"Gun Lobby Has Property Rights in its Sights":Pro-gun Business Leader Doesn't Get It

[TwitchALot]

Works for me, but the two largest employers near my home have 'campuses' of 1,000 acres or more and parking 'across the street' would be more than a mile from their buildings. Not so practical, eh?

If it is a public campus, they have no business infringing upon your rights (these days they do, but remember- we are talking about how things should be, not how they are). If it is a private school and it irked you enough, why did you choose to go there?

Business property rights and the personal right of self defense do not have to be in total opposition as they are often portrayed; there is plenty of room for a mutually beneficial middle ground. Business owners' rights are already constrained in many ways, whether it is limits on the hours they can make employees work, requirements for safety equipment in the workplace, or mandates to accommodate the religious practices of employees. I think the social trends that have resulted in the passage of liberalized CCW laws in the majority of states in recent years will result in a future consensus about businesses accommodating customer and employee rights to self defense. At the same time, I can see the possibility of shield laws that would protect businesses from legal liability arising from incidents invovling such accommodations and strict liability for damages resulting from failure to provide accommodations.

That is how things are. Not how they should be.

When I get out of my car, I leave my property and step onto someone else's private property. If that person does not want me armed on their property, that is their right. What is inside my personal vehicle is none of their business. It doesn't matter if its a gun or something else. Their property rights do not trump mine.

It is absolutely their business if your car is on their property (the previous part of your post I am in agreement with) regardless of whether you are in your car or not. Their property rights absolutely do not trump yours. But what right do you have to put your property on someone else's without their permission? Your car, as you accurately said, may be towed. They cannot inspect your vehicle (at least internally) without your permission, of course. That may be what you meant, but I want to make the distinction clear- yes your car is your property, and no someone does not have the right to search it without your permission (ignoring law enforcement and probable cause, so forth). However, you do not have a right to put your car on someone else's property.

None. However what right is it of YOURS to deny anyone the Natural Right to self defense or the tools I carry to exercise that right?

No one is denying you anything except your self. It was your choice to waive your rights and it was your choice to accept the risks and benefits of doing so. YOU agreed to waive your rights as a condition of using or entering said private property. No one is denying you anything- you made a choice freely and willingly. If you don't want to abide by the rules of the private property owner, leave. You don't have a right to be there to begin with, remember?

This is the trouble with Libertarianism: You drone on about your personal rights yet deny any of the responsibilities that come with them.

What responsibility do I have to let YOU on my private property? None. What responsibility do I have to let you have anything on my property, be it your rights, your person, your car, or your dog? None.

It is YOU who denies the responsibility of freedom- the responsibility of respecting the rights and freedom of others. If you choose to waive your rights to enter or use private property, that is your choice, and yours alone. You have no right, and the owner has no responsibility to let you be, on his private property. Nor do you have any right to use it. Just like you can waive a right to a trial by jury, you can waive and refuse to exercise any of your other rights. You sir, are the one denying responsibility by willingly accepting an agreement and then complaining about its terms. Whose choice was it but yours to waive your rights? If the terms were so bad to you, why did you accept them to begin with?

The property owner didn't force you to disarm yourself. You accepted it as a condition of using or entering his property. If you don't like disarming yourself and think it's too risky, don't go on his property- you have no right to be there.

Yes, you have the right to set rules, no matter how ridiculous or dangerous they may be. Yet if these rules endanger others or result in someone's peril you assume no liability? Hypocrisy!

There is nothing hypocritical about it. If others CHOOSE to accept the risk and danger of the rules, that's THEIR choice. It is THEIR life, and THEIR right to lead it how they wish, no matter how risky or how dangerous. Why should I assume liability for someone else's voluntary actions? They accepted the risk AND the benefits. If they thought the risk was not worth the benefit, why did they accept the risk at all? No one forced them to accept the rules. No one forced them to be on my private property. They choose to do all of those things with their free will, and they choose to accept the risks- and consequences- of doing so.

Libertarians believe in self responsibility. If I make a choice or decision, I have to live with the consequences of it, whatever they may be. I was, after all, the one who chose to accept the risks associated with my choices. You, on the other hand, want to make a choice, and don't want to live with the possible consequences of that choice. Who's the one denying responsibility here?

The Libertarian position, as most often presented, is that property rights must always prevail over other rights whenever such conflicts occur. The extreme position on this is the argument, put forward by a prominent Libertarian scholar whose name I can't recall, that, if one is tied up by another person, using his rope, it is immoral to cut the rope, even to save one's own life.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

In any conflict between the right to life and the right to property, I come down on the side of life. (note: this is not to be read as an abortion argument, as one must then define when "life" starts. I'm not going there.).

Property is synonymous with life. How did you pay for the place you live in? The car you drive? The computer you type on? With your life. Maybe 20 hours of it. Maybe 200. Maybe more. The theft of property is heinous because it is equivalent to the theft of life. The 20 dollars in your wallet that took you two hours of your life to earn. That's two hours of your life stolen from you. It is not nonsense to protect property rights above all else. If you are starving, you do not have a right to steal someone else's food, even to save your life. It is not yours and you have no right to someone else's property. The fact that you may be starving, and your life is at risk, changes nothing. Circumstance does not change the validity and worthiness of rights. If it did, then you wouldn't have rights at all- only privileges dictated by the "circumstances."

I would think that the right to live would take precedent over the fears of a business?

For the record, a right to life does not mean you have a right to medical care, food, housing, and clothes. People seem to think that a right to life means that you have a right to everything that is necessary for you to live (such as the things I mentioned above). This is not the case.

 

[tube_ee]

This is the core of the argument:

It is not nonsense to protect property rights above all else.

True, although not as compelling as you may think.

Since I advanced the opposite position, I guess I should clarify what seems contradictory.

Ethics ain't physics.

There are no provably correct answers in this domain. Unless one appeals to external authority, such as holy texts, whose correctness is assumed a priori. If one party to the argument rejects the authority of such a text, you don't get anywhere, since that correctness cannot be proved, only accepted (or not), on faith.

In the sense that it is no more nonsense to protect property rights above all else than it is to protect "life rights" above all else, I am forced to agree. Whenever conflicts between rights occur, we must choose. You have made your ranking clear. By my standards of evaluation, it is not only silly, it is fundamentally immoral, as I value concrete human life above the abstractions of ownership. But I cannot prove that my position is correct... and neither can you.

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. We very well might both be wrong.

And that's where we'll have to leave it, I think.

--Shannon

 

[TwitchALot]

True, although not as compelling as you may think.

Since I advanced the opposite position, I guess I should clarify what seems contradictory.

Ethics ain't physics.

There are no provably correct answers in this domain. Unless one appeals to external authority, such as holy texts, whose correctness is assumed a priori. If one party to the argument rejects the authority of such a text, you don't get anywhere, since that correctness cannot be proved, only accepted (or not), on faith.

In the sense that it is no more nonsense to protect property rights above all else than it is to protect "life rights" above all else, I am forced to agree. Whenever conflicts between rights occur, we must choose. You have made your ranking clear. By my standards of evaluation, it is not only silly, it is fundamentally immoral, as I value concrete human life above the abstractions of ownership. But I cannot prove that my position is correct... and neither can you.

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. We very well might both be wrong.

And that's where we'll have to leave it, I think.

--Shannon

There is no conflict of rights here, however. Unless, as I mentioned, you believe having a right to life means having a right to food, water, a house, clothes, and all the requirements necessary to sustain and protect your life. If that is the case, we can delve into its problems further. If not, there is no conflict and no priority needs to be set or argued.

 

[LAK Supply]

For the record, a right to life does not mean you have a right to medical care, food, housing, and clothes. People seem to think that a right to life means that you have a right to everything that is necessary for you to live (such as the things I mentioned above). This is not the case.

That is not even close to my view.... if somebody wants food, water, housing, medical care, etc they can pay for it just like I do. I'm referring to the ability to protect oneself from others who would end their life.

When I'm in a store that little "no guns" sign only means that I'm more likely to get killed in that place. IMO my right to avoid a violent death trumps their right to feel good about themselves. That firearm is my personal property, on my person for the purposes of protecting my life from those who will ignore the sign and attempt to harm me.

The day they can guarantee my safety in their store with their own life I will consider not bringing the means to defend myself.

 

[TwitchALot]

When I'm in a store that little "no guns" sign only means that I'm more likely to get killed in that place.

If you it's too risky and costly to go into the "no guns" place, then don't go in that place. If the benefit of being in that place, in your eyes, is greater than the risk you are taking, then go in that place. It's that simple.

IMO my right to avoid a violent death trumps their right to feel good about themselves. That firearm is my personal property, on my person for the purposes of protecting my life from those who will ignore the sign and attempt to harm me.

What right do you have to be on someone else's private property? If you do not have the right to be on someone else's property, what makes you think you have the right to do whatever you want, or bring whatever you want, on someone else's private property?

 

[scurtis_34471]

I'll just keep going back to the point that makes most of this argument moot. This is not a conflict between property rights and gun rights. This is a conflict between my property rights as related to the interior of my personal vehicle and my employer's property rights as the owners of a parking lot where my car is parked.

If you examine the issue in those terms and leave guns out of it, I think most people would agree that parking a car in a parking lot does not mean the owners of the lot have the right to search your car.

 

[Orthonym]

misANTHrope, "individual" is the operative word in your post, above. I have no problem with a sole proprietor, or member of a partnership, barring me from their property for any reason, or no reason.

A corporation is a creature of the State, and has not natural rights, not being a natural person. The State (us) created it, and may regulate it at will.

 

[misANTHrope]

Ortho:

I'm not certain I agree with you, but I will certainly cede that a corporation is a different entity from an individual, and that their might be grounds for different sets of conditions. If nothing else, it is food for thought.

 

[TwitchALot]

I'll just keep going back to the point that makes most of this argument moot. This is not a conflict between property rights and gun rights. This is a conflict between my property rights as related to the interior of my personal vehicle and my employer's property rights as the owners of a parking lot where my car is parked.

If you examine the issue in those terms and leave guns out of it, I think most people would agree that parking a car in a parking lot does not mean the owners of the lot have the right to search your car.

That is correct, unless you give them permission as a stipulation of you parking your car there. You do not have a right to park your car on a private parking lot, after all. It might be your property, but you cannot put your property on someone else's private property without their permission.

 

[fatelk]

I feel that a business ought to be able to determine what clientele they cater to, and if they don't want to cater to people who understand personal responsibility, that's their loss. I'm not going to force them to accept my business if they don't want it.

To a degree, I agree with this, but taken further, who among us believes we should not have employment regulations prohibiting various types of discrimination?
Should an employer have the right to deny employment for a person of a certain ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. because, after all, it is their private property?
To me, that's exactly where the private property argument ultimately goes. To those promoting this view: is this what you believe?

Employers are prohibited from discriminating against a host of others, why should I be discriminated against for having a perfectly legal item in my locked vehicle, just because some idiot corporate lawyer thinks guns are inherently evil. The good guys like you and me (who follow the rules) are not the ones to worry about.

 

[scurtis_34471]

That is correct, unless you give them permission as a stipulation of you parking your car there. You do not have a right to park your car on a private parking lot, after all. It might be your property, but you cannot put your property on someone else's private property without their permission.

What this law does is establish the boundry between my property rights within my car and their property rights as owners of the lot. What stays in my car is my business. What leaves my car is theirs. I think that is a pretty fair compromise.

 

[misANTHrope]

To a degree, I agree with this, but taken further, who among us believes we should not have employment regulations prohibiting various types of discrimination?
Should an employer have the right to deny employment for a person of a certain ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. because, after all, it is their private property?
To me, that's exactly where the private property argument ultimately goes. To those promoting this view: is this what you believe?

Well, I would argue that there's a difference between denying employment for the reasons you listed vs. denying employment because someone is, for example, a gun owner. Ethnicity and gender are not chosen by the individual; (discounting sex change) an individual is stuck with what they got. Ergo, the individual has no ability to meet the condition of employment. Religion is debatable; some would ague that one chooses their religion, others would argue that it's more of a gut feeling type of thing. I think that could be an entire discussion all its own...

Of course, the "unable to change" argument I made brings to the forefront other individual characteristics that an individual is unable to change. For example, I'm not a shining example of male attractiveness; thus, I'm not likely to get a job as an underwear model. I'm also a pretty tall guy, so a job that involved getting into tight places might not be for me. The difference I see here is that the characteristics in question directly affect my ability to perform the job; ugly people don't encourage buying expensive underwear, and tall people don't always fit into fighter cockpits. On the other hand, it would be hard to make a case for ethnicity affecting one's ability to perform a job.

So the test of employment conditions becomes this: an employer is not permitted to deny employment based on a candidate's inherent, unchangeable traits, unless the employer can demonstrate to some reasonable yardstick that the trait in question would inhibit the candidates ability to perform the job.

In the end, I view the employee carry thing as a contractual waiving of rights. An employer, in some fashion, agrees to employ me so long as I agree to not bear arms on his property. I am fully free to decline this agreement... and I am equally free to decide if the benefits of this particular job outweigh the detractions of going unarmed. On the other hand, I am not able to agree to not be a male while at work... at least not with our current medical technology.

Employers are prohibited from discriminating against a host of others, why should I be discriminated against for having a perfectly legal item in my locked vehicle, just because some idiot corporate lawyer thinks guns are inherently evil. The good guys like you and me (who follow the rules) are not the ones to worry about.

There are lots of perfectly legal activities that are often prohibited at work. Cursing out a client likely wouldn't go over very well. I enjoy my cigars, but lighting one up in a cube farm would be frowned upon.

There are obvious reasons why these two examples are not conducive to continued employment, while the rationale for prohibiting carry is a lot more flimsy and/or debatable. I certainly feel that banning carry anywhere is a shortsighted and counterproductive practice; as you say, the rule-followers are precisely the people to not worry about, while the violent bad guys don't give two craps about a sign or a policy.

I'm certainly not arguing that these policies are intelligent; they're not. I'm not arguing that they're moral; I think that is questionable as well. But I do think that there is a sound legal basis for them.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Misanthrope, if we accept your argument we must arrive to the conclusion that the ability to defend yourself with your item of choice (a gun, and by which I would argue the only real means that you can defend yourself because of the high availability of guns) is dictated by your place of employment. I disagree with this. Where you work should not dictate your ability to defend yourself.

 

[LAK Supply]

If you it's too risky and costly to go into the "no guns" place, then don't go in that place. If the benefit of being in that place, in your eyes, is greater than the risk you are taking, then go in that place. It's that simple.

This is a factor in places that I go... I am unwilling to frequent many places that want a CCW left in the car.

What right do you have to be on someone else's private property? If you do not have the right to be on someone else's property, what makes you think you have the right to do whatever you want, or bring whatever you want, on someone else's private property?

I have every right to be there if their doors are open to the public for the purposes of conducting business and they have not asked me to leave. If they do not want me there they can ask me to leave and I will. Until then I will walk in their doors just as any other member of the public can. Businesses are NOT a private residence. As well, it's not "whatever I want".... if you want to get snippy you should re-read the post first. It's a means to protecting MY life, and it is MY personal property on MY person.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

The business was likely there first. No one is forcing you to work or shop there. If you don't like the policies there, quit your job or shop elsewhere. Join forces with other permit-holders and start your own gun-friendly business. Put the anti-firearms business out of business.

Welcome to the world of free-economy, guys.

And don't tell me it isn't that simple. That's just a crutch to have the government do your dirty work for you.

Remember, the Bill of Rights is not a contract between people and people, or people and big business. It is a contract between the government and the people.

When you start using the Bill of Rights as a crutch to bash in the heads of other citizens, you open up an entirely different can of worms.

 

[gc70]

For those who contend that 'parking lot' bills are an unconstitutional violation of property rights, the judge who struck down the Oklahoma law reached a different conclusion.

From the decision in the Oklahoma case (pages 17-18)

D. Plaintiffs’ Claims and Court’s Conclusions

Plaintiffs offer three constitutional bases for their request for permanent declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting enforcement of the Amendments. (See Br. in Support of Request for Perm. Inj. and Declaratory Relief 7-18.) First, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments result in an unconstitutional deprivation of private property interests. Plaintiffs’ argument related to their property rights takes two forms: (a) Plaintiffs allege an unconstitutional “taking” of private property in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution (“Takings Clause challenge”); and (b) Plaintiffs allege an unconstitutional deprivation of their “fundamental right” to exclude others from private property, in violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution (“Substantive Due Process Clause challenge”). Second, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments are unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the procedural Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (“vagueness challenge”).22 Third, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments are preempted by various federal statutes in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (“Supremacy Clause challenge”).

The Court grants in part and denies in part the motions for permanent injunction. In summary, the Court concludes: (1) the Amendments do not result in an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ private property rights or an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right”; (2) Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a facial vagueness challenge; and (3) the Amendments are preempted as in conflict with the OSH Act. The Court enjoins enforcement of the challenged laws against Plaintiffs and all employers subject to the OSH Act.

 

[qdemn7]

Excellent, now we need to get this passed in Texas. You can bet I will be contacting my pols about this.