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

(See in situ)


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 ~