Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 95

Thread: SB1427: Property Rights vs. Individual Rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    SB1427: Property Rights vs. Individual Rights

    Alright, let's hash this one out. Pop some popcorn.

    One of the biggest weaknesses of the RKBA movement is the unmerited worship of property rights. Many, if not most supporters of gun rights draw the line at the personal property boundary. "If they don't want my gun, then they won't get my money..." "I may disagree with their policy, but I will support to the death their right to ban my gun from their property..." Yeah, OK, that last one is a little bit sarcastic, but we all know it's not far off from how some people actually feel...

    The problem is that this completely ignores the inherent wrong perpetrated by that property owner to deny another human individual the right to defense of life, a right that most of us claim to be "endowed by their Creator" ... yes, even an "unalienable Right."

    Do we need to refresh our minds on the definition of unalienable? From Google: "Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."

    So what's the deal with SB 1427? It's not about the right to keep and bear arms... but another right that is just as inherent to the human race, just as important, and an excellent example of what we, who claim to be gun-rights proponents, should be striving for:
    § 32.1-370. Right to breastfeed.
    A mother may breastfeed in any place where the mother is lawfully present, including any location where she would otherwise be allowed on property that is owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth in accordance with § 2.2-1147.1.

    This individual right will soon be protected by state law to exist "in any place where the mother is lawfully present."

    I'll guarantee you that there do exist people in this world who find breastfeeding in public more offensive than a lawfully carried firearm. This bill passed both the House of Delegates and the Senate unanimously! Not one single vote against this bill which grossly intrudes upon the rights of property owners. How could that possibly happen? Is the breastfeeding lobby that much more powerful than VCDL, or the NRA?

    "In any place where the citizen is lawfully present" should be the ultimate goal of every gun-rights organization, with only VERY few exceptions.

    We all need to learn from this excellent bill, and understand what it really means to be a proponent of an "unalienable right."

    TFred
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 02-13-2015 at 09:35 AM. Reason: Rule #19

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Does this preempt trespass on private property?

    If a breastfeeding mom is told do not come on my private property, what law would decide if she was law abiding or a law breaker, a new breastfeeding law or the already existing trespass law?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Does this preempt trespass on private property?

    If a breastfeeding mom is told do not come on my private property, what law would decide if she was law abiding or a law breaker, a new breastfeeding law or the already existing trespass law?
    Interesting question, perhaps the bill should state, "in any place where the mother is otherwise lawfully present." That would seem to prohibit a no trespass policy based on the act of breastfeeding, whereas without the "otherwise," one might get away with that.

    TFred

  4. #4
    Regular Member FBrinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Henrico, VA
    Posts
    284
    Unless I didnt read the OP correctly, this only applies to properties owned by the commonwealth?? Property owned by the Commonwealth is not private property. Or, im sticking my foot in my mouth again.. You decide!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    If a property owner wants you removed from his/her property while breastfeeding or feeding the pigeons, said property owner has every right to have you trespassed for trespassing on said property and not complying with the request to vacate the property.

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  6. #6
    Regular Member FBrinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Henrico, VA
    Posts
    284
    I think the addition of a comma would make it apply to only Commonwealth property, but the way it is written, it looks to actually say 'any' property. I'll wait for someone more skilled at legalese to explain it to me..

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by FBrinson View Post
    I think the addition of a comma would make it apply to only Commonwealth property, but the way it is written, it looks to actually say 'any' property. I'll wait for someone more skilled at legalese to explain it to me..
    Yes, that is the very purpose of this bill, to protect the right to breastfeed anywhere the mother is legally present. That is the whole point of my post. I believe the intent of this bill is to make it illegal for private property owners to prohibit the act on their property.

    See also the bill summary:

    "Right to breastfeed in public places. Provides that a mother may breastfeed in any place where the mother is lawfully present. Current law allows breastfeeding on any property owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth."

    TFred

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    This seems to function only as an exception to some other law which may act to prohibit breastfeeding in public (public exposure or similar).

    If it wasn't prohibited, it would serve little purpose to codify the fact that it was, by default, already allowed.

    It's purpose may serve only to prohibit authorities from harassing women who breastfeed on public property, but it certainly wouldn't prohibit private property owners from declining to allow it.

    Like the gun analogy, a private property owner may not disarm me but they can make my attendance and use of their property conditional. The choice is then mine to meet their conditions or leave.

  9. #9
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    This seems to function only as an exception to some other law which may act to prohibit breastfeeding in public (public exposure or similar).

    If it wasn't prohibited, it would serve little purpose to codify the fact that it was, by default, already allowed.

    It's purpose may serve only to prohibit authorities from harassing women who breastfeed on public property, but it certainly wouldn't prohibit private property owners from declining to allow it.

    Like the gun analogy, a private property owner may not disarm me but they can make my attendance and use of their property conditional. The choice is then mine to meet their conditions or leave.
    This is the way I read it also. I don't believe it forces private property owners to allow breast feeding on on their private property.
    Sounds like it will keep mother's breast feeding on a park bench from getting harassed about it.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  10. #10
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    § 32.1-370. Right to breastfeed.
    A mother may breastfeed in any place where the mother is lawfully present, including any location where she would otherwise be allowed on property that is owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth in accordance with § 2.2-1147.1.
    Hmmmm..... at the point that a property owner stipulates that a person is no longer welcome on their property, then isn't that person no longer "lawfully present?"
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    Hmmmm..... at the point that a property owner stipulates that a person is no longer welcome on their property, then isn't that person no longer "lawfully present?"
    That is what we were discussing earlier with the "otherwise" question.

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,233
    How about the old "cover all" disclaimer "management reserves the right to refuse service"?

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    There is no "right" to breastfeed. At best the judiciary can interpret the laws of free access such that government entities can not bar/trespass someone for breastfeeding on public property - subject of course to existing public indency laws.

    It seems we need to plow the ground again: constitutions generally list things that the government cannot do.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights
    A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation. (emphasis added)

    The most important expansions of civil rights in the United States occurred as a result of the enactment of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States. See U.S. Const. amend. XIII. In response to the Thirteenth Amendment, various states enacted "black codes" that were intended to limit the civil rights of the newly free slaves. In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment countered these "black codes" by stating that no state "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... [or] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the power by section five of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass any laws needed to enforce the Amendment.
    As I understand it, mothers are not being denied or interferred with the act of breastfeeding on private property because of any of the bolded conditions listed above. If anybody even tries to bring up sexual discrimination, they had better have citations documenting that males are not discriminated against for breastfeeding in public.

    There is a better and stronger argument for eliminating any ban or prohibition against same-sex marriage based on the fact that such prohibitions/bans interfere with the privileges available in the tax codes. There is the same better argument against prohibiting the bearing of arms in a lawful and peaceable manner on private property. The difference in both same sex marriage and breastfeeding is that those issues have gotten a more sympathetic response from the public because of PR that has demonized those that would abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens trying to breastfeed on private property or attain the benefits of marriage with a person of the same sex.

    African American African-American Blacks gathered on private property to protest not being allowed to buy lunch/ride at the front/get a room for the night and over time people began to say "Other than your personal bias and unwarranted hatred, why can't they?" Breastfeeding mothers gather on private property to protest not being allowed to breastfeed and everybody says "Aww, babies" and Aww, mothers." People who want to marry someone of the same sex gather together and do huggy-kissy to show they are not child molesting perverts and a lot of folks say "Aww, true love." People who want to keep and bear arms on private property occassionally gather together outside private property and even more rarely on private property and everybody says "ZOMG! Armed militia! They're going to overthrow the government!!111ELEVENTY!" (I'm not going to mention supporters of bearing arms on private property who warn that doing those things will cause the horses to faint and the women to stampede.)

    In closing: "Aww, babies. Aww, mothers. Bah! Humbug!"

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    Hmmmm..... at the point that a property owner stipulates that a person is no longer welcome on their property, then isn't that person no longer "lawfully present?"
    I suspect this is aimed at private business property. It is the breast feeding version of racial civil rights. Under current law, a business open to the public cannot decide that a black man is not welcome on the property simply because he is black.

    Similarly, under this bill, I would guess that a business could not decide a breastfeeding mother (interesting that it limits it to "mothers", so much for wet nursing) is not welcome simply because she is breastfeeding.

    A business could ask someone to leave if they were causing a problem, or occupying a table when not ordering a meal, or similar such reasons. This is true even if the person happens to be black or happens to be a breastfeeding mother. But the reality is, if a member of a protected group is asked to leave, the business owner better have really good and demonstrable reasons OTHER than their group status for asking them to leave because he is likely to have to prove his innocence against charges of illegal discrimination.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    This seems to function only as an exception to some other law which may act to prohibit breastfeeding in public (public exposure or similar).

    If it wasn't prohibited, it would serve little purpose to codify the fact that it was, by default, already allowed.

    It's purpose may serve only to prohibit authorities from harassing women who breastfeed on public property, but it certainly wouldn't prohibit private property owners from declining to allow it.

    Like the gun analogy, a private property owner may not disarm me but they can make my attendance and use of their property conditional. The choice is then mine to meet their conditions or leave.
    I think that's the intent and again it's apples to oranges when talking about private property open to the public and private property that is not.
    Last edited by peter nap; 02-12-2015 at 03:13 PM.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    There is no "right" to breastfeed.
    There is no enumerated right to breastfeed.

    Is there any delegated power of government to rightly prohibit the natural means of feeding the young and thus allowing their continued survival?

    There is nothing sexual about this conduct except to the overly-sexualized who forget that the primary purpose of the mammary glands is to feed the young rather than as objects of sexual arousal or sex organs. And unlike relieving the bowels or bladder or even spitting, breast feeding poses no public health risk.

    Obviously on public property, government cannot properly presume to ban breastfeeding, even under indecency laws.

    The real question is whether government has the proper power to force private business owners, whose businesses are generally open to the general public to grant access and/or services to breastfeeding women.

    I believe government has exactly the same amount of proper authority to force that, as it does to force private businesses to provide access and services without regard to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or the lawful possession of a firearm.

    In principle, it has zero authority.

    In practice, so long as it exerts authority to benefit any of these groups, there is no reason why gun owners should be left out in the cold. Why is it any less humiliating for me to have to go find a restaurant or hotel willing to serve "my kind" than it is for a black man, a Jewish man, or homosexual man or couple to have to do likewise?

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    African American African-American Blacks gathered on private property to protest not being allowed to buy lunch/ride at the front/get a room for the night and over time people began to say "Other than your personal bias and unwarranted hatred, why can't they?" Breastfeeding mothers gather on private property to protest not being allowed to breastfeed and everybody says "Aww, babies" and Aww, mothers." People who want to marry someone of the same sex gather together and do huggy-kissy to show they are not child molesting perverts and a lot of folks say "Aww, true love." People who want to keep and bear arms on private property occassionally gather together outside private property and even more rarely on private property and everybody says "ZOMG! Armed militia! They're going to overthrow the government!!111ELEVENTY!" (I'm not going to mention supporters of bearing arms on private property who warn that doing those things will cause the horses to faint and the women to stampede.)
    Yup. When push comes to shove (and it often does eventually), public opinion matters.

    The media (including news, TV, movies, etc) has been and is very sympathetic to blacks, homosexuals, women, and nursing mothers. They have been and remain hostile to gun owners.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    This is the way I read it also. I don't believe it forces private property owners to allow breast feeding on on their private property.
    Sounds like it will keep mother's breast feeding on a park bench from getting harassed about it.
    This is intended to be a civil rights law -- although it goes beyond 'public accommodations' because it also features state agency preemption.

    By the way, note the redundancy. Been there; done that. Mostly.

    Perhaps Breasts OC trumps Arms OC.
    Last edited by Repeater; 02-12-2015 at 04:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    ...interesting that it limits it to "mothers", so much for wet nursing...
    Barring rare medical conditions, is it possible for a woman to be capable of breastfeeding without being "a mother"?

  19. #19
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Barring rare medical conditions, is it possible for a woman to be capable of breastfeeding without being "a mother"?
    Breast milk production in women who are not pregnant or breastfeeding could be due to elevated hormonal levels, specifically prolactin. It can be initiated using hormone therapy in women who are not, and never have been pregnant.
    Yes I carry a Bible and a Gun, your point.
    Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (meaning: "A defence of liberty against tyrants")
    Benjamin Franklin said, "A government that does not trust it's citizens with guns is a government that should not be trusted."



  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Barring rare medical conditions, is it possible for a woman to be capable of breastfeeding without being "a mother"?
    Good point. I believe hormone treatment can induce lactation. I was just thinking that the breastfeeding woman may not be the mother of the child she is feeding.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Tangential to OC?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I suspect this is aimed at private business property. It is the breast feeding version of racial civil rights. Under current law, a business open to the public cannot decide that a black man is not welcome on the property simply because he is black.

    Similarly, under this bill, I would guess that a business could not decide a breastfeeding mother (interesting that it limits it to "mothers", so much for wet nursing) is not welcome simply because she is breastfeeding.
    Disagree.

    Racial discrimination in public accommodation was lawful/constitutional for almost 100 years. The change came about (according to the legal reasoning) because African American African-American Blacks had no alternative to being that. All of them (tinker, tailor, Indian chief) were stuck and folks started agreeing that it was not fair to discriminate against them.

    Breastfeeding mothers can change, and they have alternatives to suckling their infant that still provides breast milk. It's often a royal PITA, but there are alternatives. Breastfeeding mothers are not stuck until weaning takes place.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Normally, your walkway to your front door is an open invitation to the public. You can have a regular "no trespassing" sign but this has little legal effect of an area where you invite the public.

    So why would no gun signs be any different IMO?

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    There is no enumerated right to breastfeed.
    If there is in fact it does not need to be enumerated.

    Obviously on public property, government cannot properly presume to ban breastfeeding, even under indecency laws.
    As a matter of fact they can.

    The real question is whether government has the proper power to force private business owners, whose businesses are generally open to the general public to grant access and/or services to breastfeeding women.

    I believe government has exactly the same amount of proper authority to force that, as it does to force private businesses to provide access and services without regard to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or the lawful possession of a firearm.

    In principle, it has zero authority.

    In practice, so long as it exerts authority to benefit any of these groups, there is no reason why gun owners should be left out in the cold. Why is it any less humiliating for me to have to go find a restaurant or hotel willing to serve "my kind" than it is for a black man, a Jewish man, or homosexual man or couple to have to do likewise?



    Yup. When push comes to shove (and it often does eventually), public opinion matters.

    The media (including news, TV, movies, etc) has been and is very sympathetic to blacks, homosexuals, women, and nursing mothers. They have been and remain hostile to gun owners.

    Charles
    So maybe we need to hire a new PR ffirm?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Tangential to OC?
    See about half of the posts above yours.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •