Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Constitutional Rights vs. the rights of property owners

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263

    Constitutional Rights vs. the rights of property owners

    would like to know everyone's thoughts on this, according to the Washington State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 24 Right to Bear Arms it states:
    "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." As well the 2nd Amendment of the U.S Constitution states: "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."

    How I am understanding & reading both is that as long as you are lawfully carrying (OC/CC) & are not causing "warranting alarm", a person is allowed to carry a firearm, except as provided in RCW 9.41.300.

    According to RCW 9.41.300 Section 1 states:

    "It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
    (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;
    (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).
    For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.
    In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.
    The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas;
    (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;
    (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or
    (e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area."

    After doing research & reading, nowhere can I find any rule/regulation written that states that Private Property Owners have the right to violate constitutional rights. Under what legal justification (RCW, WAC, or USC), does it allow for the violation of the 2nd Amendment by property owners?

    I sent an e-mail to the Washington State Attorney General's Office asking this, as of yet I have not received a response. As soon as I do, I will post it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Constitutions limit the legal actions of the government, not people. The right to property is the most fundamental of natural rights.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Constitutions limit the legal actions of the government, not people. The right to property is the most fundamental of natural rights.
    Under what written law/regulation/legislation, does it allow the property owner the right to violate a right that is to be not be infringed upon by those who are abiding by the law?

    If businesses (not religiously affiliated) are not allowed to discriminate against those in the LGBTQ Communities due to written laws, how can they do the same to those legally carrying a firearm? (as an example)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Under what written law/regulation/legislation, does it allow the property owner the right to violate a right that is to be not be infringed upon by those who are abiding by the law? [ ... ]
    If it is not illegal then it is legal. The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right. Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-07-2015 at 10:39 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Under what written law/regulation/legislation, does it allow the property owner the right to violate a right that is to be not be infringed upon by those who are abiding by the law?

    If businesses (not religiously affiliated) are not allowed to discriminate against those in the LGBTQ Communities due to written laws, how can they do the same to those legally carrying a firearm? (as an example)
    That cake ruling was a state ruling, civil rights pertain to government, and essential services, which IMO does not include a wedding cake. Being denied food service, or medical care because of race, color, sexual orientation would fall into essential services. Also one can leave a gun behind, while one cannot change the color of their skin, or their sexual preference. IMO the courts erred in their decision. But two wrongs do not make a right. A cake business would be well within their rights to refuse to make a cake for the NRA.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    would like to know everyone's thoughts on this,...
    You are asking the wrong question, why are cops permitted to be armed in those places, when not called to be there by the owner/controller for official cop stuff, and we are not permitted to be there when we are armed.
    "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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    If it is not illegal then it is legal. The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right. Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.
    You are kind of making a point concerning Constitutional Rights concerning the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement. The 1st Amendment states: "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." By that frame of thinking, no property owner can deny those rights unless a person is not abiding to the law.

    A person who is OC/CC lawfully (not brandishing the weapon or making any threats/causing warranting alarm) has the right to have that firearm with them at all times, except in those areas mandated by law.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    You are kind of making a point concerning Constitutional Rights concerning the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement. The 1st Amendment states: "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." By that frame of thinking, no property owner can deny those rights unless a person is not abiding to the law.

    A person who is OC/CC lawfully (not brandishing the weapon or making any threats/causing warranting alarm) has the right to have that firearm with them at all times, except in those areas mandated by law.
    "Not in my house!"

    Do as you please within the confines of the law. Ignore the stated wishes of the property owner and enter upon his property. If he trespasses you, what then?

    You are invited sans gat, not very complicated. Respect the wishes of the property owner, or not, no biggie for some.

    Though, how do you know that the owner is not lawfully armed.
    "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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Kahlotus, WA
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    "Not in my house!"

    Do as you please within the confines of the law. Ignore the stated wishes of the property owner and enter upon his property. If he trespasses you, what then?

    You are invited sans gat, not very complicated. Respect the wishes of the property owner, or not, no biggie for some.

    Though, how do you know that the owner is not lawfully armed.
    Again, according to all you've written, a property owner cannot infringe/impair a person's 1st Amendment rights, yet they can infringe/impair on 2nd Amendment rights.

    Under what WAC, RCW, or USC/legislation is it written that property owners have the legal authority/right to infringe upon the rights of a person lawfully carrying in accordance to the 2nd Amendment & Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution?

    Under what WAC, RCW, or USC/legislation is it written that a property owner has the right to trespass a person for doing nothing illegal?

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Again, according to all you've written, a property owner cannot infringe/impair a person's 1st Amendment rights, yet they can infringe/impair on 2nd Amendment rights.

    Under what WAC, RCW, or USC/legislation is it written that property owners have the legal authority/right to infringe upon the rights of a person lawfully carrying in accordance to the 2nd Amendment & Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution?

    Under what WAC, RCW, or USC/legislation is it written that a property owner has the right to trespass a person for doing nothing illegal?
    A property owner can trespass anybody from their property, for any reason. You have no right to be on their property, NONE, NADA, ZIP. You still have all your civil rights, you just do not have the right to impose yourself on others. BTW being on somebodies property without permission is illegal in every state. Once you are told to vamoose, and you do not you are a criminal.

    Some states the property owner can use deadly force if they feel threatened. I would think refusing to leave with a firearm would be threatening. Trespassing others property is not only rude, it can be hazardous to your health.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 07-07-2015 at 01:04 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    would like to know everyone's thoughts on this, according to the Washington State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 24 Right to Bear Arms it states:
    "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." As well the 2nd Amendment of the U.S Constitution states: "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."

    How I am understanding & reading both is that as long as you are lawfully carrying (OC/CC) & are not causing "warranting alarm", a person is allowed to carry a firearm, except as provided in RCW 9.41.300.

    --snipped--

    After doing research & reading, nowhere can I find any rule/regulation written that states that Private Property Owners have the right to violate constitutional rights. Under what legal justification (RCW, WAC, or USC), does it allow for the violation of the 2nd Amendment by property owners?

    I sent an e-mail to the Washington State Attorney General's Office asking this, as of yet I have not received a response. As soon as I do, I will post it.
    It has already been explained to you that the limitations/restrictions are on the government, not on private property owners except as enumerated.

    As a private property owner I frequently can restrict many of your rights: no talk of religion, no black guns, even no red shirts on Wednesday. Note that on OCDO we have Forum Rules that some would say restrict their rights, but guess what? OCDO is private property.

    I doubt you will hear from the Attorney General unless it is in a form letter that says we do not give legal advice to the public. You see the AG is the state's attorney, not yours.
    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 WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    It has already been explained to you that the limitations/restrictions are on the government, not on private property owners except as enumerated.

    As a private property owner I frequently can restrict many of your rights: no talk of religion, no black guns, even no red shirts on Wednesday. Note that on OCDO we have Forum Rules that some would say restrict their rights, but guess what? OCDO is private property.

    I doubt you will hear from the Attorney General unless it is in a form letter that says we do not give legal advice to the public. You see the AG is the state's attorney, not yours.
    I agree except that you can't really restrict rights, but restrict access, which is property right. The person does not have their rights restricted, only the privilege to access. The most a property owner can do, unless threatened, is trespass the offending party. That means they still get to keep their gun on their person, talk religion, or wear red shirts on Wednesday. They just can't be on your property doing those things. That is what I think the OP is failing go grasp, those business, not being the government, are limiting the privilege of access to private property. They are not limiting rights.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I agree except that you can't really restrict rights, but restrict access, which is property right. The person does not have their rights restricted, only the privilege to access. The most a property owner can do, unless threatened, is trespass the offending party. That means they still get to keep their gun on their person, talk religion, or wear red shirts on Wednesday. They just can't be on your property doing those things. That is what I think the OP is failing go grasp, those business, not being the government, are limiting the privilege of access to private property. They are not limiting rights.
    Understood, yet I am still curtailing where they may exercise those rights. Not that simple, but the message is clear = Not in my sandbox.

    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-07-2015 at 01:43 PM. Reason: added
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    When you enter private property, you are there under license from the owner. Said license can be revoked or the conditions changed at any time by the owner (with a few unfortunate exceptions - gay cakes being one). If the owner wishes to make disarmament a condition of the entry license, there is no law stopping them.

    Again, bills of rights in constitutions are a limitation on what the government (not private individuals) may do.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You are asking the wrong question, why are cops permitted to be armed in those places, when not called to be there by the owner/controller for official cop stuff, and we are not permitted to be there when we are armed.
    Cops aren't allowed to be there without the owner's consent (unless the cop is in pursuit of a person). As a landowner, I can (and have) trespassed cops from my property while they are in possession of a firearm.

    Quote Originally Posted by mnrobitaille View Post
    Again, according to all you've written, a property owner cannot infringe/impair a person's 1st Amendment rights, yet they can infringe/impair on 2nd Amendment rights.

    Under what WAC, RCW, or USC/legislation is it written that property owners have the legal authority/right to infringe upon the rights of a person lawfully carrying in accordance to the 2nd Amendment & Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution?

    Under what WAC, RCW, or USC/legislation is it written that a property owner has the right to trespass a person for doing nothing illegal?
    Constitutions limit government actors, not private actors. RCW 9A.52.070 - 080 enumerate the rights of property holders to trespass anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    It has already been explained to you that the limitations/restrictions are on the government, not on private property owners except as enumerated.

    As a private property owner I frequently can restrict many of your rights: no talk of religion, no black guns, even no red shirts on Wednesday. Note that on OCDO we have Forum Rules that some would say restrict their rights, but guess what? OCDO is private property.
    Yep.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Cops aren't allowed to be there without the owner's consent (unless the cop is in pursuit of a person). As a landowner, I can (and have) trespassed cops from my property while they are in possession of a firearm.
    Would trespass notice to an individual who happens to be a cop be effective? A local cop also responds as an EMT, and I would just as soon he not trespass in any capacity.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    In the discussion of "private property" rights it is important to draw the distinction between fully private property, and privately owned property that is open to the general public.

    For better or worse, the government--with the consent of the vast majority of the citizens--has imposed statutory limitations on the reasons for which a business owner may refuse to provide access or services. This is unlikely to change anytime soon as anyone advocating for such a change will undoubtedly be labeled a racist and bigot or worse.

    In most jurisdictions, being in possession of a gun is not (yet) protected from discrimination.

    I believe it should be.

    In Utah, we have made a small but important step in this direction with our "Parking Lot Preemption" law that prevents most employers from being fired for having a gun in their private car that happens to be parked in the company parking lot.

    When it comes to employment policies in the building itself, or even store policies for customers, I think we need to focus on the right to life, and prudent protection of life. Legally preventing routine gun bans is, IMO, akin to requiring fire doors and other building safety standards. Protection of life trumps mere property.

    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.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    ....That means they still get to keep their gun on their person, talk religion, or wear red shirts on Wednesday. They just can't be on your property doing those things. That is what I think the OP is failing go grasp, those business, not being the government, are limiting the privilege of access to private property. They are not limiting rights.
    How is this materially different than denying access or services to someone who is black, Jewish, Catholic, homosexual, disabled, etc? For better or worse, society has determined that to deny commercial access, services, or employment to someone based on such traits is not permissible. Why should the practical ability to defend life or limb be any less protected?

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 07-08-2015 at 12:48 AM.
    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.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Also one can leave a gun behind, while one cannot change the color of their skin, or their sexual preference.
    One can leave behind overt acts of affection (holding hands, etc), but no court is going to accept that homosexuals should be required to be any less demonstrative in public as a condition of receiving services than are their heterosexual counterparts.

    One can leave behind a crucifix, Yarmulke, Habit, collar, turban, or hijab. But courts have made clear that even employees at high end clothing stores must be given reasonable accommodation for wearing religiously required garb.

    Two wrongs may not make a right, and we may see cases of bakers and photographers or eventually even clerics required to provide services in violation of conscience change public opinion. But for now at least, the vast majority of our fellow citizens believe that it is wrong to deny service, employment, or housing based on race, religion, political orientation, and even sexual orientation.

    I draw my own line at being forced to promote an idea one finds offensive. IOW, wrong to deny service to a Republican, Mormon, or Homosexual individual; Perfectly acceptable to refuse to provide services to a GOP event, a Mormon event, or a homosexual wedding or similar event.

    So long as society believes in anti-discrimination, I see no reason why gun owners/carriers should be denied the basic dignity afforded virtually every other identifiable minority group in the nation. Statute generally does not yet reflect my views in this regard.

    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit racial or any other kind of discrimination by private parties. Moreover, the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive. - Walter E Williams (who suffers no fools)

    http://www.creators.com/conservative...criminate.html

    Some get liberty some do not.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-08-2015 at 10:19 AM. Reason: activated link
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Cops aren't allowed to be there without the owner's consent (unless the cop is in pursuit of a person). As a landowner, I can (and have) trespassed cops from my property while they are in possession of a firearm. ...
    Have you trespassed cops who are wishing to be patrons of a restaurant while they are on their lunch break? Cops get to carry past a gun buster sign, and I am not afforded the same courtesy...Costco.

    Was there not a coffe shop up in the Great White Northwest that received some serious backlash, from many quarters, for denying a cop(s) to be armed while getting a frappe?

    There was a eatery on the eastside of STL, a while back, that asked five cops to leave their gats in their cruisers...the local Top Cop informed that business, very publicly (print/TV media), that his cops will be encouraged to not patronize that business, not even on their own time, official business only.

    http://wqad.com/2013/01/03/police-ba...linois-dennys/

    Ironic the comments the "Good Captain" make.

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...or+Being+Armed

    Cops, a whinny bunch they are when receiving the treatment they inflict upon us.
    "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 ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    In the discussion of "private property" rights it is important to draw the distinction between fully private property, and privately owned property that is open to the general public.
    No, that concept is merely an artificial construct employed in an attempt to justify certain statutory limitations against property owners.

    For better or worse, the government--with the consent of the vast majority of the citizens--has imposed statutory limitations on the reasons for which a business owner may refuse to provide access or services.
    None of those individual citizens nor even the whole of the collective could possibly delegate to the government any just authority or power to violate the rights of individuals to choose for themselves in every instance to whom and under what circumstances they may consent or refuse to provide property access or services.

    Such clear abridgement of individual rights by threat of force violates the limitations of individual and government action rendering these statutory impositions illegitimate.

    This is unlikely to change anytime soon as anyone advocating for such a change will undoubtedly be labeled a racist and bigot or worse.
    Public opinion simply cannot legitimize this violation of fundamental rights. The only "change" necessary for one to advocate in restoring this fundamental individual right is to strike out the illegitimate government acts which infringe upon it.

    If the only thing prohibiting this necessary correction is a fear of labels and public name-calling, you'd think that those same techniques should suffice to largely curb unpopular (but completely legal) individual choices without defaulting to the force of government infringement.

    In most jurisdictions, being in possession of a gun is not (yet) protected from discrimination.
    Of course not, Liberty rests upon the individuals' free will to choose, to reap or suffer the natural consequences of every choice.

    I believe it should be.
    Of course you do. Consider me shocked.

    In Utah, we have made a small but important step in this direction with our "Parking Lot Preemption" law that prevents most employers from being fired for having a gun in their private car that happens to be parked in the company parking lot.
    What about folks who don't want to go in the direction of government controlling and limiting yet another aspect of what should be consensual contracts between individuals? Even if this particular step would benefit them personally in some way, what if they still consider it fundamentally wrong?

    When it comes to employment policies in the building itself, or even store policies for customers, I think we need to focus on the right to life, and prudent protection of life. Legally preventing routine gun bans is, IMO, akin to requiring fire doors and other building safety standards. Protection of life trumps mere property.
    I find your violation of both logic and principle disturbing. Rights do not trump rights.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Private Property [rights]: Define, then debate. If there is disagreement on the definition, the first one to get the state to accept their definition wins the debate, before the debate starts.
    "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

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    No, that concept is merely an artificial construct employed in an attempt to justify certain statutory limitations against property owners.
    +1.

    None of those individual citizens nor even the whole of the collective could possibly delegate to the government any just authority or power to violate the rights of individuals to choose for themselves in every instance to whom and under what circumstances they may consent or refuse to provide property access or services. ....
    Some folks believe that individual rights are rightly subject to a vote.
    "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

  25. #25
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    I have been meaning to weigh in on this subject, however I was hoping someone else would make my argument before I did.

    First off, corporations should never be considered to have 'private' property in the same sense that a man does. I will stop on that line to prevent me from de-railing this thread. If you to discuss it start a new social lounge thread.

    After much thought, rights cannot crush each other. Also, in a free society, you would have to recognize and accept the, natural/god given/creator endowed, rights of others. The right to defend one's self is one such right. When a private man invites any other man (male/female/other) the recognition of those rights must be part of the invite. This means that you understand that if your guest is attacked that they have the right to defend themself and have their tools to beable to do this. This is part of the cost of being a host.

    If you have the power to strip the rights of others while others visit then you must incure all liability for any injury that is suffered due to the stripping of any rights.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

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
  •