Wow ! Judge Andrew Napolitano comments on Open Carry on Fox

[son of the revolution]

I respect the hell out of Judge Napolitano and his insights and examinations and commetaries on American Law and the Constitution. He strikes me as one of the very few Federal Judges that "get it ".

He just had a discussion with the 3pm host on Fox about the "Open Carry Controversy"

The host asked him if Starbucks or other public business couldnt just require their customers to leave thier firearms outside, as a condition of entering.

The Judge said........................................NO Something about the business is a " public accomodation " or something like that , and as such they were required to not interfere with a citizen exercising a "fundamental right , as ruled on in Heller ". He said they could no more limit someone legally and lawfully carrying a gun in the business then they could ask someone to leave that was using their fundamental right to free speech to speak the virtues of Ron Paul to anyone. He said people could only be asked to leave if the activities were interfering with the business owner conducting business , such as creating a disturbance by waving the gun around or in the other example if the person was speaking about Ron Paul so loud that it interfered with the ability of people to conduct their transactions.

Needless to say, I was STUNNED to hear Judge Napalitano say that , as it turns everything we always understood about business owners private property rights on its head!

I dont know if he was speaking about a " perfect world " scenario or not. He sure seemed pretty damn vociferous to me that his interpretation was the way it is NOW PERIOD.

If that turns out to be accurate thats huge

Who wants to be the first one to test the waters ?

If anyone can find the Youtube of todays 3PM Fox National broadcast of Judge Napalitano discussing this by all means post it here

[leeam]

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I think he's wrong... at least I hope he is. While I fully support people's right to carry a firearm, I see this statement as infringing on property rights. If I want to ban people who wear PETA shirts on my property/in my store, then I should damn well be able to.

Of course there are the whole anti-discrimination laws where you can't discriminate against protected classes. Are people exercising fundamental rights basically considered protected classes?

However, he does say a business owner can ask the OCer to leave if it's interferring with business, so all he has to say is it makes other customers uncomfortable and less likely to shop there. I wonder how long it will be until the first OCer gets sued for lost income based on the idea that people leave the store when seeing an OCer.

[ungawa]

I think he's wrong on this one point, but I appreciate his spirit and passion. That thing on his head is a different thread entirely...

[jahwarrior72]

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I think he's wrong... at least I hope he is. While I fully support people's right to carry a firearm, I see this statement as infringing on property rights. If I want to ban people who wear PETA shirts on my property/in my store, then I should damn well be able to.

Of course there are the whole anti-discrimination laws where you can't discriminate against protected classes. Are people exercising fundamental rights basically considered protected classes?

However, he does say a business owner can ask the OCer to leave if it's interferring with business, so all he has to say is it makes other customers uncomfortable and less likely to shop there. I wonder how long it will be until the first OCer gets sued for lost income based on the idea that people leave the store when seeing an OCer.

no, people who OC aren't a protected class. people are born a certain way, whether it's a color or sexuality. that doesn't change for convenience's sake. you can always disarm by choice, i can't be white temporarily.

i also don't agree with the Judge, however much i might like what he says. if i ran a business, i wouldn't want Birkenstock slingers and Feminazi vegans in my store, and i'll be damned if a judge says i have to let them in and stink up my place. it's my property; i have the right to tell someone to get out, for any reason i want, no matter how capricious it might be.

[ungawa]

no, people who OC aren't a protected class. people are born a certain way, whether it's a color or sexuality. that doesn't change for convenience's sake. you can always disarm by choice, i can't be white temporarily.

Old people and handicap are not all born that way. And you could be Muslim temporarily.

[YosemiteSam]

I respect the hell out of Judge Napolitano and his insights and examinations and commetaries on American Law and the Constitution. He strikes me as one of the very few Federal Judges that "get it ".

He just had a discussion with the 3pm host on Fox about the "Open Carry Controversy"

The host asked him if Starbucks or other public business couldnt just require their customers to leave thier firearms outside, as a condition of entering.

The Judge said........................................NO Something about the business is a " public accomodation " or something like that , and as such they were required to not interfere with a citizen exercising a "fundamental right , as ruled on in Heller ". He said they could no more limit someone legally and lawfully carrying a gun in the business then they could ask someone to leave that was using their fundamental right to free speech to speak the virtues of Ron Paul to anyone. He said people could only be asked to leave if the activities were interfering with the business owner conducting business , such as creating a disturbance by waving the gun around or in the other example if the person was speaking about Ron Paul so loud that it interfered with the ability of people to conduct their transactions.

Needless to say, I was STUNNED to hear Judge Napalitano say that , as it turns everything we always understood about business owners private property rights on its head!

I dont know if he was speaking about a " perfect world " scenario or not. He sure seemed pretty damn vociferous to me that his interpretation was the way it is NOW PERIOD.

If that turns out to be accurate thats huge

Who wants to be the first one to test the waters ?

If anyone can find the Youtube of todays 3PM Fox National broadcast of Judge Napalitano discussing this by all means post it here

He was a New Jersey Superior Court Judge.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano Andrew P. Napolitano joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in January 1998 and currently serves as the senior judicial analyst. He provides legal analysis on both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN). He is also a fill in co-host for FOX & Friends regularly and co-hosts FOX News Radio's Brian and The Judge show daily.

Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. While on the bench from 1987 to 1995, Judge Napolitano tried more than 150 jury trials and sat in all parts of the Superior Court—criminal, civil, equity and family. He has handled thousands of sentencings, motions, hearings and divorces. For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. Judge Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year.

Judge Napolitano has written three books: Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws; a New York Times bestseller, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land; and A Nation of Sheep. His writings have also been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The New York Sun, The Baltimore Sun, The (New London) Day, The Seton Hall Law Review, The New Jersey Law Journal and The Newark Star-Ledger. He lectures nationally on the constitution and human freedom.

Judge Napolitano received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1972, and received his Juris Doctor from University of Notre Dame in 1975.

[andrewjs18]

I honestly cannot believe Fox News allows this FREEDOM lover to be on their neo-con station. He is someone to look up to, for sure.

[PocketProtector]

He was on Beck today urging America to cut off the Gov't addiction.....Cash.... and repeal the income tax.....You go Judge !!!!!

[JayBell]

As much as i like him, hes very wrong in this case.

my private property rights clearly over rule your carry rights, speech rights, etc, and thats exactly as it should be.

publicly accessible private property does not mean public property, and a private business is private property.

i can set the rules and conditions for the USE of my publicly accessible private property, provided i dont discriminate against a protected class.

i can say no guns, no umbrellas, no hats, no shirts/shoes no service, i can prevent you from solicitation, proselytizing, politicking, wearing plaid suits or wearing clown shoes if i want. And i can back it up with defiant tresspas if you dont leave when i say.

your option is to not support the business at all... but you cant force someone to allow you to do things the owner of the publicly accessible private property does not want done on his property.

its as simple as that, regardless of what this fella is saying.

[MDJschool]

The host asked him if Starbucks or other public business couldnt just require their customers to leave thier firearms outside, as a condition of entering.

I don't know whether it was the word of the host or son of the revolution, but I think to use the word 'customer' is interesting. Perhaps the contract changes the nature of the interaction. When you buy a food product at a restaurant, are you buying just a good or a good and service (i.e some sort of use of the facilities?) If the purchase is not only of a good but a service, then perhaps the property owner loses a certain ability to kick people out at will on penalty of trespass. Maybe he still has that power but the breach of contract still lies, I'm not entirely certain without reading more law and history.

An ex-owner can't tell an owner to leave (having changed the owner by contract). An owner can't obstruct those on right of way or easement. An owner (as we colloquially understand it) doesn't have some arbitrary right to tell those who own and are mining the subsurface to leave. A landlord can't tell a tenant leave on some whim...can't post a sign on his door...etc. So if indeed there is a contract to good and service, and the OCer had not been told to leave before making the contract, I think it would be that the owner had given up some of his rights by way of contract.

I can, however, agree to the 'ultimate owner's rights' otherwise.

Also, I'm not certain why JayBell would say he has a supreme right of property and then say protected classes somehow are an allowable infringement without considering the possibility of the contract being made (which is also an operation of law).