Sugarhouse Casino will continue to Ban Firearms despite change in law

[rsklar]

Sugarhouse casino plans to violate state law and continue ban on firearms despite law change http://po.st/Mauafb @WinAtSugarHouse

[Kurt_D]

As a point of discussion, while the Gaming Control Board cannot regulate the carrying of firearms at casinos, as a state agency, can't the casino itself, being private property, prohibit them on their premises - just as any other business could on their private property? Under these conditions, would it be violating state law if they did so?

The discussion about carrying at PennDOT drivers license centers comes to mind - the question that some are state-run offices and some are operated under contract. While this is a slightly different situation, since drivers centers are run as a service of the state, casinos are not.

I'm happy that Shira Goodman got alarmed over the change in state law resulting in the control board's, revamping of their regs. She needs a little "alarming" - the silly twit - maybe it'll raise her cholesterol level a few points.

I'm not happy that Sugarhouse has decided to take that route, though - maybe they could be sued if someone were to be mugged and robbed on their premises because of their decision (wishful thinking).

[knight0334]

Sugarhouse casino plans to violate state law and continue ban on firearms despite law change http://po.st/Mauafb @WinAtSugarHouse

The privately owned casino is still free to ban guns and it isn't a violation of law.

The violation was that the Gaming Commission required casinos to post their properties as a part of their gaming licensing terms. ...which then forced the trespass issue.

[QuackXP]

The privately owned casino is still free to ban guns and it isn't a violation of law.

The violation was that the Gaming Commission required casinos to post their properties as a part of their gaming licensing terms. ...which then forced the trespass issue.

Knight and his new avatar (I wonder if it has anything to do with his new admin duties) beat me to it.

The law only changed the fact that the gaming board required casinos to ban firearms. They are still a private business and they can make just about any rule they want.

[rsklar]

I think, although not fully discussed or challenged, that a place that is open to the public cannot arbitrarily discriminate like a private homeowner or the like.

I think there is a concern that if, for example, a grocery store could strip you of your 2nd amendment rights as a condition of entry, what other rights can they violate. We know they cannot violate Free Speech, they cannot discriminate against racial classes or subject everyone to illegal searches. How than can they choose and select which rights to violate.

I also ask this question, If you are stripped of your 2nd amendment rights, does that facility then take on the additional legal burden of guaranteeing your safety?

The argument of anti-gun folks have been that access to secured areas like courts, airports and others where people are screened and additional security is present allows for a Safe Environment thus people do not need to have their firearms. But if that level of security is not provided does the entity assume additional responsibility.

We hear about CVS Pharmacists getting fired for defending themselves, but if a customer does the same its OK. Where are the additional protections for the employee v. customer?

[Orlov556]

I believe that since the casino is private property, they are within their rights to ban firearms, since they are the property owner. The decision by the AG and GCB simply states that that the GCB cannot regulate the lawful possession of firearms. I believe it was included in the AG letter that the casino has the authority, as a private entity, to decide if firearms should be allowed or not.

There was a bunch of horn tooting a while ago on another site on what a big win this was, when reality is it wasn't much of a win at all. I fully expect the rest of the casinos to follow suit with sugarhouse, if they haven't already.

ETA: i need to get quick at posting replies.

[knight0334]

I think, although not fully discussed or challenged, that a place that is open to the public cannot arbitrarily discriminate like a private homeowner or the like.

I think there is a concern that if, for example, a grocery store could strip you of your 2nd amendment rights as a condition of entry, what other rights can they violate. We know they cannot violate Free Speech, they cannot discriminate against racial classes or subject everyone to illegal searches. How than can they choose and select which rights to violate.

I also ask this question, If you are stripped of your 2nd amendment rights, does that facility then take on the additional legal burden of guaranteeing your safety?

The argument of anti-gun folks have been that access to secured areas like courts, airports and others where people are screened and additional security is present allows for a Safe Environment thus people do not need to have their firearms. But if that level of security is not provided does the entity assume additional responsibility.

We hear about CVS Pharmacists getting fired for defending themselves, but if a customer does the same its OK. Where are the additional protections for the employee v. customer?

They can, except for the protected classes - handicapped, gender, race, religion, etc.

There are only two classes of property - public and private. Private property is still private property even if they open it to the public.

To be on anyone else's private property you need either implied or explicit consent. A business type situation would be implied consent - you are there to do business under the terms that the establishment has made. ...nothing more, nothing less.

[QuackXP]

We know they cannot violate Free Speech

Yes they can. If a business does not like what you are saying they can ask you to leave.

subject everyone to illegal searches

While they cannot force you to let them search you. A search can be a condition of entry. Its your choice to let them search your or leave.

They can, except for the protected classes - handicapped, gender, race, religion, etc.

There are only two classes of property - public and private. Private property is still private property even if they open it to the public.

To be on anyone else's private property you need either implied or explicit consent. A business type situation would be implied consent - you are there to do business under the terms that the establishment has made. ...nothing more, nothing less.

Does a business actually commit a crime by discriminating against a protected class or does it only open them up to a civil lawsuit?

[Emptymag]

Oh. I thought there was something to see here.


Moving on...

[knight0334]

Yes they can. If a business does not like what you are saying they can ask you to leave.



While they cannot force you to let them search you. A search can be a condition of entry. Its your choice to let them search your or leave.



Does a business actuially commit a crime by discriminating against a protected class or does it only open them up to a cival lawsuit?

I honestly don't know if there is a criminal charge for it, but it certainly opens up a civil suit.