20 votes

Judge Andrew Napolitano Explains Open Carry In Public Stores Versus Backyard Parties

From 2010:

"Starbucks is a 'public accommodation, meaning it invites the public to come on its property. And when the public comes on its property, the public doesn't shed any of its constitutional rights. So Starbucks could no more say you've got to keep the gun out there, then it could say you have to keep your political opinion out there."

..."If I'm preaching my devotion to Ron Paul so loudly the people can't order their coffee - THEN Starbucks can stop me."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

From Wikipedia

"Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]
Within the United States, legislation dealing with public accommodations include:
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Americans with Disabilities Act
State-level LGBT protection, such as in Colorado
State-level protections for breastfeeding in public[3]"

I think "US law" as described here violates common law, or "natural law", a term I'm pretty sure the Judge himself has used.

ETA: If someone can dictate what you must or must not allow on your property, then it isn't really your property.

...let it not be said that we did nothing.
-Ron Paul

So what about courtrooms or

So what about courtrooms or an airplanes, aren't they public places? My doctor's office has a sign that says no weapons of any kind is allowed. Are there any distinctions for these places?

It is better to look dumb and not be, than to look smart and not be.

Thank you judge.

Public accommodations...well that's that.

I disagree with the Judge vehemently on this one...

Although, he may be correct (and probably is) that "legally" "public accommodations" cannot curtail your freedom of speech or freedom to carry arms, philosophically it is in direct violation with private property rights.

If it is my property, then I am the ultimate decider on who can come onto my property and what the stipulations for coming onto my property entail. If I say only people with long hair carrying weapons can come onto my property, then any short-haired non-carrying person is violating my property rights by coming onto my property. If you don't like the requirements or don't meet the requirements to come onto my property, then you have the right to go somewhere else.

If Starbucks, Walmart, or any other business wants to invite more crime by outlawing guns on their property that is their decision, not yours, not mine, and no matter what Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court says, property rights override the collectivist argument that some how enabling trade on your property turns it from private property into some sort of "public accommodation" where people who don't own the property get to dictate what happens on and with that property.

~ Peace Love Revolution ~

yeah, but from his past works, statements & interviews,

it's clear that he's speaking strictly within the confines of established 'legal'-doctrines, not lawful doctrines, as it stands.

Not: what is just, right, or what he himself personally prefers.

Philosophically he's clear: his position is as same as Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul, as he articulated on the CRA: a private property is private property is private property!

Well, it SHOULD be, IF we actually lived in a nation with people who actually understand natural rights and what actual property ownership means.

The judge knows that factually speaking, as it stands in the bastardized legal bastion that Amerika has become, you don't really 'own' own your property when just because you open your place of biz to 'public' foot traffic, govt terrorists delude that they can dictate a, b, c, to their own citizen-employers, no less.

It's the same nuanced distinction that Rand tried to articulate, when Madcow intentionally ambushed Rand on the night of his primary win, where Rand rightfully assumed from all his past cordial dealings with Madcow (not to mention the fact that he in fact was able to declare his Senate run on her show, mainly due to the good friendly rapport his father had built with Madcow over the years, PRE-oBUSHma days) that as an Oxford-grad, he could actually have a nuanced political discussion on air with her, without her faking 'astonished'-reaction faces and cutting him off and badgering him repeatedly solely for ratings and pretending to be outraged.

Of course, had Rand known that he'd be entering enemy turf, even after staying up all night post-hectic primary win day with series of interviews back to back, he could have bluntly flipped the question back to Madcow: SHOULD a black restauranteur be forced to serve a neo-Nazi who didn't just come to his restaurant to eat, but to make a scene while preaching his racist shiit in front of his other customers?

That would've STF her up good.

Though, truthfully, even with corporatist statist 'laws' banning discrimination, ANYONE can come up with multitudes of legal ways to discriminate against ANYONE, regardless of what the 'law' says.

Ask any bar owner. Like any and all 'laws' that seek to re-direct human behavior, it doesn't work, much like gun-control 'laws.'

Plus, if I were on Madcow's show that night, I would've flipped the question back to her: how her entire adult pedigree stems from the fact that her education had been financed by an institutionally racist organization: the Cecil Rhodes foundation, not to mention her 'blood-money' salary checked dipped in bloods of innocents worldwide: working for GE, a war-WHORE contractor.

Back to the Judge and 2A: from observing his past and present works, it's clear that he philosophically knows, understands and believes that in an ideal world, yes, the private property owner SHOULD have the right to dictate whether his/her customers can be armed or not.

But as it stands today? Not so much.

That said, in many free-er states, they understand such distinctions; as a 'legal-bridge,' in many such states especially west of the Mississippi, stipulate that IF biz owners are gonna ban their customers from being armed, that they post visible signs or in some cases, even accommodate with secure storage.

Yup, be as we all know, we've got WAYS to go in this country on building a generational culture of liberty where almost all Americans truly understand the fundamental concept of what self-ownership, private property rights, and voluntary compacts and social affiliations truly mean.

So r3VOL, do your part and go make MILLIONS of 'liberty babies!'

LOL =)

Get it on suga!


PS. LOL. Yup, I do realize: I went from answering Judge's take on 2A & private property, to Madcow, Rand, then to Marvin Gaye.


The human mind: it's a wonderfully weird thingy xD

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

This interview is 3 years old.

Any way to get a clarification of his views? I'll send him something on my facespace...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

not sure,

but he has general contact information at his FauxNews site and I believe he's pretty active on Twitter. though, suppose that could've been just during the RP2012 cycle.

try those two. if not, you can spend hrs searching youtube; he's addressed this issue before within speeches & interviews; now finding it in the YT-headlines, apropos of this topical discussion? that's wholly another matter. lol.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Please do more features on the open carry movement and debate.

Now we hear the debate is supposed to be registration again - this will become a new way for police to harass open-carriers and detain them and annoy them and steal their video recorders.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

'inalienable' means no one can put a lien against a right.

Not a government, not any other person.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Also... Are the amendments

Also... Are the amendments actually described as "inalienable rights"? I believe those are just life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but clearly even our founders felt it was justified to deny those rights in order to preserve those rights for yourself or another.

But you are alienating their

But you are alienating their right to private property first. They have a right to kick you off their private property if you do not follow whatever rules they want to set. In most states that means they can kill you if you do not comply. Their right to private property trumps your right to free speech because you are the one entering their private property against their will.

Not against their will.

Store owners invite people to come in. Hence the words 'Public Accommodation.'

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

I think this also opens the

I think this also opens the door to a major problem of private establishments not having freedom to run their business the way they want. If a "public place" is treated differently even though it's private property, then you get laws like bars not being allowed to let people smoke (major killer of business around here a couple years back) and arbitrary restrictions supposedly in the benefit of "the public". But the public is totally choosing to be there, so why should the owner not be able to run things the way he sees fit as long as he doesn't force anyone to be there or try to take their rights away somewhere else?

No, they invite people who

No, they invite people who follow the rules to come in.

I'm having a hard time with the reasoning too

If I own the property, and I'm having a party as in one of the examples they discussed, I can invite and exclude anyone I want. That's freedom of association. Why would the fact that I want to sell coffee on my property suddenly mean that my freedom of association is gone? It's private property, not a public place, and nobody is forced be on my property, and more importantly nobody has a right to be on my property. Why would my wanting to sell coffee suddenly mean that anyone who wants to be on my property has that right?

I think the reasoning is that as private property they can ask

for you to leave, but as a public accommodation they can't ask you to disarm.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

but why is it a "public accommodation"?

Why does me wanting to sell coffee from my own property suddenly make my property a "public accommodation" and means my right to freedom of association goes out the window? I can give coffee for free to those I want to give it to, and exclude anyone I want to exclude including keeping them off my property entirely; but if I sell the coffee instead of giving it away everything changes?

Maybe he's just talking about anti-discrimination laws, which do say that if I want to sell the coffee I have to agree to give up the right to decide who can be on my property. But then he applies it to guns, and many businesses do ban guns and laws generally seem to back them up on that. So I'm confused about what exactly he's saying.

But isn't the right to property the basis for

All other rights? Unless I'm convinced otherwise, I'm gonna have to disagree with the Judge on this.

"If it is my property, then I am the ultimate decider on who can come onto my property and what the stipulations for coming onto my property entail."

I think Matt has it right here.

...let it not be said that we did nothing.
-Ron Paul

First I've heard the "public accommodation"

Argument. Everything I've ever heard or read framed it as a private property issue, as in it is the owner's right to ban anything they don't want on their property.


...let it not be said that we did nothing.
-Ron Paul

Bump for the Judge!...

...for his always consistent, articulate, and always informing knowledge of the Law.

Constitutional AND Natural Law.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

Look at his eyes...

when he finishes a sentence.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

right you are...

on every point you made:
promoting Constitutional AND Natural law

What I wouldn't give to see his Candidacy and Voice in the 2016 primaries. (sigh)