Gun bans on "private property" - completely stupid!

[trapperjohn]

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]

Excellent. Bring it home, trapperjohn.

 

[Foreign Devil]

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]

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]

Trapperjohn, I agree with your tort arguments. Do you happen to know whether any such case has been tried?

 

[Vermont Guy]

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]

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]

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Therefore, at various stores, sporting events, and other businesses - you must be made defenseless.

Not defenseless, gunless. There is a big difference.

 

[pax]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

pax,

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]

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]

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