• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable for Disarming Concealed Carry Holders

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,727
Likes
27,708
#41
some further information:

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[110]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[111] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[112] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[113]

In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[114]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[115] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[116]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[117] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[118]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,727
Likes
27,708
#42
more for you from the Cornell Law Library:

Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

  • regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
  • regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
  • regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)


See constitutional amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
3,694
Likes
6,967
Location
USA
#43
nice move, totally cool,

disagree with how you twisted it, but it was still a good play nonetheless.

with the comment, the choice has still been to infringe on the business owners rights, while claiming you have seniority on his property

if I am wrong, so be it, but at least persons have had the opportunity to review some key points,

-what is freedom
-where does your freedom end, and it becomes infringing on another
-what is the .gov role
-what does the 2nd really mean
No, Scorpio, it wasn't a twist or a play. Right in the middle of my post I started to question the whole thing. Where do the business owners rights end and mine begin and vice-versa? It's a real question, in my mind. See, your posts had an effect on my thought processes. The business owner has to have rights on his property. They can't be denied. The customer who comes into his business also has rights that cannot be denied. When I read the OP, I automatically was positive for the new law. Now, I'm not so sure.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,186
Likes
21,505
#44
No, Scorpio, it wasn't a twist or a play. Right in the middle of my post I started to question the whole thing. Where do the business owners rights end and mine begin and vice-versa? It's a real question, in my mind. See, your posts had an effect on my thought processes. The business owner has to have rights on his property. They can't be denied. The customer who cones into his business also has rights that cannot be denied. When I read the OP, I automatically was positive for the new law. Now, I'm not so sure.
Yeah, I was the same way but in the end my opinion is we don't need more laws.....if there is a premises restriction that you feel endangers your life simply don't patronize their establishment. I have seen the light :)
 

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,120
Likes
3,276
#46
I'll repeat again what I and others have said. A lot of these businesses have "gun free zone" policies because the insurers threaten to cancel or raise their rates otherwise. So the insurers are infringing on both the business owners and customers rights. This law turns the big insurers on their heads. That's how I see it. When you think of it this way, it's a good thing.
 

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,120
Likes
3,276
#47

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,349
Likes
4,663
#48
In reading this thread, this quote came to mind.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
3,694
Likes
6,967
Location
USA
#49
In reading this thread, this quote came to mind.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller
I guess I'm missing your point, JD, or your perspective, anyway.
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,349
Likes
4,663
#50
My point is - I think that Scorpio nailed this one.

On the surface, this looks like a good idea. But he gave it some thought and realized it needed to be shown in a different light.

He saw someone's business (substitute freedom, if you like) being jeopardized by a bad law and he decided to stand up and speak out.

To follow that logic out to the conclusion derived in the above quote - Scorpio spoke out BEFORE all sorts of laws had been written to take away the freedoms of others even though his OWN freedoms were not affected by this one specific incident.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,064
Likes
19,557
Location
ORYGUN
#51
Another example of senseless laws that infringe on us.
Smoking laws. I hate cigarette smoke as much or more than anyone !!
BUT, a business should be able to put a sign on their door that ether states they allow smoking or not. Let the customer make their choice to go inside.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
24,727
Likes
27,708
#52
Thanks JayDubya, it is appreciated

Taezz, exactly right
we must all remain aware that it is his property after all,
he is the one putting up the dough to keep it open, he is the one paying the taxes, etc.

now before someone says they are paying the taxes by patronage of the business, do you also take ownership of the conv store when pumping gas? Etc. While indirectly you think you are paying the tax, you are not. You are paying the owner and you assume he is paying the taxes.

It would surprise some the number of times I have had to inform persons of this distinction when they have this attitude that it is a public place and they can do whatever they want on my property.
 

ttazzman

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,852
Likes
4,302
Location
mid-usa
#53
like i said i am undecided .........going back to Usarys very true statement that insurers are in most cases driving this.......pretty soon you will not be able to enter any property including your own with a gun and carry insurance obviously i am taking this to the furthest conclusion....and obviously there is a opposing furthest conclusion to be considered (think gun ban by insurance)

and if you think this law is anything but a direct strike at the insurance industry your off base in my opinion
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,827
Likes
11,206
Location
North Carolina
#54
I'll repeat again what I and others have said. A lot of these businesses have "gun free zone" policies because the insurers threaten to cancel or raise their rates otherwise. So the insurers are infringing on both the business owners and customers rights. This law turns the big insurers on their heads. That's how I see it. When you think of it this way, it's a good thing.
I (c Corp business) have to fill out a 25 page insurance workbook annually so they can assess the risk, understand the business size, and set my rates. I've never been asked a question about my firearms policy. The agents perform onsite tours and never said anything about our "we support concealed carry" signs

This is North Carolina and manufacturing though, maybe consumer traffic in less conservative states are treated differently