Should property rights trump 2A rights

[preachnhunt]

On another thread which is currently running, the question arose as to whether a person should carry in a place which has a "gun buster" sign.
In Ky.(my state) and other states as well, the property owner can only ask you to leave upon penalty of trespassing. Should we ignore the signs , disarm,or patronize a more 2A friendly business?

 

[Mags]

Here we go again..
We should be good citizens and respect the property owner's wishes. It is after all their property and we are not forced to enter their establishment, you have a choice.

These are the only respectable choices:

disarm,or patronize a more 2A friendly business

 

[General Geoff]

Property rights are just as important as gun rights. Neither one trumps the other; by walking onto private property owned by someone else, you agree to abide by their rules. It has nothing to do with infringement of rights, and everything to do with following the stipulations of a social contract.

 

[JohnKSa]

A property owner should be able to restrict the carrying of guns on their property but not to the extent that it prevents people from effectively carrying at all.

In other words, they should be allowed to keep you out of their building with a firearm if that's what they want to do, but they shouldn't be able to restrict you from having one in your car parked outside.

Basically if private property (private buildings and their contents) is sacrosanct then private property (private vehicles and their contents) should also be sacrosanct.

 

[preachnhunt]

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.

 

[divemedic]

This comes up about once a week, and I will say my piece again:

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.

The funny thing is that EVERY property rights person will DEMAND that they have the right to exclude people with weapons, but also deny liability if the property is subsequently attacked by a mass shooter.

After all, if you open a business, the government requires fire exits, fire suppression systems, handicapped access, etc.

Put up a sign that says "by entering, you agree to hold the owner of this property harmless in all torts for any reason whatsoever" and see if that defense works.

And before any of you say race is different than your NATURAL RIGHTS, tell me why. I am born with that right, and no one (especially not a Corporate entity, created by government fiat) is going to take it from me.

All of this is different from your home, so don't go there.

 

[cambeul41]

A concealed firearm is under my outerwear. What other underwear is so restricted?

Marijuana is illegal. Lawful CCW is not. Do we see signs saying "No Drugs"?

In Michigan, I do not recall seeing any "No Guns" signs. If I did, I would not patronize, but I am not ready to concede the "right" of property owners -- who invite the general public into their establishments -- to question or prohibit what I have on under my outerwear.

 

[9mmepiphany]

And before any of you say race is different than your NATURAL RIGHTS, tell me why

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

that's why i would disarm or choose to patronize a different business

 

[mljdeckard]

This is the only difference between open and concealed carry in Utah. If you carry concealed, they don't know you are armed to ask you to leave at all. If you open carry, they may well ask you to. In Utah these signs hold no force of law and I walk on by.

There was a theater here in Ogden at the mall that had a no-gun sign out front. For a while, I ignored it and went in anyway, but after a while I decided that if that was their corporate policy I wouldn't support them. I got into a conversation with a guy who was an employee there, and he said that not only was it corporate policy, the manager had forwarded hundreds of messages from local gun owners who refused to go there because of the policy. They recently remodeled and changed their doorways, and the sign is gone.

If your property is open to the general public, and you run a business where your survival depends on how many customers you can suck into the store, you must accept whatever it is that these people do within the law. You always have the choice to not open your property in the first place.

 

[archigos]

If a property owner prohibits people from self-defense on their property, that is -not- denial of a right. It may be demonstrating a lack of respect for 2nd Amendment rights, freedom, and personal safety, but the only entities capable of denying somebody their 2nd Amendment rights are governments.

 

[basicblur]

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".

 

[divemedic]

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

Then you do not understand the concept upon which our nation was founded. My rights do not exist because someone gave them to me, they exist because I exist. Also, the right to not be discriminated against is set by law, not COTUS.

It may be demonstrating a lack of respect for 2nd Amendment rights, freedom, and personal safety, but the only entities capable of denying somebody their 2nd Amendment rights are governments.

What about corporations? All created by government, many owned (at least in part) by government.

My right to defend myself trumps your imagined rights to order my death.

If a property owner prohibits people from self-defense on their property, that is -not- denial of a right.

So as a property owner, I can rape your wife if she enters my store? And her defending herself interferes with my rights as a property owner?

Can I have a policy requiring all of my female employees to perform fellatio on me? After all, my property, my rules.

Rights are a balance. You open your property to the public, you cede certain rights to that public. The act of opening a business does that. By opening a business, you can no longer discriminate, you can not operate that business without conforming to building and fire codes, labor laws, and many other laws. Once you open to the public, the rules change.

 

[hipoint]

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

If I go to someone's home, I... 1. leave my gun in the car and not mention it at all, or 2. Immediately tell the folks who own the home that I have a gun and ask them what they would like for me to do with it. I would never ever bring a gun into another person's home without their permission, and depending on the neighborhood is whether or not I would just leave it in the car and not mention it.

As far as a business goes personally I would only carry something small and un-noticeable. In other words, not hip carry. Such as in your position of being in the hospital parking garages, I wouldn't worry about it and just do it, as long as you don't carry inside the hospital (go through metal detectors?) then how would anyone ever know?

all that said, I have never needed a gun. I have had several pointed at me maliciously and am still glad to this day that I did not have one to use. I rarely carry a gun with me, and when I do it's only been when I go to the "city". funny enough though that the "city" is the place where I would get in trouble for having it most often...

as far as your situation, being in the parking garages late at night, I would carry, I would carry a compact .40 or something like that and just keep it hidden well...

Opinions are just like @$$holes... everybody has got one

 

[Clifford]

The short....... Yes.

Now that said, they call it CONCEALED carry for a reason.

 

[MedWheeler]

Until the SCOTUS includes lawfully-armed citizens in a "protected class", such as those grouped by race, I disagree that they should be able to carry against the wishes of a private property owner. Comparing it to the requirement of fire extinguishers is absurd, as patrons of an establishment are not expected or required to stay and fight a fire when one breaks out. The right of the free people to maintain private property is as sacred as any other, and the Constitution even goes so far as to say that it cannot be used against the owner for the quartering of Federal troops (US Constitution, Amendment 3.) Many here argue that the 2A, in its recognition of both a well-regulated militia and an armed populace, effectively incorporated all armed citizens in this "ready militia". Wouldn't requiring them to be permitted to carry with impunity onto anyone's personal property effectively trump the prohibition of requiring property owners to accept armed persons on their premises?
It's a stretch, but it uses the argument we all use to defend the 2A ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the maintainence of a "well-regulated militia"), and that right would be limited by the 3A.

 

[stickhauler]

And that doesn't apply to every reason a property owner can use to refuse service. We all see the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" signs and I've yet to see a challenge of someone excluded even take place, let alone be filed.

If a property owner doesn't allow firearms, you enter anyway, and they ask you to leave, you sure better, or get arrested for trespassing, no matter what kind of place it is. If I own a farm and you decide to hunt there, and I'm not willing to let you, any police officer will escort you off the property and charge you.

A property owner who does so is not discriminating against you based on race, creed, or National origin. And there's no Federal legislation that forbids discrimination based on being armed.

If it's posted, I'll either avoid patronizing them, or comply with their wishes. But then again, getting cuffed and stuffed to make a point isn't high on my "bucket list."

 

[MedWheeler]

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. That is about as ridiculous as saying that, if you open your business to the public, any member of it should be allowed to enter and rape you. You say certain rights are "ceded" when one allows others to enter their property, but then try to make your argument as if you think all should be. I hope that is not your stance.
No one has said that "self-defense" is prohibited on some private premises; only carrying of a firearm is.
I've followed arguments of yours on other threads, and they were usually more lucid than this.

 

[9mmepiphany]

My rights do not exist because someone gave them to me, they exist because I exist

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

I am born with that right

you were not born with the right, you acquired the right by the fortuitous location of you birth or residence...the only right you were really born with was the same as everyone else...the right to die

 

[walteray]

Can I have a policy requiring all of my female employees to perform fellatio on me? After all, my property, my rules.

That is outstanding can i use this quote divemedic?

I live in washington and the hostpital that my daughter is going to be born at in August has one of these "gun buster" signs.
I have been carrying in there for all her appointments and birthing classes.

Is this something that the state can actually control seeing as how it is a public surely state subsidized? Im sure they can ask me to leave if someone to see what I had ( i am carefull and they wont) but if they were are they within their rights to ask me to leave and am I within my rights to tell them to pound salt?

 

[General Geoff]

9mmepiphany, you are incorrect. ALL people on the globe have a right to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Government just happens to infringe that right slightly less than the rest of the world's governments. Same with the right to free speech, religion, etc. It is NOT a right specific to the United States.

 

[rscalzo]

"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".

That issue was addressed somewhat many years ago regarding malls and the rights to demonstrate and distribute literature. The ability was not totally denied but restricted. For anyone interested in the case it involved Hartz Mountain Industries. The judge's opinion is somewhat in conflict with this binding decision.

 

[9mmepiphany]

9mmepiphany, you are incorrect. ALL people on the globe have a right to keep and bear arms.

i guess it depends on how you define arms...i think it would be more accurate to say they have an opportunity. Americans often think of self-defense as a right, but it isn't universal

 

[hso]

Owner trumps because 2A only trumps government infringement.

 

[Tamlin]

How are those God-given rights to keep and bear arms working out in, say, Britain, or Australia, or China? If they are truly God-given, how can they EVER be infringed?

 

[mljdeckard]

The same way governments infringe on ALL fundamental human rights. When a right is God-given, the only question is whether or not you live in a place where your government DOESN'T infringe on it.