Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: My Right to PRIVACY incorporates my Right to carry a weapon.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    It just occurred to me while re-reading the Texas Penal Code to see if CCW is still prohibited in churches - IT IS ! (Good Grief Texas ! What's going on in the Lone Star State ?)

    The references to "unlawful carry of weapons" use terms like "one's own residence", or "premises under a person's control". These terms need further scrutiny, and perhaps -redefinition.

    The "privacy" issue invoked by the ROE V WADE abortion decision in 1972 (?) affected a TEXAS abortion law prosecution . The SCOTUS said in essence that persons (not just women) have a PRIVACY RIGHT over their own body - right ? This right to privacy over your person, your body is protected by the 4th Amendment.



    OK, my body constitutes "premises under my control". I actually "RESIDE" in this 197 lb blob of flesh & blood called "ME". Therefore "ME" -IS MY RESIDENCE. No one therefore has the right to "regulate" what I attach to (wear) , or append to my body - particularly an item designed for personal protection, so long as that appendage does not interfere with the free excercise of the rights of other persons. ( Big leap - I know - but hang in here with me)

    Granted, private proprietorial rights may trump my right to ENTER certain premises not under MY control ( with my inner/outer "wear") - but my right to venture into the public square armed for defense of my person within reasonable parameters should not be called into question by any law.

    Conduct constituting a threat to another person is a separate issue altogether. This angle of approach obviously requires further exploration, but I think I have tapped into something here , and thisconcept has substance. Comments / (other than what flavor "cool-aide" I'm drinking)


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    SANDCREEK wrote:
    SNIP It just occurred to me
    A novel legal theory?

    I don't think you'll have much luck with it. 4A case law already covers when police may invade your body privacy.

    Also, laws on drugs, alcohol, prostitution (I am not going to explain it, so don't ask) and gosh knows what else would be undone.

    Just focus onthe basic human right to self-defense arising from a right to bealive in the first place. Its about as basic as it gets. And requires little legal theory or training to get someone else to understand it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    It's nota new theory; philosophically it embodies the property rights ideas that have been around since Locke.

    Legally, though, it's a different story. Courts tend to follow precedent more than philosophy, in order to moderate wild swings in rulings in a short span of time. Which unfortunately means that a few bad ruling can hurt you for a long time.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    It's nota new theory; philosophically it embodies the property rights ideas that have been around since Locke.

    Legally, though, it's a different story. Courts tend to follow precedent more than philosophy, in order to moderate wild swings in rulings in a short span of time. Which unfortunately means that a few bad ruling can hurt you for a long time.
    Does this mean that if your french-fries aren't in a holster attached to your body I can snag a few when you're not looking? I'm not wrong, you know, if you don't have adequateretention.

    I'm all for property rights. I just think its an unnecessarycontortion to say one's rights in this area flow from having a body that is property. I'm all for property rights. But they are a couple notches removed from survival compared to a right to self-defense.

    If my body was dead, it would still be my property. I wouldn't be able to enforce my rights, that's for sure. But why have a right to defend a deadproperty that I can't defend anyway? I know this can be shot full of holes. I'm just using it to illustrate.

    With all that said, being a religiouscreature and certain that man is a spirit occupying a body, I have no problem treating my body as my property. Damaging or trying to render useless my body property will be met with forceful protest. I don't think its a good idea, though, to hinge rights on that premise just yet. Too many people have different beliefs, etc.

    I guess it all boils down to phrasing it in a way that others can understand and agree with. And doesn't upset any legal precedent apple carts too much.

    Me? I think you can get more people to agree on the idea that a person has a right to be alive. If we get to the point we can't get much agreement on that, I'm moving to another planet.

    And taking your french fries with me.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Change is brought about by wrapping the mind around principles, concepts, theories,and philosophies ("old" or not) that areoften to be found "outside the box" .

    The self-defense issues we are interested in are deeply rooted in the sovereignty of the person. If that sovereignty is "defined" or measured by the square footage of one's "residence or premises under one's control" - then we don't really need any inalianable rights, or constitutions enumerating same. Stock up on popcorn and a library of DVD's - and proceed to the "check-out".



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    SANDCREEK wrote:
    It just occurred to me while re-reading the Texas Penal Code to see if CCW is still prohibited in churches - IT IS ! (Good Grief Texas ! What's going on in the Lone Star State ?)
    You need to keep reading that section. Further down, you'll find that the ban on carrying in hospitals and churches does not apply unless you've been given effective notice under 30.06.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pipe Creek, Texas, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    AND they have to post it on EVERY entry to the building, in the proper level and size of signage. If its missing from even ONE potential point of entry, 30.06 does not apply to that building.

    Can you say loophole?

    I have yet to see that tested in court.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    On your body and in your body are slightly different. If you take you gun and put it where the sun don't shine you may have a case but just attaching it to your belt and putting it around your waist is going to be tough for a judge to agree with.

    Go ahead and try it. Let us know how it turns out and if you need help we might be able to raise a few $ for your defense fund. I will pledge 50 cents.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    Coolhand77 wrote:
    AND they have to post it on EVERY entry to the building, in the proper level and size of signage. If its missing from even ONE potential point of entry, 30.06 does not apply to that building.
    This is incorrect. The law says the notice must be "conspicuous to the public". It says nothing about being on every entrance.

    If you enter through an unposted entrance, then you have obviously not been notified. But with the prevalence of security cameras these days, I'd advise against hunting for an unposted door.


Posting Permissions

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