TFred
Regular Member
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.
TFred
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.
TFred
