"Patriotic" SCs

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

In recent years I've seen an uptick in what I'll call "Patriotic" SCs. These are people who ostensibly love America, are well versed in the Constitution and are none too please with the current political establishment. Here are a just a few examples.

Your 2nd Amendment rights don't work here buddy!

There was a minor incident at a <red checkmark> store not long ago where a guy had walked in with an Assault Rifle strapped to his back and went on a long tirade about his "freedoms" and accused the store staff of being "Unamerican" when asked to please go put the gun away.

This is a PRIVATE business, not a PUBLIC place. <Red Checkmark> is NOT the U.S. Government, we're allowed to ban guns from our stores if we want.

This isn't limited to customers either, employees have been fired for carrying guns on the job site. You've got a CCW? Awesome, this is STILL private property and you still have no Constitutional rights here.

Your 1st Amendment rights don't work either

It amazes me how customers think that I have to sit on the phone while they spew all manner of venomous insults at me simply because they have a right to "Free Speech".



I really think this is becoming one of the MOST misunderstood rights in America today. Free Speech means you can go to any public place and say whatever you want. It does NOT shield from you the consequences of said actions. It does NOT mean that no one is allowed to respond to you.

Free speech protections do NOT extend to social media sites, they do NOT extend to private corporations. You call <Red Checkmark> just to rant and rave and insult us? guess what? I can and WILL shut you down. Go ahead, take it up with a lawyer if you want and we'll prove how right I am.

Causing issues because of company policies

Sometimes companies enact policies that seem somewhat Liberal leaning. Without fail, this usually throws a certain group of conservatives into a tizzy leading them to start harassing frontline staff and managers (and sometimes posting the incidents on social media) over a policy that these people have ZERO control over.

Of course this can work in reverse like with the Oregon baker who refused to bake the cake for the gay wedding but either way its wrong. You can speak out against a policy or decision without needing to be a dick and make a huge scene of things.

"I hate Obama" folks

Yes, I get it, you really don't like our current President. Okay, whatever, but realize something. This isn't Thanksgiving dinner with the family, I'm just here to fix your phone bill and tell you 'have a nice day' when I'm done. My personal political beliefs are none of your damn business.

Also, assuming that because I WON'T talk about my politics automatically means I'm a Commie liberal will not get you very far.

Final note: This post wasn't meant to attack conservatives, there are people who take things too far on all sides of the political spectrum and THEY are the ones I am really complaining about here.

[mjr]

These are people who ostensibly love America, are well versed in the Constitution and are none too please with the current political establishment.

This somewhat fits me, but I understand the point you're making. Ranting to you about it, though, won't help me get my phone fixed.

this is STILL private property and you still have no Constitutional rights here.

Not to quibble, but this isn't entirely true. Even within private business, you still have certain Constitutional rights under the law, if I'm not mistaken.

I really think this is becoming one of the MOST misunderstood rights in America today. Free Speech means you can go to any public place and say whatever you want. It does NOT shield from you the consequences of said actions. It does NOT mean that no one is allowed to respond to you.

Exactly. I agree that it is! And it doesn't mean that "you're violating my rights!!" if someone does respond. People don't realize that the 1st Amendment applies to the government, not really private entities.

Although even that Amendment has limits, such as the proverbial example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Causing issues because of company policies

You can speak out against a policy or decision without needing to be a dick and make a huge scene of things.

This is part of the problem. This is also why it irritates me to see groups of people who want others to see things from their perspective be belligerent and denigrating to another group.

"I hate Obama" folks

Also, assuming that because I WON'T talk about my politics automatically means I'm a Commie liberal will not get you very far.

Are you??

Anyway, yeah, I get what you're saying here. I usually don't talk politics with people unless I already know their politics, or I know them pretty well. And I definitely try to avoid talking it at work, unless it's at lunch with a colleague who I'm comfortable discussing politics with.

Heck, I have a very good friend whose politics I don't really even know. I mean, I think I know what his political beliefs are, but we just don't talk about it.

[wolfie]

Free speech means that after the election, you can stand on the streetcorner and say "Our newly-elected President isn't competent to be elected dogcatcher in a one-horse town", and you won't get arrested for it. It does NOT mean that you're immune to the consequences of your actions - i.e. if a Trump/Clinton/Mickey Mouse (with this election, write-in candidates are likely to poll quite well) supporter hears you, you're likely to get your face rearranged.

Private businesses have the right to refuse services to ANYONE so long as it's not because they're a member of a protected class.
"Get out - we don't serve n***ers here" - illegal, since race is a protected class.
"Bringing weapons onto the premises is prohibited" - legal, since it's not the GOVERNMENT telling them they can't have a gun. In some jurisdictions, it's a crime to disobey such a sign.
(in Minnesota, customer is wearing a Green Bay Packers T-shirt) "Get out - we don't serve scum like you - legal, since supporting a particular sports team is not a protected class.

[NecCat]

I HATE that, at my work or another workplace - any where I can't get away politely. There's a cashier at a coffee shop near my house like that (I think I mentioned her on here before), always political rants out of her, and they're always stupid. Her latest 'Trudeau sucks because Siberian Rebels!!!' I'm pretty sure she means Syrian refugees, and also that was pretty old news six months ago, but she was frothing about it Sunday. (Unless we were actually invaded by Russians, but I would have thought I'd heard something by now?)

When someone accosts you in the street or at a family function with this kind of quackery you can tell them to get bent, then they can insult your mother, then you can both fight it out. When you are on either side of a counter, there is no good rule for how to proceed. At least if you are the employee you can eventually tell them to GTFO if they get rude enough, if you are the customer you are stuck just smiling and nodding, which only encourages more of the same the next time you come around, or you could just stop shopping there if the coffee wasn't so damn good.

[gremcint]

so here's a question can I walk into government buildings with a gun on my back? town hall, police station, etc.

[Kheldarson]

so here's a question can I walk into government buildings with a gun on my back? town hall, police station, etc.

Depends on local open carry ordinances and your local laws about government buildings. The typical answer is no, though.

[mjr]

I HATE that, at my work or another workplace - any where I can't get away politely. There's a cashier at a coffee shop near my house like that (I think I mentioned her on here before), always political rants out of her, and they're always stupid. Her latest 'Trudeau sucks because Siberian Rebels!!!' I'm pretty sure she means Syrian refugees, and also that was pretty old news six months ago, but she was frothing about it Sunday. (Unless we were actually invaded by Russians, but I would have thought I'd heard something by now?)

I wonder if, in this case, you actually could speak to the manager about it. I hate to sound like *that* guy, but in this case I think it might be appropriate to politely inform the manager that you're there to get coffee, not a political lecture.

[s_stabeler]

so here's a question can I walk into government buildings with a gun on my back? town hall, police station, etc.

I wouldn't- there's too much chance of people thinking you're planning on shooting the place up.

That's actually one thing I find puzzling about the people who deliberately openly carry in situations where it is controversial at best- is it really a good idea to insist on acting in a way that is consistent with someone about to go on a shooting spree, then be surprised when you are challenged?

[gremcint]

I wouldn't- there's too much chance of people thinking you're planning on shooting the place up.

That's actually one thing I find puzzling about the people who deliberately openly carry in situations where it is controversial at best- is it really a good idea to insist on acting in a way that is consistent with someone about to go on a shooting spree, then be surprised when you are challenged?

wasn't asking if I should, asking if it was allowed.

but Kheldarson most likely answered it at least.

[Stormraven]

Actually, the 'Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater bit isn't a limit to free speech, it's a perfect example of how you have free speech, but aren't protected from the consequences of that speech.

If I go into a crowded theater and yell 'Fire!', I'm free and clear if there really is a fire. I'm warning people. I might be behind the curve, but I'm free and clear.

If I'm calling out to my friend and what comes out sounds to others like 'Fire', I might get investigated, but a little bit of questioning will reveal that I wasn't trying to incite a riot.

It's only if I yell 'Fire!', without a viable cause that I can get in trouble. Hence, my freedom of speech is not limited - I just have to face the consequences of my action.

[Rageaholic]

I have a problem with the freedom from consequences argument, especially when the consequences involve

a. Legal Action

b. Bodily Harm

For a, it's doublespeak. On one hand, you're free to say what you want, but on the other hand, the government will penalize you (via fines or incarceration). Well, if you're going to be punished by the government, there's no free speech.

For b, inflicting bodily harm is illegal (with the exception of self defense) and should not be a consequence of speech.

I'm not even going into other things, such as losing your job over speech outside of work. Though I do agree that free speech is one of the most misunderstood right (zomg, they criticized me, they violated my free speech11!!!)

[TheHuckster]

I have a problem with the freedom from consequences argument, especially when the consequences involve

a. Legal Action

When the actions cause unjustified harm to other people (i.e. yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building maliciously to cause a riot, or slandering/libeling someone) then it can result in legal action. That's far different than the vast majority of good examples of freedom of speech that does not result in legal action.

b. Bodily Harm

Yes, that's called assault. The only time this might be justified is if you're holding a weapon and are using threatening words that crosses the line to warrant self-defense.

[s_stabeler]

Actually, there is a simple way to explain why none of the rights in the constitution are 100% unbreachable. the courts have held that if there is a compelling enough public policy reason for breaching said right- judged under strict scrutiny ( basically, under strict scrutiny, if there is an alternative that doesn't involve breaching said rights, it fails the test.) then any 'inalienable' rights can, in fact, be ignored. As such, shouting fire in a crowded theatre when you don't have a reasonable belief there is a fire can be made illegal since there is a legitimate public policy argument that any words designed to cause a situation where people may well be killed should be restricted ( shouting Fire can easily cause a stampede, where people probably will get crushed to death. However, there is no real value in letting some troll cause said stampede for their own sick amusement.)

Yes, incidentally, any of the rights in the constitution can be overridden by a sufficiently compelling reason. ( which is why I find 2nd amendment arguments about gun control to be ignorant at best. yes, the 2nd amendment said you can own weapons. However, there is a legitimate public policy interest in restricting weapon ownership by people likely to use them to commit crimes(which is why felons can constitutionally be barred from owning guns- their right to bear arms is less important than the governments' right to prevent them shooting other people)

[wolfie]

However, there is a legitimate public policy interest in restricting weapon ownership by people likely to use them to commit crimes(which is why felons can constitutionally be barred from owning guns- their right to bear arms is less important than the governments' right to prevent them shooting other people)

Even there, it's debatable. "Felon" can include someone who, through the use of a computer, defrauded someone a thousand miles away. "Non-felon" can include someone with a long history of misdemeanor violence (e.g. barroom brawls). The law, as it stands, prohibits the first, but not the second, from owning guns. Who would YOU think would be more likely to use a gun in the commission of a crime?

[Tanasi]

The form 4473 that you fill out when buying a firearm from a licensed dealer specifically asks if you've been convicted or plead guilty to domestic violence including misdemeanors. If you answer yes then you're supposed to be denied. The NICS check is "supposed" to also note that, but what I've read lots of LEO departments do not keep the NCIC even moderately up to date.
In my state we do not have the NICS check but the TICS check. It uses both state and federal data bases to conduct purchase checks via dealers. Several years ago every time I purchased the TICS check put me on standby and after standing around for 2 hours I would be approved. I have no criminal record at all, so I inquired about it and it turned out there was an alert that my finger-prints were on file. So the state folks had to find out why and eventually discovered it was for military and carry permits. Eventually they fixed this, but I haven't bought anything from a dealer for several years so I can't really say what would happen today if I tried to purchase.

When I'm out and I see someone openly carrying I tend to observe them and can usually tell how long they've been carrying. Someone fairly new can't seem to keep their hands off their piece (women included) they're always having to touch it which kinda makes me nervous. I prefer to carry concealed mostly because it's less likely to give me away and it doesn't rile up other folks. I've tried to impress this on past students and my family. A lot of folks are jumpy enough without adding to it. If I'm carrying in the open I'll not only have a handgun but a long-gun of some type because I'm either hunting or doing some pest control.
I also do not carry nor try to carry inside buildings that are posted "no carry." I have respect for those businesses and I will not knowingly break that respect. That being typed I also tend to avoid those places, there's only one place that's posted that I regret because it's one my favorite restaurants.
For folks running off at the mouth, I say let them go unless they're making threats. We do not have a duty to listen to them. Two weeks ago when I was retrieving my youngest daughter, cousin and a friend Hillary and Obama came on the radio to give some speeches, I changed the station. When asked why, I responded I'd much rather read the trans-script that way their BS doesn't bother me as much. They also asked if I would turn off Trump and I said yes and I have.
IMO we have a pretty piss-poor lot to choose from this election cycle.