Why don't we say things like, "It should be perfectly legal for any business to refuse to serve a blogger who writes things they don't agree with." Or, "It's fine for people to ban Catholics... or Baptists... etc, from their home or store."
I say things like this all the time.
+ a bunch
I had the same soapbox moment here last year. I understand that property is protected under the constitution(s) and all that but I really do not understand exactly how those particular constitutional rights then should be allowed to supplant another constitutional right such as that granted under the 2A **when** the property owner has made their property open to the public. IAW, you have a bank....you open it for business, and allow any and all walks of life to enter for the purposes of conducting business...why then should you have an additional right to supplant my 2A rights?
It would seem to me that if in entering a business (or apartment) where I have as part of the general public been invited to conduct a business transaction (or enter into a contract or other legal agreement such as a lease) that I should be protected to exercise my constitutional rights so long as my doing so doesn't infringe upon the right to own property. And I mean the right to own property -- I think that there are very narrow **constitutional** protections for how private property is held and used (which is the basis for zoning laws, property usage restrictions, etc.). Public access certainly changes what a property owner must do with their property -- for example, I have an office with training rooms that are used to conduct training for the public. And in those spaces (and all other public access spaces) I must meet certain code mandated requirements that are not applicable to my private office portion of my office. I do not have the "right" to decide not to have exit signs, required fire prevention or detection equipment, or to lock emergency exits in my public spaces. That's a public policy issue (coupled with the associated safety issues). And it seems to me that openly supplanting or curtailing constitutional rights would also fit within that. If I chose to exercise my 2A right, at a business that has opened itself to the public, how exactly have I infringed upon the property rights of the property owner? It is very ridiculous to suggest that is the affect of simply exercise my 2A rights. If you don't want me to exercise **all** of my constitutional rights, then feel free to close your doors (or leases) to the public.
</rant>
Oh, so as long as I can "own" my property, that's good enough? I don't have to be able to do with it as I please?
Fine, as long as you can "own" your gun, that's good enough. Don't expect to be able to actually use it.
As long as you can speak, you don't need the ability to speak anything you like.
Folks, step back a minute. This is bigger than us.
Rights are not
rights if they can be trampled at the whim of a politically influential group. The whole point of
rights is that they are
my freedom, whether you like the consequences or not. So long as they don't infringe on your equal right.
My owning property on which I ban guns
is my right, because it does not diminish your right to own your own property and ban guns on it (or not).
Let's play with drdan's logic for a while, shall we?
You have a right to sublet property which you own. Say you decide to let me rent the rooms in your basement (assuming you have one), while you continue to live upstairs. I have a first amendment right to start a grindcore band who practices for several hours every day as loudly as we possibly can. Well, don't expect to have a lease clause requiring low sound levels. I don't care if you have a baby. You're allowed to "own" the house – good enough.
Say you let a front room, with a portion of lawn, to Joe Bob. Joe Bob has a first amendment right to advocate for NAMBLA, and to put yard signs up. Well, don't expect to be able to prohibit that when it's your property. You're allowed to "own" the property – right secured, amirite?
Heck, since we're completely bypassing the requisite sphere-of-rights analysis, I could get really absurd. The second amendment protects the right to target practice on my property, so I'm going to do it in that basement. And, no, I'm not going to tell you whether I have an adequate backstop. Your right to "own" the property is secure – now ****.
I might be more amenable to further discussion if there were actually a majority of owners who prohibit guns on their lease, or business who forbid armed customers. But there aren't.
I lived in San Francisco, for pete's sake, and owned a gun completely in accordance with my landlord's lease. If I can manage that, y'all can manage to find a place in the rest of the free world, or else you're not trying.
Whining because of an occasional, rare inconvenience, and championing throwing out the baby of right with the bathwater of annoyance doesn't exactly make us look very good as we demand respect for
our right de jour. That right annoys plenty of people, too.
And let's play the "what if" game a moment -- I have constitutional rights under the 2A. What if every single financial institution decides to restrict my 2A rights (not so far from reality today actually) and I am thus left with no financial institution that I can conduct business at without being compelled to forego some of my constitutional rights. What if for example, the government then compels me to file my business tax payments via those same financial institutions, and compels me to receive any tax refunds through those same financial institutions, and so on (if you run your own business you are probably well aware of all of these newer requirements either here or fast approaching). Why then isn't this a public policy issue, that if I am being compelled to conduct business with a bank to meet Federal and State requirements, why then is that financial institution allowed to supplant my constitutional rights?
What if the sun explodes? What if martians force the moon's orbit to decay? What if a zombie outbreak occurs?
First of all, banking is not the necessity for day to day life it has been cracked up to be. I know plenty of folks who get by without regularly using banking services.
Secondly, it's my opinion that government forcing people to use banks is where the line should be drawn. That's every bit as big a deal as where we can carry our little guns.
And anyway, they already have a mandate for health insurance. If they wanted to try to ban guns in this fashion, that would be the logical industry to utilize.
