Hassled by Buffalo Wild Wings for OC at Dupont, Fort Wayne

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry, no Kutnupe14. Rights are not surrendered or negated by location. On private property all you can do is request that they leave. You may reinforce that request as you see necessary but rights do not disappear.

I'm honestly having difficultly in understanding how you guys aren't getting this.

In a public park, you can say what you want, carry what firearm you want etc. If someone asks you to leave, you can tell them to pound sand. You have no duty to respect their wishes, and may stand your ground. Conversely, on my property or any other private property, you can say whatever you want or carry whatever firearm you want, as long as I allow it. If I don't allow it, you go or are forcibly removed. You cannot contest my wishes, and you have no recourse. So in a very real sense, your rights end at my property's edge.

 

[ATM]

I'm honestly having difficultly in understanding how you guys aren't getting this.

We get it. You think that revoking permission to be on a property is the same as being able to revoke other rights.

No need to explain it again.

 

[Hotdoger]

I'm honestly having difficultly in understanding how you guys aren't getting this.

In a public park, you can say what you want, carry what firearm you want etc. If someone asks you to leave, you can tell them to pound sand. You have no duty to respect their wishes, and may stand your ground. Conversely, on my property or any other private property, you can say whatever you want or carry whatever firearm you want, as long as I allow it. If I don't allow it, you go or are forcibly removed. You cannot contest my wishes, and you have no recourse. So in a very real sense, your rights end at my property's edge.

Is the Monon Trail a public park in Carmel?

I don't get how you cannot understand that one does not lose their "rights" because of property lines?

All you lose is the ability to stay there, not the free excercise of those "rights".

 

[finity]

All you lose is the ability to stay there, not the free excercise of those "rights".

If you don't have the "free exercise" of a right then, by definition, you don't have that right.

If the property owner doesn't allow you to exercise a "right" & you can be "punished" for your continued exercise of your "right" by virtue of the owner denying you the continued enjoyment of his property then you really didn't have the "right" to begin with. On that owners property you merely have a "privelege".

We use the same analogy all the time where the 2A is concerned in relation to government infringement - a right infringed is only a privelege. Only in this case you truly have no "rights" at all, only "priveleges" that the owner allows.

You are correct that the Constitution grants no rights. It only prevents THE GOVERNMENT from infringing on your Rights. In the case of you being on the private property of another then those rights never, EVER, existed, hence they can't be "infringed".

There has NEVER been ANY document or generally accepted legal theory that prevents the infringement of any Rights by a property owner. The closest we've come is statutorily declaring that a business owner can't discriminate against the "protected" classes.

If we always have our Rights no matter where we are then why did we feel it was necessary to make laws that prevent discrimination by private business owners? Wouldn't we have been able to sue them for redress of grievences just like we can the government when they violate our Rights?

I'll answer that rhetorical question for you. We can't sue a private property owner for a violation of our Rights except those that are narrowly defined by law - which, again, aren't Rights but simply "rights" granted solely by that law. Without that law then those "rights" don't exist & never have. That is in stark contrast to the Rights protected by the Constitution that do not rely on that document for their existence.

To use another example from a discussion that I had with a couple of guys at work recently:

A private employer can force you to take a urinalysis drug screening as a condition of employment. This is not an invasion of your 4A or 5A Rights because it is done by a private party. It HAS been determined to be a violation of your Rights if the goivernment does it, though (except in the circumstances of narrowly tailored exceptions where the needs of the government outweigh the Rights of the individual).

 

[bassplayrguy]

I'm honestly having difficultly in understanding how you guys aren't getting this.

In a public park, you can say what you want, carry what firearm you want etc. If someone asks you to leave, you can tell them to pound sand. You have no duty to respect their wishes, and may stand your ground. Conversely, on my property or any other private property, you can say whatever you want or carry whatever firearm you want, as long as I allow it. If I don't allow it, you go or are forcibly removed. You cannot contest my wishes, and you have no recourse. So in a very real sense, your rights end at my property's edge.

Carry in public parks is not legal in Indianapolis or Greenwood. You will be arrested. This is what I was told anyway by both police departments. Both have city ordinances prohibiting it.

 

[Vanguard.45]

To the OP

You handled yourself very well, and I commend you. The manager has a right to request that you leave (which he apparently did not) but does NOT have the right to disarm you.

This is also just another example of why I choose not to OC. I like to avoid both attention and drama. I don't believe that's the reason you OC, but such incident are sometimes the unfortunate side-effect of carrying openly.

Kudos to you again for standing your ground.

Vanguard.45

 

[bglaze]

Exactly, you obey a private property owners rules or go... simple. In public you do what you like, you have your rights, on private property you have none.

The manager asked him to cover up, the patron would not. The manager was NOT willing to lose the OP's business and did not ask him to leave. Thus, he was able to stay and finish his meal.

If I am breaking a rule, and the manager doesn't want to ask me to leave, then I don't have to obey the rule. I don't have to volunteer to leave just because they have a rule that I won't comply with.

If they ask me to leave I will. That is me respecting his property rights. If he doesn't ask me to leave, that is where the conversation ends. Ejecting me is his right, but making me behave precisely how he wants is not. Unless my behavior is so offensive that ejecting me is necessary, I can go about my business.

Let's say I own a restaurant and I'm a pervert, and I see a woman come in with large "hoo hoos". And let's say I go up to her and tell her to shake her "hoo hoos" for me. She refuses. I tell her it's the rule. She still refuses. I do not ask her to leave, but she still didn't obey my wishes. Is she in the wrong?

 

[Rookie]

Yes because women should shake hoo hoos on command. It's state law! I swear to god it is!

 

[Hammerhead]

You wanna buy a boat?

 

[Rookie]

Shut up, Randy!

 

[finity]

Let's say I own a restaurant and I'm a pervert, and I see a woman come in with large "hoo hoos". And let's say I go up to her and tell her to shake her "hoo hoos" for me. She refuses. I tell her it's the rule. She still refuses. I do not ask her to leave, but she still didn't obey my wishes. Is she in the wrong?

I see what you're trying to do here.

You're changing the actions of the owner to be in a manner that would offend the majority of society.

It's the same thing you did way back in the beginning of this thread when you tried to relate it to Obama supporters & homosexuals only to a larger degree. It didn't make a difference then & it doesn't make a difference now.

First, the actions of the "owner" of BWW's isn't offensive to the majority of society. It's not even offensive to the majority of the gun-owning portion of society.

Second, if the woman decides to stay after being informed of the "rule" then I think she has implied consent to the rule. Good or bad then she is in the wrong for not following the rules or not leaving without being asked.

Third, define "pervert". That seems to be a judgement about a particular individual based on your specific morality under those specific circumstances.

There are SOME places that a woman would gladly bare herself in order to reap the benefit she desires. Just think of all the "baring" that was being done last month in the city of New Orleans for Mardi Gras. Were all those guys giving away beads for a peek "perverts"? Maybe to you & many others the answer may be yes but to me & a different "many" they were just having a good time. The term "pervert" is VERY subjective.

So, now that we're on this course, let's put this in more comparable terms, though.

I know this doesn't apply to IN but in NY (I think) they don't have a law against women going topless. Do you think that a woman would be in the wrong if she refused when she was asked to cover herself up if she came into the restaurant topless & the owner was offended by her nudity? Would it make a difference if the owner was offended due to religious reasons? What if it was a family restaurant that catered to evengelical Christians? If they decided to "turn the other cheek" instead of making a scene about it would the nude offender be "in the right"?

Let's say that in CA there is no law against public nudity by men. Would a man be in the wrong for not covering up when asked if he entered the restaurant nude & maybe even in a slightly "turgid" state?

Believe it or not there are some people who equate displaying a gun openly as the equivalent of displaying an erect male member. You may not think it's a big deal to display your gun in public but there may be others who may not think it's a big deal to be nude in public either. Just because they may have to accept the laws (or not) when they are off their property they shouldn't be made to accept it on their own land.

Does the owner of the property lose his right to control others actions on his property because he chooses not to enforce that right on occasion?

Am I less in the wrong if I don't acknowledge that right even if the owner fails to enforce it?

Is the government suddenly "right" if it continues to infringe on a Constitutional Right if the people don't stand up for that Right & force it to cease the infringement?

Does "might make right"?

 

[bglaze]

if the woman decides to stay after being informed of the "rule" then I think she has implied consent to the rule.

^ Noted as Exhibit A.

Do you think that a woman would be in the wrong if she refused when she was asked to cover herself up if she came into the restaurant topless & the owner was offended by her nudity? Would it make a difference if the owner was offended due to religious reasons? What if it was a family restaurant that catered to evengelical Christians?

Per Exhibit A. - If the restaurant has a rule or policy concerning nudity, this manager, by continuing to serve her, has implied consent to her behavior and chosen to bend the rule this one time (which is his Right).

 

[finity]

^ Noted as Exhibit A.



Per Exhibit A. - If the restaurant has a rule or policy concerning nudity, this manager, by continuing to serve her, has implied consent to her behavior and chosen to bend the rule this one time (which is his Right).

Maybe but that doesn't mean she would still not be in the wrong by arguing with the manager over a non-right as if it were.

 

[bglaze]

If they decided to "turn the other cheek" instead of making a scene about it would the nude offender be "in the right"?

I only brought up "in the wrong", because it was first used by the arguers on your side.

As far as I'm concerned this thread is cut and dried, because the OP and the manager of the BWW's both acted legally. The beauty of the law is that it is written down, and comparing someone's actions to those written words is an objective practice.

All those trying to stretch a property owner's "rights" saying he can require patrons to do anything he wishes and saying that "they should just leave, because they are in the wrong" are arguing a subjective point and are also arguing their personal opinion of the OP's behavior from an ethical point of view.

They can't stick to just arguing the law, because they would lose this argument.

 

[finity]

I only brought up "in the wrong", because it was first used by the arguers on your side.

As far as I'm concerned this thread is cut and dried, because the OP and the manager of the BWW's both acted legally. The beauty of the law is that it is written down, and comparing someone's actions to those written words is an objective practice.

All those trying to stretch a property owner's "rights" saying he can require patrons to do anything he wishes and saying that "they should just leave, because they are in the wrong" are arguing a subjective point and are also arguing their personal opinion of the OP's behavior from an ethical point of view.

They can't stick to just arguing the law, because they would lose this argument.

I have no problem at all admitting that the owner only has one legal option & that is kicking the person out. I even said as much way back when.

I additionally made the point that in acting the way the OP did he was acting like an ass. That is a subjective viewpoint made by me & many others on here & likely in the restaurant that day. Like it or not we are humans & humans are driven by emotion as much as logic (if not more). Even conservatives. If you don't like it you're living on the wrong planet.

His actions did nothing to benefit gun-owners in any way. In fact, I think on balance he did a disservice to gun-owners.

He may have shown his buddies & others on here how tough he was to stand up against a restaurant manager when he had no right to act in the way he did but to many others he looked like a spoiled kid who has no respect for the rights of others. It is highly unlikely that he swayed anyone to our side who wasn't already leaning this way. I think it is highly likely that he pushed some of those on the fence to the other side.

He didn't teach anybody anything about their rights. What he thinks he knows about rights, & passed on to his buddies, he really didn't know. He failed completely in his objective...unless his objective was to simply eat a meal at BWW's that day. If that's it then why not compromise & cover up? If that was it then why come on here telling us how he stood up for our "rights"?

 

[bglaze]

[edit: gah, had a long post, but it got messed up in trasmission and I didn't have it backed up. Will try to post it again later.]

 

[SirRealism]

I see what you're trying to do here.

[snip snip to conserve electrons]

Is the government suddenly "right" if it continues to infringe on a Constitutional Right if the people don't stand up for that Right & force it to cease the infringement?

Does "might make right"?

I checked in to INGO last night and found lots of subscribed threads with new posts... all from you. Did you take a few days off INGO? I had noticed that there were lots of extra words lying around in your brief absence.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

BOO BW3's

That does it for me... I won't be returning. Thanks for standing up for our Rights

 

[Kutnupe14]

That does it for me... I won't be returning. Thanks for standing up for our Rights

What right?

 

[Benny]

What right?

LOL, Jesus dude, how many times does it have to be explained to you?