Herself said:
I had written "...you would have me believe that a restaurant's dress code could dictate not only my outerwear but my underthings..."
Since you're having trouble seeing what you wrote,
here is a link to your own words where you compare restaurant dress codes to "searches". You won't have to look far--your words are in your first sentence.
Clearly, restaurant dress codes are
not searches; they are widely accepted; government has nothing to do with them; and if you refuse to abide by them, the restauranteur can have you removed for trespassing. The restauranteur has every right to set the atmosphere on his property in whatever way he likes.
A private property owner may also ban weapons for any reason. When he does so, he does so with the force of law--whether you like the law or not.
Herself said:
Not only do I disagree profoundly with your line of thinking, it appears to be following the modern fallacy that a gun is a bad thing in and of itself. A concealed weapon threatens no one and offends no manners.
I do not believe that guns are "bad" things. I agree with the bumper sticker: "An Armed Society is a Polite Society". However...to say so does not mean that everyone else in the world agrees with you and I on that matter. They
do have the right, on their property to require that you and I leave our weapons off their property.
Herself said:
...And if they don't want black lace panties worn in their establishment, should I remove mine, even though they would never be seen under ordinary circumstances?
Let's be real here. Show me a law or private property owner's sign which limits, in any way, the undergarments of their customers, and I'll continue with this debate. You're being ridiculous.
Herself said:
No, you are in error. A property owner may set limits to visible behavior. He cannot -- literally cannot -- control that which is not seen.
Yes, he can. Here in Arizona, he can prevent you from entering his property while armed, and
here are the verbatim words...
FIREARMS ARE PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED IN THE FOLLOWING PLACES (with or without a permit)
...
State or local government/private establishments or events when asked by the operator/sponsor/agent.[emphasis mine]
Now, I grant that there may be some differences state-to-state on this matter, and I'll let you do the research on this. However, you cannot say that a property owner "cannot control that which is not seen". Here in Arizona, he can do exactly that, and you are
breaking the law if you ignore his wishes. I'd be surprised, and will stand corrected, if you can show me a state which does not allow a private property owner to limit firearms on his property.
Herself said:
Because they aren't restricting my right to carry concealed, no more than they are "restricting" my right to be an atheist or wear a floral-print thong. They are merely restricting my sharing information about any of those things with others while on their property.
Again, show me a law regulating which religion one must believe in, or which undergarments are proper, and I'll return to this issue. It is a thoroughly silly analogy.
Herself said:
The whims of a property-owner are not the laws of the land. (Texas and Ohio will have to fend for themselves, until they ditch their invasive an unconstitutional posting laws). Don't confuse the two. Wal-Mart and Joe's Bar are just folks like you and me unless they're paying us to play by their rules.
Only in states with the kind of posting laws in re the carraige of weapons; in Indiana and many other states, such signs are merely a request you keep your sideam out of sight -- and I am happy to comply. In Indiana, this is a matter of established precedent.
Again, here in Arizona, the "whims of the property owner"
are the law of the land. Signs are most often used as the "
reasonable request by the operator of the establishment" to not enter while armed. I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on the internet) but I'd bet that someone testing the constitutionality of these signs (or the limits themselves) would lose that case.
Herself said:
It is also a matter of Federal Law that any law contrary to the Constitution is, in fact, no law at all. That one has to be fought out before the courts to make happen, I admit.
Is your position that these laws are unconstitional until tested, and therefore may be ignored, or do you believe that we should obey these laws until the matter is decided?
Herself said:
No, wrong. This is basic natura law stuff: an individual's thoughs are inherently free from compulsion. No law or policy can keep me from thinking thoughts of any sort. How could any such thing be enforced, anyway? Telepathic Brazilian jujitsu ninjas? Poppycock!
Wrong again -- I can have a pack of Salems in my purse (yeech. I have not smoked in years and not tempted now) no matter what kind of "no smoking/no tobacco" rule prevails: I just can't get them out.
There's a vital difference between "No Smoking" laws and "No Tobacco" laws. One is in effect in many places; The other is as silly as "No Lace-Panties" laws.
Herself said:
I disagree. To agree is to buy into "guns = evil." To agree is to give firearms some magic badness-seeking power. It's bilge. The potential to do harm does not imply that harm must be done. Danger is all around you, under the often limited control of your fellows. Hadn't we better fret over what they may do with cars, lead-acid batteries or MAPP-gas torches, if we're going to be so bothered by guns?
I'm not going to debate regulation of panties, lead-acid batteries or gas torches.
Herself said:
Not "most states," only a few; and basic human rights aren't under the control of the majority. (That's why there's a Bill of Rights, you know, to mark certain rights "hands off!" Didn't work so well but that was the aim).
The mere possession of firearms, alcohol, tobacco, potable water, bars of gold or whatever is not bad in and of itself; it is "bad" only becuase some addled rule or law may make it so.
"Bad" has nothing to do with it. The "mere possession of firearms" is
illegal under many circumstances.
Herself said:
The gun you keep concealed and under your control is precisely the same as no gun at all as far as the property-owner is concerned. --And I feel no need at all to obey any silly rule from some business or othe property owner that requres me to disarm myself. They usually have taken no effort to provide me comparable protection!
As do you, I avoid such businesses whenever possible; but when I must deal with them, I carry with a clear conscience.
And there we have it, so let me emphasize your words...
You "feel no need at all to obey a rule" you view as "silly". Property-owners wishes, sentiments of our elected representatives, or decisions of our legal system be damned. If you think it's "silly", then there's no obligation to abide by it.
Herself said:
Can't help but notice you've shifted from doubting the competence of others with arms to defending the property-owner's right of selective exclusion, even when the excluding factor is not visible. Is it both, just the one -- or is it a matter of seizing any excuse to control the actions of other adults with respect to firearms?
If you go back and look, you'll see that I shifted to the property rights aspect of this debate at your questioning. From a practical view, I still think that most CCW holders have far too little skills to warrant carrying while on an airplane. To allow CCW holders to carry on a plane would create
far more problems than it solves.
You and I are done here.
