There are no clear-cut villains and victims here.
No clear cut victim, except the private citizen wishing to sell his private property at the gun show.
I think that's a pretty big victim list. It saddens me to see that Howard Nemerov does not consider the private citizen deprived of the ability to conduct lawful transfers of private property to be a victim.
Would the non-victim status still apply if the rule was "No discussion or promotion of Buddhist behavior on the floor or on the property"?
The force of law was used to threaten a public company to change it's rules on private citizen activity.
If this was a free speech case, the term "chilling" would have been brought up by now. When Agents of the Government talk to you about something you are doing that they don't like, that is an implied threat. That is the "Chilling" effect.
Why is this OK again? Oh, that's right, because no overt threats where made. Implied threats of government action don't apply to gun rights or property rights, only to free speech rights.
Here is another side of the story that nice fellow Howard Nemerov didn't cover in his Examiner article.
Police, under the direction of ATF, told Boedeker he would be required to follow their “recommendations” or they would close down his event. Boedeker said he was told “you do what we say or we shut you down.” He said the ultimatum was recorded by the police and ATF.