Private Property -> Constitutional Carry

OC for ME · Mar 12, 2014

ChristCrusader said:
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.

ChristCrusader · Mar 12, 2014

OC for ME said:
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

?

grylnsmn · Mar 12, 2014

ChristCrusader said:
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.

TFred · Mar 12, 2014

ChristCrusader said:
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

OC for ME · Mar 12, 2014

ChristCrusader said:
Can I put you down as a contributor towards legal defense donations then, should the need arise ?

No. I would not aid a citizen who does not recognize my property right(s).

Grapeshot · Mar 12, 2014

ChristCrusader said:
Can I put you down as a contributor towards legal defense donations then, should the need arise ?

How far does a farthing go these days? Of course if there are enough of them..................

Bikenut · Mar 12, 2014

Grapeshot said:
How far does a farthing go these days? Of course if there are enough of them..................

I had to read that twice.... my eyes left out the "h" the first time around.... :shocker:

OC for ME · Mar 12, 2014

Emanations, of the odoriferous kind, are violations of law in my neck of the woods. Disorderly conduct to be exact.

e. Creating a noxious and offensive odor.

ChristCrusader · Mar 12, 2014

grylnsmn said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that he loses his right to control his property?

It says he has no right to infringe upon my right to bear. He cannot offer goods and services or access to me contingent upon being able to infringe on my right to bear.

grylnsmn said:
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?

I think it's notable that the 1st amendment protection of free speech is specifically stated as being protection from Congress' laws, not from anything else (though 14th amendment has subsequently been decided to extend effect to all gov't):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
vs flat out, bottom line, no matter who or what, shall not be infringed

This leaves open the options for personal preferences.
Another dissimilarity is that I'm advocating for carrying in a non-invasive, non-disruptive fashion; whereas your boisterous scenario is not so. The equivalent to your boisterous scenario to carrying would be brandishing, which I'm not advocating for.

grylnsmn said:
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).

As I see it, it's quite the opposite: we've acquiesced a right that we had to be protected against allowing Gun-Free Danger Zones. I don't know if it was the liberals that talked us into it or a well-meaning idiot conservative. I don't even know what problem was solved at any time by letting a property owner refuse access based on a bearing infringement.

grylnsmn said:
It is not an infringement of your right to free speech if I tell you to take your messages off my property,

If there were a protection from you infringing my free speech, if I were not being boisterous but instead quietly speaking so as you'd have to be up in my space listening intently to hear me speak, then I would count it as an infringement. But there is no protection afforded to me, unlike bearing arms.

grylnsmn said:
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.

...at the expense of infringing on mine, which shall not be infringed. Me peacably bearing arms on your property does not take any right of yours, except the purported right to infringe upon my right to carry while doing things and going places that I am otherwise able and welcome to do. When the sole qualifier is my bearing arms, then it's the intent to infringe my right that's at issue.

I'll reiterate that this is a specific right to do a specific peaceful, non-invasive action, specifically protected by our supreme man-made laws against infringements. I don't see cross applications that would threaten a slippery slope challenging other owners' property rights. This is why most other comparisons fall short where owners' property rights do supercede outsiders' other rights.

Grapeshot · Mar 12, 2014

OC for ME said:
Emanations, of the odoriferous kind, are violations of law in my neck of the woods. Disorderly conduct to be exact.

So active members of the Ol' Pharts Club would not be enthusiastically welcomed then?

OC for ME · Mar 12, 2014

Grapeshot said:
So active members of the Ol' Pharts Club would not be enthusiastically welcomed then?

As long as your club retains the 'P', then you are good to go. Drop the 'P' and someone is gunna raise a stink.

grylnsmn · Mar 12, 2014

ChristCrusader said:
It says he has no right to infringe upon my right to bear. He cannot offer goods and services or access to me contingent upon being able to infringe on my right to bear.

I'm sorry, but where exactly is that in the Constitution? Again, there is no "invitation to the public" exception to property rights.

In fact, by specifying that he does not wish you to bring firearms on his property, then he is explicitly not inviting you on his property if you are armed. His property rights impose no obligation upon him to issue you any sort of invitation to come onto his property. Just as your right to self-defense is absolute, so are his property rights absolute, except to the extent that we, as a society, have decided to allow them to be infringed.

What you are basically advocating here is that you be allowed to infringe upon his property rights, because you claim that his prohibiting your carrying a firearm infringes your rights. Since you have no right to be on his property, how is he infringing your rights by making a conditional invitation?

In a state of nature, all rights are absolute. In an ideal society, rights are still absolute up to the point that the conflict with someone else's rights. (We, unfortunately, do not live in an ideal society.)

A person (whether a homeowner, a business owner, etc) who tells you "You can't come on my property if you have a gun" isn't violating your rights in any way, because you have no right to be on their property in the first place. Yes, we as a society have decided to allow some business owners' rights to be infringed by restricting their right to refuse service (at least, if it is refused because of certain factors, such as race), but that doesn't mean that you suddenly have more rights to their property.

If you cannot accept the terms of his conditional invitation, then you can't go onto his property. It's that simple. If it were to otherwise, the only person whose rights would be infringed is the property owner.

Note: In this, I am only talking about private property. In the case of public property there is a completely different analysis.

ChristCrusader · Mar 12, 2014

grylnsmn said:
I'm sorry, but where exactly is that in the Constitution? Again, there is no "invitation to the public" exception to property rights.

civil rights?

grylnsmn said:
In fact, by specifying that he does not wish you to bring firearms on his property, then he is explicitly not inviting you on his property if you are armed.

If he's singled me out for exclusion because I'm carrying, he's crossed the line.

grylnsmn said:
His property rights impose no obligation upon him to issue you any sort of invitation to come onto his property.

But him opening his property, except to me while carrying specifically discriminates against my uninfringible right to carry.

grylnsmn said:
Just as your right to self-defense is absolute, so are his property rights absolute, except to the extent that we, as a society, have decided to allow them to be infringed.

What you are basically advocating here is that you be allowed to infringe upon his property rights, because you claim that his prohibiting your carrying a firearm infringes your rights. Since you have no right to be on his property, how is he infringing your rights by making a conditional invitation?

If I have no right to be on his property without a firearm, then I agree that me carrying does not magically grant me a right to his property. But I just shan't be prohibited only because I'm carrying.

grylnsmn said:
In a state of nature, all rights are absolute. In an ideal society, rights are still absolute up to the point that the conflict with someone else's rights. (We, unfortunately, do not live in an ideal society.)

A person (whether a homeowner, a business owner, etc) who tells you "You can't come on my property if you have a gun" isn't violating your rights in any way, because you have no right to be on their property in the first place. Yes, we as a society have decided to allow some business owners' rights to be infringed by restricting their right to refuse service (at least, if it is refused because of certain factors, such as race), but that doesn't mean that you suddenly have more rights to their property.

I'm not to have less rights than anyone else, just because I'm carrying.

grylnsmn said:
If you cannot accept the terms of his conditional invitation, then you can't go onto his property. It's that simple. If it were to otherwise, the only person whose rights would be infringed is the property owner.

His infringement is less than mine would be, similar to civil rights' "pre-eminance".

I appreciate your reasoning, you expressed it well, and I appreciate your time and effort to wrangle this, to test and scrutinize the issue so thoroughly, and you come close to swaying me; but I think the major impasse is which right is uninfringeable, and carrying has 2 Constitutions declaring it to be the one of the two.
I'm also not willing to continue accepting, unsupported by equal or higher law, that personal property rights are superior to carrying rights at face value. It's being tossed around as an assumed given. I understand an inherent, unspoken sacredness to it; but unspoken, traditional, and mythical must give way when high-level wrtten law assigns the uninfringeable class of keeping and bearing above it.

This is totally different than saying carrying a firearm acts as a skeleton master key that grants acccess into and onto anyone else's private properties with less permission required than if not carrying. I'm not suggesting that just because I'm carrying, I get unfettered access to enter someone's bedroom at 2 am. All of a property owner's other reasons to restrict access to me stay intact. I'm speaking of scenarios where carrying is the only expressed or proven disqualifier. Prop Owner wants or is willing to allow access if it just weren't for the carrying. Carrying by itself can't be the disqualifier; especially when access to needed goods and services sold to the public is in play.

Even reason, to me, says that a person carrying does not impinge in any way upon another person, any more than me wearing brown socks or boxers would (under appropriate outer clothing), so it doesn't physically negatively impact the property owner by allowing carrying to remain the primary right.

The US and VA Constitutions place carrying into a protected status, long before civil rights demanded them and subjugated property owners' rights to them, in certain circumstances. Being a protected purple penguin who worships seagulls still won't get you into the Prop Owner's bedroom at 2am uninvited. There are different attributes in the comparisons between civil and carry rights, but carrying is nevertheless specifically a Constitutionally created protected action.

Liberty-or-Death · Mar 12, 2014

Okay so here's my rant. Your public rights end where mine begin. You may determine to enjoy the rights afforded to you by the 2A in your home or in the common public spaces. I may determine to not enjoy them in my home or in common public areas.
I have a right to not speak, not publish, to be unreasonably searched and seized (by the woman I love) and quietly enjoy these rights in the comfort of my own home.
You cannot expect to be able to infringe upon my rights by forcing me to invite you and your enjoyed rights into my sovereign private abode. And I cannot expect to come into your home and tell you that you must believe in the religion I specify.
I may allow you into my home if you agree to suspend certain rights (leave your gun in the car, leave your bible translation on the stoop, etc.) In Private vs. Public arenas, you are in control of what's in your yard, I'm in control of what's in mine, and we respect the public space between each other's yards.

ChristCrusader · Mar 12, 2014

Liberty-or-Death said:
Okay so here's my rant. Your public rights end where mine begin. You may determine to enjoy the rights afforded to you by the 2A in your home or in the common public spaces. I may determine to not enjoy them in my home or in common public areas.
I have a right to not speak, not publish, to be unreasonably searched and seized (by the woman I love) and quietly enjoy these rights in the comfort of my own home.
You cannot expect to be able to infringe upon my rights by forcing me to invite you and your enjoyed rights into my sovereign private abode. And I cannot expect to come into your home and tell you that you must believe in the religion I specify.
I may allow you into my home if you agree to suspend certain rights (leave your gun in the car, leave your bible translation on the stoop, etc.) In Private vs. Public arenas, you are in control of what's in your yard, I'm in control of what's in mine, and we respect the public space between each other's yards.

From a purist point of view, I'm somewhat ashamed that I'm disinclined to press the matter into your home. My enthusiasm drops significantly, and here I will concede my unspoken, unwritten but overall subservience to the sanctity of your home, at least within its walls, as being a most sacred private space. If I were in dire emergency need, I'd hope that you'd temporarily let me seek shellter outside under your tree or behind your garage as long as it brought no peril or damage upon you or yours. I'd hope you wouldn't drag me outside your property lines and leave me to imminently perish. I'm also intrigued about the old world rules that allowed everyone rights to traverse another's properties, to get from here to there, but that may have grown extinct with the advent of our numerous road options.

For discussion, would you be willing to extend your consideration out to a place of business? I like grapeshots formal recognition of a public/private hybrid formed when the general public is generally invited to do business and discrimination rights of the property owner are reduced in deference to protected classes, and in my argument, Constitutionally protected acts.

Liberty-or-Death · Mar 12, 2014

I may, if I found you banging at my door in fear for your life, suspend my enjoyed rights and permit you safe asylum within the walls of my compound, whether you were armed or not.
And if you were my neighbor, I'd likely allow you to traverse my property lines, but during the daytime only.
In my opinion, modern places of business (originally home-based) are hybrid when open to the public. But I will choose whom my customers are and will deny service to whomever I see fit. If such a practice brands me a bigot, then I pay the price in the marketplace. But if I want to retain market share, then I will selectively suspend some of my discriminations.
Defenseless people and those not qualified to enter into contracts, children for instance, are the only classes to be protected, IMO.

TFred · Mar 12, 2014

ChristCrusader said:
[Selected sample of poo cited to represent the pile...] But him opening his property, except to me while carrying specifically discriminates against my uninfringible right to carry.

Please allow me to give you some free advice.

The general population here is moderately accommodating of new folks. We were all new at one point, and some of us are even still able to remember that.

You continue to debate issues with points that you just make up out of thin air, and which have absolutely no basis in truth, or the law. I assure you, the tolerance for this is wearing thin.

I doubt anyone wants you to leave, but I'd bet MANY people are really starting to hope you very soon start exercising better form, and perhaps even take some time to read through about the past two or three years of threads before you continue to "add" to these kinds of conversations.

I realize my advice is unsolicited and some, including yourself, might even consider it to be rude and overstepping the bounds of civility. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure that I know of what I speak. Take it or leave it - entirely up to you... but that "Troll" label is not so easy to shake. Take a look at how one or two other folks are superficially tolerated on here - if you can pick up on it. You're probably about two days away, and I'm not sure that's a road from which one can return.

V/R,

TFred

Liberty-or-Death · Mar 13, 2014

Yikes. Understood, but harsh.
I'd predict an after-sleeping-on-it edit.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

TFred · Mar 13, 2014

Liberty-or-Death said:
Yikes. Understood, but harsh.
I'd predict an after-sleeping-on-it edit.

You'll be disappointed. I don't generally edit my posts, other than to add clarifying information, correct typos, or openly correct misinformation.

Mods may zap it, but that's out of my hands.

This forum is based on reasonable debate, with cites to source material as needed. Not wild speculation about what one wants the law to be. I'm just the first to write what many have been thinking for several days.

TFred

Grapeshot · Mar 13, 2014

tfred said:
--snipped--

this forum is based on reasonable debate, with cites to source material as needed. Not wild speculation about what one wants the law to be. I'm just the first to write what many have been thinking for several days.

Tfred

qft

Private Property -> Constitutional Carry

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior