This message was self-deleted by its author

[Straw Man]

102. Last word?

I'm skeptical.

Your argument continues to be that my rationale for a private property owner lawfully banning CC on his property and a business owner denying equal treatment to a class of people in the course of his business is the same, and it is not. You refuse to see that the situations are completely different and involve completely different Constitutional questions. There is no 'broader issue'.

This was always about business owners and what they do on the property where they operate. Did you think we were talking about entering people's homes? The issue is and always was businesses that post their property "No Guns Allowed." And there certainly is a broader issue: the extent to which property owners can discriminate on private property that is open to the public.

I posed the question about the hijab because it bridges the divide between a "class of people" and a voluntary action. I've heard the argument from those who defend the French ban that "they can just leave hijab at home" if they want to attend a public school. I think the underlying rights issues are similar and worthy of discussion. You don't want to discuss it. Your prerogative.

You further argue that a property owner's right to ban CC on his/her property is 'far from absolute', yet you are unable to cite a single case, statute or ordinance that proves otherwise, choosing instead to ridicule my demand for proof.

I gave you a citation showing that in many states business owners cannot bar their employees from having weapons in their cars on company property. This contradicts your contention that the right to bar firearms on private property is absolute under the law. I'll stand: it's far from absolute.

Your demand for "proof" was an attempt to narrow and shift the focus of the discussion. And as I've just pointed out, I did provide proof, whether you acknowledge it or not.