wsweeks2 wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
Please point to the part of the second amendment (words that limit and control the GOVERNMENT) that says ANYTHING about your right to force a property owner to allow a stranger to carry a firearm on private property. There is no such provision.
Please point to the part of the 2nd Amendment that discuss property owners rights.
My apologies to people who already "get" this stuff. I am certain that when "wsweeks2" posed the question he knew the answer would be so long no one would try to respond. So while it is not a complete explanation, it is all I have time for right now.
wsweeks2 -
I can see we are still dealing with a reading and comprehension disability. I and others have repeated stated (please feel free to actually read the posts in this thread), that the
2nd amendment DOES NOT offer protections against personal property rights. It does however indirectly support them, because you see that property owner you wish to force your will on, also has the right to carry arms, and to use them in defense of himself and his property. It is YOU that keeps insisting that your right to carry a firearm transcends all other rights. In that regard you are still very wrong. Your rights stop where the rights of others begin.
The second amendment DOES indirectly contain a property right in that is says "Keep" arms. Clearly arms are property and the amendment says the government may not interfere with that right of ownership. But that right of ownership, and or carry does not give you the right to carry that gun onto the property of another, or use it to interfere with the property rights of another.
You have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to force people to listen, and limits can be placed on your right to free speech, in support of the rights of others not to listen to you.
The property rights embodied in the Constitution are part of the main document itself. Property rights, unlike firearms rights, were NOT an after thought. The men who wrote the Constitution, were property owners. The document, and in fact the Revolution, was largely about property rights.
It is obvious that you have either not read the declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Federalist and anti-federalist papers. If you have we are still left with a comprehension problem, as all these document make it quite clear what the feeling was about property rights.
Just why to you think the
3rd amendment was written? It was to affirm the rights of property owners and to prevent the government from taking over property to house soldiers. What do you think the basic premise underlying the
fourth amendment is? It is based on
property rights, and it restricts the government from infringing those rights without due process.
The original premise of the 4th amendment was based in the following concepts -
''The great end for which men entered in society was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. . . . By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set foot upon my ground without my license but he is liable to an action though the damage be nothing . . . .'' Protection of property interests as the basis of the Fourth Amendment found easy acceptance in the Supreme Court 30 and that acceptance controlled decision in numerous cases.
More modern interpretations have held that the 4th amendment actually protect privacy rights and not property rights, but this is actually just a broadening of the original meaning to accommodate changes in technology.
How about the
14th amendment-
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Are you familiar with the term
"Castle Doctrine"? do you understand what it actually means? Do you know why any other view of the right to self defense would be unconstitutional? If not then the relevance of this entire thread is lost to you.
Just because a property owner chooses to open up his property to limited public access, does not mean that he loses all of his rights to control what activities may occur there. There is a progression involved. A person entering the business has the right, subject to the owners restrictions to cross the property to gain access to the store. But the parking lot area might be restricted to "No trucks", or certain spaces may be reserved for handicapped or employee of the month.
At the entrance to the store things get a little more restrictive. The owner may restrict people in many ways at that point. "No shirt, no shoes, no service", comes to mind as a common example. Certainly we can both agree that people have a RIGHT not to wear shoes, but they do NOT have the right to enter a particular store where the owner requires people to wear shoes.
Your carry of a gun is no different. It is a behavior among many others that ANY property owner may choose to restrict. You need look no farther than case law to see where the law stands on property rights of shopkeepers. Who do you suppose would be the first one charged with a violation of the law if you went into a store with a gun, were asked to leave, told the owner you refuse and the police were called? By your thinking the store keeper would be arrested for infringing your right to carry a gun. Please direct me to a single case or even a code section that supports your position.
The 2nd amendment is of NO help here as it only restricts the government from making laws, it does not apply to property owners exercise of their property rights, or asking you to leave. They do however have that right. I would point out that none of the other amendments, or the body of the constitution (except possibly the militia authorizations) mentions firearms rights. That silence on the issue in no way diminishes what the second amendment says, but the second amendment does NOT diminish what the rest of the document says either.
Frankly, IMHO, it is your misguided attitude, and misunderstanding of the laws that is most harmful to the rights of firearms owners, not the activities of respectful and knowledgeable people on this forum, working to expand our rights in lawful ways. Your inability to read completely, and comprehend the vast evidence against your position is dangerous to you and anyone around you if you are carrying a firearm. I think you will find this out at some point. I only hope that innocent bystanders are not injured or killed during the lesson.
Regards
