Carry rights on private property?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

This is why I would never ever in a million years open my own business. Too many effing rules, and a system that is set up to make me be overly accommodating to everyone except myself while taxing every profit I might have had.

Those of you considering owning your own business, like maybe a gun store, be prepared to take it up the rear from anyone and everyone for the rest of your life. If you're lucky, maybe you won't lose everything you own in a lawsuit.

 

[Autolycus]

Texasrifleman: The fact is that you are a CHL holder and like guns. However they are not banning the person, just the item itself. If you choose not to disarm than that is fine. However you can enter so long as you are disarmed.

They are not banning people, just an item.

 

[TexasRifleman]

They are not banning people, just an item.

Right, the same as if they tried to ban crosses worn as necklaces, or Star of David earrings.

Just items.......

I mean, it's not like they are symbolic of any actual freedom are they?

And this is why we're in trouble. Gun owners think of guns as "just items", not recognizing the freedom and God given right they represent.

 

[Autolycus]

They can ban jewelry if they want. Is the gun a symbol of freedom or the freedom itself?

I am sorry but you are welcome on the property, however your gun is not. That is how simple it is.

 

[TexasRifleman]

They can ban jewelry if they want.

Really? If a store put up a sign forbidding the display of any symbol of Judaism in the store you believe there would not be a civil rights violation under the current laws?

I wanna see that one happen.

And again, this isn't talking about your house, it's about property being run as a business where you have invited the public in by the nature of opening a business.

That is how simple it is.

Yep, it is. It's that simple because gun owners like you refuse to demand your rights be respected. You're perfectly happy to have your civil right violated any time at all for anyone's convenience whether they have good reason or not. The governments, a restaurant owner, anyone.

Not too proud of that right huh? That's a shame, and that's why gun rights are so behind the curve compared to other civil rights.

Do you know what a civil right is? Even Wiki has a decent explanation.

In common law jurisdiction, the term civil right is distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights". Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born. For example, the philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) argued that the natural rights of life, liberty and property should be converted into civil rights and protected by the sovereign state as an aspect of the social contract. Others have argued that people acquire rights as an inalienable gift from a deity (such as God) or at a time of nature before governments were formed

The Founders clearly intended the Second Amendment to recognize a pre-existing right, handed down from God to man. As such they intended the Government of the US, through the Constitution, to protect that right for it's people. That makes it a civil right if you agree with Locke and others, that nations should convert "human rights" into "civil rights".

If you don't agree with it, turn your guns in when they come for them I guess. I mean, it's just an item.

 

[divemedic]

To those who think they are banning an item:

Do you think that a person still retains the right to defend his own life whether he is on property owned by another or not?

If so, does the right to defend himself exist even if the owner of the property objects?

If you think that a person loses his right to self defense if on property owned by another, does that mean that your property rights are more important than the right of another to defend life?

Frequently, when people are so ardent of supporting rights, it is a good barometer to see if that changes if a different ox is gored. So, if you believe in the rights of property owners, try this hypothetical:

I own the land next to your store. Across my property, there run the electric lines that supply your business with power. I decide that I will charge you an access fee of $200 per day for the privilege of running your power across my property. You refuse to pay, so I fut the power lines.

Does my right to control the power lines running across my property trump your rights? Or do you think that requiring utility right of way is an acceptable violation of property rights?

 

[Art Eatman]

This has gone way away from any rational discussion. Enuf.