Our Right-to-carry Is Under Attack!


PDA






wcb
May 1, 2008, 01:46 PM
OUR RIGHT-TO-CARRY IS UNDER ATTACK!

DATE: April 29, 2008
TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

In the fight for your firearms freedom, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation were determined to kill Florida's HB503, the bill that protects your right to keep a firearm in your vehicle for personal protection. They even threatened the Legislature and the Governor with a lawsuit. The Legislature was not intimidated -- they passed the bill. Governor Charlie Crist (R) was not intimidated -- he signed it into law. They stood up for you. They stood up for law-abiding gun owners and your self-defense rights against the big business bullies that were trying to eliminate them.

Six days after Governor Crist signed the bill into law, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation rushed into federal court and filed a frivolous lawsuit to try to have the new law overturned. They had already bragged to the media that they would spend huge amounts of money to fight to negate your constitutional and statutory rights.

On April 16 the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported: "The Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation are ready to pay a legal tab they expect to total at least $250,000 to counter what they term an assault on private property rights."

They are relying on Disney, Publix, Walmart and other anti-gun corporate giants to fund their assault on the Legislature, Governor Crist, and on our right-to-carry.

We need your help to raise the money to fight this blatant attack on you and your right to protect yourself and your family.

PLEASE send a contribution TODAY. No matter where you live. No matter what city, what county, what state -- this is a fight that affects all of us. Right-to-carry laws are meaningless if corporate bullies are allowed to eliminate them on a whim.

Click here to send a contribution today.

Please continue to check www.NRAILA.org for updates on this important issue.

My letter to my representatives (doesnt matter where you live, Walmart lives everywhere):

Dear Congressman Doyle,

In the fight for our firearms freedom, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Retail Federation were determined to kill Florida's HB503, the bill that protects your right to keep a firearm in your vehicle for personal protection. An action funded by backers like Disney, Publix, Walmart and other anti-gun corporate giants to fund their assault on our gun rights.

I would respectively ask you to be prepared for these assaults to reach our state as fears of guns is breading ignorance that is insisting that the very opposite to the solution be enacted. Please protect our right to defend ourselves so we don’t become sitting ducks as in the following statistics that follow stricter gun laws and gun grabs. The Governor of Illinois yesterday called upon people to talk to their neighbors to try and stop crime in neighborhoods after their “strictest in the Country” gun laws has alerted criminals to “go for it” since people are defenseless. Don’t put a sign in Pennsylvanians front lawns saying “kill and rob me, I’m defenseless”. Lets be more like Switzerland who has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate if 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.


Has gun control in Australia curbed crime?

Crime has been rising since a sweeping gun ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,382 personal firearms, government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%.

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:

• Gun murders up 19%
• Armed robbery up 69%
• Home invasions up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before their national gun confiscation:

• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

Gun crimes are rising throughout Australia after guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more than the previous year.


What effect has gun control had on the United Kingdoms crime rates since their strict gun control went into effect?

• Armed robbery up 170.1%
• Kidnapping/abduction up 144%
• Assault up 130.9%
• Attempted murder up 117.6%
• Sexual assault up 112.6%

Are these the numbers you want in your neighborhood?

Compare this:

Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate if 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.

Which numbers do you want in your area?

Perhaps a less dangerous, to law abiding people’s lives, way to solve the problem of criminals using guns to commit crimes would be to enact a law demanding criminals to turn their guns in to their local police department. My guess though that the number of criminal’s gun that will be turned in or found by law enforcement will be just as many as if you impost tougher laws on law abiding people.

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars. (I stole this one from someone here);)

Sincerely,

If you enjoyed reading about "Our Right-to-carry Is Under Attack!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RaspberrySurprise
May 1, 2008, 01:51 PM
So why does the state of Florida need my money to defend itself in court?

ImARugerFan
May 1, 2008, 01:53 PM
Right to carry? My local judge hasn't allowed that in 30 years.

wcb
May 1, 2008, 02:06 PM
So why does the state of Florida need my money to defend itself in court?

You must have missed the message; the NRA needs funding to fight this because if they win, we all lose eventually.

rbernie
May 1, 2008, 02:35 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. The ability for a gun-owner to park their car on private property with a pistol in the glovebox sounds good until the state uses the same logic to allow other encroachments upon personal property, all in the name of Constitutional expression.

This is not a gun-vs-anti issue; it's about respecting private property - or not.

Wait until the state tells you that you have to let the New Hitler Youth march on your front lawn in a protected expression of speech because you happen to live across from a synagogue, and tell me how much you like this precedent.

wcb
May 1, 2008, 02:52 PM
Well the whole idea of this thread is to alert that there is another infringement in action even tough the Constitution guarantees "shall not be infringed". Some people just aren't getting it. If Walmart wins in Florida, they will domino the Country.

They keep knocking at the door; do we want to let them enter? The NRA is just asking for some help from us. I remember the figure 80 million when it comes to either gun owners or guns (pretty sure it was owners); if each one gave just a dollar for each gun or owner, NRA could fight a better fight for us. Don't you have a dollar or so? I'm on disability and live day to day and donated 25.00; how about you to keep your guns?

When they knock on your door and ask for your guns is not the time to take the threat seriously.

It's also not just about keeping your guns; it's about staying alive. Read the statistics above and see which neighborhood you want to live in.

Car Knocker
May 1, 2008, 06:09 PM
even tough the Constitution guarantees "shall not be infringed".
The Constitution limits the government, not citizens, companies, churches, etc. The Second Amendment applies to the government.

bogie
May 1, 2008, 06:16 PM
We need more exclamation points!!!!!

MIL-DOT
May 1, 2008, 06:37 PM
Outstanding job on the letter, wcb !

wcb
May 1, 2008, 06:39 PM
The Constitution limits the government, not citizens, companies, churches, etc. The Second Amendment applies to the government.

Well I'm confused; I'm saying the people ("We the People") have a right to keep and bear arms that "shall not be infringed" and you're correcting me to say the government only? has the right to keep and bear arms?:what:

Lets take another look:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia defines as: a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers

OR are you correcting me and saying the same thing I'm saying? What am I missing here?:confused:

Jeff White
May 1, 2008, 06:50 PM
wcb,
What he's saying is that the Constitution only limits the government from infringing on your rights. It doesn't limit private citizens from infringing on them.

I'm with the property owners here. Private property rights are what our freedom is based on. Just like the right to keep and bear arms they have been infringed on too and have been diminished. If you are willing to accept that the government can tell you that you must allow someone to carry a gun on your property, then you must also accept that the government can tell you that you can't build on your property because it might endanger a species of flea or that you can only plant a certain type of grass in your yard.

The right to do what you want with one's own property is every bit as important as the right to keep and bear arms.

Jeff

wcb
May 1, 2008, 07:01 PM
That makes it clear, the previous reply was way over simplified.

That raises a question for me then; my house, lawn (to use your example) is for my personal private use and for the most part made available only to invited guests. I see a Walmart as being very different than my private house and being, though privately owned, for virtually unrestricted public use doesn't that make a difference?

Feud
May 1, 2008, 07:04 PM
I think that the better solution would be to leave the property owners alone to chose for themselves, and then focus instead on passing legislation that limits the property owners liability should someone bring a gun onto their property.

I'd gather that many of these places aren't concerned with honest folks having guns so much as potentially being sued for not prohibiting the items on the premise, or caving to pressure from insurance companies who are afraid of having to cover a claim.

MIL-DOT
May 1, 2008, 07:20 PM
(QUOTE) "wcb,
What he's saying is that the Constitution only limits the government from infringing on your rights. It doesn't limit private citizens from infringing on them.
I'm with the property owners here."

I gotta disagree. If we're talking someones personal residence, that's one thing. They can prohibit who or whatever they like, regardless of race, religion,weight, height,sexual and political orientation,etc. BUT..... once that private property becomes a BUISNESS, things change considerably. No longer can they prohibit certain people like they once could have.You see my point? I feel the same thing applies to buisnesses, once "private" property goes "public", the rules change.

btg3
May 1, 2008, 07:27 PM
FWIW, Florida is among the many states with CCW laws that have progressed from "may issue" (or even "no issue") to "shall issue" in the last 20 yrs. (See post #14 in the linked thread.) The fight does indeed continue, and thoughtful arguments such as the OP must also continue to avoid losing ground.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4395239&highlight=maps#post4395239

rbernie
May 1, 2008, 07:56 PM
I see a Walmart as being very different than my private house and being, though privately owned, for virtually unrestricted public use doesn't that make a difference?
I understand this thought, and I think that it's best expressed by the term 'intent'. If the intent of the property is to function as a space in which the public is generally invited, then it should have different rules applied against it than would property that is by definition intended to be private.

But how do we discriminate between the obvious examples (big box corporate stores) and home businesses or land that's zoned for multiple uses? What about the guy who's got a residence on the same legal plot of ground upon which he runs a small-engine repair shop? You're focusing on the faceless corporations, but the unintended consequences of this is that the rural small business owner is caught up in the same net. And although we're kicking the door of property-owner rights down over something *we* consider acceptable, like guns in cars, I can't help but wonder how the other side of the political spectrum could use this to force some very unpalatable scenarios upon a lot of good folk somewhere down the road.

I've decided that an 'intent' based approach is still wrong, because it relies upon a governing body to decide the intent (via zoning laws or other) and apply a sliding scale of rules accordingly. It just gives the .gov one more weapon in their arsenal to boss folk around and wheedle nuances to fit whatever the agenda-of-the-day happens to want.

No thanks.

hitbackfirst
May 1, 2008, 08:09 PM
In a perfect world, property rights would be absolute and property owners would make all the rules for their property. In this world a business can't require a Muslim to leave his headgear home, so why should they be allowed to require me to leave my gun at home? Businesses operate under thousands of laws and I hardly think allowing guns in cars is the most egregious. Another point is that your car is your property which is allowed/invited to temporarily reside on their property, so the property rights argument can apply to both sides.

rbernie
May 1, 2008, 08:26 PM
In this world a business can't require a Muslim to leave his headgear home, so why should they be allowed to require me to leave my gun at home? Businesses operate under thousands of laws and I hardly think allowing guns in cars is the most egregious.I'd prefer that we work to STOP the madness instead of perpetuate it.

Nolo
May 1, 2008, 08:27 PM
Supposedly, a person's car is considered (by me and others) their private property (a mobile oasis, if you will), so, while you may not be able to carry on someone's property (being anywhere outside the doors of your car), you should be able to carry in your car and have a weapon in your vehicle.
Cars are an extension of the home, especially for those people who live in their automobiles.
I agree, someone can tell you not to carry on their private property. You car is not their private property.
Regarding the OP, your letter is somewhat well written. You have some superfluous information and it seems as if you are preaching to the choir , being that you are writing this to the governor, no? Also, you repeat yourself in pretty blatant ways and you make some spelling errors.
Not big problems, but noticeable ones that an anti could take and use as grounds for continued ignorance.

Wait until the state tells you that you have to let the New Hitler Youth march on your front lawn in a protected expression of speech because you happen to live across from a synagogue, and tell me how much you like this precedent.
The difference is that they'd be protesting on your property. A car owned by someone else parked in your yard is not your property.
A comparable statement would be having the Hitlerjugend protest while in their car that you gave permission to be in your yard. That would be analogous to the issue here. (I believe that it is part of the law that stores, by having parking lots, are giving express permission to have vehicles in their area, if it's not, it really should be, you could have all sorts of weird shiznit come up without it)

Autolycus
May 1, 2008, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Hitbackfirst: In a perfect world, property rights would be absolute and property owners would make all the rules for their property. In this world a business can't require a Muslim to leave his headgear home, so why should they be allowed to require me to leave my gun at home? Businesses operate under thousands of laws and I hardly think allowing guns in cars is the most egregious. Another point is that your car is your property which is allowed/invited to temporarily reside on their property, so the property rights argument can apply to both sides.

Muslim men don't wear headgear. I assume you mean Sikhs.

I do believe that the property owner should have the right to restrict some things on their property including the religious articles of others. In addition to this I do believe that they should be able to restrict employees as well as customers on their property. The problem is that they cannot restrict customers since they have no real leverage. However they can restrict employees and they should have the ability to if they wish to.

rbernie
May 1, 2008, 08:55 PM
Supposedly, a person's car is considered (by me and others) their private property (a mobile oasis, if you will), so, while you may not be able to carry on someone's property (being anywhere outside the doors of your car), you should be able to carry in your car and have a weapon in your vehicle.
Cars are an extension of the home, especially for those people who live in their automobiles.
I agree, someone can tell you not to carry on their private property. You car is not their private property.You're arguing against the notion of trespass.

"I will only allow those whom I want onto my property."

"I choose NOT to allow those with weapons onto my property."

It's that simple. You can levitate your car over their parking lot if you have the means to do so, but when you ENTER their private property you have tacitly agreed to abide by their rules. The fact that you brought a mobile castle around you doesn't detract from that most basic of concept.

It's not like you should be able to defeat trespass by shielding yourself in a car.

"HaHa! Your puny rulz can't touch ME! I'm in my car! It's my CASTLE!"

That's nonsensical.

A comparable statement would be having the Hitlerjugend protest while in their car that you gave permission to be in your yard. But what if I refused permission first, because I just KNEW that they were NoGoodNiks? I have that right, correct? The right to define who I allow onto my property, regardless of their conveyance onto my property?

So how again is Disney or anyone else Being Mean People when they choose to not let people with guns into their parking lot?

romma
May 1, 2008, 08:55 PM
Very simple, if you allow people to park their car in your parking lot, you are allowing them to park an extension of their home.

If you don't want guns in their homes on your property, you can close the parking lots and your problem is solved..

You see! You still have rights... Don't allow their homes on your property.

Nolo
May 1, 2008, 09:06 PM
But what if I refused permission first, because I just KNEW that they were NoGoodNiks? I have that right, correct? The right to define who I allow onto my property, regardless of their conveyance onto my property?
Then you shouldn't have put a public parking lot on your property.
That is a form of granting permission.
"I will only allow those whom I want onto my property."
"I choose NOT to allow those with weapons onto my property."
If you want to be a hundred percent sure that there are absolutely NO firearms on your property, then you should not let an automobile, an extension of someone else's home and sovereign property, onto your property. It's that simple.
"HaHa! Your puny rulz can't touch ME! I'm in my car! It's my CASTLE!"
By that notion, then people can't have sex in their homes because that would be indecent exposure. Your automobile is your home. End of story.

rbernie
May 1, 2008, 09:24 PM
Very simple, if you allow people to park their car in your parking lot, you are allowing them to park an extension of their home.
If you don't want guns in their homes on your property, you can close the parking lots and your problem is solved..You're missing the point - these private landowners *are* closing their lots to anyone that they feel violates some standard that they have established for entry onto their private property. It's not like they sucker the guests in and ransack their cars for loot. They're telling folks, 'Don't come onto my property one silly millimeter if you have a weapon on/about you.". And they're effectively being told that they cannot do that - that the notion of trespass no longer applies to the borders of their property because those gaining entry have some protected status.

Then you shouldn't have put a public parking lot on your property.


The key point here is the that it is NOT A PUBLIC LOT. It's a private lot, open to the public with certain restrictions. Don't like the restrictions? Don't park there.

But don't take away my right to have those restrictions; that's a very slipperly slope that leads to dark, nasty places.

You have no right to declare my private property 'public' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London) just because you don't like my restrictions.

By that notion, then people can't have sex in their homes because that would be indecent exposure. Your automobile is your home. End of story. Indecent exposure is defined as being exposure of genitalia in the public view (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/D352DA6C-79E3-46F8-9D875DE95AB87144). Have sex on your front porch (or in your car), and see how much your castle protects you. You're mixing apples and potatos here. This discussion is about you ENTERING somebody else's' private property. Trespass is when you do so without permission - regardless of whether you're walking, riding a horse, in a car, or hopping around on a pogo stick.

You can't claim protection of your castle in this case because I told you BEFORE YOU ENTERED MY PROPERTY not to show up with a weapon on your person or in your conveyance.

Quote:
A comparable statement would be having the Hitlerjugend protest while in their car that you gave permission to be in your yard.
But what if I refused permission first, because I just KNEW that they were NoGoodNiks? I have that right, correct? The right to define who I allow onto my property, regardless of their conveyance onto my property?
And this is the scenario.

I, the Evil Landowner, have told the New Hitler Youth that they may not enter my property for any purpose but that Cub Scout Pack #1911 may do so. What you're advocating is akin to the State coming along and telling me that I cannot make that determination and that I must allow the NeuHitlerjugend access to my property, because their right to assemble and/or engage in public speech is a Protected Right.

Somebody, please stop reciting talking points from the GOA and tell me WHY my scenario and that in Florida right now is any different.

I'd love to hear it.

Standing Wolf
May 1, 2008, 09:34 PM
They are relying on Disney, Publix, Walmart and other anti-gun corporate giants to fund their assault on the Legislature, Governor Crist, and on our right-to-carry.

I guess they don't want my dollars.

Jeff White
May 1, 2008, 09:34 PM
Nolo said;
The difference is that they'd be protesting on your property. A car owned by someone else parked in your yard is not your property.

So you'd be in favor of a law that allowed someone to park their car in your front yard? I suppose it would be ok for the overflow traffic from the nightclub across the street to park in your front yard? After all, they are just parking, not protesting.

Then you shouldn't have put a public parking lot on your property.
That is a form of granting permission.

Ever see a NO SEMIS sign at the entrance to a so called public parking lot? Do you consider that an unconstitutional infringement of the right to park?

Supposedly, a person's car is considered (by me and others) their private property (a mobile oasis, if you will), so, while you may not be able to carry on someone's property (being anywhere outside the doors of your car), you should be able to carry in your car and have a weapon in your vehicle.
Cars are an extension of the home, especially for those people who live in their automobiles.

Cars are not an extension of anyone's home. A car is a car. Some states with their so called Castle Doctrine laws have made defending yourself in your car the same as defending yourself in your home, but that is the only thing it extended to cars. Cars are still treated differently them homes for search and seizure.

We are opening an Pandora's Box that we'll never shut if we start taking private property rights away from people because we wish to carry a gun on private property without the owner's consent.

What will you do when the Sierra Club gets a law passed allowing people unlimited access to your property to birdwatch, check for endangered species or enjoy the sunset from your deck?

Jeff

Nolo
May 1, 2008, 09:43 PM
So you'd be in favor of a law that allowed someone to park their car in your front yard? I suppose it would be ok for the overflow traffic from the nightclub across the street to park in your front yard? After all, they are just parking, not protesting.
I say that because what we are talking about is a parking lot, which is (by and large) open to the public. Do not misconstrue what I say, please.

Ever see a NO SEMIS sign at the entrance to a so called public parking lot? Do you consider that an unconstitutional infringement of the right to park?
Yes, that means that you cannot have semis. It says nothing like "NO SEMIS WITH GUNS IN THEM". While I think such a sign would be perfectly legal, I think that enforcement of such a sign (i.e., searching) is illegal. It is worth noting that I would abide by such a request.

Cars are not an extension of anyone's home.
What if you live in your car?
What if you sleep in your car?
What if you've slept in your car once?
If you say that my automobile is not private property even if I have only ever inhabited it once, then is the same true for houses? What about twice? You cannot qualify such things, and you cannot base law on an "I know it when I see it" philosophy.

wcb
May 1, 2008, 10:04 PM
Regarding the OP, your letter is somewhat well written. You have some superfluous information and it seems as if you are preaching to the choir , being that you are writing this to the governor, no?

What does your letter say; at least I wrote one AND contributed to the cause.

Also, you repeat yourself in pretty blatant ways

I only retyped a portion of one section of the booklet "Gun Facts"; I thought I was being clear enough for a politician to understand, not redundant.

and you make some spelling errors.

80% of what I sent was cut and paste; MS Word caught all but one I missed correcting (doesnt matter where you live, Walmart lives everywhere); sorry I forgot the " ' ".

Not big problems, but noticeable ones that an anti could take and use as grounds for continued ignorance.

Personally I think anyone who loses the content of a letter because it isn't written they way they might have is far more ignorant than any anti might think I was for the content of my letter. I think I would very accurately judge the anti as having been beat by my content and all they could do is point out spelling and/or grammar errors. That's when I almost always know I have beat a Liberal fatally.

wcb
May 1, 2008, 10:07 PM
Mil-Dot

(QUOTE) "wcb,
What he's saying is that the Constitution only limits the government from infringing on your rights. It doesn't limit private citizens from infringing on them.
I'm with the property owners here."

That wasn't quoting me; I agree with you on this. I dont know where you got this as my quote.

Nolo
May 1, 2008, 10:13 PM
What does your letter say; at least I wrote one AND contributed to the cause.
WCB, I did not mean to be overly malicious, just meant to give some constructive criticism. I pointed out what I saw wrong, all of it. Which means that you did very little wrong. I was not trying to attack you, just trying to help proofread the letter.
Did you send it yet?
If you did, I apologize, there's no use proofreading a letter that's already been sent! :o

Jeff White
May 1, 2008, 10:13 PM
Nolo said;
If you say that my automobile is not private property even if I have only ever inhabited it once, then is the same true for houses? What about twice? You cannot qualify such things, and you cannot base law on an "I know it when I see it" philosophy.

I never said an automobile wasn't private property. I said it wasn't the same as your home. It's not the same by law. Even if you live in it, such as a motor home, it doesn't have the same legal protections as a residence. For instance, there are very few exceptions that allow a warrant less search of a residence. However the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago, that because automobiles are so mobile they can be searched without a warrant under a lot of different circumstances. There is tons of case law on this, so it's not an "I know it if I see it" proposition.

Florida and maybe some other states have extended their castle doctrine laws to say that you don't have to retreat if you are attacked in your automobile. That doesn't make it the same as your home.

Yes, that means that you cannot have semis. It says nothing like "NO SEMIS WITH GUNS IN THEM". While I think such a sign would be perfectly legal, I think that enforcement of such a sign (i.e., searching) is illegal. It is worth noting that I would abide by such a request.

If you would abide by a No Semis with guns in them sign, why do you balk about a no cars with guns in them sign? What's the difference? Is it because you drive a car and not a semi?

Where do you think those policies come from anyway? If you think they come from some vast gun hating conspiracy, you're wrong. They are CYA policies set up by insurance companies. The insurance companies want to protect themselves from the trial lawyers. They want to be able to say; "I'm not liable for the serious injury and death caused by those two gangs going at it in my parking lot, I have a policy that forbids firearms on the premises and they gang bangers broke it. I was trying to look out for my customers."

What we need is legislation that would make it impossible to collect damages if an incident that a person had no reasonable control over (like a gunfight on the parking lot). I bet you wouldn't see nearly as many places posted. But you can't run a business without insurance. And if the insurance company requires you to post your property to get insurance then you post your property.

What's needed is some common sense tort reform, not the sale of our private property rights.

Jeff

Nolo
May 1, 2008, 10:20 PM
If you would abide by a No Semis with guns in them sign, why do you balk about a no cars with guns in them sign? What's the difference? Is it because you drive a car and not a semi?
I would abide by such a sign as well, and not park there. Because I'm a nice person. However, such a request is unenforceable and so is moot.
It's not the same by law.
The way laws are are rather stupid sometimes.
You have refined my opinion, I thank you for that.

wcb
May 1, 2008, 10:23 PM
If you did, I apologize, there's no use proofreading a letter that's already been sent!

Yes they are sent; that's the idea isn't it?

Apology accepted I just think there's a bigger issue than spelling. I get genuinely pissed:fire: when my rights get messed with about guns especially since the ultimate results are disastrous.:cuss:

ptmmatssc
May 1, 2008, 10:57 PM
Here we go again with the "private property" thing . Nowhere in the constitution do I see " the right of the corporation" . It's the "right of the people" . A person(the people) can be seen , heard , and be incarcerated . Can the same be said about a corporation?

Now , as a business , you invite the public onto your property , be it for sales or employment . You have gotten gov authorization to create that business , and with it were GRANTED rights . And those rights can be changed or taken away as to not infringe on the individual's rights .

As individuals , we invite only those we know and want on our property .Otherwise it's trespassing . Our rights of "the people " are recognized by our constitution .

Can a corporation vote in an election? Can it donate a pint of blood? Can it mow a lawn? Some might say "yes it can using it's representatives" . But "it" can't do any of those itself . That's because it's only a construct and not a person . Therefore , it has no "rights" as compared to a real person .

I'll tell you what . When a living breathing corporation can come knocking on my door and speak to me , then I'll gladly abide by their "private property " rights . Until then , my humble living breathing body , within my own "private property" will do as I please on or within it .

Arguing private property rights of individuals vs corporations is comparing apples to oranges . They are not the same , and only one of them is covered by the constitution .

Jeff White
May 1, 2008, 11:11 PM
I'll tell you what . When a living breathing corporation can come knocking on my door and speak to me , then I'll gladly abide by their "private property " rights . Until then , my humble living breathing body , within my own "private property" will do as I please on or within it .

So those people I have arrested for trespass on property owned by a corporation were really innocent and the arrests were unlawful? Funny, but their attorney's didn't think so when they advised them to plead guilty. :rolleyes:

Private property is private property. It doesn't matter if it's owned by an individual or a corporation. If you'd like to test your legal theory in person, why don't you just go on some corporate property that's posted and refuse to leave. After you are arrested, you will have standing to run your rather unique legal theory of private property through the courts. It's only a misdemeanor conviction so it won't affect your future RKBA. Just don't resist when the officers arrest you. Take a lesson from the civil rights protesters.

Maybe if you post your plan in activism, you can get some support.

You see right now, the law doesn't read the way you want it to. So basically you have two options. You can try to get the law on defining private property changed in the legislature or you can try the civil disobedience method. Until one of those methods succeed, you can post that corporations don't have property rights on every internet forum in the world, but it won't change a thing.

What a world we'd live in if all 300 million + of us could decide for ourselves what the law was....:rolleyes:

Jeff

Autolycus
May 2, 2008, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Nolo: If you want to be a hundred percent sure that there are absolutely NO firearms on your property, then you should not let an automobile, an extension of someone else's home and sovereign property, onto your property. It's that simple.

Would you argue that the human body is someone's sovereign property? I mean it makes sense to say that you own your own body. Thus couldn't you just apply this logic and say that it is now illegal to fire someone for having a gun on their body at work? I mean it is on their body and that is their sovereign property.

lacoochee
May 2, 2008, 01:10 AM
:banghead:

Sage of Seattle
May 2, 2008, 01:17 AM
So those people I have arrested for trespass on property owned by a corporation were really innocent and the arrests were unlawful? Funny, but their attorney's didn't think so when they advised them to plead guilty

Yes those were lawful arrests because the law granted the corporations the authority to trespass people.

Besides, I really don't want to yell here, so I'll refrain from that, but there are ALREADY hundreds of laws that control virtually every aspect of private property, both homeowner (a truly private property) and a corporation, so you guys can argue all you want about how it's an infringement of private property rights; you're probably right too, but it's irrelevant. You're about a hundred years too late to argue that. Talk about tilting at windmills; try instead of convincing the rest of the country that corporations and other businesses should be allowed once again to discriminate against black people, or Jews, or any other example you'd care to use.

It's amazing how much power and money and influence corporations have -- even to the point of having been GIVEN human rights, but lacking a corresponding RESPONSIBILITY -- and how so many of you are falling all over yourselves saying "hey, it's okay that I'm discriminated against, it's one of the most important rights of the constitution, it's such a bedrock solid foundation of that sacred document, that they never even wrote it down. But it's in there, I swear!"

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: tyranny by anyone other than a government is still tyranny. In fact, some of these corporations wield more power than some small sovereign nations and can blithely ignore American laws and well, I guess that's all hunky dory, because it's their God given right to discriminate!

bogie
May 2, 2008, 01:29 AM
Our right to pick nits is under attack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

C&R
May 2, 2008, 06:42 AM
I believe that government has too many laws that infringe on our freedoms. It appears that in many cases we the people have requested this regulation.

We have government regulations that TAKE our land through restricting our use of it, without reimbursing us.

We have government regulations that require us to allow select individuals to be able to access our land, even if we don’t want them to.

We have government regulations that REQUIRE us to provide parking spaces, and further require that some of them will be set aside for select individuals.

We now have government in Florida allowing select individuals to bring firearms into the government mandated parking areas, within the terms of the regulations.

We have government regulations that allow select individuals to bring animals into business.

We have government regulations that prohibit business from not providing service to individuals – even if they have no expectation of being paid by the individuals that receive their services.

As one poster has on his signature “What part of shall not infringe don’t they understand?”

lawson4
May 2, 2008, 07:05 AM
Not all business' are open to the public. Take a firearms manufacturer for instance. It may be privately owned and only allow employees into the parking lot.
Shouldn't they have the same rights as a homeowner regarding guns on the property?

lawson4

wcb
May 2, 2008, 09:42 AM
Here's a suggestion, write your representative asking them to disallow this action in your state and donate to the NRA so they can continue to fight for our rights as we want them pertaining to our firearms rights.

That's what were on this thread for.:banghead:

Sage of Seattle
May 2, 2008, 12:17 PM
Here's a suggestion, write your representative asking them to disallow this action in your state and donate to the NRA so they can continue to fight for our rights as we want them pertaining to our firearms rights.

That's what were on this thread for.

Then this shouldn't be in legal, it should have been started under activism. Maybe a mod would move it for you...?

VARifleman
May 2, 2008, 12:35 PM
wcb,
What he's saying is that the Constitution only limits the government from infringing on your rights. It doesn't limit private citizens from infringing on them.

I'm with the property owners here. Private property rights are what our freedom is based on. Just like the right to keep and bear arms they have been infringed on too and have been diminished. If you are willing to accept that the government can tell you that you must allow someone to carry a gun on your property, then you must also accept that the government can tell you that you can't build on your property because it might endanger a species of flea or that you can only plant a certain type of grass in your yard.

The right to do what you want with one's own property is every bit as important as the right to keep and bear arms.

Jeff
Except in this law your gun is always on YOUR private property, not the company's.

IllHunter
May 2, 2008, 12:44 PM
You can choose to call it "leverage". It's the same thing.
The problem is that they cannot restrict customers since they have no real leverage. However they can restrict employees and they should have the ability to if they wish to. I agree that the "rights" of Corporations are only there because they have "leverage". It happens that last night NBC-TV in Chicago ran a piece about WAl-Mart's chronic failure to maintain their parking lot cameras and security. If they are concerned with the the security of the lots impacted by my gun in my car,they can install their security devices and try and find it. I would be acting the same as the United States Navy who enter foreign and domestic ports that "ban" Nuclear devices. They neither confirm nor deny the presence of those devices and go where they will, when they will. Might makes right, most of the time.:cuss:

hitbackfirst
May 2, 2008, 02:57 PM
Florida and maybe some other states have extended their castle doctrine laws to say that you don't have to retreat if you are attacked in your automobile. That doesn't make it the same as your home.

You don't have to retreat if you are attacked in your car, but if a company can make you leave your gun home, I guess you can get slaughtered while you stand your ground. :rolleyes:

wcb
May 2, 2008, 07:08 PM
Quote:
Here's a suggestion, write your representative asking them to disallow this action in your state and donate to the NRA so they can continue to fight for our rights as we want them pertaining to our firearms rights.

That's what were on this thread for.

Then this shouldn't be in legal, it should have been started under activism. Maybe a mod would move it for you...?

Are you telling me that all these people would be doing the right thing for gun owners if it were simply posted in another category?

Somehow I find that hard to believe; this has been nothing but a judge and jury argument instead of what the NRA is pleading for and warning about. They want to take care of it for us not have us deliberate. Does anybody here even belong to the NRA or know what the NRA-ILA does?

Feud
May 2, 2008, 07:11 PM
Does anybody here even belong to the NRA or know what the NRA-ILA does?

Whether or not someone belongs to an organization, and whether or not a person supports every action an organization takes, are two different things.

Jeff White
May 2, 2008, 07:15 PM
Does anybody here even belong to the NRA or know what the NRA-ILA does?

I am an NRA Life Member and contribute to the ILA. But I don't think they are correct on every single issue. I don't agree with this legislation and I don't agree with the way they worded the model castle doctrine legislation.

One can be a member of an organization and not march in lockstep with everything they do.

Jeff

wcb
May 2, 2008, 07:30 PM
Well I'm seeing everybody talked themselves into thinking it's wrong without knowing what it's all about. I dont want Walmart telling me I cant carry my gun today because I plan to stop at their store and then if Walmart gets their way, everybody has the door wide open to say the same thing then next thing you know you can carry a gun but you just cant take it anywhere. Then what are you going to do?

Personally I dont think the NRA-ILA is fighting this because they have nothing better to do. I think all of you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt and/or find out what you dont understand as a result of all the arguing here.

If Walmart wins and gun owners lose, should we just make reference to this Forum Thread and keep the laws as they are for ourselves?

Feud
May 2, 2008, 07:43 PM
Well I'm seeing everybody talked themselves into thinking it's wrong without knowing what it's all about.

I encourage you to one day learn that educated, rational people may hold a different viewpoint from your own without somehow being confused about the issue. Dismissing others opinions as being a result of ignorance simply because they are different from your own is a good way to foster ignorance of your own point of view, since others will make every effort to avoid having the unpleasant conversation necessary to learn it.

Then what are you going to do?
Vote with my feet, and take my business elsewhere. Or just shop there anyway, I'm not too worried.

wcb
May 2, 2008, 07:57 PM
I dont think the ignorance lies with me and if so many of you think the NRA is doing such a bad job and is so ignorant of the laws, if I were you I would quit the NRA. Either that or I think all of you ought to bring the NRA's legal team up to speed with your legal wisdom and show then the error in their ways.

Sorry I bought up the action to infringe on your rights. I just see the Constitution being changed to the point that now it's all but illegal to be a Christian in a Christian Nation, and as if the very words read in amendments, homosexuality and abortion are Constitutional rights. So if you think the second amendment cant become ignored for it's content such that it will soon say you have NO right to own a gun; I would categorically say that's your ignorance.

I give up here.

Jeff White
May 2, 2008, 08:02 PM
I dont want Walmart telling me I cant carry my gun today because I plan to stop at their store and then if Walmart gets their way, everybody has the door wide open to say the same thing then next thing you know you can carry a gun but you just cant take it anywhere. Then what are you going to do?

Exactly what Feud suggests. Don't give them my business. Boycotts and the threat of boycotts has worked before. When it affects their bottom line they'll change their tune.

I'm not buying into the idea that we need to make anyone give up his private property rights, not even for my own cause. And the argument that property rights are already gone so what would this hurt is really a non starter with me.

Jeff

Randy in Arizona
May 3, 2008, 02:13 PM
Here is a list of some of the fine folks supporting this wonderful 'legal' action.

If any of you people do business with anyone on the list you might visit with them about the error of their ways. :cuss:

• ABB Inc.
• American Bar Association
• American Society for Industrial Security
• Atlantic Scientific Corp.
• Baptist Health Care
• Bulova Technologies EMS, LLC
• Carr Riggs & Ingram LLC
• Central Florida Human Resource Association
• Coastal Mechanical Services
• Florida Retail Federation
• Healthsouth
• HR Florida State Council of the Society for Human Resource Management
• Kitchen & Bath Center
• Len-Tram, Inc.
• LTC Consulting, Inc.
• Manatee Glens Corporation
• Members First Credit Union of Florida
• Palm Beach County Chapter of Risk & Insurance Management Society (RIMS)
• Pricesmart, Inc.
• Richards Paint Mfg. Co., Inc.
• Risk & Insurance Management Society of Palm Beach County
• Sarasota-Manatee Human Resources Association
• Sea Pines Rehab Hospital
• South Florida Hospital Association
• Southwest Florida Water Management District
• Spectrum Microwave, Inc.
• Voyager Business Concepts, Inc.
• Webster University
• Wilson Technology Group, Inc.
• W.S. Badcock Corporation

Autolycus
May 3, 2008, 03:31 PM
Said WCB:
Sorry I bought up the action to infringe on your rights. I just see the Constitution being changed to the point that now it's all but illegal to be a Christian in a Christian Nation, and as if the very words read in amendments, homosexuality and abortion are Constitutional rights. So if you think the second amendment cant become ignored for it's content such that it will soon say you have NO right to own a gun; I would categorically say that's your ignorance. If homosexuality is not a consitutionally protected right then neither is heterosexuality. The Bill of Rights does not address these issues directly but lets them fall under the right to pursue happiness. Abortion was commonplace in the founding fathers times. They just called the abortionists midwives. And the USA is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation and I thank the creator (not god) for that. But these are issues that have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment per se nor do they have anything to do with the infringement of property rights.

For all these people who are complaining that Walmart doesn't want them to carry they are simply wrong. Walmart does not necessarily want guns on their property. Nor do they want people telling them what to do, just as you don't. For example WPB does not want the government telling him he has to accept gays or non-Christians but he does want the government to force Walmart to accept him. That is hypocrisy at its finest.

rbernie
May 3, 2008, 06:33 PM
Somehow I find that hard to believe; this has been nothing but a judge and jury argument instead of what the NRA is pleading for and warning about. My allegiance is to common sense and rational thought - not to the NRA. Sometimes the NRA displays these characteristics, and sometimes they don't.

I do find it interesting, wcb, that you're more interested in beating your chest about your contributions to the NRA-ILA over this issue that actually debating whether or not the NRA is correct. Shill for the NRA all you want, but sooner or later you're either going to have to address the issue itself or folk will NOT take you seriously.

For example WPB does not want the government telling him he has to accept gays or non-Christians but he does want the government to force Walmart to accept him. That is hypocrisy at its finest.
Pretty much so.

I find it incredible that so many don't see it, so steeped as they are in their own self-interests.

brighamr
May 4, 2008, 02:31 AM
this thread wins the contest for most quotes per page... and hasn't the private property thing been discussed a couple dozen times this month?

Sage of Seattle
May 5, 2008, 01:56 AM
And the argument that property rights are already gone so what would this hurt is really a non starter with me.

And the argument that this form of discrimination is somehow different than every other form of discrimination is really a non starter with me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Our Right-to-carry Is Under Attack!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!