Public accommodations prohibiting licensed concealed carry

[Adam-12]

The mall in question is bought out by, say, Ted Nugent. Ted doesn't much like the sign prohibiting licensed concealed carry, so he replaces it with a sign that states that un-licensed concealed carry is permitted. Does that make un-licensed concealed carry legal in Ted's shopping mall, since after all, it is "private property?"

Back atcha: if you have a guest in your house who owns a firearm and has no license, is it legal for him to go around inside your house with a firearm concealed on his person on your say-so? IANAL, but I believe the answer in PA is yes.

Would it be legal today in the restaurant of a private club, or a restaurant that's open to the public? Probably not, but I don't know what we're supposed to conclude from that. Any such legal restriction is a gross violation of private property rights.

[tl_3237]

I think you have that backward. The government has no right to restrain trade in that fashion: the Constitution grants it no such authority. If the rulers are going to think they have those kind of powers, I can't see it ending well: maybe we should start hiding cannonball and powder at Lexington and Concord.

If licensure is a government requirement for a business to operate isn't that seeking government permission?

Isn't a required zoning prior to opening a business a need for government permission before operating?

Protection of the public good IS the function of government and hence it does indeed have authority to control business in a reasonable manner before allowing it to serve the body public. The body public is not a business asset but a government protected asset that the business seeks to derive benefit from.

[Adam-12]

If licensure is a government requirement for a business to operate isn't that seeking government permission?

Sure--and any government that imposes such a requirement is denying basic property rights to its citizens, and they should change or abolish it.

[tl_3237]

Sure--and any government that imposes such a requirement is denying basic property rights to its citizens, and they should change or abolish it.

and unfettered private property 'rights' leads to anarchy.

[Ed in PA]

Now, the only problem I have with this "private property" stuff is if taxpayer money is used for something, its no longer private property in my eyes. They should merely request that you not carry but not restrict your right to carry.

So, with the Allegheny County RAD tax was used to fund part of the stadiums in Pittsburgh. Also, state funds were used. Therefore, its not private property. If they (the sports teams, or SEA) wants to restrict what you can do there they should pay for it themselves.

I feel the same way about businesses getting tax breaks for bringing a facillity into an area. As tax breaks to me are a form of basically getting free taxpayer money.

[alb]

Back atcha: if you have a guest in your house who owns a firearm and has no license, is it legal for him to go around inside your house with a firearm concealed on his person on your say-so? IANAL, but I believe the answer in PA is yes.

Would it be legal today in the restaurant of a private club, or a restaurant that's open to the public? Probably not, but I don't know what we're supposed to conclude from that. Any such legal restriction is a gross violation of private property rights.

Adam-12,

Can you say "Plaxico Burress" 3 times fast? Granted, his incident occurred in New York, not PA. However, he was carrying a concealed firearm without a license in a privately owned nightclub with the expressed consent of the owner. That fact isn't likely to make his sentence any lighter. It also isn't likely to make it any easier for the nightclub to retain it's license.

In the scenario that I gave you, it most likely wouldn't make any difference if Joey were in Ted's house rather than Ted's shopping mall, since the statute says you can only carry concealed without a license on your own property or your own fixed place of business. But if it occurred in Ted's house, Ted would be within his rights to ask Joey to leave, even if Joey were licensed.

As to whether or not it would be legal for Joey to carry concealed without a license in Ted's mall if Ted hired Joey as an undercover security guard, the issue then becomes whether or not Joey's being an employee of Ted means that Ted's mall then becomes Joey's fixed place of business and not simply his fixed place of employment.

The point is that in none of these discussions do Ted's property rights even enter into the discussion.

As tl_3237 pointed out, Ted has no inherent right to operate a business as a public accommodation. He has to apply for a license from the state, and he can then assume the role of a public accommodation, with the permission of the state, and ultimately the public to which the state answers.

While you're pondering all of this, consider the following question also: Does a public accommodation have the right to ban women from wearing burkas on the premises? In several countries in Europe, the answer is apparently 'yes'. What about in the U.S.?

Recently it was reported that Melanie Haim, the woman who wore her Glock to her daughter's soccer game, also wore it to her local Walmart. At one point, the managent of the Walmart asked her to leave. She told them to go to hell, and they backed off. It would have been interesting and instructive to see what would have happened if Walmart had pressed the issue. Apparently she wasn't creating a disturbance or interfering in any way with Walmart's business, since the other customers who saw the gun just assumed she was in law enforcement.

It's just not as simple as, "My shopping mall is my castle!"

Regards,

Al B.

[alb]

Now, the only problem I have with this "private property" stuff is if taxpayer money is used for something, its no longer private property in my eyes. They should merely request that you not carry but not restrict your right to carry.

Ed,

A similar issue was litigated in The N.J. Supreme Court several years ago, when the court determined that as a private club, the Boy Scouts were within their rights to discriminate against gays, but they couldn't then accept public funding if they did so.

Regards,

Al B.

[wa3ra]

The stadium loophole is that the municipality then 'leases' the property to the team or a management company, or simply rents it to them; you are right back to the protected rights of the property holder.

We can't have it both ways, nor should we. If we respect our 2A rights, we need to protect the property owner's 1A and 4A rights.

I don't have access to a PA law library at the moment, but the case law for a private owner restricting the presence of firearms goes back to the 1890s, with a second SCOTCOPA ruling in the 1960s.

[GunLawyer001]

.....
Finally consider that a business owner must seek permission from the state to be allowed to serve the body public - he had no given right to open a business to the public. The state grants him access to that asset provided he operates under many intrusive rules and regulations and assumes liabilities for public safety that far exceed that of a private landowner. As part of that license he accepts the public as he finds it - type As and Bs, introverts and extraverts, quiet and boisterous, aggressive and reserved, kempt and unkempt, young and old, etc. It would be a violation of the public trust to allow a business owner totally unfettered authority to proscribe activities or deny access for reasons that are not reasonably connected to the conduct of that business.

No. That's not reality at all.

Do you have to provide a reason if you choose not to seek employment from certain employers? If someone offers to buy your car, but you don't want to sell to them, are you obliged to provide a good reason? If you throw a party and open it to some but not all of the public, are you legally required to give reasons for those who are not invited? If you have the right to exclude people and activities from your life, why should a business owner have to grab his ankles and take whatever comes?

A free society allows people to choose who they want to form contracts with, who they want to allow to use their property. If the mall can be sued because they failed to control a mob that trampled a customer, or failed to stop a crazed gunman, then simple fairness requires that we allow them to control their own property as they see fit. It should be legal to exclude anyone wearing shorts or jeans, anyone with facial piercings or spiked hair, or anyone wearing a suit and tie, whatever YOU as the business owner would like to exclude or include in your business.

The government has restricted these choices by protecting certain "special" groups, so the mall can't post a "no blacks" or "no Jews" or "no gimps" sign, but that in no way extends the rights of everyone else in the universe. What about the rights of the shoeless and shirtless?

The real estate holding company that owns the mall is not a government entity. The more you try to get the big bully government to force private actors to give you what you want, the more you legitimize Big Brother and the whining culture of "me first, screw you". If government can force the mall to allow guns, then government can force you to let your neighbor's kids play in your yard, since you only are allowed to live there by the grace of the Use & Occupancy certificate issued by your L&I department.

[Adam-12]

and unfettered private property 'rights' leads to anarchy.

I don't know what you mean by "unfettered": the mall owner has NO RIGHT AT ALL to rape, murder, rob, assault, kidnap or otherwise initiate force on his property. Nobody has suggested he should have such "rights."