CCW Holder Fired By Pizza Hut

[Bohemian]

You could not be more wrong. Property and business owners right to do whatever they see fit is an essential component of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they did not have the liberty to do whatever they see fit with their property, what incentive would people have to open up businesses?

Say what you will, but you are dead wrong on this one.

Sorry again my friend, it is you that remain wrong; property rights and business policy rights come from State, County, City and other municipalities or Indian Tribunals; if you are eligible to purchase reservation land...
As all legal interpretations of the 10th amendment clearly state...

And are not an inalienable right...

Try reading the constitution (U.S. and States), bill of rights, State Right To Work Law, State Contract Law, State Real-Estate and State Property Law, and State Tort Law for starters...

Then try manufacturing your own gasoline, diesel or other synthetic fuel, or digging for gold in your own back yard or drilling your own water or oil well in your own back yard...
Or painting your house neon pink or changing your oil in your driveway if you have a home owners association... for a few examples of just how few liberties you actually have on your own property...
These liberties most often require you to be in the middle of no-where and pay extra for additional rights to do what you want to do on your own property...

The only liberties you have on your own property or what business polices you can set are stipulated in State, County, City and other municipality law...

And none can interfere with the inalienable right to self-preservation...

BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT AND DISNEY NATIONWIDE!

[tattedupboy]

Sorry again my friend, it is you that remain wrong; property rights and business policy rights come from State, County, City and other municipalities or Indian Tribunals; if you are eligible to purchase reservation land...
As all legal interpretations of the 10th amendment clearly state...

And are not an inalienable right...

Try reading the constitution (U.S. and States), bill of rights, State Right To Work Law, State Contract Law, State Real-Estate and State Property Law, and State Tort Law for starters...

Then try manufacturing your own gasoline, diesel or other synthetic fuel, or digging for gold in your own back yard or drilling your own water or oil well in your own back yard...
Or painting your house neon pink or changing your oil in your driveway if you have a home owners association... for a few examples of just how few liberties you actually have on your own property...
These liberties most often require you to be in the middle of no-where and pay extra for additional rights to do what you want to do on your own property...

The only liberties you have on your own property or what business polices you can set are stipulated in State, County, City and other municipality law...

And none can interfere with the inalienable right to self-preservation...

BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT AND DISNEY NATIONWIDE!

It is truly amazing to me how you could be so incredibly wrong and yet be so passionately stubborn about it.

Liberty is an inalienable right enjoyed by everyone, including property owners and business owners, and the United States Constitution says so.

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines liberty as:

1.a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

The inalienable right that we know as liberty protects property and business owners' rights to operate their property any way they see fit. So yes, contrary to what you say, property owners are equally as protected by the U.S. constitution as they are by their state constitutions by a little inalienable right that I like to call liberty.

[Bohemian]

It is truly amazing to me how you could be so incredibly wrong and yet be so passionately stubborn about it.

Liberty is an inalienable right enjoyed by everyone, including property owners and business owners, and the United States Constitution says so.

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines liberty as:

1.a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

The inalienable right that we know as liberty protects property and business owners' rights to operate their property any way they see fit. So yes, contrary to what you say, property owners are equally as protected by the U.S. constitution as they are by their state constitutions by a little inalienable right that I like to call liberty.

Your definition from the American Heritage Dictionary is correct; I too have a copy; but a dictionary is not the law of the land and you are Wrong again, that is not what the law or the constitution says regarding liberty as you put it; if you were that protected how come you can not drill for oil in your own back yard under most circumstances? for example... becasue the state holds most water and mineral rights to your own property...
Ever hear of something called eminent domain?
State Real Estate and Property Law further define what you can do with your own property...

Re-read the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th and 14th amendments...

The state gives you the licensed privilege to operate a business according the the guideline's the state sets forth...
State Right To Work Law, State Contract Law typically define employee and employer rights and also stipulate that inalienable rights can not be infringed...

You can do what ever you want on your own property, as long as it is in compliance with state law...

And it does not interfere with someones ability to defend their inalienable right to defend themselves...

Why can you not store or sell certain things on your property or at your business? because the state tell you that you can't...

The state can tell you just about anything, with respect to your property and or business; with the exception of the inalienable right to defend your life...
Or your inability to prevent somebody else from defending their own life wherever they may be...

And where do you go if you want to sue your employer for violating your non-inalienable rights such as being asked to punch out and go back to work like Walmart got sued for?
The County or Superior Court in the State you live in...

The State has the Jurisdiction over the matter...

If they violate your inalienable civil rights you go straight to U.S. District Court...

When you commit a burglary of someones property, you are charged by the state; when you murder someone you are charged by the United States with a Capitol Offense; because you violated someones inalienable right to life...

BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT AND DISNEY WORLDWIDE AND THOSE THAT SYMPATHIZE WITH THEM!

[tattedupboy]

Your definition from the American Heritage Dictionary is correct; I too have a copy; but a dictionary is not the law of the land and you are Wrong again, that is not what the law or the constitution says regarding liberty as you put it; if you were that protected how come you can not drill for oil in your own back yard under most circumstances? for example... becasue the state holds most water and mineral rights to your own property...
Ever hear of something called eminent domain?
State Real Estate and Property Law further define what you can do with your own property...

Re-read the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th and 14th amendments...

The state gives you the licensed privilege to operate a business according the the guideline's the state sets forth...
State Right To Work Law, State Contract Law typically define employee and employer rights and also stipulate that inalienable rights can not be infringed...

You can do what ever you want on your own property, as long as it is in compliance with state law...

And it does not interfere with someones ability to defend their inalienable right to defend themselves...

Why can you not store or sell certain things on your property or at your business? because the state tell you that you can't...

The state can tell you just about anything, with respect to your property and or business; with the exception of the inalienable right to defend your life...
Or your inability to prevent somebody else from defending their own life wherever they may be...

And where do you go if you want to sue your employer for violating your non-inalienable rights such as being asked to punch out and go back to work like Walmart got sued for?
The County or Superior Court in the State you live in...

The State has the Jurisdiction over the matter...

If they violate your inalienable civil rights you go straight to U.S. District Court...

When you commit a burglary of someones property, you are charged by the state; when you murder someone you are charged by the United States with a Capitol Offense; because you violated someones inalienable right to life...

BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT AND DISNEY WORLDWIDE AND THOSE THAT SYMPATHIZE WITH THEM!

Point well taken. The reason I can't drill for oil or store certain things on my property is the same reason you can't carry concealed weapons in most states without a permit. While it is indeed true that no right is absolute, including 2A and property rights, (ie., you can't use your freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, your right to keep and bear arms to kill someone simply because you don't like them, or your property rights to kill someone on your property), a slippery slope of what legislators, both at the federal and state levels, consider "reasonable restrictions" has resulted in them getting carried away with their authority, effectively punishing responsible law abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals.

In the name of "public safety" the nanny state has repeatedly infringed upon citizens' rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution. A thorough reading of it should reveal to any clear thinking individual that no matter how many laws are made, common sense can never be legislated. Responsible, law abiding citizens (including property and business owners) should, through the free market free of government interference, be the only ones deciding what can or cannot be stored on one's property, as well as what can or cannot be done, said, or brought onto it. The only gun control would be that which is dictated by property and business owners, and not by the government. Government's only role, using the Constitution as its sole guide, is to ensure that nobody's (including property owners) inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are jeopardized.

Under this scenario, you could not even say that the rights of gun carriers are being infringed because, as I have said repeatedly, they are free to stay away from places where guns are not allowed.

[Bohemian]

Point well taken. The reason I can't drill for oil or store certain things on my property is the same reason you can't carry concealed weapons in most states without a permit. While it is indeed true that no right is absolute, including 2A and property rights, (ie., you can't use your freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, your right to keep and bear arms to kill someone simply because you don't like them, or your property rights to kill someone on your property), a slippery slope of what legislators, both at the federal and state levels, consider "reasonable restrictions" has resulted in them getting carried away with their authority, effectively punishing responsible law abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals.

In the name of "public safety" the nanny state has repeatedly infringed upon citizens' rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution. A thorough reading of it should reveal to any clear thinking individual that no matter how many laws are made, common sense can never be legislated. Responsible, law abiding citizens (including property and business owners) should, through the free market free of government interference, be the only ones deciding what can or cannot be stored on one's property, as well as what can or cannot be done, said, or brought onto it. The only gun control would be that which is dictated by property and business owners, and not by the government. Government's only role, using the Constitution as its sole guide, is to ensure that nobody's (including property owners) inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are jeopardized.

Under this scenario, you could not even say that the rights of gun carriers are being infringed because, as I have said repeatedly, they are free to stay away from places where guns are not allowed.

Just because you keep repeating yourself does not make it so...

WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Nobody can deprive anybody of the inalienable right to defend their life anywhere they happen to be by any means necessary...

"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."

Without this amendment, all others are meaningless. This amendment is a guarantee to the people of the United States of America that the right to keep and bear arms can not, shall not, nor will not be infringed upon.

To infringe upon - by definition - is the attempt to limit the right of:

* legal or moral entitlement to do - or refrain from doing - some thing;
* legal or moral entitlement to obtain - or refrain from obtaining - an action, thing or recognition in civil society. In the Second Amendment, the entitlement is the right to the action(s) of keeping and bearing a thing called arms by the people.

What this means is, the people, who in times of need may form a militia, have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms without fear of such right being vacated. In order to be an effective militia - an integral part of a free society - the people should be armed in equal or greater proportion than any potential threat - foreign or domestic - and trained to use such armament. Additionally, the un-infringed right of the people to keep and bear arms is the most powerful deterrent to tyranny.

[tattedupboy]

Just because you keep repeating yourself does not make it so...

WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Nobody can deprive anybody of the inalienable right to defend their life anywhere they happen to be by any means necessary...

"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."

Without this amendment, all others are meaningless. This amendment is a guarantee to the people of the United States of America that the right to keep and bear arms can not, shall not, nor will not be infringed upon.

To infringe upon - by definition - is the attempt to limit the right of:

* legal or moral entitlement to do - or refrain from doing - some thing;
* legal or moral entitlement to obtain - or refrain from obtaining - an action, thing or recognition in civil society. In the Second Amendment, the entitlement is the right to the action(s) of keeping and bearing a thing called arms by the people.

What this means is, the people, who in times of need may form a militia, have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms without fear of such right being vacated. In order to be an effective militia - an integral part of a free society - the people should be armed in equal or greater proportion than any potential threat - foreign or domestic - and trained to use such armament. Additionally, the un-infringed right of the people to keep and bear arms is the most powerful deterrent to tyranny.

Repeating some things does not make me wrong either, and no matter what you say, I'm right and you're wrong on this one. You are right that inalienable rights cannot be taken away, and that includes property and business owners' LIBERTY to do whatever they see fit with their property, whether people carrying guns like it or not. Liberty is just as much an inalienable right as life and the pursuit of happiness are. Telling gun owners that they can exercise them but property owners can't is nothing short of inconsistent. Just because you don't like an anti gun policy does not mean it should not and cannot be legally enforced, because it can. Not liking it is no reason for you to disregard it; if a gun owner does not like a private business or private property owner's anti gun policies, his inalienable right to liberty gives him the right not to go there if he does not want to. As a gun owner, I have to respect the inalienable rights of private business owners; my inalienable rights are not the only ones that are worthy of recognition. Theirs are too.

[Biblical1st]

A 10 year plus Pizza Hut Employee and long time CCW permit holder was recently fired for defending himself...

Pizza Hut deliveryman James Spiers thought he was making a routine delivery, but he was walking into an ambush. As Spiers approached, an armed man sprang at him with a gun, but Spiers, a concealed-carry permit holder, was no easy target. Police say Spiers struggled hard with the assailant until he was able to produce his handgun. "It was a long ordeal... my life was, without a doubt, in danger," Spiers recalls. Spiers shot the suspect three times. The suspect fled and was arrested at the hospital. Pizza Hut summarily fired Spiers, a 10-year employee, citing a corporate policy forbidding employees from carrying firearms. To voice your displeasure, call Pizza Hut Corporate Offices at 800-948-8488 or visit http://www.pizzahut.com/contactus/co...m.aspx?|1=2024
Source: The Armed Citizen, July 2008 Issue, The American Hunter Magazine, NRA Offical Journal of the National Rifle Association
and (The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, IA, 04/03/2008)

AND BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT UNTIL THEY RESOLVE THIS, AS I AM.

Thanks for the info.

The link you gave to pizza hut didn't work for me. To contact pizza hut via their website go here: PizzaHut.com ? Contact Us

[bretj]

Repeating some things does not make me wrong either, and no matter what you say, I'm right and you're wrong on this one. You are right that inalienable rights cannot be taken away, and that includes property and business owners' LIBERTY to do whatever they see fit with their property, whether people carrying guns like it or not. Liberty is just as much an inalienable right as life and the pursuit of happiness are. Telling gun owners that they can exercise them but property owners can't is nothing short of inconsistent. Just because you don't like an anti gun policy does not mean it should not and cannot be legally enforced, because it can. Not liking it is no reason for you to disregard it; if a gun owner does not like a private business or private property owner's anti gun policies, his inalienable right to liberty gives him the right not to go there if he does not want to. As a gun owner, I have to respect the inalienable rights of private business owners; my inalienable rights are not the only ones that are worthy of recognition. Theirs are too.

I have to agree with Tat on this one... When I agreed to defend this country and the freedoms protected by the Constitution, I did not pick and choose which parts I would defend and which ones I would ignore.
Do I like Pizza Huts policy regarding firearms? Nope. But by God, I will defend their right to have that policy. Case in point, let's say I do not like the policies of my employer and question my supervisors about it. I am asked to accept the policies or leave. According to Bohemians thought process, I should be protected by the 1st amendment if I disagree vocally with said policy. As a matter of fact I am more than just vocal. I print some flyers at home questioning these policies and distribute them to fellow employees (outside business hours mind you). I am simply enjoying the inalienable right to free speech protected by the 1st amendment.
Can my employer fire me? You bet they can. I have to support their right to do so regardless of how much I may dislike it. That's part of being an American.
BTW, I am as far from being "with" Obama or the democrats on this one as anyone else in this forum. However, the poll is a great example of how a great many liberals will phrase a poll to get the desired result. Almost like the old joke, "Do you still beat your wife?" In this case, while I support Pizza Huts right to do so, the pollster makes you choose between doing the right thing or keeping quiet because you do not want to be seen as supporting Obama and the democrats. In case you are wondering, I sucked it up and chose to side with private property rights...I simply ignored the Obama/democrat coloration... In the future, try not to color the question with irrelevant information. That's what most liberals do....(Ooops...I guess I kinda colored that one...) :)

[tattedupboy]

I have to agree with Tat on this one... When I agreed to defend this country and the freedoms protected by the Constitution, I did not pick and choose which parts I would defend and which ones I would ignore.
Do I like Pizza Huts policy regarding firearms? Nope. But by God, I will defend their right to have that policy. Case in point, let's say I do not like the policies of my employer and question my supervisors about it. I am asked to accept the policies or leave. According to Bohemians thought process, I should be protected by the 1st amendment if I disagree vocally with said policy. As a matter of fact I am more than just vocal. I print some flyers at home questioning these policies and distribute them to fellow employees (outside business hours mind you). I am simply enjoying the inalienable right to free speech protected by the 1st amendment.
Can my employer fire me? You bet they can. I have to support their right to do so regardless of how much I may dislike it. That's part of being an American.
BTW, I am as far from being "with" Obama or the democrats on this one as anyone else in this forum. However, the poll is a great example of how a great many liberals will phrase a poll to get the desired result. Almost like the old joke, "Do you still beat your wife?" In this case, while I support Pizza Huts right to do so, the pollster makes you choose between doing the right thing or keeping quiet because you do not want to be seen as supporting Obama and the democrats. In case you are wondering, I sucked it up and chose to side with private property rights...I simply ignored the Obama/democrat coloration... In the future, try not to color the question with irrelevant information. That's what most liberals do....(Ooops...I guess I kinda colored that one...) :)

Welcome to USA Carry, bretj; I see that this is your first post on this forum, and boy have you come out swinging! Welcome aboard!

[rjnsn]

What you don't understand is that no individual's Constitutional rights trump a private company's or private property owner's property rights. If someone wants me to leave their property for using profanity, they have every right to make me do so and have me arrested for trespassing if I refuse. The same goes for someone working for an employer who does not want employees carrying guns while on company time. Just like the company has the right to regulate that, people have the right to choose not to work there because of it. An individual's constitutional rights end where a property owner's rights begin. For you to say that respecting a private property owner's right to keep guns off their property makes me no better than the Democrats you made reference to shows just how little understanding and respect you have for the rights of property owners to administer their property however they see fit.

EXACTLY!!! The delivery guy was in HIS car, not the company's. HE had every right to carry a firearm lawfully IN HIS OWN CAR!!!!! Why are people so content acting as SHEEP???? This should not even be a debate. When one is in his/her own car (one's property) then they have the right to defend themselves. If a CCW carries properly, then no one will know they are, in fact, carrying. Therefore, it is a non issue. Do you ask your guests if they possess items that offend you prior to entering your home? Of course not. If they do possess them then it is on their person. Not your business. If they are close enough to me to be allowed in my home, then I would trust them with a gun (otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place). This makes the argument moot in my reality. However, if an individual states, prior to my arrival, that they would prefer that I leave my firearm secured in my car (I have one acquaintance who has requested this) then I would respect their wish. Generally, though, I carry concealed anytime I am not home and most people understand the choice.