People used to be discrimination at places, why guns also?
For a long time something has not quite sat well with me when it comes to the way law abiding citizens are treated with respect to carrying firearms on private property. It finally fell into place why.
Just to start, I am as strong of a private property rights person as you will find anywhere. But I see inconsistencies in the application of the law when it comes to guns, and I believe that is wrong.
Generally speaking, a property owner can prohibit a visitor from carrying a gun on their property. If the visitor does not comply, the property owner can call the police and have the visitor arrested for trespassing. In essence, the property owner is wielding the full power of the government to enforce a private policy.
I think that is wrong. Private property policies are by definition civil matters, not matters for law enforcement.
If a person were shopping in a store while wearing a red shirt, and the property owner declared red shirts to be prohibited, and then called the police to remove you, what do you think the reaction by the police would be? They would probably arrest the property owner for a frivolous use of police resources. Lets take it one step further, banks often have policies about wearing hats. Would the police actually arrest someone for wearing a hat in a bank? I don't know if it's ever happened, but I doubt it. The bank can refuse to do business with you until you comply, but that is not the same as being arrested.
One more example, it is common knowledge that if you have renters (or even squatters!) in your house and you want them out, the police will NOT simply come and kick them out. That is the ultimate form of trespassing (especially squatters.) But in those cases, the police will claim "it's a civil matter" you have to sue them, win your case, and get a judge to order them out.
My point is, why is a gun carrier treated so much differently that the government feels it is ok to become involved in what is clearly a dispute among two private parties? There is precedent for them not to become involved, absent any violence or threat of violence, which never happens with law abiding carriers.
Why should private property owners be entitled to the services of the government law enforcers, when there is no law being broken, other than a private trespass, which in many other cases they will not even consider interfering?
Private property proponents will object, enjoying the free services that the government law enforcers sometimes provide. But that is a gift that private property owners are not entitled to. The fact that it is disproportionately applied against gun owners and not red shirts or blue shirts or baseball jerseys of certain teams is even worse.
Until we identify and stamp out all of these double standards, gun carriers will always be considered the second class citizen, against whom it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate.
People used to be discrimination at places, why guns also?
How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?
VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
- - - -
For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)
Why does it take a lawsuit and a judges order to evict trespassers from a house, but ten seconds on the phone to 911 to evict someone exercising their Constitutionally protected rights?
Such a dispute should be a civil matter, to use the government to enforce a discrimination against a civil right should not be an authorized use of that power. It was done in the 50s and 60s based on skin color and it was just as wrong then as it is today.
Last edited by TFred; 08-10-2012 at 11:49 PM.
Last edited by JoeSparky; 08-11-2012 at 01:49 AM. Reason: spelling error
RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!
Life Member NRA
Life Member GOA
2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
I've had that very same thought.
Can you IMAGINE the outcry if a store should post "No gang oriented clothing" or "No Democratic or Progressive voters allowed" They would have to invent a new nano timescale to measure how quick the lawsuits would come forth.
To answer why the trespassing laws are written the way they are, is simple. It's to prevent violence. At one time we shot trespassers. In some states you can still do it under certain circumstances and it's not a bad idea IMO.
Suppose someone comes on my property and I order them to leave for any reason, and they refuse....what do you think is going to happen?
The problem with the law is that they don't differentiate between a business that invites people to come in, and someone's back yard where people are forbidden to enter.
One is public property that's privately owned and the other is private property.
Last edited by peter nap; 08-11-2012 at 01:26 AM.
Property rights are a foundation block of society. In fact, one school of thought derives our personal liberties from property rights, arguing that we have a property right in ourselves. Was it not John Locke who argued that we have a property right in our rights?
While I think businesses that ban self-defense are bad. I am utterly convinced it would be even worse to use the power of government to force them to recognize self-defense rights. As soon as you give government the power, suddenly every demagoguing hack wanting some votes and campaign contributions will start selling the rest of the rights of business.
If we want to change anything, it might be a good start to pass laws that businesses cannot be held to blame for allowing self-defense rights. That would start to knock out a few teeth of the corporate lawyers who advise businesses to ban guns. And, disarm some of the unscrupulously litigious lawyers who would sue a business if anything bad were to happen.
I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.
If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?
There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.
I don't think this is a legal matter at all. No one but the property owner can set the rules. If they want you out you have to get out. For any reason you must oblige or face trespassing charges. What needs to change is the property owner's take or opinion on firearms. And you change this by oc'ing, being polite, educating those who are interested, and complying with the rules set by private property owners.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
If asked to leave, we leave. I've been called over to the express lane with my 10+ items because no one was in that line. I've been told I could carry in a store despite the "no loaded guns" sign because the owner knew me and didn't mind if I carried. Was I trespassing in those cases? I don't believe I was.
The trespassing code code (§ 18.2-119) refers to going on or remaining on property after being told otherwise. Cops I've discussed this with said they won't cite for trespassing in an open-to-the-public place like a store without telling someone they have to leave and having them refuse. I'd be surprised to see them skip that part of the code and still cite.
As a group, we gun owners are respectful. If asked to leave, we leave. It's offensive when normal interaction between citizens (even if it's "I'd like you to leave my property") is bypassed for direct police involvement.
No lease, nothing, just plain old ordinary trespassers, that they can't get rid of. I guess if they had a gun, it would be quite a bit different.
The squatters also apparently counted on the landlord-tenant act to provide a delaying action before they could be booted out - thus gaming another law.
Going back to your original complaint - I's like to suggest that there may be a special relationship that drives a lot of the way in which this issue is carried out. That relationship is the one between gun owners, who are generally self-sufficient and assertive (not aggressive) people who take responsibility for their own safety into their own hands, and the police, who are essentially in the control business instead of the law-enforcement business. There may be other reasons why the police also tend not to like gun owners but IMHO the matter of control is paramount. That being the case, the police have a vested interest in "enforcing" trespass for private business owners. And then to take the argument one step further - who do the poolice work for? The answer is certainly not "the People" as that concept is generally understood. I say the police work for the lawmakers. Lawmakers, even more than the police, have a control issue. If the proles do not obey the law then the lawmakers are impotent.
Just one possible set of answers to your question.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
"A man's home is his castle." Another simple explanation, "my house, my rules".
Carrying a gun against the home owner's wishes would be as bad as saying you have the right to have sex with his wife.
It could and probably would cause many fights.
It is my contention that carrying a gun in another man's home or place of business should be treated the same as carrying a cell phone, or a ballpoint pen, or ::gasp:: a pack of cigarettes! Has anyone ever been asked to take their pack of cigarettes back out to the car before being served in a restaurant? Why not?
No sane person would have someone removed for trespassing for carrying any of these other innocuous objects. I mean, someone might talk on their cell phone during the meal and disturb other diners... or they could go crazy and take that pen and start writing all over the walls, or they might light up a cigarette and kill everyone in the room with second-hand smoke!
Sure we all understand that we are to respect a property owner's wishes. We don't write on their walls, and we don't fill their house with cigarette smoke, and we don't pull out a gun and start shooting holes in things or people... But to kick someone out for carrying a pen, or a pack of cigarettes (and I say also a properly holstered firearm) is well beyond ridiculous, and nobody should be evicted by the hand of the government for simply carrying any of those inanimate objects.
Until we see that a legally carried firearm is no different than a pack of cigarettes, we are losing the battle to bring OC or any kind of carry to any semblance of "normal" within society.
BTW it is common for furniture stores to post trespass signs for food and drinks. That does not mean not drinking or eating that means not bringing them in the store.
Last edited by WalkingWolf; 08-12-2012 at 01:30 PM.
You miss the point entirely, intentionally, I suspect. The government should only get involved to enforce the property owners right to limit access to his property. The person would be "evicted by the hand of government" for refusing to leave private property when ordered to do so, not for the underlying cause for that order. The cause for the order to leave is unimportant and at the complete discretion of the owner (except for a few protected classes). In some cases the property owner or his agents may feel uncomfortable or think it dangerous to confront some people. In that case, they may ask the police to assist them by delivering the message that the visitors are unwelcome on the property. At that time, it is not unreasonable to offer an compromise to allow the visitor to stay; change the color of his shirt, modify his behavior, put the gun in the car etc. Only if the person refuses the compromise and/or refuses to leave should governments authority be used. If the visitor refuses all other options, it is reasonable he be removed by government force, arrest. At that point, he has crossed the line and become a criminal. All of this is a appropriate use of governmental police power, in my opinion.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
"...acting the fool?" What is this in reference to? Did you intend to reply to another post?
Do you have any picture of these trespass signs for food and drinks? It sounds like a fascinating concept; I've never heard of them or seen one.
I have seen MORE "no food or drinks" signs than I have "No Weapons" signs. As far as my reply, there was a quote that was in it that I directly responded to. I have read the thread and as posting carried on I could see where it was going, IMO. As far as cigarettes or whatever he laments a property owner CAN trespass for any reason outside those protected by law. Please do not tell me how to interpret or how to post, I will ignore it, unless you are a mod.
Last edited by WalkingWolf; 08-12-2012 at 05:09 PM.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus