Should property rights trump 2A rights

[bdgackle]

It is interesting that people lump a property owner's right to ask you to leave with the legal ramifications of posting a sign. In some states, entering a posted establishment is not just tresspassing -- it could actually get you arrested for carrying without a valid permit. In other words, the owners don't just have the power to exclude, they have the legal authority to cause an action which is otherwise legal to become a CRIME on their property simply by posting a sign.

For the sake of argument, if an owner posts a sign saying "No orange clothing", and you enter with an orange shirt on, are you guilty of tresspassing? Now, if the owner asks you to leave, and you don't, are you guilty of tresspassing?

I think the line should be in the same place for guns. I don't think a simple sign should carry the legal weight it does in some states, but I also don't think we should be in a protected class as armed citizens -- which is to say, we should have to leave the property if asked to do so. I think there is a very clear difference between allowing property owners to exclude people from their premisis, and granting them the legal authority to declare actions on their premisis to be criminal and enforcing as such. The property owners should be allowed to make whatever rules they want, but their recourse should be limited to asking you to leave if you break them.

As for the moral issue, I'd like to pose a question to those who think it is immoral to enter a posted business with a concealed weapon: if a sign were posted saying "no underwear", would you commit an immoral act by entering while so dressed -- honest question, not rehetorical? I would contend that items on my person that can't even be percieved are not meaningfully infringing on a person's property rights.

If someone was invited into my home, and entered my home armed after I asked them not to, I would certainly be upset with that person, and might ask them to leave. I might not invite them in again. I don't think, however, that I should be able to call the police after they left and have them jailed for illegally carrying a firearm -- so yes, I'm willing to apply the same standards to my own home that I am to a business open to the public.

 

[PTK]

Should property rights trump 1A rights? I just want to protest in your living room, that's cool, right?

 

[brboyer]

Should property rights trump 1A rights? I just want to protest in your living room, that's cool, right?

Can you legally remove my ability to do so?

Disarming people (removing their ability to defend themselves in the manner they have chosen) can be compared removing some one's vocal cords before you let them on your property!

 

[9mmepiphany]

Although I reject the term "entitlement" which implies that someone gave my rights to me

i did not mean the clinical psychology and psychiatry definition of an unrealistic, exaggerated, or rigidly held sense of entitlement may be considered a symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder...but rather the more common belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges.

however i don't think either denotes having something "given"...more taken or demanded

 

[mack]

There are a number of legal distinctions made and created by the law in regards to property rights - between a private home, a private club, a public business, etc... There are also legal considerations created by legal definitions of "individual" as corporations are considered to legally be individuals in most law - though the application of this is uneven.

Legally it is a minefield - and one has to be careful that the solutions of outcome one seeks as moral or just do not create more problems than they solve.

Morally, I do not think that individuals should be deprived of their right to self defense - that does not mean that legally individuals or businesses may not require that individuals give up that right upon entering private property. I think it is immoral that some do so, but I am not sure that it should be illegal. The in a vehicle laws - are an attempt to balance property rights to me - i.e. you allow parking of a privately owned vehicle on your property - but the vehicle is still the private property of the individual and the contents there of. I suppose it could be argued that you allow individuals access to your property then the personal articles they wear of possess are their personal property and you should have no control or say over it as it is their property - then again you could say that they are on my property and I don't want anyone on my property carrying a weapon or a bible or a fill in the blank. Would it be legal for a business to ban people from possessing a bible on their property? Like I said a sticky wickett for sure.

Morally I think it is clear to me that barring a person from their right to self defense is wrong. Therefore from a moral perspective I think a persons right to self defense which is part of their right to life should trump or supersede the right of property ownership.

Legally, well individuals should have control over their private property and to say who and what they want or allow on their property - however businesses are regulated more heavily - than nonbusiness property - i.e. I can say that no irish or christians will be allowed in my home but if I open a business I would probably face a lawsuit for such a stand. Legally as I understand it the right to self defense does not enjoy such standing at this time. It probably should as it pertains to businesses open to the public.

 

[akodo]

Property rights

as far as going onto my neighbor's land, yes, absolutely, respect his wishes.

However, there are a few caveats.

#1 Landlords. Once you have decided to rent your land (and no one forces you to) you CHOOSE to relinquish certain controls. If your tenant owns guns, and brings them into his rental that belongs to you, too bad. You have property rights, but you gave them up.

#2 Public Business. Once you have decided to have a public business and have thrown open your doors to all, you CHOOSE to relinquish certain controls. Before, in your private dwelling or your private 'members only' store, you could kick people out for being the wrong religion, wrong color, whatever. Now, once you CHOOSE to have your property be a PUBLIC BUSINESS PLACE you give up certain controls in the public section.

#2b If your state allows you to ban firearms by doing A, B, and C...then ONLY when you have done A, B, and C will me and my gun leave. If you only do A and B, I don't care if you intend to do C and just haven't done it yet, or if you really aren't going to do C and just do A and B to make the antis feel safer, either way, you haven't cleared the legal hurdle and I will carry there. If your state does not allow you to ban firearms, then you don't get to. If you try and play the 'property rights' card then fine, stop having it be a public business.

 

[Werewolf]

Should we ignore the signs , disarm,or patronize a more 2A friendly business?

Ignore 'em. Leave if you're asked (if you're asked it means they saw your gun and that's a misdemeanor, finable and sometimes cause for loss of permit in many states).

 

[divemedic]

But it also supports the proposition that absent a specific law preventing a business from doing so, a business may exclude persons lawfully carrying guns.

Balderdash. The old law did not mean that a business could have you arrested, nor did it mean that a sign was enforceable. All the new law did was say that a business could not fire an employee for having a weapon in his car. That has nothing to do with property rights, and everything to do with the employment contract. Try again.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Personally, I don't have a problem with any restrictions a property owner wants to enforce. If he wants to put up a sign denying entry to gun carriers or black people or Canadians or short people or fat chicks, then he should be able to do so. His property, his rules.
Of course, we have the right not to put money in the pocket of a bigot. We can spend our money elsewhere.

 

[Kleanbore]

Balderdash. The old law did not mean that a business could have you arrested, nor did it mean that a sign was enforceable. All the new law did was say that a business could not fire an employee for having a weapon in his car. That has nothing to do with property rights, and everything to do with the employment contract. Try again.

Methinks you didn't read it all...

(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.--No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

 

[brboyer]

Methinks you didn't read it all...

Care to elaborate?

 

[divemedic]

1. The portion of the law that applies to customers and invitees was struck down as being unconstitutional, due to an issue unrelated to the theory of the law, and due to the wording and the way "employer" was defined.

2. Reading the statute, it says that an employer may not violate the constitutional rights of an employee, thus implying that the employee has constitutional rights with respect to the employer, and further implying that the Constitution does in fact apply to the employer.

Then the law goes on to state that they can't fire you for having a CCW, or for refusing a search of your vehicle for weapons. No where in Florida law does it say that any entity can have you arrested for carrying or possessing a weapon against their wishes, nor does it allow them to search you under penalty. Absent a specific law that prohibits carry, it isn't illegal to carry.

To be honest, even if there were such a law, I consider my safety and well being to be more important than that. I am not going to bend one more inch on my rights. Anyone that doesn't like it- too bad. I am sick of having to go to others with my hat in my hands begging for my rights. I will not do it any longer.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Balderdash. The old law did not mean that a business could have you arrested, nor did it mean that a sign was enforceable. All the new law did was say that a business could not fire an employee for having a weapon in his car. That has nothing to do with property rights, and everything to do with the employment contract....

Balderdash yourself. You claimed

...the law here not only prevents you from criminally prosecuting me for having a gun on your property...

But the only Florida statute that by any stretch of the imagination could do that is 790.251.

But now you point out that the language of 790.251 applying to customers and invitees was tossed out. I guess that leaves you with the old law. So have a look at 810.08, which says (among other things):

"(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass...

(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, ...

(b) If there is a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender trespassed, attempted to trespass, or was in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, ..

(c) If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree,..."

Thus it appears that under Florida's trespass laws, if a business asks you to leave and you refuse, you can be arrested. Do you contend that Florida law prohibits a business from asking you to leave because you're discovered to be armed? If so, please cite that law.

 

[KodiakBeer]

To be honest, even if there were such a law, I consider my safety and well being to be more important than that. I am not going to bend one more inch on my rights.

What about your right to make rules about your home or property or business? Don't you reserve that right to yourself? Aren't there people you don't want in your home? Don't you say "No thanks" and shut the door when some guy is waving a Watchtower magazine in your face? What if he then stands on your porch and refuses to leave on the grounds that you're infringing on the free exercise of his religion as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment?

It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong or bigoted against Jehovah's Witnesses or just a grump - your right to make the rules on your property supersede his right to free exercise of his religion - on YOUR property.

Like I said, you have the right (and power) to shop elsewhere. You also have the right (and power) to make an issue of it and encourage others to shop elsewhere. Why insist on giving your hard-earned money to people who don't respect your civil liberties?

 

[brboyer]

Balderdash yourself. You claimedBut the only Florida statute that by any stretch of the imagination could do that is 790.251.

But now you point out that the language of 790.251 applying to customers and invitees was tossed out. I guess that leaves you with the old law. So have a look at 810.08, which says (among other things):

"(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass...

(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, ...

(b) If there is a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender trespassed, attempted to trespass, or was in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, ..

(c) If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or arms himself or herself with such while in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a felony of the third degree,..."

Thus it appears that under Florida's trespass laws, if a business asks you to leave and you refuse, you can be arrested. Do you contend that Florida law prohibits a business from asking you to leave because you're discovered to be armed? If so, please cite that law.

EVERYONE knows that if you are on private property and the owner or his/her agent tells you to get out (for any reason - except for being a member of a federally protected class) you must leave of face possible arrest for trespassing.

That is so obvious that I really wish people would stop posting that.

In Florida, the sign carries no weight what so ever.

In Florida an employer cannot tell you to leave the parking lot solely based on there being a gun in your car.

 

[leadcounsel]

For truly private property, such as my home, then yes. I should have the final say as to allowing anyone onto my property with weapons.

For private property open to the public, the 'public' comes in man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, yellow, mentally slow, loudmouthed, covered in tats, covered in bling, annoying cellular phone ringtones, handicapped, and legally armed. It's the price we pay for being in an open society.

 

[KodiakBeer]

For private property open to the public, the 'public' comes in man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, yellow, mentally slow, loudmouthed, covered in tats, covered in bling, annoying cellular phone ringtones, handicapped, and legally armed. It's the price we pay for being in an open society

.

No, it's the price we pay for not living in a free society. Your home, your property, your business should be yours to make any rules you want, no matter how arbitrary and wrong-headed those rules might be.

I've never seen a "No Guns" sign in Alaska, but if I did, I'd spend my money elsewhere.

 

[divemedic]

Thus it appears that under Florida's trespass laws, if a business asks you to leave and you refuse, you can be arrested. Do you contend that Florida law prohibits a business from asking you to leave because you're discovered to be armed? If so, please cite that law.

As quite a few people here have pointed out, that is not the point of this discussion, and you know it. A sign saying "no firearms" does not remove your invitation or license to enter a place of public accommodation.

At the risk of taking this thread circular-

Your home, your property, your business should be yours to make any rules you want, no matter how arbitrary and wrong-headed those rules might be.

I can prove that wrong:

What about fire codes?
Can I have a rule that all female employees have to have sex with me?
Can I have a rule that the 13th Amendment doesn't apply to my property?
Can I open a "no coloreds" lunch counter?

 

[akodo]

Okay, you say that a gun owner who wants to go into a posted privately owned business open to the general public can CHOOSE to set aside his gun and go...OR keep his gun and stay out in thereby maintaining both his RKBA as well as the property owner's property rights


Let's just switch that around a bit then

Okay, you say that a property owner who wants to have a business on his property can CHOOSE to set aside some say over his property and have a publicly open business...OR keep full say over his property and stay a private club, thereby maintaining both his property rights as well as the customer's RKBA rights.


What's the difference? Each person cannot be FORCED to give up their rights, but that comes with a cost.

What's the difference between saying:
'fine, keep your Right to keep and bear arms but just stay out of my store!'
vs
'fine keep your full say on your property but just stay a private club!'

In BOTH cases you are saying 'keep the right, but at a cost...however you can always choose to give it up and sidestep the cost'

It's really a 'rock and a hard place' because all rights should be equal, but whichever one you pick, the OTHER one gets shafted.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Can I have a rule that all female employees have to have sex with me?
Can I have a rule that the 13th Amendment doesn't apply to my property?
Can I open a "no coloreds" lunch counter?

Disregarding the 13th amendment would require the use of force which would infringe on other peoples rights. Yet, if you want to advertise in some kinky magazine for a voluntary slave, you might just find one.

As for the other things - in a free society (which this isn't), yes, you should be able to be as big a jerk as you want. And we then get to boycott your business and drive you to bankruptcy.

The rules you make are voluntary on both customers and employees. If you own a strip club, does the girl with small breasts get to sue you for letting her go? Does McDonald's make employees wear demeaning paper hats? Do Vegan customers get to tell the Steakhouse they must sell tofu? No, yes, no - but it's all voluntary. The employees can quit or work elsewhere, the customers can spend their money elsewhere.

 

[oneounceload]

People have posted signs about reserving the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If a business doesn't want someone with a gun in their store, it would appear they do not agree with your view, so why would you want to go to such a place? Why do you think your right trumps someone else's? Arrogance like that hurts everyone trying to keep gun ownership a reality

 

[brboyer]

Disregarding the 13th amendment would require the use of force which would infringe on other peoples rights. Yet, if you want to advertise in some kinky magazine for a voluntary slave, you might just find one.

As for the other things - in a free society (which this isn't), yes, you should be able to be as big a jerk as you want. And we then get to boycott your business and drive you to bankruptcy.

The rules you make are voluntary on both customers and employees. If you own a strip club, does the girl with small breasts get to sue you for letting her go? Does McDonald's make employees wear demeaning paper hats? Do Vegan customers get to tell the Steakhouse they must sell tofu? No, yes, no - but it's all voluntary. The employees can quit or work elsewhere, the customers can spend their money elsewhere.

Or simply ignore the sign and do as they wish.

 

[brboyer]

People have posted signs about reserving the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If a business doesn't want someone with a gun in their store, it would appear they do not agree with your view, so why would you want to go to such a place? Why do you think your right trumps someone else's? Arrogance like that hurts everyone trying to keep gun ownership a reality

Who decides the hierarchy of rights? I live my life with the full belief that my right to choose the method/manner/time/place of self defense supersedes any property owner's wishes/desires/requests/rights. In other words, I do not subscribe to the notion that a property owner's rights trump my self defense rights.

Having said that, the State of Florida has stated that certain activities are criminal and since I don't like jail, I choose to avoid most of those activities.






Oh, and if anyone really thinks that they 'own' property, just try not paying your rent (property tax) to the government and see how long you will continue to 'own' it.

 

[brboyer]

People have posted signs about reserving the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If a business doesn't want someone with a gun in their store, it would appear they do not agree with your view, so why would you want to go to such a place? Why do you think your right trumps someone else's? Arrogance like that hurts everyone trying to keep gun ownership a reality

The presence of the sign is meaningless. They have that right (with limitations) regardless.

 

[oneounceload]

And why would you, since you seem to be so hardcore about this, want to support a business that is diametrically opposed to your view?