Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Private Property -> Constitutional Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190

    Private Property -> Constitutional Carry

    VA allows any private property owner or authorized rep to prohibit firearms on their property. This seems to me to be a one-way (wrong-way) freedom of choice glitch on private property, where the owner can only prohibit rights, and not extend them.

    It seems to me that VA should butt out and allow any private property owner the right to allow any form of carrying/possession they want to allow, by anyone they want to while being on their property, as if those welcomed were on their own properties.

    As I can open or conceal on my property, regardless of CHP, I should be able to extend that right to whomever I want, for them to open or conceal on my property, to the extent as if they were on their own property. (This would exclude those prohibited by law to possess at all, since even if on their own property, they would still be prohibited).

    Churches, private schools, restaurants, retailers, family get togethers on private property, all could extend their personal property rights to Constitutionally carry to their guests, sans CHP's.

    Why has VA recognized only the property owner's individual rights, and not those whom he wishes to allow while on his property?

    If someone's allowed to open/cc on their own property, why shouldn't they be able tp open/cc on someone else's private property with that owner's permission?
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 03-10-2014 at 10:49 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I have given this some thought over the years, and my opinion is that the concealed carry law is in place to protect the general public from the perceived threat of someone carrying a weapon without you knowing it. Theoretically, this gives them an upper hand should they be plotting some nefarious action against you.

    If you carry that out to its logical conclusion, property owners may carry concealed in their business and directly in and around their house because "the public" is not there, other than by their own choice. You should know who the owner(s) is(are) and you can decide to be there based on your trust of them to behave properly.

    If the law allowed the owner to grant this permission to others. the protection afforded the general public against this perceived threat from strangers is gone, since you may not know and trust everyone else in attendance.

    There is limited validity to even attempting to make sense out of laws that are based on hundreds of years of past tradition and perception, but for what its worth. It's almost like doing title research, trying to trace back old laws and discern attitudes from long ago that are linked to our laws today.

    Is there a branch of history dedicated to this?

    TFred

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    VA allows any private property owner or authorized rep to prohibit firearms on their property. This seems to me to be a one-way (wrong-way) freedom of choice glitch on private property, where the owner can only prohibit rights, and not extend them.

    It seems to me that VA should butt out and allow any private property owner the right to allow any form of carrying/possession they want to allow, by anyone they want to while being on their property, as if those welcomed were on their own properties.

    As I can open or conceal on my property, regardless of CHP, I should be able to extend that right to whomever I want, for them to open or conceal on my property, to the extent as if they were on their own property. (This would exclude those prohibited by law to possess at all, since even if on their own property, they would still be prohibited).

    Churches, private schools, restaurants, retailers, family get togethers on private property, all could extend their personal property rights to Constitutionally carry to their guests, sans CHP's.

    Why has VA recognized only the property owner's individual rights, and not those whom he wishes to allow while on his property?

    If someone's allowed to open/cc on their own property, why shouldn't they be able tp open/cc on someone else's private property with that owner's permission?
    Property owner can issue a name tag that states "I'm in charge here too!"

    Anyone with a name tag gets to OC/CC.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    I submit that if there is no distinction between private property and public, then anyone can do anything not specifically forbidden......from wearing a red shirt to fornicating in your bedroom.

    Constiutional Carry allows the individual the freedom to choose how to carry, not the unfettered right to carry any and everywhere.

    Chaos freedom, nor does it promote equallity.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    If I recall

    There is a distinction of business property where one may carry concealed and may grant that privilage to employees at one' place of business. It is an interesting difference worthy of investigation. Could the distinction of an employee being under the supervision of the owner be the difference?
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  6. #6
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wolfhound View Post
    There is a distinction of business property where one may carry concealed and may grant that privilage to employees at one' place of business. It is an interesting difference worthy of investigation. Could the distinction of an employee being under the supervision of the owner be the difference?
    There is no such distinction. I do not know of any provision for a business owner to "grant" an employee the right to carry concealed. The only exception in the code is:

    "C1. Any person while in his own place of business;"

    Just for completeness, remember that even at home, the exemption only applies "while in his own place of abode or the curtilage thereof." (Paragraph B.) That means if you're standing on the side of the road in front of your house, or if you're mowing grass in a large back yard, you probably aren't covered without a permit. Curtilage is a fairly specific concept, even though it may be hard to pin down an exact definition.

    TFred

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I have given this some thought over the years, and my opinion is that the concealed carry law is in place to protect the general public from the perceived threat of someone carrying a weapon without you knowing it. Theoretically, this gives them an upper hand should they be plotting some nefarious action against you.

    If you carry that out to its logical conclusion, property owners may carry concealed in their business and directly in and around their house because "the public" is not there, other than by their own choice. You should know who the owner(s) is(are) and you can decide to be there based on your trust of them to behave properly.

    If the law allowed the owner to grant this permission to others. the protection afforded the general public against this perceived threat from strangers is gone, since you may not know and trust everyone else in attendance.
    TFred
    There's some recognizable logic in there, and I congratulate you on being able to overlay logic upon gun-grabbing... not always possible
    But I think the fair solution would just be to have the owner post a notice that his property is a Constitutional-Carry Safe Zone and let people decide to enter or not ;-)


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Property owner can issue a name tag that states "I'm in charge here too!"

    Anyone with a name tag gets to OC/CC.
    That's a great, hilarious solution, 'til I looked back and it says, "1. Any person while in his own place of business", no mention of authorized agent or the like for having exception-cc rights, only for restricting others of their carrying rights.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    There is no such distinction. I do not know of any provision for a business owner to "grant" an employee the right to carry concealed. The only exception in the code is:

    "C1. Any person while in his own place of business;"

    Just for completeness, remember that even at home, the exemption only applies "while in his own place of abode or the curtilage thereof." (Paragraph B.) That means if you're standing on the side of the road in front of your house, or if you're mowing grass in a large back yard, you probably aren't covered without a permit. Curtilage is a fairly specific concept, even though it may be hard to pin down an exact definition.

    TFred
    Hmmm. Does "own" equate to ownership/proprietorship or is it where one works. If the latter, then an employee could legally carry where they work - might be fired for not following employer's rules though.

    In some states an employee of an establishment may carry with the permission of the owner - Washington & North Carolina are among these I believe, though it might only apply to businesses selling alcohol by the drink.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    --snipped--
    But I think the fair solution would just be to have the owner post a notice that his property is a Constitutional-Carry Safe Zone and let people decide to enter or not ;-)
    Please no signs!

    GRZ signs embolden the antis and irritate the pro gunnies. Nothing good comes of them...and they carry no legal authority in and of themselves.

    I daily carry anticipating that I will have no problems - doesn't mean I am not prepared. I have never asked if I was welcome with my little friend.

    No guns = no me = no money spent there.

    All in all very, very few businesses refuse service to those that carry.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Hmmm. Does "own" equate to ownership/proprietorship or is it where one works. If the latter, then an employee could legally carry where they work - might be fired for not following employer's rules though.

    In some states an employee of an establishment may carry with the permission of the owner - Washington & North Carolina are among these I believe, though it might only apply to businesses selling alcohol by the drink.
    If that's what they meant, then I suspect that they would have written:

    "C1. Any person while in his own place of employment;"

    But they didn't.

    TFred

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Back to the quandary posted by the OP -

    I've had a solution (for the retail NO Guns and the desired goal of allowing same ) stored on the top shelf in my closet for some time - it's not very popular with some.

    Create a 3rd type/degree of property owner.
    We now have public & private only - you are either one or the other.

    The 3rd property owner distinction would be quasi-public - those commercial/retail establishments that invite the public to do business (via offer to sell) with them. These would be limited to the same statutes/rules that are in effect for public properties (i.e. parks, streets, etc.) therewith guns would be legal for honest people to carry in those establishments. There are already special laws effecting these business - zoning, health & safety, and building codes, so the idea is not w/o precedent of other special conditions.

    Private property would then be limited by definition to residences and membership clubs.

    There is notable resistance to this idea from the staunch private property adherents. Behind that stonewall will stand the large shopping mall owners who are huge tax payers. The pot could be sweetened by protecting them from liability for acts of 3rd parties not directly associated with the mall owners.

    If this could be made to happen along with Constitutional Carry, my smile would exceed that of the Cheshire Cat on its best day and I'd make a fortune selling duct tape to the antis to keep their head from exploding. Question: How do you keep a head from imploding?

    Hmmm - new product = Anti-Duct Tape........it only sticks to ultra liberals.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    If that's what they meant, then I suspect that they would have written:

    "C1. Any person while in his own place of employment;"
    But they didn't.
    But any place I'm at, I'm doing my business, and my business is my own business, lol

    18.2-308, C. Except as provided in subsection A of 18.2-308.012, this section shall not apply to:
    1. Any person while in his own place of business;



    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Create a 3rd type/degree of property owner.
    We now have public & private only - you are either one or the other.

    The 3rd property owner distinction would be quasi-public - those commercial/retail establishments that invite the public to do business (via offer to sell) with them. These would be limited to the same statutes/rules that are in effect for public properties (i.e. parks, streets, etc.) therewith guns would be legal for honest people to carry in those establishments. There are already special laws effecting these business - zoning, health & safety, and building codes, so the idea is not w/o precedent of other special conditions.

    Private property would then be limited by definition to residences and membership clubs.
    That's is an intriguing, excellent fix at first glance, grapeshot...

    It touches on an aspect I was mentally toying with, that private property owners who necessarily secure a license from the gov't to be authorized to do a degree of business with the public, do therefore enter into a category where the government can deliberately attach a prohibition against restricting firearms in order to protect the public's rights.

    It's gotten cloudy, though, because I think there needs to be a religious or conscientious objection exemption, now that we have the likes of bakeries being forced to provide services contrary to their religion. We can't have government imposing actions against religious beliefs.


    "*...In a recent column, radio talk show host Tammy Bruce wrote: "As a gay conservative woman, I supported Arizona's religious freedom bill, which was just vetoed this week by Gov. Jan Brewer...Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of 'equality and fairness.' Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well...If we are able to coerce someone, via the threat of lawsuit and personal destruction, to provide a service, how is that not slavery? If we insist that you must violate your faith specifically in that slavish action how is that not abject tyranny?...Of all the people in the world who should understand the scourge of living under constant threat of losing life, liberty or the ability to make a living because of who you are, it's gays.

    "Horribly, the gay civil rights movement has morphed into a Gay Gestapo. Its ranks will now do the punishing of those who dare to be different or dissent from the approved leftist dogma. To all the young gays who tweet and email me that this is about 'equality,' how exactly? Forcing someone to do something against their faith has nothing to do with equality for you, has nothing to do with bigotry and has everything to do with a personal, spiritual understanding of right and wrong. In other words, I tell them, not everything is about you..."

    This does beg the question about freedom of religion, freedom of association and what the government can compel its citizens to do. Should the government punish the Jewish photographer because he refuses to take pictures for a gathering of Skinheads? Should the government levy fines against an African-American printer who refuses to print posters for a Ku Klux Klan rally? Should a homosexual painter be forced to paint signs for the infamous Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka that reads "God Hates ****!"

    The answer is no to all of these.

    The government should not compel an individual to engage in a business transaction that violates their conscience. The "Gay Gestapo" (of which not all gays and lesbians are a part) is now pushing well beyond "live and let live" territory into using the law to punitively enforce their political and social agenda.

    Sincerely,
    Tim Wildmon, President
    American Family Association
    "

    *snipped from an AFA action alert email
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 03-11-2014 at 11:10 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Back to the quandary posted by the OP -

    I've had a solution (for the retail NO Guns and the desired goal of allowing same ) stored on the top shelf in my closet for some time - it's not very popular with some.

    Create a 3rd type/degree of property owner.
    We now have public & private only - you are either one or the other.

    The 3rd property owner distinction would be quasi-public - those commercial/retail establishments that invite the public to do business (via offer to sell) with them. These would be limited to the same statutes/rules that are in effect for public properties (i.e. parks, streets, etc.) therewith guns would be legal for honest people to carry in those establishments. There are already special laws effecting these business - zoning, health & safety, and building codes, so the idea is not w/o precedent of other special conditions.

    Private property would then be limited by definition to residences and membership clubs.

    There is notable resistance to this idea from the staunch private property adherents. Behind that stonewall will stand the large shopping mall owners who are huge tax payers. The pot could be sweetened by protecting them from liability for acts of 3rd parties not directly associated with the mall owners.

    If this could be made to happen along with Constitutional Carry, my smile would exceed that of the Cheshire Cat on its best day and I'd make a fortune selling duct tape to the antis to keep their head from exploding. Question: How do you keep a head from imploding?

    Hmmm - new product = Anti-Duct Tape........it only sticks to ultra liberals.
    Underline added by me for emphasis only...

    If we apply the logic that the government's ability to inflict special laws upon businesses would empower the government to have even further control of the private property owner's right to control his/her own property with gun bans because we would like to be able to exercise our right to bear arms while on/in private property....

    Please consider... we essentially would be asking the government to force someone else to give up his private property right so we could exercise our right to bear arms. Hmmmm... do we really want the give the government even more power to infringe upon rights just because the infringement happens upon a different right?

    Oh.. also... there are already special laws affecting home owners - zoning, building codes, health hazards, etc.. Would that mean the government should be able to have even further control and decree that the homeowner cannot restrict the rights of others... such as... ban guns on/in his property?

    Please let us not allow *our own selfish desire to carry everywhere and anywhere to step on the private property rights of others because when we pit one right against the other and even ask the government to referee the issue... the only thing we would accomplish is giving the government even more power to trample all rights.

    *I used the word "our" on purpose because I too would like to be able to carry anywhere and everywhere yet I understand that for me to expect my favorite right be respected while disrespecting the favorite right of a property owner would not only be hypocritical of me... but when I look to Daddy Government to help me force the property owner to give up more of his property rights all I'm doing is giving Daddy Government even more power over all of us.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    ^ ^ ^ I know the problem(s) ^ ^ ^
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    If we apply the logic that the government's ability to inflict special laws upon businesses would empower the government to have even further control of the private property owner's right to control his/her own property with gun bans because we would like to be able to exercise our right to bear arms while on/in private property....

    Please consider... we essentially would be asking the government to force someone else to give up his private property right so we could exercise our right to bear arms. Hmmmm... do we really want the give the government even more power to infringe upon rights just because the infringement happens upon a different right?

    Oh.. also... there are already special laws affecting home owners - zoning, building codes, health hazards, etc.. Would that mean the government should be able to have even further control and decree that the homeowner cannot restrict the rights of others... such as... ban guns on/in his property?

    Please let us not allow *our own selfish desire to carry everywhere and anywhere to step on the private property rights of others because when we pit one right against the other and even ask the government to referee the issue... the only thing we would accomplish is giving the government even more power to trample all rights.

    *I used the word "our" on purpose because I too would like to be able to carry anywhere and everywhere yet I understand that for me to expect my favorite right be respected while disrespecting the favorite right of a property owner would not only be hypocritical of me... but when I look to Daddy Government to help me force the property owner to give up more of his property rights all I'm doing is giving Daddy Government even more power over all of us.
    The reasonable, acceptable, limited purpose of government is to protect people's rights.
    Our rights to keep and bear arms is specifically, itemized, protected both by the US Constitution's 2A, and by VA's Constitutional Article 13.
    I think that we've been hoodwinked into misunderstanding that our rights to keep and bear arms are only protected from infringement from the government.
    US Constitution's 1A starts off, "Congress shall make no law" regarding free speach, religion, etc.
    Notably differently, neither the 2A nor Art 13 specify an entity that's not allowed to infringe against us. Our right to not be infringed is universal against any entity.
    Private Property owner's rights are subservient. They cannot invite us in contingent upon our surrendering our rights. This cannot be the determinant factor to prohibit our access.

    I understand I'm speaking as it should be; not as is currently, aberrantly reflected in law.

    I have no fears of repurcussions for expecting my uninfringable right to be superior to others, because, dammit, that's what it says, and any cross logic or cross application to another alleged right that's not supported by its own similar Constitutional amendment would be debatable as not having the same legs to stand on.



    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Please no signs!

    GRZ signs embolden the antis and irritate the pro gunnies. Nothing good comes of them...and they carry no legal authority in and of themselves.
    I'd wouldn't mind seeing these
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	WTP-shall-not-be-infringed-.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	76.4 KB 
ID:	11367
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 03-11-2014 at 06:42 PM.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  16. #16
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    we have discussed the so called "private property rights". there are none. but the law does allow for people to carry on their own property

    i think this is one thing that is allowed in NC. a property owner can grant someone to carry on their property.
    be it a home owner or a business where they sell alcohol
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    <snip> Notably differently, neither the 2A nor Art 13 specify an entity that's not allowed to infringe against us. Our right to not be infringed is universal against any entity.
    Private Property owner's rights are subservient. They cannot invite us in contingent upon our surrendering our rights. This cannot be the determinant factor to prohibit our access.

    I understand I'm speaking as it should be; not as is currently, aberrantly reflected in law.

    I have no fears of repurcussions for expecting my uninfringable right to be superior to others, because, dammit, that's what it says, and any cross logic or cross application to another alleged right that's not supported by its own similar Constitutional amendment would be debatable as not having the same legs to stand on.
    A property owner does not infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms. He exercise his right to exclude you from entering, or remaining, on his property because you are armed. His property right is not subordinate to your 2A.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A property owner does not infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms. He exercise his right to exclude you from entering, or remaining, on his property because you are armed. His property right is not subordinate to your 2A.
    I have the US2A and the VA Art1, Sect13 guaranteeing my right. Where's his right stipulated to be superior to mine? And not some inferior law or ruling that contraddicts the law of the land. And not just because that's the way we've let it be for so long. It would need to be stipulated as an Amendment at least to the US Constitution. How does the exercise of my right infringe on any right of his, other than his proposed superior right to prevent me from bearing? What is he prevented from doing if my right to bear were superior? Nothing, yet him demanding I disarm stops a very real right of mine. It makes no sense, barring hoplophobia, and prog-lib instigated, generational brainwashed lunacy.

    That's the aberrant way the law is structured as of today (and prob. at least tomorrow as well )

    But our right to bear is not to be infringed by anyone. So if a property owner is admitting others of the public (especially as a licensed, quasi-public entity as grapeshot insightfully ponders), but prohibits me from carrying in exchange for entering, then he is seeking to infringe on my right to carry while in the course of my (quasi-) public life, withholding -- holding hostage, potentially necessary goods or services for my well being.

    While we still have our US2A and VA Art.1, Sect13 protected rights, I think they should be re-activated and practiced. Otherwise, they're being overwriting in effect. Maybe people have thought the compromises to date have been acceptable. I find them offensive as is, and they're ramping up in their misuse and seek to expand and further encroach.
    A property owner can restrict access to all, to invitiation only, or open to the public. He cannot require me to disarm, in exchange for access, as that would be an infringement upon my uninfringable right to bear, as protected by US and VA constitutions (to date).

    I would excuse someone in deference to their religious beliefs or legally tested and acknowledged conscientious objection.

    I understand it's not that way, but it should be; because the way it is, is not justifiable by Supreme law, nor logic.

    Can't come in with brown shoes. Wha?! That makes no sense, but I have no protected right.
    Can't come in with a firearm. Wha? Not! You cannot infringe on my Contitutionally protected right to bear.

    Please demonstrate at the Constitutional level where a property owner's rights supercede my right to bear? That's where my right's protection comes from, and if properly protected by the courts, it would be among the top of the heirarchy, where it was originally placed and intended to stay.

    Of course, I'm not demanding the right to carry onto someone's property and to subsequently shoot them; but to carry on, and carry off, having done nothing to interpose any disruption into the owner's life or business.
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 03-12-2014 at 10:02 AM.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    The Constitution and Bill of Rights grant none, but merely enumerate natural rights from our Creator. Ownership, as of oneself, may be the ultimate natural right.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    I have the US2A and the VA Art1, Sect13 guaranteeing my right. Where's his right stipulated to be superior to mine?
    It's not.

    But, where is your right to be on his property stipulated?

    Your right to self defense (including the right to bear arms) is absolute, but so is his right to control his property. There is no conflict between the two rights because you don't have the right to be on his property. You are there by his permission only. At least, that is how it works in a 100% rights-oriented society.

    Anything less than that is an infringement of someone's rights. Now, you might consider it to be a justifiable infringement, but remember that that is the same sort of argument that the antis make with regards to our right to bear arms.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The Constitution and Bill of Rights grant none, but merely enumerate natural rights from our Creator. Ownership, as of oneself, may be the ultimate natural right.
    While both the US' and VA's constitution acknowledge, not confer, peoples' right to keep and bear arms, they go further to confer immunity from infringement upon those existing rights... not from a particular source or threat, but from any source that might seek to infringe. No qualifiers... only bottom line that no infringement be allowed. Until the 2A or Art1, Sect13 amended or otherwise undone, by democracy at the hands of prog-libs; an Art. V convention granted to the prog libs via misled, or libs-disguised-as-, conservatives; or an out of control, 3-branches-unified federal government content with national destruction as as acceptable outcome.


    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    But, where is your right to be on his property stipulated?.
    When he invites/allows the public onto his property, I am no longer eligible to be excluded based solely on me bearing, as per the Constitutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by grylnsmn View Post
    Your right to self defense (including the right to bear arms) is absolute, but so is his right to control his property... Now, you might consider it to be a justifiable infringement, but remember that that is the same sort of argument that the antis make with regards to our right to bear arms.
    1. He has the right to not invite the public
    2. He doesn't have a Constitutional stipulation barring infringement, thus if there's infringing to be done, it won't be with the uninfringable right.
    3. My exercised higher right does not restrict or prohibit any action of his; whereas in contrast, should his right be supreme, it would leave me disadvantaged, vulnerable, unarmed, exposed to threat, my valuable property left outside unattented, or left with the choice of going without the desired or needed goods or services that are otherwise available to the public.
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 03-12-2014 at 11:50 AM.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    I have the US2A and the VA Art1, Sect13 guaranteeing my right. Where's his right stipulated to be superior to mine? And not some inferior law or ruling that contraddicts the law of the land. And not just because that's the way we've let it be for so long. It would need to be stipulated as an Amendment at least to the US Constitution. How does the exercise of my right infringe on any right of his, other than his proposed superior right to prevent me from bearing? What is he prevented from doing if my right to bear were superior? Nothing, yet him demanding I disarm stops a very real right of mine. It makes no sense, barring hoplophobia, and prog-lib instigated, generational brainwashed lunacy.

    That's the aberrant way the law is structured as of today (and prob. at least tomorrow as well )

    But our right to bear is not to be infringed by anyone. So if a property owner is admitting others of the public (especially as a licensed, quasi-public entity as grapeshot insightfully ponders), but prohibits me from carrying in exchange for entering, then he is seeking to infringe on my right to carry while in the course of my (quasi-) public life, withholding -- holding hostage, potentially necessary goods or services for my well being.

    While we still have our US2A and VA Art.1, Sect13 protected rights, I think they should be re-activated and practiced. Otherwise, they're being overwriting in effect. Maybe people have thought the compromises to date have been acceptable. I find them offensive as is, and they're ramping up in their misuse and seek to expand and further encroach.
    A property owner can restrict access to all, to invitiation only, or open to the public. He cannot require me to disarm, in exchange for access, as that would be an infringement upon my uninfringable right to bear, as protected by US and VA constitutions (to date).

    I would excuse someone in deference to their religious beliefs or legally tested and acknowledged conscientious objection.

    I understand it's not that way, but it should be; because the way it is, is not justifiable by Supreme law, nor logic.

    Can't come in with brown shoes. Wha?! That makes no sense, but I have no protected right.
    Can't come in with a firearm. Wha? Not! You cannot infringe on my Contitutionally protected right to bear.

    Please demonstrate at the Constitutional level where a property owner's rights supercede my right to bear? That's where my right's protection comes from, and if properly protected by the courts, it would be among the top of the heirarchy, where it was originally placed and intended to stay.

    Of course, I'm not demanding the right to carry onto someone's property and to subsequently shoot them; but to carry on, and carry off, having done nothing to interpose any disruption into the owner's life or business.
    Your zeal to deny a property owner his right is noted.

    Exercise your right to bear arms contrary to the property owner's wishes and then be trespassed.

    It is not his fault you refused to recognize his property right. If this were to occur, base your defense on your premise and let us know how it works out. Your case may be the one case that restores liberty.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Your case may be the one case that restores liberty.
    Can I put you down as a contributor towards legal defense donations then, should the need arise ?
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 03-12-2014 at 11:45 AM.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    When he invites/allows the public onto his property, I am no longer eligible to be excluded based solely on me bearing, as per the Constitutions.
    Where in the Constitution does it say that he loses his right to control his property?

    To use an analogy, if I invite a group of people (say, the local Rotary Club) to my house for an event, and then one of them decides to show up wearing politically-themed shirts and shouting out offensive political slogans, have I lost the right to withdraw my invitation from that individual, or must I withdraw the invitation from everyone?

    There is no "invitation to the public" exemption in the right to property. That is an infringement that we (as a society) have allowed to be imposed on the right to property because we (again, as a society) decided that it was worth the cost.

    Your argument is logically no different from the antis' argument that our right to bear arms should be restricted in public because they don't like how we choose to exercise it (i.e. that we choose to exercise it at all).

    It is not an infringement of your right to free speech if I tell you to take your messages off my property, and it's not an infringement of your right to bear arms if I tell you to take your Glock* off my property either. It is merely an enforcement of my right to control my own property.

    * What self respecting gun owner would carry a Glock instead of a 1911, anyways? Feel free to start the flame war now.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  25. #25
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    He has the right to not invite the public
    He also has the right to invite any subset of the public, excepting anyone who wears red shirts, no shirts, no shoes, or possess firearms.

    I'm starting to think you are a Democrat... you see the world as you want it to be, not as it really is.

    TFred

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •