Should property rights trump 2A rights

[RP88]

I don't care what you think. If you open your property to the public, you cede certain rights, and one of those rights is the right to exclude. For example, you cannot refuse entry to people on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin. Just ask Denny's or Wal Mart.

You are being excluded for having a gun on your person, not because you own a gun. Big difference there, because it has yet to be said if carrying a gun on your person is in fact a right covered by the 2A.

The 2A in and of itself, along with court cases, never mentions anything about carrying on one's person, regardless of how things were done in our history. Until carrying a firearm on your person outside of your property is explicitly ruled as being protected by the second amendment, there really is no exclusion or discrimination occurring (at least from a civil or legal standpoint). Disagree as you wish with it, though.

 

[Zach S]

because you don't have the option of changing your race, but you do have that option of changing if you enter while armed

You have a point there. I'm of Irish, Scottish, and Apache descent, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Religion is a choice though - but I still cant open a business and hang a "no Jehovah Witnesses allowed" sign up, now can I?

Bathing is also a choice. I cant require a hippy to take a bath before coming into my store so that their odor doesn't offend my customers, but someone else can tell me to disarm to give them illusion of safety?

And no, I'm not joking about the hippies. The local paper did a story on it a few years ago. For those of you familiar with western NC, yes, I lived in Asheville.

businesses and personal property would be different in my opinion... maybe not legally, but morally.

I agree. The difference there is that my house isn't open to the public. If I dont want someone here because they're English, they just have to deal with it. However, if I started a business, I have to let everyone in. Even the brits.

 

[RP88]

Religion is a choice though - but I still cant open a business and hang a "no Jehovah Witnesses allowed" sign up, now can I?

but you can put up a "No Soliciting" sign, or ban the use of your property for religious practice and observance, or ban the passing out of religious fliers, media, etc. on your property...

You just can't tell them to pound sand on the mere fact that they are a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Sam1911]

Ooohhh. I like that one:

Judge Napolitano's take on it.

"Starbucks is a public accommodation, which means it invites the public to come on its property, and when the public comes on its property, the public doesn't shed any of it's Constitutional Rights".

Seems to me I remember something about keeping and bearing arms. I bear them as often as I can, wherever I may be -- so long as it is LEGAL to do so. Fortunately, my state (Commonwealth) does not recognize any restrictions on where I may do so beyond the few off-limits places that it defines in law.

 

[divemedic]

i'm sorry... i thought we were talking about the 2A rights to bear arms, which were given to you by living in this country

all rights are given to you. natural rights are the right to breath and struggle to survive...and the first is debatable

Understanding the Constitution FAIL.

GO read John Locke's Two Treatises of Government(1689), and Thomas Paine's Rights of Man(1791), and you will understand the philosophy that our government was founded upon, then come talk to me when we can have an informed discussion about Constitutional Theory. In a nutshell:

Locke was a major social contract thinker. He said that man's natural rights are life, liberty, and property. He greatly influenced the American Revolutionary War with his writings of natural rights.

That is how the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" made it into the DOI.

If you wait for rights to be codified in the Constitution, then tell me where the right to do business with someone regardless of race is...I am waiting...exactly- it isn't there.

Until the SCOTUS includes lawfully-armed citizens in a "protected class"

I don't need to wait for the Supreme Court to tell me what my rights are. Even though the SCOTUS ruled that slavery was constitutional, it was still wrong. They are men, and men can be corrupted or mistaken.

Divemedic, some of your "points" are downright ludicrous. No one is suggesting that the commission of previously-defined violent crimes should be "protected rights" when committed on private property.

Of course they are, just like the theory that I give up my right to self defense by entering your property. You are not suggesting, you are SAYING, that I lose my right to self defense by entering your property, meaning that the property owner doesn't care if I am attacked on his property. Who protects me from being attacked by the property owner? and by taking my most important means of self defense, you ARE leaving me defenseless. One should not have to explain that on a GUN board.

but you can put up a "No Soliciting" sign, or ban the use of your property for religious practice and observance, or ban the passing out of religious fliers, media, etc. on your property...

True, and I don't have a problem with a property owner asking you to leave if you are disruptive (brandishing) but that is not the same thing as simply possessing a gun.

Owner trumps because 2A only trumps government infringement

What if the owner IS the government? Banks, Car companies, Insurance companies?

If the Amendments only apply to the Government, does that mean that I can put up a sign stating that the 13A amendment doesn't apply in my store, and by entering, you agree? When you enter, can I make you my slave? What other parts of the Constitution can I ignore on my property? Can I expel Jews? Can I search you and have you arrested if you refuse? Does entering my property mean you can't sue me?

 

[Hokkmike]

Ask yourself, if it was YOUR property what authority would you demand over it?

Instead of the wholesale barring of 2nd Amendment practicioners (which every American ought to be in theory) I would choose the option to "refuse service to any customer". (race, gender, etc., obviously could not be used as a critereon)

Unfortunately, many would argue, and they are probably right - that it might amount to profiling. A "seedy looky" character comes in, hangs around, acts suspicious - you tell him to leave.

Now I would imagine that this would happen once, twice, or never.

 

[danprkr]

Here's where it get sticky for me. I have to frequent hospitals ,which are posted with the signs, and park in their garages late at night. Should I honor the sign and take the risk? I have no choice but to be there.

First off I'm curious as to why you have "no choice but to be there." Not sure it matters, and not trying to pick a fight, just curious it actually matters not at all to my point.

Which is; as I understand it most hospitals get money from the local, state, and federal governments. Which makes them public facilities, and therefore outside the realm of this discussion. At least as far as I'm concerned. If it's a truly private hospital then they get to set the rules. I just don't know of any truly private hospitals.

I'm in with the crowd that says if it's private property then you agree to abide by the owner's rules if you enter private property. Which is why I disagree with Judge Napolitano. I think that the Public Accommodation designator for businesses is a legal fiction to allow the government to infringe on private property rights by forcing private property owners to adopt rules they may not agree with. If you own a business, and you don't want to put up wheelchair ramps because at "Jogger's World" you don't get enough wheelchairs to justify the expense you shouldn't have to.

 

[LibShooter]

Where to draw the line between the rights of the public and the rights of owners of privately owned public spaces? I think property owners should be allowed to limit what you do, not who you are.

You shouldn't ban folks for being black, gay, a gun owner or a smoker.

You can require people not to carry a gun, smoke a cigarette, or wear a shirt with a message the owner doesn't like inside your establishment.

Publicly owned spaces are a different matter.

 

[rocinante]

Some here would carry property rights so far as to de facto ban carrying outside the home or farm. Except for the street just about all property is private. I see a distinction where an establishment invites the public to their property as being on a different level of privacy than the home or other properties where the public is not beckoned to enter. We have societal norms where those public inviting owners can't discriminate based on race, force them to have public facilities and amenities such as wheel chair ramps and elevators.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Entering another person's property you agree to that person's conditions. He cannot 'trump' your 2A rights, they are natural, but he can demand you not exercise those rights on his property.

Consider this if you will, let's say you own 40 acres of woods teeming with deer. A party asks permission to hunt... The moment that person enters your property you accept liability for any accident this party might have while on your property. If he scratches himself on barb wire that later becomes septic you could be sued for his medical bills. If he shoots the neighbor's cow you could be out the $1500 lost. If his weapon is dropped and discharges wounding a companion, once again, you could be sued successfully for his medical costs.

Your rights end at my pocketbook.

 

[Officers'Wife]

A "seedy looky" character comes in, hangs around, acts suspicious - you tell him to leave.

Hmmm, The person that makes the choice to be unshaven, with greasy hair and other poor hygiene, gang tattoos and 'gansta' dress and attitude shouldn't complain when those choices result in the public at large making the judgment that he may be less than interested in a peaceful society.

When you advertise yourself as being potentially violent you shouldn't be surprised when people treat you as a threat.

 

[rscalzo]

but you can put up a "No Soliciting" sign, or ban the use of your property for religious practice and observance, or ban the passing out of religious fliers, media, etc. on your property...

If you read the Hartz decision, no you cannot restrict them in a mall setting to a great degree. As it is private property and never reverts to a public property status, the 5th. Amendment retains private control over one's property. Government control over private property could be seen as a violation. Again, going back to the Hartz decision, the setting determines much as a mall setting gives greater rights than a individual retail shop. For the most part, the shop or store owner retains ultimate rights over refusal of service as long as it remains outside of the race, religion, etc. areas.

I don't care what you think. If you open your property to the public, you cede certain rights, and one of those rights is the right to exclude

That's all well and good but can you back that up with case law? To a great degree I don't think so.

 

[Deanimator]

A business should be able to bar people from carrying firearms into that establishment... which in turn should make them directly responsible for any harm that comes to someone due to an attack on those premises, if the victim could have defended himself with a firearm, had they not disarmed in line with the proprietor's wishes.

 

[308win]

You cannot hold someone accountable for another's unlawful act.

ETA So long as the person had no prior knowledge.

 

[ArmedBear]

Property rights mean that you can tell someone that he/she can't enter your property.

Property rights do NOT nullify the rights of individuals who enter property that is open to the public.

For example: say a random woman enters a shopping mall that is privately-owned, but open to the public.

4th Amendment: Can she now be searched by the police, without her consent?
5th Amendment: Can she now be compelled to testify against herself, or can her property be seized without her being convicted of a crime?
6th Amendment: Can she be imprisoned indefinitely without a charge?
7th Amendment: Can she be denied a jury trial?
8th Amendment: Can she be put in stocks and flogged, or given a parking fine of $10,000,000?
13th Amendment: Can she be made a slave?
19th Amendment: Can she be denied the vote if the voting booths are set up in the mall?
Various Laws: Can she be denied entry to the mall because she is Croatian, or Sikh? Can she be barred from particular restrooms or drinking fountains because she is of Asian descent?

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that we do not lose our fundamental individual rights when we enter a shopping mall.

The 1st Amendment is a special case, because it can involve appropriating the property of another. Certainly, the mall's owner doesn't have to allow someone to set up a printing press and print up flyers that criticize the mall, or to yell at people who want to be left alone. However, if property is not being appropriated, and nobody else's rights are being violated, she doesn't lose her right to read her Bible, or blog about politics at the coffee house in the mall, or anything else protected by the 1st Amendment.

The bottom line? If you open your private property to the general public, every individual comes with a whole package of fundamental rights. It's all-or-nothing. You don't have to let people use your property; you can fence the place off and post it with "No Trespassing" signs, and that's that. But if you let the public in, these rights come with each individual.

The 2nd Amendment has been found to be a fundamental individual right. That means that the right to keep and bear arms is part of that package of rights.

A property owner can tell someone not to hunt or target-shoot on the property, or hold a militia training, for that matter. However, exercise the fundamental right to carry arms for self-defense does not in any way appropriate the property of another, nor does it violate the rights of another, any more than practicing Buddhism, or wearing an Obama t-shirt, does.

So, if a mall owner chooses to open that property to the public for a profit, that owner makes a number of other concessions to individual rights, automatically, without any ability to pick and choose. There is no reason that that owner has the power to disarm people in that situation, since every other individual right remains protected at the mall.

Close the property to public access, or accept the package of protected individual rights that every member of the public has, by law. Those are the choices. Private property rights are very important, but they do not imply the right to do whatever you want, to whomever you want.

 

[GEM]

My view - expressed before is that if a property owner opens a business for the general public, they give up the right to ban carry.

I do buy into the protected class argument being extended to gun carry.

As a property owner, you can't discriminate against the protected classes - and I have no sympathy for those who use property rights as a shield for racism.

I don't have to go to your business but you have no right to have a business if you don't support basic human rights.

If you have the right to deny the carry of arms or entrance of minorities to a business open to the public, then minority members of the fire department or the armed police should have the right not to come save your burning buttocks if your property is on fire or you are being robbed.

Last, on the pragmatic level, property rights banned are an explicit tactic by antigunners to make carry useless. No restaurants, churchs, malls, theatres, etc. - all make carry so difficult that folks won't. So cooperate with them with the mantra of 'property rights'.

 

[brboyer]

Owner trumps because 2A only trumps government infringement.

Forget about 2A, we all know it's a restriction on government.

What 'right' exists to own property and what authority exists to control what happens there? Who grants such authority?

 

[ArmedBear]

I don't have a problem with a property owner asking you to leave if you are disruptive (brandishing) but that is not the same thing as simply possessing a gun.

Bingo. Brandishing or firing a firearm can violate the rights of others. That's where the line is.

(Same goes for smoking where others are breathing, wearing t-shirts with obscene pictures and slogans around 5-year-olds, yelling in others' ears, etc.)

Carrying a firearm in a responsible manner does not violate the rights of anyone around you, any more than carrying an unlit cigar in your shirt pocket does.

 

[Deanimator]

You cannot hold someone accountable for another's unlawful act.

ETA So long as the person had no prior knowledge.

Recent history indicates that violent crime takes place in various businesses, be they malls or factories.

If you prevent me from defending myself, you assume that duty in my stead.

 

[Mags]

You stubborn ol fools act like you are being forced to enter these establishments with the gun buster signs. Why would you want to support an anti 2A business, apparently you have no moral respect for the establishment's rules or the proliferation of the 2A. You guys just feed the antis with both your money and your stereotypical gun owner attitudes.

 

[brboyer]

You stubborn ol fools act like you are being forced to enter these establishments with the gun buster signs. Why would you want to support an anti 2A business, apparently you have no moral respect for the establishment's rules or the proliferation of the 2A. You guys just feed the antis with both your money and your stereotypical gun owner attitudes.

I would suggest that the vast majority of these business are not anti-gun. They are anti-lawsuit. It's either a requirement of their chosen insurance provider and they willingly comply, or a pathetic attempt to save them from a lawsuit.

I don't care if there is a sign or not. Thankfully, in Florida I do not have to worry that my choice in manner/method of self defense will end up with me in jail some day.

 

[Mags]

However, if you are fingered and asked to leave and do not comply you are guilty of trespassing.

 

[Sam1911]

You stubborn ol fools act like you are being forced to enter these establishments with the gun buster signs.

Careful. You're on the verge of becoming insulting. Just because someone disagrees with your perceptions of "morality" or "ethics" doesn't mean that they are stubborn or fools, and it is inappropriate to refer to your fellow THR members as such.

Why would you want to support an anti 2A business,

I don't, particularly. But if my local options to address my wants and needs give me no other convenient options then I'll make my choices as I feel I can.

apparently you have no moral respect for the establishment's rules

Nope. None -- beyond what my state's law says.

or the proliferation of the 2A.

Now you've stretched into silliness. I carry a concealed personal protection sidearm discreetly where I legally can and that somehow is against "the proliferation of the 2A." Giggle-snort!

You guys just feed the antis with both your money and your stereotypical gun owner attitudes.

Yawn. My stereotypical gun owner attitudes prompt me to work awful hard to promote and preserve our freedoms where I can. If I buy a whatzit from some shop with a "gunbuster" sign that carries no weight of law, I guess I'll just have to work an extra 15 minutes on pro-RKBA stuff to push the balance sheet back into the black, eh?

 

[Sam1911]

However, if you are fingered and asked to leave and do not comply you are guilty of trespassing.

Obviously. Why even bring that up? I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that very well.

 

[308win]

Recent history indicates that violent crime takes place in various businesses, be they malls or factories.

If you prevent me from defending myself, you assume that duty in my stead.

No I do not. The law - statutory and case - are pretty clear on this. A person's rights have been nullified if that person is held responsible for another's unlawful act if that person is not a willing party.