Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Couple of questions need clarified

  1. #1
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    First question is: What is the legal definition of "Private Property". Post statutes and code if you can find it.

    Second question: ALL of the gun laws I can find in Utah state: "bla bla bla...except a law enforcement officer in the performance of their official duties etc... bla bla bla. So, if an off-duty cop in plain clothes goes into Wal-Mart and he has a gun and gets stopped by management etc.. and they ask him "are you a cop?" WTF gives him any more rights than a civilian in plain clothes carrying a gun since the cop is NOT "on duty". Is it my understanding that this might constitue discrimination? If they let the off duty cop in plain clothes keep on shopping, how in the hell do the customers know he is a cop and not just a citizen like us? Duh! It's special treatment, and I'm freaking sick of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!The cop gets to protect himself, but we don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    I totally feel you there....

    A cop is just an ordinaryperson like you and I who gets paid to up hold laws, just because they have a gun AND a badgedoesn't mean anything, there are "bad cops" out there just like there are bad people that are not cops. So yeah its about the dumbest thing I have ever heard, if your not a cop you cant carry here.

    Maybe if I show them my military ID I can be "special" too....

    I don't know what to say about wal-mart except I have disliked the store for years and years I personally make it a point to try and not go there, and I do OC there but its usually quick in and out.

    If wal-mart feels like being dumb ass's and wants to say you cant open carry there, were going to have only 2 choices, don't go there or conceal if you can.

  3. #3
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    usSiR wrote:
    I totally feel you there....

    A cop is just an ordinaryperson like you and I who gets paid to up hold laws, just because they have a gun AND a badgedoesn't mean anything, there are "bad cops" out there just like there are bad people that are not cops. So yeah its about the dumbest thing I have ever heard, if your not a cop you cant carry here.

    Maybe if I show them my military ID I can be "special" too....

    I don't know what to say about wal-mart except I have disliked the store for years and years I personally make it a point to try and not go there, and I do OC there but its usually quick in and out.

    If wal-mart feels like being dumb ass's and wants to say you cant open carry there, were going to have only 2 choices, don't go there or conceal if you can.
    Yeah, this is so true. If they are going to ask OC citizens to leave and give them the third degree, they had better give the off duty police the same treatment.

    Manager: "are you a cop?"

    Cop: "Yes"

    Manager: "Are you here on official business?"

    Cop: "What do you mean?"

    Manager: "Are you here enforcing the law or making an arrest or responding to a call from a customer here?"

    Cop: "No, just picking up some stuff on the way home"

    Manager: "Well, since you are not on official duty, we have to ask you to leave or put your gun in your vehicle"

    Cop: "You can't do that to me, I'm a police officer, and therefore, not a threat to anyone like all those other scary OC guys. I'm special."

    Manager: "Well, according to the law you are not special, and to avoid any discrimination law suites, we have to treat you the same way we would treat any other person carrying a gun in our store"

    ROFL, If only it would really end up that way.

    Also, has anyone had any luck finding the legal definition, as it pertains to utah law, of "Private Property". I don't just want stuff that suggests it's definition. I want the real nuts and bolts of it. I'm interested in it because I have a good suspicion that businesses open to the general public thatare enguaged in commerce would not legally fall under the same umbrella of proctection that a private residence does, even though I have seen posts on here where people suggested that they did. I saw no statutes posted with those that stated such a thing.

    Correct me if I'm wrong somebody, but use quoted laws and statutes to back it up please.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  4. #4
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    I searched the Utah code for definitions of private property, and this came up a few times. Remember, the Utah code uses different definitions of the same words in different parts.

    "Private" with respect to real "Property" means not owned by the United States or any agency of the federal government, the state, a county, a municipality, a school district, a local district under Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, a special service district under Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act, or any other political subdivision or governmental entity of the state.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  5. #5
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    I searched the Utah code for definitions of private property, and this came up a few times. Remember, the Utah code uses different definitions of the same words in different parts.

    "Private" with respect to real "Property" means not owned by the United States or any agency of the federal government, the state, a county, a municipality, a school district, a local district under Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, a special service district under Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act, or any other political subdivision or governmental entity of the state.

    Thanks SGT. This is the stuff I'm looking for. It looks like the second you leave your vehicle or the street and enter onto anything that isn't state or govt property, you could be made a criminal if legislation is passed that allowed any "private property" owner to make it illegal if you had a gun on their property; posted or otherwise.

    My conclusion: There needs to be legislation on ourbehalfthat stops private property owners from banning the possession of guns, OC or CC, on their property. This legislation needs to be based on the 2nd Ammendment, Utah's Uniform Law of Preemption andthe state constitution. The stipulations of the law would exempt private property owners who use their primary residence as a home business and would ONLY apply to firearms. This way,businesses could still make all the stupid rules they want and runtheir practicesas usual but would have no right whatsoever to regulate posession of firearms, as this would be left to that state as it should be.

    There is also a need for further legislation to clarify the Open Carry issue in this state and put it to rest indefinitely. They need to come out and put it in very plain writing, as not to be misunderstood or allowed open for interpretation by Law Enforcement. In fact, the whole firearms laws really need to be rejumbled and reorganized in this way so that it is so plain to understand nobody would be able to argue the legality of your open or concealed carry in any way, shape or fashion whatsoever.

    What are your thoughts?

    Kevin

    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  6. #6
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Sorry about the general tone of this post. That Wal-Mart thread just just ticked me off a bit. I guess this might have come across as more of a rant than an actual set of valid questions.

    The public fear of the mere presence of a visible firearm on somebody also ticks me off, and the liberal media has a lot of influence on that. I'm no more a threat to anyone carrying my gun hidden or visible. I have been carrying for years and nobody knew the wiser. Why should the same people I have been around all these years all of a sudden become scared andnervous just because they can see my gun if Istart OCing? Am I suddenly a criminal just because everyone can see now?

    I also didn't mean any disrespect to LEOs in my post. It was more of a frustration directed at the fact thatpeopleare insulting when they ask if you are law enforcement. It's an insult to me personally, not because I don't trust or like LEOs, but because it insinuates that they are somehow better than everyone else and only they have the authority and power and judgement toexcercise their rights to carry guns and deploy them in a lawful manner. Theplainclothes example I useddoes point out a very good point in that it opens up the floor for discrimination cases againstWal-Mart, and that if they dodecide to ban guns on their property, they had better not ask ANYONE walking in with a gun the question, "Are you a cop?" ever again, orelse there is going to bealawsuit. Of course,a cop in uniform in the performance of their official duty would be exempt, otherwise, it is discrimination flat and simple.

    As for the whole private property thing. I still believe that no business has the right to tell meI can't carry a gun there, and there should be a law stating so.

    Kevin



    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    As for the whole private property thing. I still believe that no business has the right to tell meI can't carry a gun there, and there should be a law stating so.
    I keep hearing this more and more and it it is so saddening that people would trample on property rights which are at the heart of American liberty to try to defend another liberty. You have no constitutional right to be on the property of another, they invite you there to spend money, but you are not compelled to be there. They make the rules.

    Is it that hard for you to find out what the policies of a business are and spend your money at businesses that maintain a safe environment by allowing their customers to defend themselves?

    Think about the harm you would cause with such a law. If it was a state law I would imagine many businesses would leave, I would. I support the rights of patrons to be armed, but I don't want the state telling me so.

    Also consider that businesses spend lots of money on lobbying groups. They lobby for laws that benefit their business and have huge pull in the political arena. Now you are forcing them to allow you in with your firearm, so that you can spend money at their store, so that they can turn around and use that money to lobby for your law to be changed and possibly lobby for other anti-gun laws.

    Use your power as a consumer to protect your right to self defense instead of increasing the size and scope of our already bloated government.

  8. #8
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    West Valley City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    some states do have laws where businesses can't deny people from legally carrying. I disagree with these laws though for the same reason as asforme. The government should not be involved in telling someone what they can and can't do on their private property. If the government could determine what I can and can't do in my home or business there would many more liberties lost than you would gain. We need less government not more.

  9. #9
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Maybe you guys are missing my point. As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ammendment already allows my gun in your store. Putting up a sign that says "no weapons allowed" is like putting up a sign that says "no criminals allowed". I also said that the law should only pertain to guns and nothing else and that private property like a person's home would be exempt. Besides, there is such a small percentage of OC people in the country, this law would not really cause them any detriment to their businesses or their customer base at all by allowing guns in businesses open to the public. As long as the store allows bad guys with guns into the store, they can allow me with my gun into the store too. Until that day comes, I don't want to hear anyone whining when my XD 45 is proudly at my hip protecting my freedom and everyone elses too. This law would give much needed relief to the OC community.

    I'm still waiting for an anti-gun person to show statistical data on how many crimes were perpetrated by CWP holders nationwide. They ignore the fact that doctors and cigarettes kill more people every year in this country than all the gun violence combined. Heart disease and our diets are the number 1 killer of all time. In fact, deaths from guns in this countryare at the very very very bottom of the list of killers, so they need to shut their stupid ignorant mouths. If they really want to save people, go after to freaking tobacco companies.. oh wait... those bastads have money... well... better not mess with them.... let's go take away all the guns so everyone can quit dying from all this senseless violence. Yeah.. sure that'd work.. Idiots! Look what happened during the prohibition era. Whenever you take a vast number of the law-abiding population and make them into criminals, you get a revolt and a black market unlike anything you have ever seen before. Thank goodness for the NRA. We have lobbying power too. HooooRaaaa!

    Kevin


    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    Maybe you guys are missing my point. As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ammendment already allows my gun in your store.

    While I would support a law preventing businesses open to the public from banning guns, just as we do not allow businesses to exclude persons due to color, religion, etc, I have to point out that the 2nd amendment (and Article 1, Sec 6 of the Utah State Constitution) are limits are GOVERNMENT power, NOT on the actions of private individuals.


    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.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    I keep hearing this more and more and it it is so saddening that people would trample on property rights which are at the heart of American liberty to try to defend another liberty. You have no constitutional right to be on the property of another, they invite you there to spend money, but you are not compelled to be there. They make the rules.

    Is it that hard for you to find out what the policies of a business are and spend your money at businesses that maintain a safe environment by allowing their customers to defend themselves?

    Think about the harm you would cause with such a law. If it was a state law I would imagine many businesses would leave, I would. I support the rights of patrons to be armed, but I don't want the state telling me so.

    Also consider that businesses spend lots of money on lobbying groups. They lobby for laws that benefit their business and have huge pull in the political arena. Now you are forcing them to allow you in with your firearm, so that you can spend money at their store, so that they can turn around and use that money to lobby for your law to be changed and possibly lobby for other anti-gun laws.

    Use your power as a consumer to protect your right to self defense instead of increasing the size and scope of our already bloated government.
    Again, just to offer the counter-argument to this point of view.

    It is LIFE that is at the heart of the american jurisprudence system, NOT property. Dead men own no property.

    We already prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, political affilation and other traits or choices. I see no reason why lawful, peaceful, self-defense should be any different.

    If you want to ban guns from your private home or residential property, your church, or even a private club, so be it. But the moment you hang out a shingle and advertise to the general public to come on in, you ought not be allowed to discriminate against those who choose to lawfully, peacefully carrry self-defense.

    I also note that in numerous instances of the law, LIFE trumps property. Property owners do NOT get to chain fire doors shut, or build without sprinkler systems or smoke detectors. They do NOT get to ignore safety regs while building.

    We do not live in Libertopia and never will and gun owners are NOT going to win any grand points with the public by sacrificing themselves as the first, last, or only group without basic civil rights protections in places of public accomodation.

    Furthermore, while I can and do respect your position in the perfectly theoretical, I'm afraid you cross the line into Brady-campaign-like paranoid fantasy with your supposition that applying civil rights laws to gun owners is going to harm business in the least. Indeed, can you find a single statistic to suggest that States passing parking lot pre-emption or other protections for gun owners are seeing any decrease in business that could rationally be attributed to such policies?

    You also mis-characterize the nature of business opposition to lawful carrying. In most cases it is NOT based on any philosophical hatred of guns and businesses are NOT going to spend money lobbying to attack our rights in most cases. Rather, opposition to carrying is based on current legal environment including liability laws, OSHA, and workers' comp (coupled with general HR laws that are so complex that most businesses just cut-and-paste policies from a couple of NYC based HR firms) laws that leads businesses to believe that banning guns outright is the safest harbor they can find. A properly crafted pre-emption law provides strict liability protection and overcomes these issues.

    PLEASE, do NOT misstate such material facts. Your opinion on property rights is valid, even though I disagree with the hierarchy you choose of placing property supreme to life itself. But it is not proper to claim (with ZERO evidence) that civil rights laws will hurt business or put money into the hands of those who will actively oppose our RKBA.

    Also, while your interest in Utah is welcome, please do not presume that our legal or cultural environment is exactly the same (or should be exactly the same) as is yours in the Old Domininion.

    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.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    the 2nd ammendment already allows my gun in your store
    If that's true, then the 1st amendment (one m) allows for people to stand on soap boxes and preach for Obama in your store. It also allows me to bring my church of Obama to come have a prayer service in the the banana isle.

    The Constitution limits government, it does not give you any authority to do what you want on another persons property.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper

    This argument is getting old so I will try to not continue it. My purpose for posting in this thread was that I wanted to give a new member another point of view on the issue. Hearing someone say that they believe they are entitled to carry a gun on another persons property seems like a very uneducated statement to me. I am very aware that you have thought this through and are convinced of our opinion and there is no changing it, I wanted to make sure that the OP had done the same.

    I simply don't think publicizing this idea does much for our cause. Imagine having a confrontation with a manager who is uncomfortable around guns and directing them to OCDO. Then they find out that some of us would like to deprive them of their ability to make themselves feel comfortable. Instead of militarilly forcing oursevles into these places, I think setting a good example, behaving respectuflly and declining to do business with them will get us much farther. Then they may see that they have nothing to fear after all, instead of becoming defensive.

    It may be even less of an issue with what is said as it is how it is said. Utbagpiper, while I still disagree, phrases it very well when he compares carrying to other discrimination. But just saying there needs to be legislation to stop private property owners from banning guns gives of a negative feeling.

    I would also like to say that I have lived in Virgina for less than a year. Being from a Military family I have lived in quite literally every corner of the US and have spent several years living over seas. The cultural environment of a given state does not have superiority over the original intent of Constitutional rights and the values this country was founded on.

  14. #14
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    utbagpiper

    This argument is getting old so I will try to not continue it. My purpose for posting in this thread was that I wanted to give a new member another point of view on the issue. Hearing someone say that they believe they are entitled to carry a gun on another persons property seems like a very uneducated statement to me. I am very aware that you have thought this through and are convinced of our opinion and there is no changing it, I wanted to make sure that the OP had done the same.

    I simply don't think publicizing this idea does much for our cause. Imagine having a confrontation with a manager who is uncomfortable around guns and directing them to OCDO. Then they find out that some of us would like to deprive them of their ability to make themselves feel comfortable. Instead of militarilly forcing oursevles into these places, I think setting a good example, behaving respectuflly and declining to do business with them will get us much farther. Then they may see that they have nothing to fear after all, instead of becoming defensive.

    It may be even less of an issue with what is said as it is how it is said. Utbagpiper, while I still disagree, phrases it very well when he compares carrying to other discrimination. But just saying there needs to be legislation to stop private property owners from banning guns gives of a negative feeling.

    I would also like to say that I have lived in Virgina for less than a year. Being from a Military family I have lived in quite literally every corner of the US and have spent several years living over seas. The cultural environment of a given state does not have superiority over the original intent of Constitutional rights and the values this country was founded on.
    I see your point, and you are probably right.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  15. #15
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    asforme wrote:
    I keep hearing this more and more and it it is so saddening that people would trample on property rights which are at the heart of American liberty to try to defend another liberty. You have no constitutional right to be on the property of another, they invite you there to spend money, but you are not compelled to be there. They make the rules.

    Is it that hard for you to find out what the policies of a business are and spend your money at businesses that maintain a safe environment by allowing their customers to defend themselves?

    Think about the harm you would cause with such a law. If it was a state law I would imagine many businesses would leave, I would. I support the rights of patrons to be armed, but I don't want the state telling me so.

    Also consider that businesses spend lots of money on lobbying groups. They lobby for laws that benefit their business and have huge pull in the political arena. Now you are forcing them to allow you in with your firearm, so that you can spend money at their store, so that they can turn around and use that money to lobby for your law to be changed and possibly lobby for other anti-gun laws.

    Use your power as a consumer to protect your right to self defense instead of increasing the size and scope of our already bloated government.
    Again, just to offer the counter-argument to this point of view.

    It is LIFE that is at the heart of the american jurisprudence system, NOT property. Dead men own no property.

    We already prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, political affilation and other traits or choices. I see no reason why lawful, peaceful, self-defense should be any different.

    If you want to ban guns from your private home or residential property, your church, or even a private club, so be it. But the moment you hang out a shingle and advertise to the general public to come on in, you ought not be allowed to discriminate against those who choose to lawfully, peacefully carrry self-defense.

    I also note that in numerous instances of the law, LIFE trumps property. Property owners do NOT get to chain fire doors shut, or build without sprinkler systems or smoke detectors. They do NOT get to ignore safety regs while building.

    We do not live in Libertopia and never will and gun owners are NOT going to win any grand points with the public by sacrificing themselves as the first, last, or only group without basic civil rights protections in places of public accomodation.

    Furthermore, while I can and do respect your position in the perfectly theoretical, I'm afraid you cross the line into Brady-campaign-like paranoid fantasy with your supposition that applying civil rights laws to gun owners is going to harm business in the least. Indeed, can you find a single statistic to suggest that States passing parking lot pre-emption or other protections for gun owners are seeing any decrease in business that could rationally be attributed to such policies?

    You also mis-characterize the nature of business opposition to lawful carrying. In most cases it is NOT based on any philosophical hatred of guns and businesses are NOT going to spend money lobbying to attack our rights in most cases. Rather, opposition to carrying is based on current legal environment including liability laws, OSHA, and workers' comp (coupled with general HR laws that are so complex that most businesses just cut-and-paste policies from a couple of NYC based HR firms) laws that leads businesses to believe that banning guns outright is the safest harbor they can find. A properly crafted pre-emption law provides strict liability protection and overcomes these issues.

    PLEASE, do NOT misstate such material facts. Your opinion on property rights is valid, even though I disagree with the hierarchy you choose of placing property supreme to life itself. But it is not proper to claim (with ZERO evidence) that civil rights laws will hurt business or put money into the hands of those who will actively oppose our RKBA.

    Also, while your interest in Utah is welcome, please do not presume that our legal or cultural environment is exactly the same (or should be exactly the same) as is yours in the Old Domininion.

    Charles
    I totally agree with this 100%.
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    I simply don't think publicizing this idea does much for our cause. Imagine having a confrontation with a manager who is uncomfortable around guns and directing them to OCDO. Then they find out that some of us would like to deprive them of their ability to make themselves feel comfortable.
    I think this argument is much ado about nothing.

    Sure, there are a few business owners or managers who are uncomfortable with guns for their own sake, but the vast majority who are bothered by OC are bothered for a much more practical reason: Other customers bothering them about seeing a man with a gun. It's a distraction that they'd rather not have to deal with. If they could brush it off with "yes, the law says I have to allow that, sorry", then it wouldn't be a large issue. If everyone already knew that the law required them to allow it, the questions wouldn't even happen. Business owners wouldn't fight such a law unless they were fighting it for personal antipathy against guns.

    It's all a moot point, though, because I don't think there's a state in the nation with the political will to pass such a law.

  17. #17
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    asforme wrote:
    I simply don't think publicizing this idea does much for our cause. Imagine having a confrontation with a manager who is uncomfortable around guns and directing them to OCDO. Then they find out that some of us would like to deprive them of their ability to make themselves feel comfortable.
    I think this argument is much ado about nothing.

    Sure, there are a few business owners or managers who are uncomfortable with guns for their own sake, but the vast majority who are bothered by OC are bothered for a much more practical reason: Other customers bothering them about seeing a man with a gun. It's a distraction that they'd rather not have to deal with. If they could brush it off with "yes, the law says I have to allow that, sorry", then it wouldn't be a large issue. If everyone already knew that the law required them to allow it, the questions wouldn't even happen. Business owners wouldn't fight such a law unless they were fighting it for personal antipathy against guns.

    It's all a moot point, though, because I don't think there's a state in the nation with the political will to pass such a law.
    Glad to see that somebody else feels the same way I do on the subject. It is, indeed, a tragedy that no states would likely pass such a law as Swillden stated above.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    utbagpiper

    This argument is getting old so I will try to not continue it. My purpose for posting in this thread was that I wanted to give a new member another point of view on the issue. Hearing someone say that they believe they are entitled to carry a gun on another persons property seems like a very uneducated statement to me. I am very aware that you have thought this through and are convinced of our opinion and there is no changing it, I wanted to make sure that the OP had done the same.

    I simply don't think publicizing this idea does much for our cause. Imagine having a confrontation with a manager who is uncomfortable around guns and directing them to OCDO. Then they find out that some of us would like to deprive them of their ability to make themselves feel comfortable. Instead of militarilly forcing oursevles into these places, I think setting a good example, behaving respectuflly and declining to do business with them will get us much farther. Then they may see that they have nothing to fear after all, instead of becoming defensive.

    It may be even less of an issue with what is said as it is how it is said. Utbagpiper, while I still disagree, phrases it very well when he compares carrying to other discrimination. But just saying there needs to be legislation to stop private property owners from banning guns gives of a negative feeling.

    I would also like to say that I have lived in Virgina for less than a year. Being from a Military family I have lived in quite literally every corner of the US and have spent several years living over seas. The cultural environment of a given state does not have superiority over the original intent of Constitutional rights and the values this country was founded on.
    I agree that asserting we CURRENTLY have some right or power to take guns into private business in contradiction of their wishes is not only false, but very negative. See my first post on those topic to that effect.

    I disagree that asking for or supporting legislation to protect us from discrimination is negative. Indeed, I think tying self-defense (defense of LIFE) to other civil rights protections is a very powerful argument that clearly IS starting to go over well with legislators.

    I believe the original intent of the Constitution and constitutional rights was to protect LIFE, LIBERTY, and property. Indeed, the DoI mentions "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights. It gets on to property mostly in the lsit of specific grievances against King George (eating out substance, taxing without consent, quarter troops, etc).

    I believe (and history bears me out on this) that one of the MEANS used by the constitution to protect life, libertry, and property was to allow for a lot of regional diversity in laws, culture, etc. So while some States may want to place a higher priorityon prioperty by allowing the (as does Texas) the use of deadly force to defend property, or decline to pass parking lot or other preemption laws aimed at private business, there is nothing untoward or unconstitutional if other States take a different approach. THIS is the very definition of "federalism" which IS the very foundation of our federal constitution.

    I know you and I are not going to change each others' views on this matter. I post in response to your postings (at least in the Utah section) specifically so people see that there is a third road between what is often proposed (the 2nd amendment already allows us to carry on private property), and what you propose (government has no properly place ever forcing a business to allow us to carry).

    I freel acknowledge that in most jurisdictions (and especially Utah under the AOL ruling) we have NO LEGAL right to carry into a business or other private property in contradiction of owner desires. In churches and private residences, doing so is actually a crime in, and of itself, without regard to trespassing.

    HOWEVER, I believe it proper and appropriate given the totality of current legal and political realities in this nation for gun owners to ask for and support laws preventing discrimination based on the lawful possession of firearms and other means of self-defense in employment and offering of services in places of public accomodation.

    It is NOT about "gun rights." Guns don't have rights, people do. It is about the preservation of life, which does trump absolute property rights.

    All the best.

    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    asforme wrote:
    utbagpiper
    It is NOT about "gun rights." Guns don't have rights, people do. It is about the preservation of life, which does trump absolute property rights.

    All the best.

    Charles
    Thank you everyone for your comments and input. Hopefully the future holds better outcome for both sides of this debate as time goes on.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •