Gun bans on "private property" - completely stupid!

[flatrock]

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]

pax,

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]

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]

pax,

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]

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]

pax,

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]

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]

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

Wise words, indeed. Well said, my friend.

 

[tcsd1236]

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]

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]

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]

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.