• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Robert Levy Using His position To Meddle in Local Politics

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
Consider this though - should the government's court's enforce private contracts or property rules which conflict with federal or state constitution? In contract law, courts sometimes strike down or refuse to enforce contract provisions which conflict with public policy.

In Shelley v. Kraemer the US S. Ct. said "no" to enforcing racial land alienation convenants - extending this case to gun rights would be interesting.

If racially-based restrictive covenants are not legal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, then why should courts enforce gun bans in the workplace or establishments open to the public via, inter alia, tresspass and contract law?

Just food for thought.

Hey Mike,

Land covenants are contracts between dead people. That's why the courts are quick to strike them down, so it's a bit of a different situation that you bring up. Second, the Court was alot more active in striking down contracts right after the Civil Rights Act and around that time because they were trying to disassemble the entire Jim Crow/segregated system. They've since said that that was only temporary and have taken a less hands on approach.

To your question, yes, I think that anything that violates the Constitution should be struck down. So if a person signs a contract to a buy another person, that should be struck down on the 13th Amendment. But the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to individuals so the Constitution isn't implicated.

As others have pointed out, contracts that limit people's freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc are all upheld.
 

docwatson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
131
Location
Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
imported post

Legba wrote:
I keep a copy of an old Soviet propaganda poster on the wall at work here, translated as "work with your rifle nearby." It was from their revolution/civil war (ca. 1917), when workers were well advised to have a weapon handy at all times (whichever side they were on). I'd send a copy to Mr. Levy, but I doubt he can read Cyrillic.

-ljp


Do you have a copy of that poster or a source where I could get a copy?
 

JeffKnox

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
2
Location
Manassas, Virginia, USA
imported post

The best argument against these "parkinglot laws" is the arguing evident on this board - and every other board where it is discussed. The fact that Gun rights activists are split on this demonstrates its flaws.

Personally, I think your car should be considered an extension of your "castle" and should therefore be off-limits without solid probable cause and legal formalities.
That's not going to happen because it would interfere in the "War on Drugs" and now the "War on Terror."

My solution to this problem - and many others - is simple language passed by state legislatures tipping the scales of liability in favor of business and property owners not interfering in employees' and visitors' defensive capabilities. Disarming them = greater liability, staying out of their personal protection choices = less liability.

Right now, it is 50/50 and could be effectively argued either direction. By shifting liability to 60/40, it removes the impitus for gun bans. Ninety percent of property owners would erase their "No Guns" policies if they knew it increased their risk.

Others have proposed legislation that spells out liability in detail, but I think they're too complicated. Something short, simple and sweet that says disarming employees and/or visitors creates additional liability and letting them make their own choices about personal security reduces liability, is all that's needed.

So there's my two cents.

--
If GunVoters don't get busy on congressional elections right now, it won't matter who's in the White House.
If GunVoters do get busy on congressional elections right now, it won't matter who's in the White House.
Be part of the solution - www.GunVoter.org
 
Top