So I'm from England, and you ALL know the state of the socialist country I live in. Wasn't it Americans who coined the phrase 'Nanny State' in regards to the current UK politics?

Regardless, coming from a heavily restricted country, with citizens blind to the socialist practices going on, in fact, I was born before the law changed and I am actually 'a subject of the queen of Great Britain' and not a pure 'citizen' then I would like to reiterate a point that some people in this discussion seem to be missing:
A right not exercised is a right lost.

Speaking of someone with first hand experience in a country that is continually taking away the rights of its people, I think this first and foremost needs to be considered.

I fully support CCW as well as open carry where allowed.

We also need to be aware that the police are there to 'uphold the law' and not make up their own, like they did with the illegal detainment.

However, it comes as no surprise that the above happened in California.

If you don't agree with what those guys did, then fine, I'm happy to support your right to a differing viewpoint. Hell, I'm happy to fight for your right to a differing viewpoint.

However, in the case of laws, rights and the following thereof, I am a staunch supporter of exercising and retaining your rights.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on anyone in particular, If you agree or disagree with what happened in the video then fine, but lets remember, I have personal experience of rights being taken away (Most notably Handguns in 1994) and let me tell you, you do not want America ending up like the UK.

The best way to retain your freedom is to exercise that freedom.

 

50 years is WAY too long.
In the UK Handguns were banned in 1994, already people who have handguns legally (olympic shooting etc) are looked upon unfavourably by fellow shooters and I can't count how many times I've been asked 'What do you need one of those for' by target shooters when they see my AR.

Non shooters are often horrified when they find out I have a firearms licence.

So shorten your 50 years to 15 and you'd be about spot on.

 

I don't think you can legally take guns into or near banks, federal buildings, or schools without being LE.

 

You can carry into banks in TX. If you are CHL.
No go on Fed buildings, Courts, Schools though.

 

Ah. My first long-winded and overly technical legal post in quite a while. I'm beginning to spread my wings!

I am a very strong 2nd Amendment supporter and own several guns.

But I think that one point in this is being missed here - the Constitution does not apply to actions taken by private citizens. Rather, it only applies to state action.

Thus, the coffee shop's - or any other private place's - real answer to this situation was to not allow anyone with a gun to enter their establishment - open carry or not, loaded or not. It is kind of like the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs that were all over the place in the 1970s. They should post a sign that says "no firearms allowed on the premises" and then exclude those who violate the policy. Once those who violate the policy refuse to leave they are trespassing and the police can be called to arrest and remove them - not for open gun possession, but for trespassing. That is both lawful and constitutional.

Now before someone makes the "no blacks allowed" analogy, let me explain the other side of the coin regarding matters of racial discrimination. The Constitution does not prevent a private citizen from discriminating based on race - it only prevents the government from doing so. But there are statutes in all states that prevent racial discrimination by businesses. These laws are separate and distinct from the Constitution and do apply to private people, businesses, etc. As far as I know, unlike laws that protect distrimination based on race, there are no California state statutes that protect open gun carriers from discrimination by private citizens on private property based on their status as gun carriers.

The government cannot pass a law to take away your 2nd Amendment rights. But a private citizen, operating without excessive governmental ties or entanglement, can violate your constitutional rights all they wish because the Bill of Rights only applies to actions taken by the state.

Once the gun carriers were out on public property, however, they could no longer be detained.

 

I don't see where that pertains to this situation. The owner of the coffee shop did not ask them to leave, nor was he the one that called the police. They were not trespassing.

An uninformed citizen saw peaceful men drinking coffee with firearms on their hips and called the police. The police show up and begin to harass the legal citizens who hadn't broken a single law, nor is there probable cause to believe they were committing a crime.

The police weren't there to keep the streets safe from criminals--they were there to intimidate those patriots from exercising their rights and make them look like criminals in front of their fellow citizens. That is certainly not the America I know and love.

 

I must have been confused on the facts.

I thought that the coffee shop called the cops.

My point was that if the coffee shop doesn't want men with guns in their place of business, as a private citizen they can do that - without having to get the police involved.

Trust me brother, we are on the same side.

 

Good to hear .

Speaking of property rights...TN recently passed a law to allow permit holders to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol (you still cannot be under the influence while carrying). Next local restaurateur Randy Rayburn files a lawsuit against the law (the judge said it was unconstitutionally vague and voided it...we'll fix that this session).

Anyhow, this Rayburn character said that the law violated his property rights by allowing people to carry at his restaurant. LOL. Here's the facts:

OLD LAW: State prohibits him from allowing people to carry on his property.

NEW LAW: He can CHOOSE whether to allow people to carry on his property.

Somehow he sees the new law as an invasion of his property rights...