SB1427: Property Rights vs. Individual Rights

Tangential to OC?

utbagpiper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Disagree.

Racial discrimination in public accommodation was lawful/constitutional for almost 100 years. The change came about (according to the legal reasoning) because Negro 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.

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?

utbagpiper said:

There is no enumerated right to breastfeed.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

So maybe we need to hire a new PR ffirm?

stay safe.

OC for ME said:

Tangential to OC?

Click to expand...

See about half of the posts above yours.

stay safe.

davidmcbeth said:

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?

Click to expand...

Why would they or why are they?

And you completely ignored the curtilege of the home where there is an at least limited expectation of privacy.

However, your attempt to drift the thread from businesses who invite the public/provide a public accommodation to the home is just that - an attempt. If it had any self respect your attempt would crawl away and die before it gets stomped on.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

If there is in fact it does not need to be enumerated.

Click to expand...

Unless we want it to recognized without question. That is the benefit of enumerated rights. The question has been settled.

skidmark said:

As a matter of fact [the government] can [ban public breastfeeding].

Click to expand...

Through force of power yes. Properly? Not so much.

skidmark said:

So maybe we need to hire a new PR ffirm?

Click to expand...

Your wealth and mine might almost cover the cost of the phone call to a PR firm.

Mostly, we need to be ever aware that public opinion does matter. We can assert our rights all we want, but if we don't have the public opinion to support the votes we need, we then get to face jail, or revolution. And neither is a good option. Managing our public image and winning elections is a much better, more sure course.

Charles

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, what you are saying is that blacks garnered sufficient public support to pass a law forcing business owners to provide service regardless of personal preference. It seems nursing women are gaining that same kind of public support and what this all shows is that property rights are very tenuous if a majority decide they want to force you to use your property in a certain way. Private residences and religious property seem safe for now. But your privately owned business property is not viewed as your own, but rather as a place of "public accommodation" simply by virtue of being a business it seems.

Of course, not only was racial discrimination lawful and constitutional, but in many places it was also legally mandated. In other words, business owners were often required to discriminate regardless of their personal preferences.

But the underlying reasoning for banning racial discrimination on the part of private business owners is now running into problems. Race is an immutable characteristic.

But clearly religion is not. People switch from one religious affiliation to another, to none, or from none to something, every day in this nation. Ditto for political affiliation.

At one time we would have said that gender was an immutable characteristic. But recent news about Bruce Jenner reminds us that these days, gender can be a choice if someone wants it to be.

And the attempt to force sexual orientation/identity/preference into the protections afforded by civil rights has skewed that entire debate. Does it really make any difference whether sexual orientation is a choice or an immutable trait? Mr. and Mrs. Loving never argued that they had no choice but to love someone of a different race. They asserted their right to choose who they wanted to love and marry, without regard to race. Yet we've got this huge debate about whether orientation is nature or nurture, whether someone can change their orientation if they want to, whether reparation therapy should be banned, and so on.

And whether sexual orientation is a choice or an immutable trait, certainly anyone can choose not to show overt affections to his/her partner(s) while in a business whose owner would prefer not to see them. Unlike race or gender, it need not be obvious what a person's sexual orientation is unless the person chooses to make it known. Ditto with religion and political affiliation. And likewise with firearms possession.

I don't know what was required to overcome a few hundred years of slave codes, jim crow, and other legally mandated racial discrimination in the 60s and 70s. I do know that up through the 50s and 60s it was still not always safe to a be Mormon missionary in some parts of this nation due to gross religious bigotries.

Today, I'm of the firm opinion that for the vast majority of businesses the only color or trait that matters is green. If a few rare exceptions don't want to bake a cake or take photos at a homosexual wedding, don't want to rent to or hire Mormons or Catholics or Jews, or refuse to let a black man sit at the same counter as the other customers, we'll all survive. As others have said here, the imposition of government force is a more serious evil than the rare discrimination on the part of individuals.

That said, so long as we do have laws requiring private businesses owners to provide service without regard to race, religion, gender, political affiliation, and now sexual orientation, I see no reason why those who are in lawful, peaceful possession of self-defense firearms should the only group left out in the cold without any protections.

Charles

TFred said:

... "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." ...

Click to expand...

Actually, you can put me in that category.

It's MY property. I'm of the opinion that I am allowed to bar entrance to anyone for any reason, including what the government calls discriminating against "protected" classes. I also should expect negative publicity for doing so.

utbagpiper said:

Unless we want it to recognized without question. That is the benefit of enumerated rights. The question has been settled. ....

Click to expand...

Where is the laugh so hard I pee my pants, get splinters from rolling on the floor smiley?

(Do I really have to explain why I'm laughing?)

stay safe.

Property rights are also a constitutional right

TFred said:

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

Click to expand...

As an ardent, vociferous, belligerent supporter of the 2nd Amendment that wants no limits to carry anywhere, my property is sacrosanct. If I don't want someone on my property wearing a hat from their alma mater, that is my right. Period. Might sound a bit ridiculous, but it's an example. Take a look at the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution. Government can't quarter troops on your property "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law." So are you saying that the 2nd Amendment trumps property rights? I understand that a PRIVATE business allows the PUBLIC in, but the owner dictates what is, and isn't allowable. Not you, not me.

I'm still in the corner of favoring a "Quasi-public" designation. That being those privately owned retail establishments who invite the general public (no membership requirements) shall accept all persons of legal majority who are not otherwise restricted by law.

Have had some interesting discussions on this subject.

skidmark said:

Where is the laugh so hard I pee my pants, get splinters from rolling on the floor smiley?

(Do I really have to explain why I'm laughing?)

Click to expand...

Sadly no. Amazing we're having the legal debates and wrangling over the RKBA even post Heller/McDonald isn't it?

Charles

MackTheKnife said:

As an ardent, vociferous, belligerent supporter of the 2nd Amendment that wants no limits to carry anywhere, my property is sacrosanct. If I don't want someone on my property wearing a hat from their alma mater, that is my right. Period. Might sound a bit ridiculous, but it's an example. Take a look at the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution. Government can't quarter troops on your property "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law." So are you saying that the 2nd Amendment trumps property rights? I understand that a PRIVATE business allows the PUBLIC in, but the owner dictates what is, and isn't allowable. Not you, not me.

Click to expand...

There are many restrictions on private businesses that invite the public that differ from those for you in your home: zoning, construction standards, fire prevention, seating capacity, even how many bathrooms and which way ingress/egress doors swing.

I'm more than a little tired of the suggestion that I can take my money elsewhere. I'd rather the response be, "Go into another business where you are not required to contribute to the common safety of your "guests." You may be assured my primary concern (literally and figuratively) - is safety.

It has been suggested that such Quasi-public businesses by allowed to opt out by providing such sufficient liability insurance to cover injury or death for someone so harmed by the establishment's choices. I'm not in favor of that personally, but it might make such a change easier.

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

Since when? How much does that cost vs breastfeeding?

Feeding ones child is an unalienable right.

Forcing one to feed their child in an other than natural way is abhorrent to Natural Law.

Laws passed to criminalize breastfeeding is abhorrent to the Constitution.

Grapeshot said:

I'm still in the corner of favoring a "Quasi-public" designation. That being those privately owned retail establishments who invite the general public (no membership requirements) shall accept all persons of legal majority who are not otherwise restricted by law.

Have had some interesting discussions on this subject.

Click to expand...

I find this a pragmatically equitable position given current state of law and the sad history that lead us to need anti-discrimination laws. But even it leaves some questions. Certainly a business owner might properly enforce a dress code of requiring shirts and shoes, or even a coat and tie if desired. Might it legally ban baggy pants, hoodies or other apparel favored by certain groups (say age or racial)?

Can it ban hats or other head coverings, even if the wearing of such is required by certain religious groups such as Jews, Muslims, etc?

What then, about the visible possession of a gun?

Shall we really force a Jewish or black business owner to hire a skinhead or KKK member who hates him?

Is it really proper to force a person to attend an event to which they are morally opposed just because they offer photography services to weddings generally?

Is our right to earn a peaceful living really to be predicated upon leaving all politically incorrect or unpopular religious or social views out of how we operate our business?

So long as we have anti-discrimination laws, I see no reason why those who lawfully carry a gun should be left out without protections.

But--whatever may have been needed some 50 years ago to correct 300 years of slavery and Jim Crow--today, I think the violation of property rights by government is more harmful and certainly far more prevalent than what I believe would be the rare case of discrimination.

Charles

We start going down a very slippery slope when we start talking about amending rights.

Very slippery!

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Based on results.

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

Since when? How much does that cost vs breastfeeding?
It cost more to wear clothing, but I didn't know that was the determining factor.

Feeding ones child is an unalienable right.
Regardless of the age of the child being breast fed? Yes, I am serious.

Forcing one to feed their child in an other than natural way is abhorrent to Natural Law.
Pity the poor mothers that cannot produce sufficient milk or who cannot nurse for other reasons.
Would you suppose to allow such mothers to bring cows or goats with them?

Laws passed to criminalize breastfeeding is abhorrent to the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Some thoughts above in blue.

Me thinks you apply meaning not intended by the authors of that great document.

Grapeshot said:

It cost more to wear clothing, but I didn't know that was the determining factor

Click to expand...

I am talking about breast pumps, bottles, formula, etc, etc, etc....

Grapeshot said:

Regardless of the age of the child being breast fed? Yes, I am serious.

Click to expand...

So the government gets to decide how long we decide to breastfeed our child?

Grapeshot said:

Pity the poor mothers that cannot produce sufficient milk or who cannot nurse for other reasons.
Would you suppose to allow such mothers to bring cows or goats with them?

Click to expand...

Ridiculous argument. This is what I said:

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

Since when? How much does that cost vs breastfeeding?

Feeding ones child is an unalienable right.

Forcing one to feed their child in an other than natural way is abhorrent to Natural Law.

Laws passed to criminalize breastfeeding is abhorrent to the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Never did I mention the mother didn't have a right to use cow or goat milk or formula, or whatever they feel is appropriate for their child.

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

Since when? How much does that cost vs breastfeeding?

Click to expand...

Pretty much nada. And there are private organizations that will give you the equipment needed, regardless of your income status.

Feeding ones child is an unalienable right.

Click to expand...

Who is saying a mother cannot feed her child? Or are you just spinning up so you can watch the pretty colors and stars?

Forcing one to feed their child in an other than natural way is abhorrent to Natural Law.

Click to expand...

Show me who, and precisely how, anyone is forcing anybody to feed their child in any way or manner.

Laws passed to criminalize breastfeeding is abhorrent to the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Which Article or Amendment? (You may take it down to a specific section if you'd like to.)

And where did you come up with the criminalization of breastfeeding? What law(s) do that?



stay safe.