Raleigh police doing Gods work.
https://www.wral.com/raleigh-police-investigating-armed-protest-group/19094083/
https://www.wral.com/raleigh-police-investigating-armed-protest-group/19094083/
Raleigh Police investigating people not breaking the law.
- Thread starter NKD
- Start date
- Replies 28
- Views 807
DrScaryGuy
š Loves rainbows š
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I believe I've mentioned a few times that there is still technically a law against this and been shot down. I've even pointed out the case law that says it should not be in the law books and that we need to get it removed from the books to prevent having anything that people would even have to go to trial for. but nobody listens to paranoid old me.
You go have to fight in court for 10 months over gun laws that clearly state you're not guilty of anything, but could easily be misinterpreted by the state to think it's worth wasting tax payer money on a dead-end prosecution just to see if you'll fight or plea - then see you don't also keep an eye on situations like this.
You go have to fight in court for 10 months over gun laws that clearly state you're not guilty of anything, but could easily be misinterpreted by the state to think it's worth wasting tax payer money on a dead-end prosecution just to see if you'll fight or plea - then see you don't also keep an eye on situations like this.
A few things:
The issue I had with what they did wasnt that they were out, or even that they were armed, or even that they wanted a sandwich from Subway. But from another report I read they basically forced Subway to allow them in, and when asked to eat outside some refused and sat at tables. Whether you agree with the shutdowns or not, a business has a right to dictate whether people can or cant enter their business. We discuss this often with property rights being tantamount. No one ever cries foul over "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs.
This also irritates me "A member of the anti-government movement"...disagreeing with what the governor has done doesnt by default make one "anti-government". It is a label used by the media to paint anyone who disagrees with just "doing what you are told" as a far right extremist. And its working.
The issue I had with what they did wasnt that they were out, or even that they were armed, or even that they wanted a sandwich from Subway. But from another report I read they basically forced Subway to allow them in, and when asked to eat outside some refused and sat at tables. Whether you agree with the shutdowns or not, a business has a right to dictate whether people can or cant enter their business. We discuss this often with property rights being tantamount. No one ever cries foul over "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs.
This also irritates me "A member of the anti-government movement"...disagreeing with what the governor has done doesnt by default make one "anti-government". It is a label used by the media to paint anyone who disagrees with just "doing what you are told" as a far right extremist. And its working.
And my wife saw a video where one of the guys goes in and specifically asks permission to come in and order. She thinks it was the reporter that was following them. But the guy is clearly telling the person working they are not interested in causing problems.
"Once inside the Subway, the person filming the walk asks the employees for permission to order and eat inside.
āYou guys cool with us being in here?ā the man asks. āWe donāt want to make it look like weāre threatening or intimidating anyone. Thatās why we ask.ā
The employee asked them to eat outside the shop. Several protesters ate their sandwiches inside.
āI aināt hungry, but I appreciate you guys being open,ā the person holding the camera says before exiting.
Under North Carolinaās executive order, restaurants are not allowed to have dine-in seating and can only serve food for takeout or curbside to-go orders."
Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article242628341.html#storylink=cpy
This is not correct. Try keeping out somebody for race, creed or nationality. I absolutely agree that a business owner Should be able to do this. You can't.
That >is< correct. A restaurant >CAN< prevent customers from entering different parts of their establishment...kitchen, freezers, storage, and during this time their main dining facility.
What they cannot do is refuse service. There is a difference.
Sorry, I understood these folks went in to get service. I had no idea they tried to get into the freezer or kitchen.
Because of the Pandemic rules or something? If everything they were doing was legal why were they asked to leave?
Yes, BoB...due to the governors moronic rules when this event took place restaurants were not allowing dine in service. Ordering food is legal. Eating inside went against the governors orders and the restaurant requested that they eat outside in order to adhere to these rules.
We can argue the validity of the rules, or whether I agree with them or not. Simply I don't. But I don't own that subway, nor have a say in their corporate decisions.
But...even in "normal" circumstances, a restaurant has the right to section off its property for where diners can and cannot sit. Having worked in a few restaurants myself it was not uncommon to close of certain sections of the establishment for different reasons. What they do not have the right to do is base this sectioning off based on "protected classes" as you mentioned.
I get it
Thanks.
Thanks.
This may be an unpalatable opinion, but @BatteryOaksBilly is right with regards to property Rights as well as the Right to associate as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
On your property, if property Rights were really a thing, you have the Right to refuse service or admittance for whatever reason you as the property owner deem.....whether they be moral and just or petty, vile, etc.
Likewise, the Right to assembly (also association) as guaranteed by Amendment the First must, logically and reasonably, also be a Right to NOT associate or assemble, again for whatever reasons the Individual wishes.....be they high minded or depraved reasons.
Be that as it may, I am also free to not patronize your establishment if I feel your behaviors are abhorrent, and I am free to assemble with like minded people to, as a group, refuse to patronize your business. If enough of us do it that it threatens the business, it either changes to stay afloat or succumbs to the forces of the Free Market and its replaced by an establishment more aligned to patronization.
To @B00ger 's point, the same robed people who insist the State has power to infringe upon all our Rights has done to property Rights what it has done to every other Right, be it in the BoR or not.
Liberty is not all rainbows and unicorns. But I would rather deal with the evils of having too much than the evils of not enough.
Not sure I follow. As long as a protected class isnt treated differently, then a property owner does have the right to refuse admittance to their property. Heck, its as simple as having business hours. I cant show up at a restaurant 30 minutes after they close and demand they open for me and serve me. They can say "We are not allowing seating indoors at this time." What they cannot do is say "We are not allowing blacks/Muslims/women/etc to sit indoors at this time."
I'll broach another subject related to this activity and the ensuing articles. On numerous occasions in the past, where there were "marchers/protestors" involved, many were wearing bandans across their faces which, to my understanding, is still illegal. Curiously, nothing was done to those individuals and nothing was said in the local reporting. Now, forward to this past Saturday, many of the "protestors/marchers" were wearing face coverings, in compliance with the government suggestions. The news coverage pointed out more than once that some of the "protestors/marchers" had their faces covered but made no reference to it being in compliance with the virus guidelines. The spin is always in with nearly all the local news media.
Yup...
What happened: "Pro-Reopen NC Protesters marched through the Capital while open carrying firearms and wearing the recommended face coverings"
What the media says happened: "Masked Anti-Government militants stage armed rally in capital"
I believe what he is saying is that you SHOULD be able to say "We are not allowing blacks/Muslims/women/etc to sit indoors at this time." as the right to NOT associate is equally implied. If you are a black muslim woman and find this abhorrent you have every right to refuse to patronize his service and associate with and encourage others to do the same, but that you should have no special rights or legal privileges based upon being black, muslim, or female.
What ever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." And "If asked to leave and you do not, you will be charged with trespass"? Maybe this does not apply in this state but I know it does in others.
I would say liberals and their appointed judges thatās what happened to it
During the NAACP boycott of Murder Beach over the Confederate Flag , there was a local hangout that is still quite popular that had a huge sign inside that said...WE SUPPORT THE NAACP BOYCOTT!!! Everybody I knew supported it.
One of the oldest and most widely known restaurants in Murder Beach was J Edwards Steak House. They chose to close during the Black Bike Week. Just chose to close for a week. The S.C. NAACP sued them and eventually they had to close because of legal expenses.
"This is downtown Raleigh. We donāt need to have weapons like that. Itās ridiculous," said business owner John Pugh,
who believes these demonstrators are violating a common law that prevents being āarmed to the terror of the people.ā
"Folks are scared," Pugh said. "Thereās zero reason for anyone to arrive in downtown Raleigh to walk around with AR-15ās and other long rifles in order to go to Subway."
If Mr. Pugh runs the Subway then we can eat somewhere else, or not visit the bushiness he operates. I would not leave my firearms in the car or truck.
who believes these demonstrators are violating a common law that prevents being āarmed to the terror of the people.ā
"Folks are scared," Pugh said. "Thereās zero reason for anyone to arrive in downtown Raleigh to walk around with AR-15ās and other long rifles in order to go to Subway."
If Mr. Pugh runs the Subway then we can eat somewhere else, or not visit the bushiness he operates. I would not leave my firearms in the car or truck.
Last edited:
It was about when I moved to the area but Greensboro City councilman Billy Yow was notorious for opposing the NAACP calling it a racist organization.
John Pugh, owner of House of Swank sells NC themed t-shirts. He is also a complete idiot. THIS IS A T-SHIRT FOOL. PRINT A T-SHIRT WITH SOME DUDES WALKIN DOWN THE STREET WITH GUNS!
I am saying that property Rights would allow for the latter situation, because there are no protected classes in a Free Society. There are Citizens, all equal under the law. Conversely, it allows anyone who is black/Muslim/etc ad nauseum to exclude whites/Christians/men from THEIR property, even if that was the only arbitrary reason.
Again- I despise racism in all its forms. I'm not saying it's a good reason. But it's not always my property.
This is the same argument that supports a baker not making a cake for someone whose lifestyle he finds morally repugnant.
Again- not everyone will exercise their Rights in ways I find palatable. But so long as they don't hurt someone or steal their stuff? They can do them with their property, and I am free to do the opposite.
cubrock
Swell guy
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
I did some work with Billy Yow when he first ran for office. He is a character and says what is on his mind. Very little filter. Also a very big heart.
