birth control pills.

Of course that would go against liberal talking points about the "war on women". You can bet they will be making a big fuss that Viagra is covered, but not birth control.