Lowes Home Improvement Stores and their anti gun policies - Page 20
Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 228

Thread: Lowes Home Improvement Stores and their anti gun policies

  1. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Perhaps you might think about it in this way. In order to have constitutional or civil rights on my property, you must first be required to have a right to be there. And you don't. Where in the constitution or civil rights act are you given the right to enter private property. And what are the limits? Can you enter my land? Can you enter my home? Can you do so armed? At what point does the castle doctrine apply? No sir, you have no right to enter any private property without approval of the owner or his charges. So you can't get to the second amendment argument until you first have the right to be there.
    As soon as the the property is opened to the public the owner has given everyone his approval to be there. We are not talking about entering your home or trespassing on any private property. We ALL have a right to walk into Burger King, Walmart, Pizza Hut, etc. etc. and business owners do NOT have the right to remove our God given right to defend ourselves.
    All The Best
    Gunz

  2.   
  3. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    Feel free. My viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, but I am fighting for it. I stop short of calling them "idiots", however. They have worked hard to make a go of their businesses.
    My "idiot" remark was aimed at posting gun buster signs. Of course the business owner is the drive behind our economy and we have to get Obama out of their way.
    All The Best
    Gunz

  4. #193
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Gr8gunz View Post
    I am not a trespasser if your business is open to the public, I'm a customer. I certainly agree with the rest of that statement.
    That's the thing. It's not open to the public. It's open to whom the owner says can come in. As long as they aren't refusing service for to anyone classified in the civil rights act of 1964. Can't refuse entry based on race, color, religion, gender, disability, etc. I CAN refuse anyone with blue sneakers or anyone with a gun or swastika tatoo, etc. They're not protected groups. I can ask anyone to leave for any reason other than what is defined in the CRA of 64. No shirt, no shoes no service? Loud and unruly customers must leave? Drunks not allowed? Refusing to leave after asked is grounds for a criminal complaint for trespass as long as the reason doesn't violate CRA-64. Police will enforce the complaint. If the owner is afraid of guns he is not required to tolerate their presence in his place of business. He can ask you to leave. He can close qand lock the door. May not agree in principal but the will of the gun owner will never be allowed to prevail against a person who is afraid on their own property. This will never be allowed. Even if it were, I'm still kicking the person out. Let them sue.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  5. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    That's the thing. It's not open to the public. It's open to whom the owner says can come in. As long as they aren't refusing service for to anyone classified in the civil rights act of 1964. Can't refuse entry based on race, color, religion, gender, disability, etc. I CAN refuse anyone with blue sneakers or anyone with a gun or swastika tatoo, etc. They're not protected groups. I can ask anyone to leave for any reason other than what is defined in the CRA of 64. No shirt, no shoes no service? Loud and unruly customers must leave? Drunks not allowed? Refusing to leave after asked is grounds for a criminal complaint for trespass as long as the reason doesn't violate CRA-64. Police will enforce the complaint. If the owner is afraid of guns he is not required to tolerate their presence in his place of business. He can ask you to leave. He can close qand lock the door. May not agree in principal but the will of the gun owner will never be allowed to prevail against a person who is afraid on their own property. This will never be allowed. Even if it were, I'm still kicking the person out. Let them sue.
    Once again, I know the law and that the law backs up the business owner when it comes to the gun buster signs. I am making a moral argument here as to the validity/fairness/constitutionality of the law. If you're going to throw the law book or the CRA of 64 on the table we have nothing to discuss. You're right! I agree that business owners have the right to throw all those undesireables you mentioned out on the street. Drunks and shirtless/barefoot and loud unruly people are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Funny how you compare those people to CCW. I DO NOT agree that business owners have the right to refuse my God given, constitutionally protected right to defend myself by forbidding me to carry a firearm. I might even go along with a business owner insisting that I not OC while on his property. We need a CRA of 2012 informing business owners that we are a protected class and their gun buster sign is a violation of my civil rights.

    QUESTION: Why do business owners who claim to support the 2A turn their backs on it by posting gun buster signs?
    All The Best
    Gunz

  6. #195
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Western Kentucky
    Posts
    149
    I have OCed and CCed in the Lowes where I live and they have never said anything to me about it.
    Vietnam Veteran 1966 - 1970 USASA
    Bersa Thunder 9 HC Pro - I've never had a failure of any kind with it.
    Politicians should be limited to 2 terms - One in office and one in prison.

  7. #196
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Gr8gunz View Post
    As soon as the the property is opened to the public the owner has given everyone his approval to be there. We are not talking about entering your home or trespassing on any private property. We ALL have a right to walk into Burger King, Walmart, Pizza Hut, etc. etc. and business owners do NOT have the right to remove our God given right to defend ourselves.
    Please don't respond with these claims. This is complete ignorance of the law. The legal case law is so massive against what you claim that you are not understanding where your rights are drawn. I'm holding a pen. You might dearly want it to be a pencil. But the fact is, it's a pen. Education will set you free. Research the case law and reasoning on judges decisions. To keep making this claim hurts you in future posts. It expounds ignorance and lack of understanding of the law. It shows an inability separate your opinion from the law.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  8. #197
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Gr8gunz View Post
    Once again, I know the law and that the law backs up the business owner when it comes to the gun buster signs. I am making a moral argument here as to the validity/fairness/constitutionality of the law. If you're going to throw the law book or the CRA of 64 on the table we have nothing to discuss. You're right! I agree that business owners have the right to throw all those undesireables you mentioned out on the street. Drunks and shirtless/barefoot and loud unruly people are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Funny how you compare those people to CCW. I DO NOT agree that business owners have the right to refuse my God given, constitutionally protected right to defend myself by forbidding me to carry a firearm. I might even go along with a business owner insisting that I not OC while on his property. We need a CRA of 2012 informing business owners that we are a protected class and their gun buster sign is a violation of my civil rights.

    QUESTION: Why do business owners who claim to support the 2A turn their backs on it by posting gun buster signs?
    I'm merely telling you that the law sidees with a business owner who is afraid of guns. He cannot be made to fear on his own property. he can just close and lock the door. Out ya go sonny.

    The reason for the signs is sometimes is a requirement of your business liability insurance. My general liability policy will not insure my premise, clients or employees against harm from those using a weapon unless I institute a "no weapons" policy in the employee handbook. Without such I cannot get the insurance. I'm in the money business. I'm not in the "rights" business. Don't like it? Take your business or emplyment elsewhere. It's not negotiable.

    Cite the law you're claiming exists. The second amendment is not it. Cite any civil action where a gun owner successfully sued or otherwise endured as a result of being denied service for carrying a gun. A moral argument doesn't feed the bulldog. We're dealing in reality.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Gr8gunz View Post
    ...I DO NOT agree that business owners have the right to refuse my God given, constitutionally protected right to defend myself by forbidding me to carry a firearm. I might even go along with a business owner insisting that I not OC while on his property. We need a CRA of 2012 informing business owners that we are a protected class and their gun buster sign is a violation of my civil rights.
    You have no right on private property to disregard the rules set by the OWNER of said property. Gun buster signs are NOT a violation of your civil rights, as you can go shop at ANY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT that does NOT have those signs. Given that you state you could go along with a property owner saying you can't OC I fail to see how you can't understand the property owner telling you that you can't carry at all.

    If some store owner decided to put up a sign saying "No patrons with crosses around their necks" they would be 100% within their rights to do so. Hell, "No Smoking" signs are exactly the same thing. They are not infringing on any rights as they are not saying you can't wear that cross or smoke anywhere else, they are stating what behavior they wish on THEIR property.
    NRA Life Member

  10. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    I'm merely telling you that the law sidees with a business owner who is afraid of guns. He cannot be made to fear on his own property. he can just close and lock the door. Out ya go sonny.

    The reason for the signs is sometimes is a requirement of your business liability insurance. My general liability policy will not insure my premise, clients or employees against harm from those using a weapon unless I institute a "no weapons" policy in the employee handbook. Without such I cannot get the insurance. I'm in the money business. I'm not in the "rights" business. Don't like it? Take your business or emplyment elsewhere. It's not negotiable.

    Cite the law you're claiming exists. The second amendment is not it. Cite any civil action where a gun owner successfully sued or otherwise endured as a result of being denied service for carrying a gun. A moral argument doesn't feed the bulldog. We're dealing in reality.
    Okay, I'll just dummy up and stop voicing my opinions or moral arguments to existing law. Lordy knows, I want that bulldog fed. Once upon a time in a land far away some politician made laws which were very obviously a part of the reality of the times. All the moral arguments in the world meant the same as they do here, nothing. I think anyone who voiced moral opposition to the reality and was not concerned with the bulldog was summarily shot. I think his name was Adolf or something like that. Anyway, someone else in this thread suggested that I discontinue my ignorant postings as it will deter from my credibility. Since I am so concerned with what people think of me as well as the appetite of the bulldog, I guess I'll just leave in shame. At least it's an improvement over being shot.
    All The Best
    Gunz

  11. #200
    I'll add my 2 cents. 3 Lowes within 20 miles in different directions and have open carried frequently in them all without a problem. Even had a couple of supporting comments from the staff.
    The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast