Carry rights on private property?

[Owen Sparks]

This topic comes up from time to time in different guise. Usually it is some guy with a CCW permit who is vexed because a business somewhere has posted a sign disallowing firearms on the premises. The poster thinks that his Constitutional rights have somehow been violated by a “no guns” policy.

It is important to remember that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the powers of GOVERNMENT, not on private property owners. The government cannot censor free speech, the theater owner and the librarian can. Many businesses have rules disallowing tank tops, pets, food and drinks, cameras and a host of other things that the government has no power to control.

This is a property rights issue, not a second amendment issue. Business owners can make virtually any rules that they want about what you can and can not do on their property. You also have the right not to patronize businesses that have rules that you don’t like. You can tell all your friends on The High Road to boycott that establishment and there is not a damn thing the business can do about it. Private property and free speech rights are the essence of liberty.

Just what ever you do, don’t get the government involved!

 

[misANTHrope]

THREAD GRENADE!!!

 

[TexasRifleman]

Business owners can make virtually any rules that they want about what you can and can not do on their property.

So that "No Blacks Allowed" sign is OK then?

And yes, thread grenade. IBTL and all that.

These never end well but since you asked...... Which one of the Bill of Rights ensures private property rights? I'm pretty sure one of them ensures my right to "keep and bear arms"........

 

[bogie]

Why do some people insist that we should give second amendment bigots our hard-earned money?

Or maybe some of you guys just want to make excuses for your lack of a spine.

Or maybe some of you guys don't own guns, are scared of guns, and just want them to go away.

Or maybe some of you guys are in Asia, and are getting paid by the word.

 

[TX1911fan]

Texas Rifleman hit it on the head. If a business is a public accomodation, meaning open to the public, except in very limited circumstances (private clubs, churches, etc.) they have to play by the governments rules. No "no blacks" or "no Jews" signs are allowed. A public accomodation's restrictions on Constitutional rights should also be limited.

 

[Soybomb]

So that "No Blacks Allowed" sign is OK then?

I'd be fine with that. I personally wouldn't shop there and I suspect not only would other people not shop there but that there would be some hardcore activist action against them too.

Government isn't the only solution to something wrong, sometimes we can take care of it ourselves. If you don't like places that don't respect your right and need for self defense just don't shop there. Take your money elsewhere and tell all your other gun friends to do the same.

Which one of the Bill of Rights ensures private property rights? I'm pretty sure one of them ensures my right to "keep and bear arms"........

You have the right to freedom of religion too but I can still ask you to leave if you hold a sermon in my front yard.

 

[divemedic]

Geez, hasn't this been beaten to death already? The people who believe one way or the other are not going to change.

The Constitution does not mention "property rights" outside of three places:

Quartering troops in homes in the Third Amendment (a restriction on government)
Searches under the 4th amendment (a restriction on government)
The takings clause of the 5th Amendment (prohibits the govt from taking property without compensation)

 

[SCKimberFan]

If I allow you to carry on my property, that is my choice.

If I don't allow you to carry, that is my choice.

If I ask you to leave, I don't want to hear any comments about your second amendment rights, you are trepassing, if you fail to leave the property when asked. Trepassing is still against the law. It has nothing to do with the 2A.

 

[tntwatt]

If a private property owner wants to prevent carry on their property, they should be made liable for all actions on their property. Anyone can post "no gun zones" but they should most definately be held responsible for any and all injuries occuring as a result.

 

[TX1911fan]

Guys, just keep in mind the distinction between true private property (like your house) and public accomodations. Once a private property owner opens that property up to the public at large, then they agree to different rules. I agree that "we can just shop somewhere else" but we shouldn't have to. What good are Constitutional rights if we can't exercise them?

 

[Owens]

TX1911fan brings up a good point.

I have been thinking on this concept and following similar discussions on other boards too.

It has been said that if you were to visit someone in their home and they knew you carried, it would be proper and polite to not carry in their home if they so made that desire known. I think most on THR would not disagree on that.

However, a business which is private property, but having public access does make a bit of a different situation. I tend to agree that by opening the door to the public, they are also subscribing to what governs the public.

It's only conjecture on my part, but I can't get away from feeling that many no gun signs are an effect of what I call legal fear. That is to say, they can show that they tried to create a safe environment for patrons should it arise in a legal dispute.

 

[Drgong]

Boycott the stores, but follow the law, and get the law changed if you disagree with it...

 

[TexasRifleman]

You have the right to freedom of religion too but I can still ask you to leave if you hold a sermon in my front yard.

You are comparing your home to a public place you open for business.

When you invite the public in, by opening a business, you operate your "private property" in a different way.

So you're saying that you believe this law should be gone? :

(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

 

[Vibe]

Corporations, particularly the larger ones are more of a governing body than they are a "person". And while they do have certain legitimate powers to dictate what behavior may or may not take place on the premises, I do not think that dictating what may or may not be stored in your vehicle is one of those "legitimate" powers.

In almost all jurisdictions, a warrant is required to authorize a search of your vehicle. This is because it's interior is views as part or YOUR "private property".

The "grey area" comes into play when the company, or other other entity states that you may not come onto their "private property" with certain items in your vehicle. Be it firearms, tobacco, or religious material.

My only real issue is that I do not think that anyone has the right to tell me that in order to spend time at their location for a portion of the day, I MUST render myself "rightless" for not only the time required while I'm there, but also for the trip there and back - and also require me the additional travel to return home (or some other off site storage area), that I would not have had to take if I had been "allowed" to keep those items secured in my "private property" vehicle.

And as for the BOR only applying to "government"....The unwarranted search and seizure of a persons property by another individual is often referred to as burglary, breaking and entering, theft, etc.

 

[brickeyee]

(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Notice folks carrying a gun are NOT a 'protected class'?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Notice folks carrying a gun are NOT a 'protected class'?

And that's a real shame isn't it? A specifically protected class in the Bill of Rights is not included in the Civil Rights Act.

And apparently a lot of you are happy about that.

How odd...... and sad.

But at the end of the day the argument is the same.

What about all this private property rights stuff? Why are none of you out protesting the Civil Rights Act? It's clearly infringing on the property rights of business owners right?

Why are gun owners second class citizens? Doesn't the Bill of Rights tell me I can "keep and bear" arms?

Why should I have to leave my gun in the car? Should Jews have to convert to Christianity to eat at a McDonalds? Of course not.

Should Jews have to pretend to be Christians to eat at Mc Donalds?

Well that's what you are asking gun owners to do for the sake of this "private property" business; pretend to be something they are not.

I'm a gun owner, why should I pretend that it's NOT in the Bill of Rights because I want to buy a hammer at a hardware store?

Why should a business owner be able to infringe on any civil right and why would you NOT consider the Second Amendment a civil right?

I've asked this many times, for an explanation of why the Second is NOT a civil right and no one ever answers with anything other than "well it's just not" or "you can choose not to carry a gun you can't choose not to be black". Those are not answers, they merely sidestep the question.

Sure the financial argument is fine, that boycotting the businesses sends a message, but there simply are not enough concealed carriers to make a boycott effective.

What if the same argument had been applied to Blacks? Well Blacks should boycott businesses that don't let them come in.

Yeah, that's sort of exactly what racist store owners wanted anyway wasn't it?

So you're going to refuse to go into a place that doesn't want you there in the first place? That sounds real effective.......

 

[Soybomb]

You are comparing your home to a public place you open for business.

When you invite the public in, by opening a business, you operate your "private property" in a different way.

So then I can deliver my sermon in walmart?

So you're saying that you believe this law should be gone? :

Yup. The sentiment is good but I don't believe it is the governments job to try to make sure we're not bigots nor is it the only way to accomplish it, nor does it really prevent people from being bigots anyway it just hides it a little.

Why are none of you out protesting the Civil Rights Act?

The civil rights act as it pertains to public places paid for with tax payer money is fair. If you've paid for it, you get access. As it pertains to private businesses, its wrong. Most people have been raised believe its the way to combat racism and bigotry though and if you suggest that it might not be great they'll think you've got a klan hood in your back pocket. You might as well have asked gura to talk about machine guns in front of the supreme court. Right, wrong, and public acceptance don't always go hand in hand.

Why are gun owners second class citizens? Doesn't the Bill of Rights tell me I can "keep and bear" arms?

Sure, keep and bear all the arms you want. If you do it on my property though I might ask you to leave if I don't like it. Similarly I might ask you to leave if you refuse to sing "i'm a little teapot."

Should Jews have to pretend to be Christians to eat at Mc Donalds?

If thats the decision mcdonalds wants to make, why not? I don't think their business will last long but it seems like it should be their choice.

Sure the financial argument is fine, that boycotting the businesses sends a message, but there simply are not enough concealed carriers to make a boycott effective.

Tough luck for us I suppose. I don't believe I'm entitled to be on someone's property against their wishes.

What if the same argument had been applied to Blacks? Well Blacks should boycott businesses that don't let them come in.

Yeah they should and I suspect blacks wouldn't be the only one boycotting them. You assume only those being discriminated against would take action.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yeah they should and I suspect blacks wouldn't be the only one boycotting them. You assume only those being discriminated against would take action.

LOL. Why in the world do you think the Civil Rights Act was passed in the first place? This idea of people coming to do the right thing by osmosis didn't work then what makes you think it would work now?


There were more than enough people perfectly happy to have Black only water fountains and restaurants just as there are people today who are more than happy to have those "dirty gun carrying people" stay out of public places.

Yup. The sentiment is good but I don't believe it is the governments job to try to make sure we're not bigots nor is it the only way to accomplish it, nor does it really prevent people from being bigots anyway it just hides it a little.

If it's not governments job to make sure the Bill of Rights is followed then whose job is it?

I don't care if people are bigoted towards me as a gun owner, they can talk about me behind my back all they want to as long as my rights are intact. If it takes government to force public recognition of a civil right, the Second Amendment in this case, then so be it.

Your idealistic approach certainly didn't work up until 1968 I just don't see why all of a sudden it would work now.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The reason that the Goldwater republicans and their modern counterparts, libertarians are so opposed to the Civil rights act of 1964 is NOT that we are against civil rights. It is because it redefined public property from property that is publicly owned (streets, sidewalks, places you pay taxes to support) to ANY property that is open to the public EVEN if that property is privately owned.

 

[brickeyee]

And that's a real shame isn't it? A specifically protected class in the Bill of Rights is not included in the Civil Rights Act.

And apparently a lot of you are happy about that.

How did you get that?

There is very little doubt that the civil rights act has been perverted into the 'minority civil rights act' by a supreme court run amok under Berger.
His decision flies in the face of the debate and intent of the congress.

As a practical matter we have 'protected classes' that are more equal then others.
In the long run it has caused damage to those classes in unanticipated ways.

There have been a few small reversals, but the scheme has remained.

 

[TexasRifleman]

How did you get that?

Over several threads on this lately it's clear that many gun owners do not believe the Second Amendment protects a "civil right".

 

[SCKimberFan]

This has really gone way OT. It started out as a query about private property rights and carrying onto private property.

I think there are quite a few of us that do realize that the 2A protects a "civil right", although I consider it an inherent right endowed by my Creator.

I still hold the position that my property is mine to do with as I so desire, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

 

[green country shooter]

1. The Bill of Rights applies to the government, not private persons. True.

2. But the federal government, and some state and local governments, have passed laws requiring places open to the public or in interstate commerce (and also state and local governments) not to violate the civil rights of persons.

3. So a business keeping out minorities or guns may be violating a civil rights law, but not the Bill of Rights.

Please can we not have any more posts saying "I can do whatever I want on my own property."

 

[Soybomb]

LOL. Why in the world do you think the Civil Rights Act was passed in the first place? This idea of people coming to do the right thing by osmosis didn't work then what makes you think it would work now?


There were more than enough people perfectly happy to have Black only water fountains and restaurants just as there are people today who are more than happy to have those "dirty gun carrying people" stay out of public places.

I think the act passing was a sign of the times showing the voters were now leaving racist ways behind. By the time you can pass a law you've won the majority, things are going your way. I suppose it comes down to perspective. I don't think the law change the US, I think the US changed and the law followed.

If it's not governments job to make sure the Bill of Rights is followed then whose job is it?

I'm still unsure why you feel like you have the right to do anything but leave and remain unharmed on any property that you don't own or pay for. If you're entitled to carry in walmart, why aren't you entitled to hold your religious service in walmart? You are a guest and you will remain free to exercise your rights but if I don't like what you're doing, I might ask you to leave. Why isn't that fair?

Your idealistic approach certainly didn't work up until 1968 I just don't see why all of a sudden it would work now.

I suppose its perspective. Would a law have "fixed" racism if it had passed 100 years earlier? I don't think so, I think it was time, and activism, and education that brought society around.

 

[SCKimberFan]

Read the entire sentence, not just part of it.

...as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another!