OC for ME
Regular Member
Your zeal to deny a property owner his right is noted.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.
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.