Name:   copperline - Subject:   Somebody hijacked my thread Date:   3/27/2016 9:22:08 AM

I do understand that the law allows property owners to prohibit guns on their property even though the law is based on the idea that I have a right to carry a gun for self-defense.  That just doesn’t make sense when you step back and look at it.   It seems like a contradiction to me because the property owner would have a “right to prohibit” that is somehow superior to my “right of self-protection”.

In the case of the GOP convention, it sounds like many gun rights advocates would agree with gun control supporters that there are some times you should not have the right to carry a gun.   Even the NRA national convention prohibited gun possession in their gathering last year in direct contradiction of their strong right-to-carry beliefs.

Aren’t the Open Carry laws giving corporations and business owners the legal responsibility to determine what a reasonable level of gun control should be?   It seems to me the law is written to simply leave it to the absolute discretion of private businessmen to decide what the public safety requirements should be, when it is not permissible to carry a gun, what a customer’s 2^nd amendment rights are, and when they can be exercised.  

Bad laws are those that make for bad outcomes.   If the GOP & Quicken Arena exercise their discretion and permit weapons at this extremely emotionally charged convention, it may become clear to everybody why we need laws that deal with the dangers of gun possession in public gathering places, and that leaving that awesome decision to the whims of a corporation isn’t rational.