Gun bans on "private property" - completely stupid!


PDA






dave3006
June 11, 2004, 10:29 AM
Think about it. The law allows so-called private property owners to post a sign saying against concealed weapons. Therefore, at various stores, sporting events, and other businesses - you must be made defenseless.

Besides the fact that these places are not completely private property. They are all open for public use... The (il) logic is that an owner can do what he wants on his own property. Therefore, I suggest the following must also be okay for the owner to do:

1. Confiscate all your money upon exit.
2. Force you to leave naked to assure you have not stole anything.
3. Deny service to blacks, jews, and women.

The private property argument doesn't wash. Reason #4597 why this is really not a free country.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun bans on "private property" - completely stupid!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TarpleyG
June 11, 2004, 10:41 AM
Concealed means concealed. Nobody's the wiser.

Greg

Smoke
June 11, 2004, 11:01 AM
Actually I'm all for private property rights.

My property, my rules. Private ownership is one of the basic premises vital to our country. I don't care for the government telling me what I can or cannot do with property that I own...including whether I allow the carrying of weapons.

Smoke

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 11, 2004, 11:07 AM
Private property is THE cornerstone of freedom. Let them (retail) be stoopid about CCW. They do have competition.

ojibweindian
June 11, 2004, 11:14 AM
Doesn't one of our senior members hand out a card to these types saying that they'll be sued for denying him the ability to protect himself if he gets hurt?

Augustwest
June 11, 2004, 11:15 AM
Up to you whether or not you want to spend money at establishments that prohibit concealed carry, but I show the utmost respect for the requests and requirements of property owners, even if I don't agree with them.

And if I really disagree with them, they won't find me on their property any longer.

pax
June 11, 2004, 11:31 AM
My outer clothing and everything under them is my own private property, which I take with me wherever I go.

pax

BeLikeTrey
June 11, 2004, 12:22 PM
I can't remember exactly who it was. (for some reason I want to say blockbuster, not sure though, its been 5 or 6 yrs) There was a business here in SC that prohibited carry. It was changed in short order due to the rapid decline in business. (Here in SC we have strong RKBA representation. And grass roots organizations. AG was Charlie "invade a home invite a bullet" Condon. We have Andre Bauer who advocated reform of CWP restrictions to take out senseless restrictions and to clarify grey areas.)Most places I know of now have seen the light.
Plus as many others say, concealed is concealed. I am not advocating or disapproving, either way, since if you get caught you could lose your license... personally I just avoid the places that cut in on my right to bear arms.
Another example of poorly done prohibition of firearms is a local Bojangles. I always check the doors on an establishment before I go in, to see if there is a prohibited sign. I got to the desk and began to place my order when, what should I see posted on the inside at the counter? I had to cease and desist with my order and bow out gracefully. they don't get my business or any of my friends' now... Hmmm... I haven't been back to see if it has changed. I think I will stop in to see today.

trapperjohn
June 11, 2004, 12:42 PM
Think about it. The law allows so-called private property owners to post a sign saying against concealed weapons. Therefore, at various stores, sporting events, and other businesses - you must be made defenseless.
The private property argument doesn't wash. Reason #4597 why this is really not a free country.

You are nt thiking this through. IF the Government didnt allow private property owners to do this we would be a less free country. no one forces you to go to a private place that does not allow guns. therefore your rights are not infringed on.
I think private property owners should be able to refuse service to anyone. IF some business wants to discriminate against people based on Race, sex,etc, that should be their right. Whenever the government tells someone what they can or cant do with their own property they are infringing on our freedoms. Would you like the government to take away your right to post no tresspassing signs, or your right to run people off your property or your right to tell people not to smoke or use profanity on your property, or any other thing you might not want people doing on your property? If you are nt willing to give up those rights then it is hypocrisy to want the government to force private property owners to allow you to carry on their property that you enter at your own discretion.
we have to ask ourselves do we love carrying a gun more than freedom? Typically people who carry tend to love freedom. If we forsake our love of freedom for our love of guns we have become as bad as the blissninnies.

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 11, 2004, 12:52 PM
I think there is a little bit of "reverse-the-tables" going on here. The left constantly dictates what private property owners can do. It would be fund to have the state force our stance down everyone's throats for once.

But. alas, we are the bearers of freedom and we can not allow the state to infringe upon private property.

dave3006
June 11, 2004, 12:55 PM
The fact that the property is being used in a public manner makes this different. You can not do whatever you want on any type of private property, much less private property used by the public. No one has the right to violate your human rights, just because it is his property. If you open your property to the public, you can not descriminate. The laws even make property owners rent to homos in most states. You would be sued if you tried to make blacks sit in the back of your fast food store. There are plenty of precidents.

I can make a policy that any woman that enters my store can be sexually assaulted if I see fit. Women across America can decide to boycott my store. However, the first time one walks in and I cross that line, I have committed a crime.

Just because I enter your store that is open to the public, you have no right to disarm, rape, or violate me in any way.

Think about it.

fix
June 11, 2004, 01:02 PM
So would it be ok with you if John Kerry held a campaign rally in your front yard, with Whoopi, Rosie, Sarah, and all the trappings under the protection of the First Amendment?

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 11, 2004, 01:03 PM
Dave,

You are comparing an overt criminal act to a preference. Raping a woman is criminal. Allowing guns on private property is a preference. The 2A states that Government may not infringe on your rights.

Be very careful calling private property public property simply because a business is open to the public. Be very careful what you wish for.

trapperjohn
June 11, 2004, 01:08 PM
The fact that the property is being used in a public manner makes this different.
no it doesnt. Its still owned my the owner, he hs the right to do as he pleases. you have the right to not go there. You do not (or should not) have the right to shove what you want to do down his throat if you chose to go there.
I can make a policy that any woman that enters my store can be sexually assaulted if I see fit.
thats an absurdity. her body is privat property, if we are consistant in our view that people can decide what to do with their property then you cant force them to do anything.
now if you wanted to open some house of pervision where everyone entering had to do something weird then that would be your right and people would have the right to go there or not of their own free will.

Just because I enter your store that is open to the public, you have no right to disarm, rape, or violate me in any way.
I have no right to violate your private property rights if you enter my store. I cant force you to give me everythign you have. but I can charge admission. as long as the rules are known going in then someone should be able to do what they want with their property.

you open your property to the public, you can not descriminate. The laws even make property owners rent to homos in most states. You would be sued if you tried to make blacks sit in the back of your fast food store. There are plenty of precidents

and those examples are right how??
the property owners SHOULD be able to discriminate if they want to, that is called freedom. I should be able to open a men only club. oh wait they have those.

yes there are laws that infringe on property owners and force them to allow people to do things that they do not want. But we as freedom loving people should not infringe furthter on peoples rights to get our way. leave that to the leftist.

Shootin' Buddy
June 11, 2004, 01:16 PM
pax said, My outer clothing and everything under them is my own private property, which I take with me wherever I go.
I agree.

I see the matter of carrying a handgun on someone else's property to be perfectly consistent with the primacy of property rights. The main reason someone would be carrying, after all, is to protect their personal property, namely, themselves. Being allowed to protect your own property is key to the primacy of property rights.

The Libertarian principle, as I understand it, is that people have the right to do with their own property whatever they want so long as it does not significantly affect another person's property.

Wherever I go, I am my own property. I do not suddenly belong to someone else simply because I walk onto their land. The same thing goes for whatever I bring with me. My car is still my car even when it is being driven on someone else's road.

I may be standing in a house that someone else is king over, but I am still king over myself and my property which I brought with me, and I can do with it whatever I want (It's mine) so long as it doesn't significantly affect their property.

If I pull out a cigarette and start to smoke, I am interfering with their property (since I can not keep the smoke to myself) and so I do not just have an automatic right to smoke just because the cigarettes are mine. Likewise, If I pee in their toilet, I'm affecting their property (messes up the toilet, fills the septic, consumes water) and so I don't even have an automatic right to pee in their bathroom.

However, a gun that is concealed, and properly and safely holstered upon my own person and under my control at all times does not affect the other person's property even though it is within their house.

If they want to kick me off their property, so be it. My presence must necessarily affect their property and so I don't have an automatic right to be there. But, following the libertarian principle of property rights at least, they do not have the right to tell me I can not carry my gun to defend my own property.

Don

Art Eatman
June 11, 2004, 01:43 PM
Absent constraints imposed by governments, the proprietor of a business has the private property right to establish his rules. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" has long been common. Same for "No smoking".

If you don't like his version of "No guns", you have the option of shopping elsewhere. The possibility exists that if you meet his "No guns" rule, he has indeed assumed tort liability for your safety while on his premises.

A member of the public can tell me how to run my business only by withholding his money, by shopping elsewhere. Anybody doesn't like the rules of my game? Hey, don't play.

:), Art

RWK
June 11, 2004, 02:41 PM
I normally refrain from threads of this type; however, Art is "dead on target" here. Private property owners have the right to be "stupid" and the rest of us have the right to express our disapproval by taking our business elsewhere.

Smoke
June 11, 2004, 02:43 PM
If they want to kick me off their property, so be it. My presence must necessarily affect their property and so I don't have an automatic right to be there.

Since you don't have an automatic right to be there, if I decide to post a no guns sign then by coming on to my property you agree to abide by the rules as they were set forth.

If I don't have a sign but find out after you have come to my property that you are armed, I might ask you to leave. If you don't, it''s called "Criminal Trespassing.

You are fully free to choose where you go. I am fully free to make people that are on my property follow my rules. IF the two don't jive - go someplace else.

Pretty simple really.

Smoke

Slick Pilot
June 11, 2004, 02:47 PM
The concept of private property and the right of an owner to control what happens on that property is one of the most basic principles that define the idea of freedom.

I do not agree with those who would prevent concealed and unobtrusive carry, within the local law, of a weapon, but their restriction of conduct – on their property – should remain an inviolable right. After all, they also have the right to ask for conformance in other aspects of behavior, such as wearing apparel, the consumption of specific beverages, or use of tobacco products. In fact, the owner can even prohibit patrons from bringing food and beverages from outside.

Concerning one’s presence at sporting events, stores, or other businesses - that presence is voluntary. In this type of case, the individual makes a choice to enter that private property. This does not mean the proprietor gives up his rights as a property owner.

The comparison of prohibiting the possession of a weapon to prohibiting admission based on gender or skin color or religion is similar to that of apples and oranges. One has no real control over gender or skin color (medical science and Michael Jackson notwithstanding). Religion is generally transparent – but the owner could legally prohibit the overt practice of religion on his property (such as the sacrifice of chickens). But that prohibition chicken sacrifice would be a restriction of behavior, not a restriction in the belief in such sacrifices. The prohibition of the possession of a weapon is a restriction of behavior, not the restriction of a belief that carrying a weapon is a good thing.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” is a restriction on behavior. One has the “right” to dress as one pleases, but a property owner has also the right to restrict dress to that which he thinks appropriate. That dress code can extend to the carry of a camera, a ballpoint pen, or a weapon on property that is privately owned.

No, an owner can not do anything he wants on his property – such as stealing someone’s money or committing assault. That would be a violation of the law whether on private or public property.

Using private property to have a sporting event or to sell groceries does not make it public property, even though the public has access. That access is granted at the will of the owner, as long as he does not deny access illegally – such as by violating civil rights laws or any other law. Just because he is using that property for a commercial purpose does not mean he gives up his right to control the behavior on that property.

Everyone has the right, however, to refuse to patronize any business. One also has the privilege of telling or writing a letter to the owner or the local newspaper with the reasons for non-patronage explained.

But, if one’s weapon is concealed, who’s to know?

mercedesrules
June 11, 2004, 03:14 PM
(dave3006) The fact that the property is being used in a public manner makes this different. You can not do whatever you want on any type of private property, much less private property used by the public. No one has the right to violate your human rights, just because it is his property. If you open your property to the public, you can not descriminate. The laws even make property owners rent to homos in most states. You would be sued if you tried to make blacks sit in the back of your fast food store. There are plenty of precidents.
This is the case now, but it is not liberty. Liberty, as others have mentioned, is when a private property owner can make the rules about who gets to enter and use his land or buildings and how they are to behave while there.

The idea that when one "opens up his property to the public" he loses his right to dispose of it is statist oppression. Forcing restaurants to serve blacks or men's clubs to accept women is tyranny.

MR

MeekandMild
June 11, 2004, 03:38 PM
Concealed means concealed. Nobody's the wiser. In some jurisdictions you can be prosecuted if you are made, so concealed means really positively concealed.

whistlepig
June 11, 2004, 03:53 PM
What's operative here is the balance of rights, which can get to be a thorny legal question. We're all familiar with the statement that Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

A slight digression. The right of self defense, hence the RTKBA, is also rooted in property rights, since a right to property implies a right to defend it, and our rights to our selves -- our lives, body, thoughts, etc. -- are the most basic of property rights.

The question, I think, to the balance here lies in the burden of remedy. In resolving the conflict of rights, which party has the greater burden? It would be far more burdensome for the shop owner (or any real property owner) to move their property away from an individual's sphere of personal protection, than for the individual to move himself away from the sphere of risk created by the no-CCW policy.

When the situation goes to the extreme, as in the "all persons entering consent to physical assault" mentioned earlier (generic rendition of Dave3006's example), I think the balance shifts, because of the difference between an actual harm, vs. a potential harm. And yes, I acknowledge the argument that deprivation of the means of self-defense is an actual harm, but it's less immediate, and more easily remedied (by simply leaving, or not patronizing the business, in this case), than an actual assault.

Edit: I didn't get that quite right there. Obviously, the same remedy applies in either case, above, i.e. that of just not entering the property. The right of property doesn't always extend to the act of assault, though. Defense against theft, etc. of course come into play. Does the right of property extend to shooting trespassers who are otherwise acting peaceably? I think most here would argue that it doesn't. But further, the balance issue (or in some cases proportionality) would determine whether an act commited by a property owner is legally or morally actionable, which is where, I think, the difference lies between the actual harm vs. potential harm.

JPL
June 11, 2004, 04:21 PM
Property owners also have the right to limit free speech and assembly.

carpettbaggerr
June 11, 2004, 06:53 PM
The possibility exists that if you meet his "No guns" rule, he has indeed assumed tort liability for your safety while on his premises. This possibility should be made a reality. Law should be passed where the property owner who denies his patrons the right to carry is responsible for any injury suffered as a result.

I'd also like to see law requiring lock boxes or check rooms for any places which require you to be unarmed. If you allow the public access, but ban the carrying of concealed weapons, you should have to provide a safe place for the disarmed public to store the weapons. :)

telomerase
June 12, 2004, 02:15 PM
Private property owners have the right to be "stupid" and the rest of us have the right to express our disapproval by taking our business elsewhere.

This is the solution. Evolution doesn't favor retailers who chase away customers (which is why Jim Crow laws had to be passed to make Southerners ACTUALLY discriminate, instead of just talking about it; read Sowell and Williams), and whenever we have a choice of a rights-respecting store over a victim zone we should take it.

(Of course trying to disarm only the law-abiding customers is really, really @#$%ing stupid, I'm not going to argue with you there).

trapperjohn
June 12, 2004, 05:38 PM
This possibility should be made a reality. Law should be passed where the property owner who denies his patrons the right to carry is responsible for any injury suffered as a result.

the reality is allready there, you don't "pass a law" for something like this. this is Tort. it is established via case law examples. As soon as some CCP owner is disarmed and then harmed in the establishement he shoudl file a civil sut for damages. all the plaintiff would have to prove to a jury is that:
(a) he was harmed
(b) he would not have been harmed but for the act of the defendant
(c) that a reasonably prudent person would have allowed him to carry or provide an equal level of protection

if he can prove these to a jury he has one a negliance case.

you have to diferrentiate between civil (tort) law, and criminal law.

I'd also like to see law requiring lock boxes or check rooms for any places which require you to be unarmed. If you allow the public access, but ban the carrying of concealed weapons, you should have to provide a safe place for the disarmed public to store the weapons.

when are we going to learn the solution is not more government and more laws, it is less government and less laws!!

do we realy want feds or whoever inspecting establishement that post so that they can determine the suitablility of their storage. come on people, lets not fall into the trap the leftist have and get the government to force people to do what we want.

short and sweet, a business does something i don't like, i don't go there. period.
i do not moan that the government should pass another law to force them to do something they do not want to do so that i can go there.
a city near me just passed a smoking ban, can't smoke in any place the public goes in that town. its a terrible law passed by the few blissninnies who hate smoking. lets not be like them!!

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 12, 2004, 06:38 PM
Excellent. Bring it home, trapperjohn.

Foreign Devil
June 12, 2004, 08:55 PM
Evolution doesn't favor retailers who chase away customers (which is why Jim Crow laws had to be passed to make Southerners ACTUALLY discriminate, instead of just talking about it;

Tsk tsk - you have no faith in free enterprise.

Rampant discrimination survived and thrived throughout the country until the civil rights movement. Invasive though they are, anti-discrimination laws were passed because large groups of people were once denied equal treatment. The free market didn't solve the problem. We might be able to do away with them today without a return to the discrimination of the past, but these laws were once needed.

telomerase
June 12, 2004, 10:41 PM
The free market didn't solve the problem.

The free market never got the chance. The Jim Crow laws forced businesses to segregate (streetcars, railroads, etc.) who under competition were unable to do so. Have you read Thomas Sowell's and Walter Williams' works on the period? (Williams' "South Africa's War on Capitalism" is also very good).

Note that I am not claiming that Southerners are not evil. Of course they are; I live in the South, and I know. But evil or not, competition for money makes even racists provide services for their customers.

And as far as the 1960s laws go... did "desegregated" inner-city public schools really do the African-Americans any favors? Williams and Sowell both make the point that Black economic gains were faster before the government stepped in to "help", and Black families had more than one parent in those evil times. And Jamaicans... well, just read the books, those guys know a lot more than I do about ethnic groups in America (even the slowest developing group of all, the lowly Irish... who as you'll note eventually managed to surpass the average income without government "help").

telomerase
June 12, 2004, 10:44 PM
Trapperjohn, I agree with your tort arguments. Do you happen to know whether any such case has been tried?

Vermont Guy
June 12, 2004, 10:54 PM
The concept here is one of hierarchy of rights.

You may keep anyone off your property that you want.

BUT if you open your property to do business with the public the you must serve the entire public.

You have a right to keep and bear arms because you have a right to defend your life because you have a right to your life.

RKBA is a derived right.

You have to decide where these go in the hierarchy. It seems clear to me the right to life is preeminent here.

Why did the legislature allow this? Laws and sausages. Two good things that you don’t want to know how they are made. You see it here. Too many CCW “supporters” are willing to sell out my rights because they don’t understand the concessions a property owner has to make to run a business.

We are not talking about your living room or your front yard. We are talking about businesses trying to sell to the public.

There are a lot of people out there who were sorry to see Jim Crow die. Now they get their signs back. This thrills them beyond words. The City of St. Louis has a sign that states “No Guns” THREE TIMES. They are wallowing in hatred.

trapperjohn
June 12, 2004, 11:00 PM
Trapperjohn, I agree with your tort arguments. Do you happen to know whether any such case has been tried?

To my knowledge it hasn't.
it would take a luby's type incident, or a case where witnesses were shot in some holdup for us to be harmed in such a way that having a gun with us would have kept us from harm. if we think of it, the odds of us needing our gun in a retail establishement full of people is exceedingly slim. much slimmer than needing it at home or walking down the street at night.
yes i do carry when I shop and try not to go places where I can't carry. just pointing out the odds. it may be hundreds of years, or never before a case like that could be tried.

c_yeager
June 12, 2004, 11:53 PM
BUT if you open your property to do business with the public the you must serve the entire public.

WOW that is likely the absolute most dangerous premis i have read all day. If five minutes of thinking about THAT one don't make you quiver with fear then i guess there is no reasoning to be had.

telomerase
June 12, 2004, 11:56 PM
>it would take a luby's type incident

Well, there's a few of those every year, and most of them occur where the public is disarmed (that mass shooting on the train on the East coast comes to mind). Why doesn't anyone ever sue? Everyone waiting for a precedent?

trapperjohn
June 13, 2004, 01:17 AM
im not sure that there are a few every year. there may be lawsuits pending, i do not know, but hte lawsuits we are talking about would be disarmed ccw persons. we must admit we are still in the minority. we also tend to not go places we can not carry. tying those facts together, the likelihood of a ccw permit holder being harmed in an establishemnet where he is disarmed is very small statistically.

Tamara
June 13, 2004, 01:31 AM
1. Confiscate all your money upon exit.
2. Force you to leave naked to assure you have not stole anything.
3. Deny service to blacks, jews, and women.

1. No. Violates your property rights. He could, however, take an agreed sum of money from you to enter his property, or (hypothetically) ask that you bring no money onto his property, although I don't know why he would.

2. No again, unless you understood that and voluntarily agreed to it as a condition of entering his property. Some property owners require that you wear no clothing on their property (nudist camps) and others require that you wear shoes and a shirt to enter, or even a tie or other appropriate dress.

3. Yes. You should be able to exclude all blue-eyed male southpaws who wear blue jeans from your property if that blows your skirt up. If you do, other people should probably avoid contact with you since whatever you have might be contagious, but you have the right to free association in this country, even though the Federals will use force to prevent you from exercising it.

atek3
June 13, 2004, 02:26 AM
What tamara, trapperjohn, and others have said.
Basic Property Rights Theory 101.
I feel property owners have every right to be stupid and ban weapons on their property. And if I was morally consistant I'd say, "don't carry weapons on their property." However waiting for every hoplophobic troglodyte to come around will take a while, so for now, I'd simply tell people to carry concealed (assuming the state law required a warning first)
or boycott.

atek3

JPM70535
June 13, 2004, 06:04 AM
Private property (not generally open to the public) can be restricted to include pretty much any rule or regulation the Owner decrees. Example: private residence, owner disallows smoking or carrying of weapons. Perfectly justifiable, and the only recource is to refrain from entering that property. Stupid, Yes but legal and fair. Liability for your safety is not the responsibility of the Property owner to any greater degree than normal.

Private property, open to the Public on a limited basis such as a private Mens Only club has different rule making limits. Example: Mens only club may refuse entrance to Women ,(provided the club is not used as an unofficial extension of a business where deals are consumated) but not Minority males who meet other requirements for membership. Regulations such as no CCW, or to allow smoking (mens club) are the exclusive right of the Owner to make and again, Stupid? Yes but same as above with the exception that liability for your safety when disearmed is quite possibly shifted to the property owner.

Private Property, usually open to the Public, such as Apartment complexes, Retail establishments, Restuarants etc., are IMO a whole nuther can of worms. While Retail establishments such as Wally World can and do restrict the carrying of weapons in their establishments, they do so with the real possibility of Tort action should a disarmed customer be the victim of violence which could have been prevented had the customer been armed. Lawsuits do not necessarily have to have merit to be asessed against a company, think Mickey Ds loss of the hot coffee suit. I know of no lawsuits based on the No Gun Policy but IMO it is just a matter of time. Avenues available are to either comply with Rules, comply with rules and let Owner know he will be sued if injury occurs due to rules, Ignore ruled and carry with knowledge that being made means a Trespass charge and possible ban from the premises.

My choice: Concealed means Concealed and short of a pat down, I will never be made, Problem Solved.

pax
June 13, 2004, 11:14 AM
I'd like to take this moment to point out that European-type gun laws are rooted in the fact that the nobility and gentry owned all the land.

People who didn't own land couldn't carry weaponry because they were always on someone else's property, and the people who owned the land didn't want the peasants to be armed.

Are we headed that direction again?

pax

Art Eatman
June 13, 2004, 11:24 AM
pax, I doubt it. "Toting" in stores is usually an issue only during the period of time right after passage of new CHL laws. After a while it all dies down and many more stores ignore the issue than worry about whether or not one is carrying.

Just as a "for instance", I've seen no signs forbidding firearms here in south Georgia, anywhere. None in the gas stations or cafes along I-10 between Tallahassee and Fort Stockton. None in any grocery stores or WalMarts in Texas.

Art

gryphon
June 13, 2004, 11:40 AM
Therefore, at various stores, sporting events, and other businesses - you must be made defenseless.

Not defenseless, gunless. There is a big difference.

pax
June 13, 2004, 12:05 PM
gryphon,

Sure.

Most of the martial arts weapons -- nunchuks and such -- were simply improvised farm implements, appropriate for peasant use.

Most of the people who relied on those improvised non-weapons were called "peasants."

And oddly enough, they stayed peasants, when faced with real weaponry modern for its time (such as sharp bladed swords).

Funny how that works.

Art,

I guess my point was that once you concede to another human being the right to deny you the practical ability to defend yourself, you are headed down the same path that kept generations of peasants and peons helpless and hopeless.

Modern people often live in buildings that belong to other people (apartments) or which sit on land that belongs to other people (condos, townhouses, manufactured homes), or which have been sold with limiting conditions attached to the sale (homeowner's associations). They don't often own or work on property which belongs solely to them (it belongs to their employer, and often to the bank as well). They drive down a public street, but park in private lots (which belong to finance companies as much as to the individuals who ostensibly own them).

Once we concede that the individual has the right to effectual tools of defense only when he is on land that he owns or controls, we have effectually removed his right to bear arms.

And the end of that road is the one that kept generations of peasants unarmed and helpless before their "betters."

*shrug* Of course, I obey the laws. I just think they're often immoral and wrong.

pax

Art Eatman
June 13, 2004, 12:20 PM
Yeah, pax, I follow your point. However, remember that this is nothing new. In the old days of the cattle trails, it was not uncommon for the bars to request that patrons remove their pistols. Some trail towns had this "gun collecting" done by their LEOs.

The whole history of this country has been "You don't need that gun here; take it off." (Not just here. I recall a sign above a guard's table at the main entrance of the Manila Hotel, back in 1949, "Please check all firearms here.")

This general attitude has been in conflict with reality mostly since the 1970s; prior to that it didn't really matter. I know that in the late 1930s and on into the 1950s, self-defense carrying of handguns "on the street" was extremely rare as compared to today.

Art

Mulder
June 13, 2004, 12:31 PM
My 2 cents:

Property owners have a Right to ask anyone to leave at anytime. If the individual refuses to leave, then it is criminal trespass. If the individual is armed or if they are unarmed makes no difference.

Property owners also have a Right to post whatever signs they want to. However, in most states, most of these signs do not have the force of law behind them. The rare exception is the "no trespass" sign, and even then there are regulations (number of signs, size of font, color, etc....) that must be adhered to in order for the sign to have the force of law behind it.

If a property owner wants to post a "no guns" sign, fine. But if they want the law to back them up, I have a real problem with that. By doing so, you are giving the policies that property owners set the force of law. This is a very dangerous precendent. Can you imagine if the company you worked for could not only fire you, but also put you in jail, for violating one of their "policies".

So I think they should be able to post whatever signs they want, but it shouldn't be illegal to violate any or all of their "policies". "No trespass" being the exception.

Treylis
June 13, 2004, 12:34 PM
Sigh.

I'm always rather saddened when I see some of these viewpoints come up.

Private property owners should be able to exclude you from their property fom ANY REASON--if you're male, female, black, white, carrying, not carrying, left-handed, right-handed, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, etc., etc., etc.

The Real Hawkeye
June 13, 2004, 12:36 PM
The private property argument doesn't wash. Reason #4597 why this is really not a free country.Dave, you are correct. Although privately owned facilities open to the general public for business are indeed private property, they are not legally identical to private property which is not open to the general public for business. At least, not under current law. For example, you have a recognized right to keep all Irishmen off of your residential property, but if you are open to the general public for business, you are not at liberty to post and enforce a sign which reads "No Dogs or Irish Allowed on Premises." You'd be taken to court and lose if you ever tried to enforce it.

The approach to this issue of guns on private property is best handled by states like Texas, in my opinion. A store owner, like any other private property owner, may post a sign prohibiting guns being carried, but unless it is accompanied by a verbal statement to the individual, who was actually detected carrying into his store, requesting that he leave, there is no violation of law. After a verbal demand to leave the premises, it becomes the crime of trespass only if refused. This may be enforced by the police at the request of the property owner, and charges may be made for the trespass, but there is no separate "gun violation" for violating the posted sign, as exists in many states. This Texas approach recognizes everyone's legal interests, i.e., the store owner's property rights and the gun toter's right to keep and bear arms. It is the perfect balance of the two, and most consistent with a free society.

The Real Hawkeye
June 13, 2004, 12:50 PM
Sigh.

I'm always rather saddened when I see some of these viewpoints come up.

Private property owners should be able to exclude you from their property fom ANY REASON--if you're male, female, black, white, carrying, not carrying, left-handed, right-handed, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, etc., etc., etc.I agree, but laws which make it a separate criminal offense (apart from the crime of trespass) to violate a posted sign are not consistent with traditional property rights in a free country. The offense ought to be TRESPASS, not a gun violation. You, as a shop owner, seeing a bit of gun steel peek through a cover garment, or the clear outline of a gun through the garment, ought to be within your rights to expel that person. You don't even need to say why. It's your property, and you can expel anyone you want, for any reason. The police, if called, should assist you in expelling said individual, if they will not leave on demand, and should take report indicating that you are pressing charges for trespass, but there SHOULD NOT be a separate charge of a gun violation. If you have that, then the right to carry is being subordinated to the private property right. No, both rights must be balanced as equals, and the enforcement of property rights through the charge of trespass is the way that is done. Not by slapping on some special gun penalty for violating a sign, for God's sake.

Tamara
June 13, 2004, 04:05 PM
Once we concede that the individual has the right to effectual tools of defense only when he is on land that he owns or controls, we have effectually removed his right to bear arms.

So, you say I have the absolute right to be armed on your property, with or without your permission?

What other rights do I have on your property? Can we assume all ten of the basic BoR for the sake of the discussion?

atek3
June 13, 2004, 09:26 PM
My previous post was concerned with a 'moral' right to carry on others property. in this country, however, private property has been converted in "commons" by the ACLU and wrongheaded judges. So based on the ACLU standard, it seems inconsistant to mandate freedom of expression but allow the banning of the right to carry (weapons). This 'publicization' of private property is a course to be feared in IHMO. Its another nasty way for the state to get "all up in your biznass" and tell you what you can and can't do with your property.

atek3

pax
June 14, 2004, 11:38 AM
No, Tamara, I would neither cite the BoR nor claim to possess those rights on your property.

On my property, the rights you possess would best be expressed in negatives: you have the right not to be assaulted, you have the right not to be enslaved, you have the right not to be disarmed, you have the right not to have your belongings taken from you ... any right you possess can be expressed as a negative.

Just as in any other location, you can forfeit any right you otherwise possess by initiating the use of force. That'd be forcing your way onto the property uninvited, for instance, or behaving in a manner that gives others legitimate cause to fear for their lives or safety.

Obviously the owner has the right to choose who will set foot upon it in the first place (since setting foot upon it affects the property), and the right to draw limits upon the positive behavior of the people who do come onto the property (since any action necessarily affects the property -- thus you can't smoke, pee, or help yourself to a glass of water without the owner's permission).

But my rights as a real estate owner can't conflict with your rights as a human being. As a human being, you possess the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just so far and in just such a manner that those rights don't conflict with mine (nor mine with yours). In my home, you may possess whatever tools you require to achieve or retain those things (your gun could fall into any of the three categories) -- with the caveat that you may not use any of them without my permission since your doing so would be an action that affects my property.

Thus, you may carry smokes, handcuffs, guns, or whatever else floats your boat, in a manner that doesn't affect my property (eg, you can't set it down without permission -- "This tactical nuke hidden under my clothing is getting heavy, may I set it down here?"), and as long as you have permission before employing any item (Take the smoke on the back porch, make sure you've got a key to the handcuffs and your partner doesn't mind, leave the gun in the holster because I don't have a safe backstop for it).

Incidentally, typing the above, I came across one glaring exception: illegal items. If the item itself is illegal, your possessing it on my property does indeed affect my property -- since Uncle Sugar and his little angels could well be following you to find out who your accomplices are, and since if The Man decides to raid my domicile while you are there (mistaken address, I'm sure), your illegal stash could result in the loss of my entire property. So without my prior and express permission, you'll have to leave your dime bag behind .. and no, you can't have it in your car on my property either. Shall we meet at your place instead? ;)

Expecting an argument,

pax

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -- Thomas Jefferson

flatrock
June 14, 2004, 12:16 PM
This possibility should be made a reality. Law should be passed where the property owner who denies his patrons the right to carry is responsible for any injury suffered as a result.

The person who is responsible for the injury is the person who caused the injury. Guns aren't responsible for crimes. Property owners aren't responsible for your safety if you choose to enter their property after you have been told that if you choose to do so, you must do so unarmed.

If you feel the risk is unacceptable, don't go there. If you go there, you accept the risk.

the reality is allready there, you don't "pass a law" for something like this. this is Tort. it is established via case law examples. As soon as some CCP owner is disarmed and then harmed in the establishement he shoudl file a civil sut for damages. all the plaintiff would have to prove to a jury is that:
(a) he was harmed
(b) he would not have been harmed but for the act of the defendant
(c) that a reasonably prudent person would have allowed him to carry or provide an equal level of protection

Don't we have enough lawsuit happy people without gun owners joining in?

(a) he was harmed - this one is true
(b) he would not have been harmed but for the act of the defendant - First of all you can't prove this. Secondly he chose to enter the property knowing that he couldn't go armed there. Unless you can show that he didn't have a choice to go there, he accepted the risk through his own actions.
(c) that a reasonably prudent person would have allowed him to carry or provide an equal level of protection - The police in this country aren't even required to provide protection to you. Why do you expect that private individuals should be required to provide for your protection? If you don't feel that you are safe there, and that their rules prevent you from protecting yourself, don't go there!

when are we going to learn the solution is not more government and more laws, it is less government and less laws!!

Agreed!!!

Tamara
June 14, 2004, 01:06 PM
Well, I was going to compose an elaborate and socratic argument, but instead I decided to start here:

Obviously the owner has the right to choose who will set foot upon it in the first place

;)

But back to "Once we concede that the individual has the right to effectual tools of defense only when he is on land that he owns or controls, we have effectually removed his right to bear arms."

I agree that it is morally wrong to deprive a person of their tools of self defense, yet I think it is a greater wrong to force compliance by whittling away at the control people have over their own property via legislative fiat. It is the culture that needs changing, not the law.

I have a gentleperson's agreement with my landlord not to smoke in the house I rent from him; as I see it, I can live here and not smoke, or live elsewhere and smoke. Passing a law to compel him to allow me to smoke in the property I am renting is just not an option to me. Now, if he were to wake up tomorrow and decide that he wanted there to be no guns on the property (about as likely as... well, not bloody likely at all, actually), I'd consider him well within his rights. I'd also consider him an ex-landlord. ;)

pax
June 14, 2004, 01:21 PM
I agree that it is morally wrong to deprive a person of their tools of self defense, ...
Well, there we have it. You and I essentially agree.

As I said earlier, "Of course I comply with the laws. I just think they are often immoral and wrong."

If there's a law that says you as the property owner may legally disarm me while I'm on your property, you've plainly got the legal right to do so.

But while that law may give the legal right to the property owner, it doesn't make the property owner's action morally right.

The mere existence of that legal right does not change the morality of disarming another human being. Nor do the pragmatic considerations affect the moral implications.

Pragmatic considerations are something else again. Pragmatically, you have decided that if your landlord ever loses his mind and tries to disarm you, you'll move elsewhere. That's a good pragmatic move on your part and a perfectly legal move on his.

But does he have the moral right to do it?

If not, why should you morally have to comply?

pax

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others. – William Allen White

Tamara
June 14, 2004, 01:27 PM
Yes, in essence we agree, but back to the owner having the right to decide who sets foot on his property...

I think that a business or property owner has the right to exclude blacks, women... or armed people. And my opinion of a business that would exclude the latter is about the same as one that would exclude the former.

With one or two exceptions, why would I want to go someplace where they have gone to the trouble to put up signs telling me that "my kind" are not welcome there?

pax
June 14, 2004, 01:39 PM
I think that a business or property owner has the right to exclude blacks, women... or armed people. And my opinion of a business that would exclude the latter is about the same as one that would exclude the former.
Well, make up your mind.

Is he morally right to exclude those people?

If he isn't, why should others have to morally comply? (Never mind legal or pragmatic arguments -- what's the moral argument?)

pax

My dear lady, you can pass any laws you like. If they are reasonable,
I'll obey them. If not, I'll ignore them. -- Professor de la Paz in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Robert Heinlein)

Tamara
June 14, 2004, 01:46 PM
I think you have the right to do many things that are morally wrong. You have the right to not defend innocents, including yourself. You have the right to say unkind things about people. You have the right to... well, the list goes on.

Freedom of association on one's own property just happens to trump other's rights to pack heat. It goes back to you saying that someone has the right (not just the legal ability) to control access to his own property. If one of the groups he wishes to exclude is toters, well, that's his right. I'll do my best to avoid using his property in much the same way as I'd try and avoid patronizing a KKK bookstand at the gun show. Should I absolutely have to use his property... well, I do my best to comply with all reasonable regulations. I never set out to violate someone's property rights. ;)

fix
June 14, 2004, 01:47 PM
Were it not for the fact that most of these restrictions are totally arbitrary and grounded in ignorance, we wouldn't need to have this argument. There are times when disarming people is the moral and responsible thing to do. Unfortunately in our society, 99.99999% of the time this is not the case. IMO property rights trump every other right in this country, under the present system. If our system did not permit private property, or decayed to the point where the average Joe could not "git him a piece o' bottom land" then pax's argument would carry more weight.

The Real Hawkeye
June 14, 2004, 02:05 PM
No, Tamara, I would neither cite the BoR nor claim to possess those rights on your property.

On my property, the rights you possess would best be expressed in negatives: you have the right not to be assaulted, you have the right not to be enslaved, you have the right not to be disarmed, you have the right not to have your belongings taken from you ... any right you possess can be expressed as a negative.

Just as in any other location, you can forfeit any right you otherwise possess by initiating the use of force. That'd be forcing your way onto the property uninvited, for instance, or behaving in a manner that gives others legitimate cause to fear for their lives or safety.

Obviously the owner has the right to choose who will set foot upon it in the first place (since setting foot upon it affects the property), and the right to draw limits upon the positive behavior of the people who do come onto the property (since any action necessarily affects the property -- thus you can't smoke, pee, or help yourself to a glass of water without the owner's permission).

But my rights as a real estate owner can't conflict with your rights as a human being. As a human being, you possess the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just so far and in just such a manner that those rights don't conflict with mine (nor mine with yours). In my home, you may possess whatever tools you require to achieve or retain those things (your gun could fall into any of the three categories) -- with the caveat that you may not use any of them without my permission since your doing so would be an action that affects my property.

Thus, you may carry smokes, handcuffs, guns, or whatever else floats your boat, in a manner that doesn't affect my property (eg, you can't set it down without permission -- "This tactical nuke hidden under my clothing is getting heavy, may I set it down here?"), and as long as you have permission before employing any item (Take the smoke on the back porch, make sure you've got a key to the handcuffs and your partner doesn't mind, leave the gun in the holster because I don't have a safe backstop for it).

Incidentally, typing the above, I came across one glaring exception: illegal items. If the item itself is illegal, your possessing it on my property does indeed affect my property -- since Uncle Sugar and his little angels could well be following you to find out who your accomplices are, and since if The Man decides to raid my domicile while you are there (mistaken address, I'm sure), your illegal stash could result in the loss of my entire property. So without my prior and express permission, you'll have to leave your dime bag behind .. and no, you can't have it in your car on my property either. Shall we meet at your place instead?

Expecting an argument,

paxWise words, indeed. Well said, my friend.

tcsd1236
June 14, 2004, 02:22 PM
The private property argument doesn't wash
Whether you agree with the definition of private property or not, it iS in fact private property, and that property holder has the right to set rules for what happens in or on their property. If you don't like their rules, go else where or modify your own behavior to conform to what the property holder will allow. This goes for many things, not just carrying a gun.

pax
June 14, 2004, 02:25 PM
Tams,

Hmmm. Not too sure that our main area of disagreement hasn't become simply a matter of definitions.

Probably don't have a whole lot more to usefully say, only ...
I think you have the right to do many things that are morally wrong. You have the right to not defend innocents, including yourself. You have the right to say unkind things about people. You have the right to... well, the list goes on.
Please note that none of these require the complicity or cooperation of the very people who are most likely to be negatively affected by them.

fix,

You're right in one sense: All experience has shown that while evils are sufferable, mankind are more disposed to suffer them rather than to get rid of them. As long as the current system is seen as endurable, people will not change it.

So as long as the average Joe still has some little area where he can feel free, he isn't likely to try to change the system, nor will he see the need to do so. If he can buy land of his own and be free there, then he won't find much weight behind my argument that he should be able to carry the tools of a free man everywhere he goes.

Of course, if the price of land were so far out of reach of the average working stiff that he had to submit himself to usury in order to "own" a piece of land that could revert to the real owner at any time, well, that might be a different thing. In such a case, my argument that Average Joe has rights that travel with him wherever he goes would carry more weight. ;)

pax

Man is free, but not if he doesn't believe it. -- Giacamo Cassanova de Seingalt

Smoke
June 14, 2004, 02:59 PM
But my rights as a real estate owner can't conflict with your rights as a human being. As a human being, you possess the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just so far and in just such a manner that those rights don't conflict with mine (nor mine with yours). In my home, you may possess whatever tools you require to achieve or retain those things (your gun could fall into any of the three categories) -- with the caveat that you may not use any of them without my permission since your doing so would be an action that affects my property.

If I may not use them without your permission, when should the subject come up?

with the caveat that you may not use any of them without my permission since your doing so would be an action that affects my property

IF no sign is posted, and the owner doesn't ask immediately upon entering, when shall you ask for permission to use it? Do you announce you are carrying to the property owner as soon as you enter the property? Do you stop to ask if it is ok to use your weapon when the violence erupts?

Using your weapon on my property could have multiple effects for me:
A) You kill or wound a suspect ON MY PROPERTY, which means my business, will be closed until the investigation is finished, I'll have bills to clean up the mess, and bills to repair the damage from rounds that may have missed the intended target.
B) I get named in the civil suit filed by the deceased/wounded's family.
C) I get wounded or killed by errant rounds from your weapon.
D) My insurance may not cover acts of violence or my premium may be adversely affected by such.

Private property owners in my opinion have the right to put up a sign denying you the right to carry, I believe we should honor those signs, even if they don't meet the letter of the law (as in TX) by taking our business elsewhere.

Another point brought up here repeatedly is the issue of the property owner being responsible for your safety if you are not allowed to carry.

That is hogwash.

I did not force you to disarm and enter the property. You CHOSE to do so after notice had been given. You could easily have kept your gun and gone else where.

In the event violence erupts, unless I am the instigator of the violence I am not responsible.

If you were indeed injured by violence from third party on my property; I fear it would be an insurmountable argument to have to prove to a jury that you having been allowed to keep your weapon would have resulted in a different outcome. That is pure speculation.

I am a property owner. I retain the right to be a stupid, blissninnie, ass and to impose my idiotic delusions on those that would patronize me.

Don't like it? I have a competitor not very far away.

Smoke

Treylis
June 16, 2004, 10:59 AM
Another point brought up here repeatedly is the issue of the property owner being responsible for your safety if you are not allowed to carry.

That is hogwash.

I did not force you to disarm and enter the property. You CHOSE to do so after notice had been given. You could easily have kept your gun and gone else where.

In complete agreement, Smoke.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun bans on "private property" - completely stupid!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!