SLC Leasing Away the Constitution at Washington Square?

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

i dont think that the police should have any power to enforce any restrictions made by event promoters and the like, when the action being restricted is not illegal, and the event is being held on public property, whether they are paying to use the property or not.

...

Little sidebar, I also dont believe that event security should be able to forcibly remove an individual that is not breaking any laws, but they merely want out. And if they do remove the indicidual forcefully, they should be liable for any injuries, and any laws broken while moving the individual against their will. I believe the proper term for that is kidnapping.

Click to expand...

So if you show up at my kid's birthday party at the county rec center room I have rented I should not have any effective means of removing you because you were not invited?

If I rent some portion of the public library to hold a wedding reception after normal business hours I should have zero effective means to actually enforce a guest list?

If I get proper permits to host a parade on public streets I should have zero effective means to control the content of what is displayed in that parade and reflects on my sponsorship of the event??!?!?!?!

If I rent a home instead of owning my own I can't get a trespassing conviction against someone refusing to get off my front porch because my residency in the home is temporary?!??!?

Look 1/2 inch beyond the specific issue of RKBA and it is clear your position is wholly unworkable and contrary to every notion of property rights we hold basic in our society. Enforced as law the result would be, effectively, to prevent any renting of government owned/controlled land to any private interest that wanted to actually have any control over their event at all. How do you even charge admission to an event held on government property when you prohibit the police from enforcing the admission rule and effectively prevent private security from enforcing it either?

RKBA is crucial. But others' rights must also be respected.

Charles

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

i dont think that the police should have any power to enforce any restrictions made by event promoters and the like, when the action being restricted is not illegal, and the event is being held on public property, whether they are paying to use the property or not.

...

Little sidebar, I also dont believe that event security should be able to forcibly remove an individual that is not breaking any laws, but they merely want out. And if they do remove the indicidual forcefully, they should be liable for any injuries, and any laws broken while moving the individual against their will. I believe the proper term for that is kidnapping.

Click to expand...

So if you show up at my kid's birthday party at the county rec center room I have rented I should not have any effective means of removing you because you were not invited?

If I rent some portion of the public library to hold a wedding reception after normal business hours I should have zero effective means to actually enforce a guest list?

If I get proper permits to host a parade on public streets I should have zero effective means to control the content of what is displayed in that parade and reflects on my sponsorship of the event??!?!?!?!

If I rent a home instead of owning my own I can't get a trespassing conviction against someone refusing to get off my front porch because my residency in the home is temporary?!??!?

Look 1/2 inch beyond the specific issue of RKBA and it is clear your position is wholly unworkable and contrary to every notion of property rights we hold basic in our society. Enforced as law the result would be, effectively, to prevent any renting of government owned/controlled land to any private interest that wanted to actually have any control over their event at all. How do you even charge admission to an event held on government property when you prohibit the police from enforcing the admission rule and effectively prevent private security from enforcing it either?

RKBA is crucial. But others' rights must also be respected.

Charles

Click to expand...

The next question is should the government be in the business of renting out facilities?

In my perfect world, the government would be small enough that they wouldn't be able to afford permanent facilities except in rare situations. They would have to rent or lease space for their offices and facilities because they were only used part time or part of the year.

Convention centers, soccer stadiums and such would be private and you would have to follow the rules set by the property owners.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

So if you show up at my kid's birthday party at the county rec center room I have rented I should not have any effective means of removing you because you were not invited?

If I rent some portion of the public library to hold a wedding reception after normal business hours I should have zero effective means to actually enforce a guest list?

Click to expand...

These are decidedly private events in an enclosed space. As such, yes you do and should have control over the guest list.

If I get proper permits to host a parade on public streets I should have zero effective means to control the content of what is displayed in that parade and reflects on my sponsorship of the event??!?!?!?!

Click to expand...

This is not as cut and dried. If you invite the public to provide entries in the parade, you cannot exclude an entry simply because you disagree with its message. Sorry I cannot site the case because I don't have ready access to LexisNexis, but as I recall courts have ruled that a parade on public streets which invites public entries can only exclude entries based on objective standards applied to all entries.

If I rent a home instead of owning my own I can't get a trespassing conviction against someone refusing to get off my front porch because my residency in the home is temporary?!??!?

Click to expand...

This is a matter of law giving you as a renter/tennant the same rights to peacable use of property as are granted to a property owner.

Look 1/2 inch beyond the specific issue of RKBA and it is clear your position is wholly unworkable and contrary to every notion of property rights we hold basic in our society. Enforced as law the result would be, effectively, to prevent any renting of government owned/controlled land to any private interest that wanted to actually have any control over their event at all. How do you even charge admission to an event held on government property when you prohibit the police from enforcing the admission rule and effectively prevent private security from enforcing it either?

RKBA is crucial. But others' rights must also be respected.

Click to expand...

This is one of the problems created when government oversteps it proper role. As a matter of principle, government has no business owning and operating such properties.

Every place I can find where basic rights are enumerated, they are always in the order of life-liberty-property. While property rights are important, they are superceeded by the rights to life and liberty. The purpose of the RKBA is to protect those rights, partuclarly life.

Common sense (at least to me) would say that any place or event that is generally open to the public should be bound by the requirement to uphold the basic civil rights, including the RKBA.

Having spent many hours reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I find it very intersting that there is only one place where restrictions or demands are not qualified by who they apply to. Throughout the Consitution and Bill of Rights, it specifies the parts that apply to congress, the executive, the courts, the states, etc., with only one exception. That exception is the the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, where it simply says "... shall not be infringed". I would argue that would indicate that the application is unrestricted and therefore would apply to everyone.

imported post

jaredbelch wrote:

The next question is should the government be in the business of renting out facilities?

In my perfect world, the government would be small enough that they wouldn't be able to afford permanent facilities except in rare situations. They would have to rent or lease space for their offices and facilities because they were only used part time or part of the year.

Convention centers, soccer stadiums and such would be private and you would have to follow the rules set by the property owners.

Click to expand...

You won't get much disagreement from me on this one.

But that isn't the world in which we live and isn't likely to be any time soon. So we start with where we are.

Charles

imported post

jaredbelch wrote:

The next question is should the government be in the business of renting out facilities?

In my perfect world, the government would be small enough that they wouldn't be able to afford permanent facilities except in rare situations. They would have to rent or lease space for their offices and facilities because they were only used part time or part of the year.

Convention centers, soccer stadiums and such would be private and you would have to follow the rules set by the property owners.

Click to expand...

If government was doing what it should be doing, (And not doing what it shouldn't!)we wouldn't even need such a forum. But alas...........

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

Click to expand...

i dont think that the police should have any power to enforce any restrictions made by event promoters and the like, when the action being restricted is not illegal, and the event is being held on public property, whether they are paying to use the property or not.

...

Little sidebar, I also dont believe that event security should be able to forcibly remove an individual that is not breaking any laws, but they merely want out. And if they do remove the individual forcefully, they should be liable for any injuries, and any laws broken while moving the individual against their will. I believe the proper term for that is kidnapping.

Click to expand...

Clarification here, this applies only to public events on public property. I also believe that the government is overstepping it's power when it enforces mandatory evacuations in time of an emergency.

Click to expand...

So if you show up at my kid's birthday party at the county rec center room I have rented I should not have any effective means of removing you because you were not invited?

Click to expand...

I imagine this room would be specifically designed to be rented out, and since admission or a membership fee is usually charged, I don't believe it could really be considered public property, so much as restricted property.

Click to expand...

If I rent some portion of the public library to hold a wedding reception after normal business hours I should have zero effective means to actually enforce a guest list?

Click to expand...

After business hours is normally a no go to everyone, so it is no longer open to the public. I would also define this as restricted property.

Click to expand...

If I get proper permits to host a parade on public streets I should have zero effective means to control the content of what is displayed in that parade and reflects on my sponsorship of the event??!?!?!?!

Click to expand...

Really a sticky area that I would rather not get my admittedly limited self into.

Click to expand...

If I rent a home instead of owning my own I can't get a trespassing conviction against someone refusing to get off my front porch because my residency in the home is temporary?!??!?

Click to expand...

A home is private property. The owner's private property. The law just extends limited ownership rights to the renter.

Click to expand...

Look 1/2 inch beyond the specific issue of RKBA and it is clear your position is wholly unworkable and contrary to every notion of property rights we hold basic in our society. Enforced as law the result would be, effectively, to prevent any renting of government owned/controlled land to any private interest that wanted to actually have any control over their event at all. How do you even charge admission to an event held on government property when you prohibit the police from enforcing the admission rule and effectively prevent private security from enforcing it either?

Click to expand...

As I said, if the action isn't illegal, the event is public, and on public property, then no, the police shouldn't be able to do anything, and neither should event security.

RKBA is crucial. But others' rights must also be respected.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Click to expand...

imported post

Private Property vs. Individual

Always a tricky scenario that doesn't really have a clear cut answer. I've always wondered if the solution would be simply to allow Private Property (even when open to the public) to deny those with guns anytime they want.

However... a provision to this would then be that the property owner assumes liability for customers and event goers if the owner chooses to not allow firearms. If the property owner does allow firearms he/she should then be exempt from any liability that may be caused by that firearm.

This would allow Private Property or Rented Public Property whatever rules they want to enforce. This gives full rights to the owner but would then provides a strong reason to allow firearms or provide their own tight security.

I don't know. Like I said it's a tricky scenario especially when it comes to Public Events hosted on Public Lands that have been leased.