So... who has lost a favorite watering hole due to new 'no guns' sign?

[strider12]

I might be crazy, but I choose where I eat based on what the restaurant/bar thinks it food should taste like.

That's crazy talk!!! So you don't know the satisfaction of walking up to an employee (total stranger) and saying, **** you, because of that sign you won't get my money anymore?

Dude, it makes you feel like a real man. Try it some time.

/sarcasm

 

[Sneakypete]

Cheeky on PIB, they posted the no firearm sign a couple yrs ago and we haven't been there since. We stopped by there 2 to 3 times a week

 

[RamRoddoc]

Ahh the irony.

First off, private property just means privately owned. And that can mean publicly traded ownership in the form of stocks or simply owned by one, or a few people.

Public property is owned by the government...which is SUPPOSEDLY owned by the public(we the people), but in reality is not.

So private property rights trump constitutional rights. Got it. You can neither pray, nor speak, nor carry a gun on private property, without the owners consent(either active or passive). But if the owner of that private property does or says anything that certain elements of society(Ahhh..ahhh...lib****!...'scuse me) deem unacceptable in ANY way, then private property rights are no protection. Look at all the **** they give Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, et al. Oh and private property can be snatched away for any reason under the pretext of the public good under eminent domain.

But here's the great irony:

Public property, which IS owned and managed by the government who is SUPPOSEDLY limited and guided by the constitution has, in most places, standing gun bans in direct violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear without infringement. I'd say a ban from possessing is an infringement. The U S Corps of Engineers OWNS most of the lakes and millions of acres in the US. But in contravention of the constitution, the flat out ban the carry of both guns and ammunition with the only exceptions being very specific rifles and shotguns during very limited hunting seasons. How, you might ask can they get away with wiping their asses with the constitution? Ask a lawyer. It was lawyers who twisted the law into the mess we have before us.

And another irony that always itches like poison ivy:

The 10th amendment to the constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 2nd amendment states "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." By specifically addressing the issue of arms, the constitution "delegates to the United States" the power. This, by default, prohibits the power to regulate weapons from the states. And yet, here we are, arguing over which infringement is the one we have to follow now.

And, yes, I have a Georgia issues weapons carry license(which is an infringement). And, no, I will not carry where it is "illegal" under the laws of the state of Georgia(another infringement). Although I believe constitutional carry(un-documented, un-registered, Un-BoSed and un-questioned) is the true and legal right to keep and bear, I'm not going to jail to lose an argument with a bunch of lawyers in front of a judge(Ex-lawyer) over a law written and agreed on by a bunch of politicians(A whole different batch of ex-lawyers) all of whom are perfectly sure that they know the law, the constitution and the best thing for all parties concerned, in spite of the glaring errors of the "benign" slavery" they work so hard to keep us all in and keep us all blind to.

Let's have no more talk of this seditious discussion. Get back in line, head and eyes to front, curb your tongue and most importantly OBEY! Thankfully there is the commerce clause to nullify many of your points.....

Links, links, links, recht, links......



Once you start liberating the people, just the least tiny bit.....

Today the taxing power, rather than chattel slavery, is the instrument by which the parasitical element of the population subsists. And that element, which includes politicians, panics at the slightest reduction in the state's power to plunder. Once you start liberating taxpayers, even a little tiny bit, nobody knows where it may end. —Joseph Sobran

 

[chucklenut]

When most all responsible gun owners agree that it is not prudent to carry while drinking, I don't understand while someone would punish them selves by removing something they like from their life.

Not like it was some store or food joint where it would be an inconvenience to disarm and rearm.

I understand the sentiment most if the time and have told buisness owners that I would not be back because if this policy, but I don't have a problem with a bar taking this postion.
I've worked bars before and I know that some, usually good people turn into an "instant asshole-just add alcohol"

The bar owner would assume a large liability if he allowed guns in the bar.

how would they assume liability for the actions taken on by a patron?

only way i could see it is if the establishment encouraged the use of firearms while drinking

if there was no mention at all then wouldnt the normal laws apply? throwing up a sign likewise doesnt absolve you from liability either necessarily.

 

[chucklenut]

Ahh the irony.

First off, private property just means privately owned. And that can mean publicly traded ownership in the form of stocks or simply owned by one, or a few people.

Public property is owned by the government...which is SUPPOSEDLY owned by the public(we the people), but in reality is not.

So private property rights trump constitutional rights. Got it. You can neither pray, nor speak, nor carry a gun on private property, without the owners consent(either active or passive). But if the owner of that private property does or says anything that certain elements of society(Ahhh..ahhh...lib****!...'scuse me) deem unacceptable in ANY way, then private property rights are no protection. Look at all the **** they give Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, et al. Oh and private property can be snatched away for any reason under the pretext of the public good under eminent domain.

But here's the great irony:

Public property, which IS owned and managed by the government who is SUPPOSEDLY limited and guided by the constitution has, in most places, standing gun bans in direct violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear without infringement. I'd say a ban from possessing is an infringement. The U S Corps of Engineers OWNS most of the lakes and millions of acres in the US. But in contravention of the constitution, the flat out ban the carry of both guns and ammunition with the only exceptions being very specific rifles and shotguns during very limited hunting seasons. How, you might ask can they get away with wiping their asses with the constitution? Ask a lawyer. It was lawyers who twisted the law into the mess we have before us.

And another irony that always itches like poison ivy:

The 10th amendment to the constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 2nd amendment states "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." By specifically addressing the issue of arms, the constitution "delegates to the United States" the power. This, by default, prohibits the power to regulate weapons from the states. And yet, here we are, arguing over which infringement is the one we have to follow now.

And, yes, I have a Georgia issues weapons carry license(which is an infringement). And, no, I will not carry where it is "illegal" under the laws of the state of Georgia(another infringement). Although I believe constitutional carry(un-documented, un-registered, Un-BoSed and un-questioned) is the true and legal right to keep and bear, I'm not going to jail to lose an argument with a bunch of lawyers in front of a judge(Ex-lawyer) over a law written and agreed on by a bunch of politicians(A whole different batch of ex-lawyers) all of whom are perfectly sure that they know the law, the constitution and the best thing for all parties concerned, in spite of the glaring errors of the "benign" slavery" they work so hard to keep us all in and keep us all blind to.

damn buddy i like the way you think!

 

[Ken Ford]

Even if he wins any law suit that may arise. He still has to pay big money to defend it.

 

[patricio2626]

That's crazy talk!!! So you don't know the satisfaction of walking up to an employee (total stranger) and saying, **** you, because of that sign you won't get my money anymore?
Dude, it makes you feel like a real man. Try it some time./sarcasm

Right, because that's exactly how those of us who choose not to patronize that business act, right?

 

[strider12]

Right, because that's exactly how those of us who choose not to patronize that business act, right?

No.

 

[alnen]

It's already illegal to drink in a bar when carrying a firearm in Georgia; the owner just added insult by alienating his customers who eat there and don't drink alcohol because they are carrying.

Incorrect.

 

[chucklenut]

Even if he wins any law suit that may arise. He still has to pay big money to defend it.

true but that can happen with any law suit. to me putting up a sign goes beyond trying to mitigate risk into the realm of nozzle