Should property rights trump 2A rights

[Frank Ettin]

...Who decides the hierarchy of rights?...

And that is often the core problem. Sometimes, courts do. Sometimes the legislature does, by, for example, enacting a law under which an employee's right to have a gun locked in his car trumps the employer's right to control his property, as happened in Florida, Utah and Oklahoma (and perhaps a few others).

But conflicting rights is one problem of living in a society. I have rights, and you have rights. And sometimes they rub against each other.

 

[One-Time]

I carry regardless of signs if I have a need to be there, I will however leave if asked

If the signs are on Gunshops, I wont shop there at all. Nothing says hypocrit, like a gun seller banning the 2A

 

[Domineaux]

Unfortunately I have to agree that private property rights do preempt our right to bear arms just like our free speech.

If you own a store and someone enters and starts spouting off in a way that you dislike, you are perfectly within your rights to ask them to leave.

However it is only trespass (the violation that can be used against you) if when asked to leave you fail to do so. So I personally would feel ok with carrying concealed within private property which is open to the public up until being asked to leave.

 

[divemedic]

But conflicting rights is one problem of living in a society. I have rights, and you have rights. And sometimes they rub against each other.

and that right there is the heart of the matter. All rights are a compromise. In my state, a sign means nothing. If the owner of a business doesn't know I am carrying a weapon (concealed means concealed) then I cannot possibly be damaging his rights. In this case, my right hurts no one. The only way he will EVER find out, is if I am forced to use my weapon, in which case my right to self defense of my life is the most important.

If the owner of the property sees the weapon, then so can others, and my possession of the weapon has become disruptive, and he is free to ask me to leave. In this event, I must leave, as I am not interfering with his ability to operate his business.

To me, this is a healthy balance of rights, and I have no problem with that.

If you own a store and someone enters and starts spouting off in a way that you dislike, you are perfectly within your rights to ask them to leave.

Spouting off, or speech making is more analogous to waving your gun about or shooting into the air than it is to mere possession. The 1A equivalent would be closer to having a crucifix in your pocket, or political literature in your briefcase. No one but you knows that it is there.

 

[Domineaux]

Spouting off, or speech making is more analogous to waving your gun about or shooting into the air than it is to mere possession. The 1A equivalent would be closer to having a crucifix in your pocket, or political literature in your briefcase. No one but you knows that it is there.

Right to "bear arms" and "speech" are comparable even if the similarity is indeed more along the lines of carrying an item of religious expression.

 

[brboyer]

and that right there is the heart of the matter. All rights are a compromise. In my state, a sign means nothing. If the owner of a business doesn't know I am carrying a weapon (concealed means concealed) then I cannot possibly be damaging his rights. In this case, my right hurts no one. The only way he will EVER find out, is if I am forced to use my weapon, in which case my right to self defense of my life is the most important.

If the owner of the property sees the weapon, then so can others, and my possession of the weapon has become disruptive, and he is free to ask me to leave. In this event, I must leave, as I am not interfering with his ability to operate his business.

To me, this is a healthy balance of rights, and I have no problem with that.



Spouting off, or speech making is more analogous to waving your gun about or shooting into the air than it is to mere possession. The 1A equivalent would be closer to having a crucifix in your pocket, or political literature in your briefcase. No one but you knows that it is there.

Removing some one's manner/method of self defense (telling they cannot bring with them, their ability to defend themselves in their chosen fashion) as a condition of entry in analogous to requiring someone to surgically remove their tongue (their ability to exercise their freedom of speech).

 

[evan price]

If the owner of the property sees the weapon, then so can others, and my possession of the weapon has become disruptive, and he is free to ask me to leave. In this event, I must leave, as I am not interfering with his ability to operate his business.

To me, this is a healthy balance of rights, and I have no problem with that.

OK, so then why are we [strike]arguing[/strike] spiritedly discussing?

The right of a private property owner to ask yo uto leave if he finds you carrying a gun is his right as the property owner.
Also, concealed means concealed.

It looks like we agree more than we disagree.

Here's a good example-
We all agree that we are the supreme arbiters of law in our private homes (with regard to personal choices).
Some of you say when you issue an invitation to the public, you give up those rights.

Let's say you (in your private home) decide to hold a garage sale.

Doe that mean now you have given up your rights of your property, and visitors are free to walk about in your home doing as they please? Remember, you invited these people to attend your garage sale.

Please think about that before answering and trying to further explain why there is somehow a new 3rd category of property ownership- Private, Public, and now Public/Private...?

 

[brboyer]

OK, so then why are we [strike]arguing[/strike] spiritedly discussing?

The right of a private property owner to ask yo uto leave if he finds you carrying a gun is his right as the property owner.
Also, concealed means concealed.

It looks like we agree more than we disagree.

Here's a good example-
We all agree that we are the supreme arbiters of law in our private homes (with regard to personal choices).
Some of you say when you issue an invitation to the public, you give up those rights.

Let's say you (in your private home) decide to hold a garage sale.

Doe that mean now you have given up your rights of your property, and visitors are free to walk about in your home doing as they please? Remember, you invited these people to attend your garage sale.

Please think about that before answering and trying to further explain why there is somehow a new 3rd category of property ownership- Private, Public, and now Public/Private...?

I'll only speak to Florida law, but many states are similar.

These folks at your garage sale are now legally, Invitees. Just like those folks that walk in the unlocked front door of your store during business hours.

Legally, can they walk around inside your house/yard? Yes unless you have given them effective notice to the contrary.

Also, since they are invitees, some of the trespass laws will not apply, like opening a gate/door, to gain entry to another portion of the property, which is otherwise prima facie evidence of the crime of trespassing subjecting some one to immediate arrest. In Florida if you open a gate to gain entry that in itself is a crime -no need to ask them to leave before arrest. So in that sense you give up the right to have them arrested immediately without first asking them to leave and them refusing.

Once the enter other portions of your property (if they have not been given effective notice not to enter) simply asking them to leave is your right. Having them arrested for refusal is also your right.

Effective notice in this situation could be stakes in the ground with ropes attached to limit movement, signs on the house doors to the effect "Authorized personnel only", a handout to each person describing the area included in the garage sale, etc.

Now, onto Quasi-Public property. That might apply to your business, but not your home. Thinking about Quasi-Public property gives me a headache so I stay away from those discussions. To make matters worse, courts have different thoughts on it.

 

[Dokkalfar]

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?

Amendment the First specifically states: "Congress shall make no law..." so it actually doesn't provide for any protections aside from restricting Congress. The 13th, however, is worded slightly different: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. " So just because you are on private property doesn't mean you can arbitrarily enact slavery. Likewise, the Second Amendment doesn't restrict itself to just the Federal government in particular, or government in general. It simply stated that the right "shall not be infringed". Simply because a business is open to the public shouldn't mean that they can arbitrarily restrict only certain groups.

 

[divemedic]

OK, so then why are we arguing spiritedly discussing?

Let's say you (in your private home) decide to hold a garage sale.

Doe that mean now you have given up your rights of your property, and visitors are free to walk about in your home doing as they please? Remember, you invited these people to attend your garage sale.

Please think about that before answering and trying to further explain why there is somehow a new 3rd category of property ownership- Private, Public, and now Public/Private...?

Where the disagreement lies is this: A sign != notice to vacate.

Your home (even during a garage sale) != a place of public accommodation.

For the same reason that you are not suddenly required to obtain a business license, follow fire codes, or collect sales tax, and why you can not be charged with violating zoning laws by operating a business in a zoned residential area. You could even get away with standing there and excluding a racial group, as it is still a residence.

A limited number of garage sales does not make you a place of public accommodation. In my city, that number is 3. More than 3 garage sales in any rolling 12 month period, and the city considers that you are operating a business.

Placing a sign that reads "no guns" is not the same as standing there telling someone that they must leave in most states and will not get you arrested. (States like TX with the 30.06 law are the exception) Therefore, as long as that action remains legal in my state, I will continue to ignore the signs, and I don't see the moral dilemma that most of you property people seem to find there.

 

[oneounceload]

DM and BRB, I'll ask you to respond to this again then:

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?

Why would you want to add cash to the coffers of your enemy?

Why would you just not shop elsewhere?

 

[Sam1911]

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?

I'll give one answer: I wouldn't! If I had a reasonably sufficient and convienient choice avaialble. However, if I've driven 30 miles to a store to get some whatzit I need and it's the only place local that has them and I didn't know they had a sign (etc., etc.) I'm not turning around and going home without just to teach them a lesson that they'll never hear. And, I'm not going to disarm -- because I don't have to (here).

Now, I may write them a letter later telling them how I feel. I may decide not to patronize them in the future and do my shopping online or elsewhere. (Where I may be supporting an "anti" business but not even know it.)

Further, not everything is a choice of retail establishments. As some have posted here, their jobs or "duties" take them into places (like hospitals or what have you) that may be posted (without legal weight). Not much choice about it, and they may not be in any way "supporting" that establishiment.

In the end, I'm going to live my life and go about my business as I please. My carry gun doesn't enter into it, and (here, at least) doesn't put me in legal jeopardy -- almost anywhere.

 

[brboyer]

DM and BRB, I'll ask you to respond to this again then:

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?

Why would you want to add cash to the coffers of your enemy?

Why would you just not shop elsewhere?

Sam answered well, but I'll add this.

The vast majority of businesses that post (in Florida it's pretty rare to begin with) are not "Anti-Gun" they are "Anti-Lawsuit".

By either following instructions from there chosen insurance carrier to reduce their premiums or by following advise form a so-call attorney with the mistaken belief that this sign will somehow protect them in a lawsuit.

Since these signs mean nothing at all to me, I don't look for them or notice them if they are there any more than I do "No Smoking", "No shirts, no shoes, no service" signs.

I carry my firearms to protect myself and my family and I carry them everywhere I go. Thankfully Florida's list of off-limits places is pretty short so I rarely have to make the choice whether or not to violate the law.

In short, Yes my life and the lives of my family are more important than a property owner's dislike for an object he will never see.

 

[divemedic]

DM and BRB, I'll ask you to respond to this again then:

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?

I don't think the vast majority of those who post, especially the big corporations, really care that much. It is all about liability from the point of view of their insurance carrier, and not about guns.

Think about this: If a person with a gun shoots someone on your property, and you did nothing to prevent the person from having a gun, you are going to pay cash to the victims.

However, if you had a policy, and the shooter who was doing the shooting was breaking the law (robbing or spree shooting) well, then you tried to prevent the shooting, so you have a defense. After all, you put up a sign, had cameras, security lighting, etc. Since the law also says that a business can't be liable for the actions of a third party (a criminal) if they took steps to protect customers from the third party's action (sign, camera, lights), then you have created a situation where a business is liable for shootings that happen while allowing CCW and not liable for shootings that happen if they prohibit CCW, then the smart financial decision from the company's standpoint is to put up the sign.

Heck, if putting up a $5 sign that I know carries no legal weight, and looking the other way when people lawfully ignore the sign would save me from $1000 a year in liability insurance, I would do it,too.

This IMO is how the government uses lawyers and civil law to control things that they cannot Constitutionally control. They just make you liable for the behavior, while insulating you from liability for preventing the behavior.

 

[gym]

Sign has to be written by the owner of the property. I owned a gym where I leased the property from a major corporation. They would have the ultimate say since they didn't give me the legal right to deny state law it doesn't matter what I put up. If the janitor puts up a sign does it count? I had agents, deputys, FBI, etc as clients, where do I get off telling them that they can't bring their guns into my club. It's a complicated issue, Winn Dixie had a sign in their winow for about a year, in Boca, they were forced to remove it. I think that each case is different. And it centers on who owns the property, not who is using it. Worse case is you leave, but this "high road" has nothing to do with me trusting an idiot who put up a sign with my saftey. Because he isn't going to be able to bring my wife or friend back to life if the guy who saw the store as a target rich enviornment, decides to shoot someone who left their gun in the car.

 

[308win]

Because he isn't going to be able to bring my wife or friend back to life if the guy who saw the store as a target rich enviornment, decides to shoot someone who left their gun in the car.

Is there any study or evidence, empirical or otherwise indicating criminals base their choice of location on whether or not a business is posted? In Ohio, most businesses are not posted and that would logically lead to more crime in unposted businesses; whether or not this is the case I don't have information to confirm.

 

[divemedic]

Is there any study or evidence, empirical or otherwise indicating criminals base their choice of location on whether or not a business is posted?

So your default is that you don't defend yourself and your family unless a study is done showing that it is worthwhile?

I could ask the same question. I can tell you one thing: The likelihood of a criminal killing me or a member of my family is significantly lower if I am carrying a weapon. That is the only statistic I care about.

I don't wait for, nor depend upon, a study to tell me to defend myself.

 

[308win]

Where did I say that?

 

[brboyer]

Sign has to be written by the owner of the property. I owned a gym where I leased the property from a major corporation. They would have the ultimate say since they didn't give me the legal right to deny state law it doesn't matter what I put up. If the janitor puts up a sign does it count? I had agents, deputys, FBI, etc as clients, where do I get off telling them that they can't bring their guns into my club. It's a complicated issue, Winn Dixie had a sign in their winow for about a year, in Boca, they were forced to remove it. I think that each case is different. And it centers on who owns the property, not who is using it. Worse case is you leave, but this "high road" has nothing to do with me trusting an idiot who put up a sign with my saftey. Because he isn't going to be able to bring my wife or friend back to life if the guy who saw the store as a target rich enviornment, decides to shoot someone who left their gun in the car.

Sign has to be written by the owner of the property. I owned a gym where I leased the property from a major corporation. They would have the ultimate say since they didn't give me the legal right to deny state law it doesn't matter what I put up. If the janitor puts up a sign does it count?

First, "No Firearm" signs mean nothing...

Second, Once you rent/lease the property, It is under your control. You make the rules, not the owner (except with specific, limited, legal restrictions in the lease)

I had agents, deputys, FBI, etc as clients, where do I get off telling them that they can't bring their guns into my club.

As the individual in charge of the property, you absolutely do have the authority to ask anyone to leave for whatever reason you like (except for being a member of a Federally protected class). Maybe you don't like cops, it's perfectly legal for you to tell cops to get out or to take their guns out. And have them arrested if they refuse. Unless they are there on official business, like investigating a complaint. If they are there on-duty or off-duty, in uniform or not, you can absolutely tell them to take a hike! I heard recently where a director of the FDLE (with his family, not on official business) was discovered carrying at Disney, they made him store his pistol for the duration of his visit with them.

Winn Dixie had a sign in their window for about a year, in Boca, they were forced to remove it.

No one can force a private business to remove a 'legal' sign. Meaning if there was no law being violated by the actual posting of a sign, the content of that sign is protect by the 1st Amendment.

And it centers on who owns the property, not who is using it.

I think you need to read up on property law.

 

[divemedic]

I think you need to read up on property law

I agree. Contrary to what he posted, any employee certainly CAN make decisions for the property. For example: a ticket taker at Disney can deny you entry, yet he isn't the owner.

In the case of gym's example: Are you telling me that you and your employees could not deny someone entry to your gym, because you are not the owner of the property?

Let's be realistic folks.

 

[KodiakBeer]

brboyer

Or simply ignore the sign and do as they wish.

True, you can. And perhaps you can do so legally - there's nearly always a disconnect between legality and ethics, or legality and simple good manners.

If somebody doesn't want me to wear a gun on their property, I'm going to respect that. I won't go on their property and I won't give them any of my money.

 

[brboyer]

brboyer

True, you can. And perhaps you can do so legally - there's nearly always a disconnect between legality and ethics, or legality and simple good manners.

If somebody doesn't want me to wear a gun on their property, I'm going to respect that. I won't go on their property and I won't give them any of my money.

We are all free to do as we wish.

I think this would look good on a gravestone:

My loving husband was ethical and good mannered


even when that amped up druggie stabbed him to death in the 7-11

 

[divemedic]

True, you can. And perhaps you can do so legally - there's nearly always a disconnect between legality and ethics, or legality and simple good manners.

This always makes me laugh. This inevitably comes up when discussing the property argument, yet inevitably when I ask the person if they think a property owner who has disarmed his invitees/customers through his policy of "no guns" should have an ethical/moral duty to those same customers when the store gets shot up and the customers cannot defend themselves, they say:


"The law doesn't hold me responsible for what a criminal does." Thus ignoring that it was their policy that encouraged the shooter AND left the customer defenseless, they ignore any moral or ethical responsibility that they have for their decision.

THAT is why I don't give a hoot about the property owner's desires.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Or this:

My Loving husband spent all his life insisting on giving money to people who didn't respect his civil liberties. He will be sorely missed by anti-gunners everywhere.

 

[KodiakBeer]

THAT is why I don't give a hoot about the property owner's desires.

If you come into my house and I ask you to leave your gun in your car and you don't, you might find my gun in your face.

That wouldn't happen because I wouldn't invite anyone into my house that I didn't trust. However... my house, my rules.

What I fail to grasp here, is why so many of you INSIST that it is your right to spend money in places that have no respect for you, your civil liberties or your safety? Why reward these people for spitting in your face?

Why not shop, dine, spend money in places that respect you?