Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: 2A rights vs "No Gun sign"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Hi all. I've been thinking about my 2A rights vs someone with a sign banning handguns/weapons on private property. I just don't get that my consitutional RIGHT can be removed on someone else's private property with a gan/weapon ban sign. On that same token, how can they ask an OC'er to leave?

    I understand the constitution to say I have a right to bear arms. I don't know of anyplace where it says I have the right to take that away from anyone else. What gives?

    Thanks to ProShooter in another thread for this...
    18.2-308 (O) says that a CHP does not override the owner's desire to prohibit firearms on the private property.
    How is that constitutional?

    On the otherhand, how can a sign apply to OC the same as it applies to a CHP?

    Yes, I did a quick search and didn't see anything on this. If it's already addressed, please advise where I can read more. Thank you in advancefor your feedback!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Short version - any property not open to the public is private property. All stores are private property - with the exception of those on federal/state lands - think parks etc. Since stores are private property, they can make up rules for who can be on that property, just like you can for your home. If you don't like their rules, don't goto their stores. Think no shirt, no shoes, no service. Same thing. That's a very simple version.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    kasteer71 wrote:
    Hi all. I've been thinking about my 2A rights vs someone with a sign banning handguns/weapons on private property. I just don't get that my consitutional RIGHT can be removed on someone else's private property with a gan/weapon ban sign. On that same token, how can they ask an OC'er to leave?

    I understand the constitution to say I have a right to bear arms. I don't know of anyplace where it says I have the right to take that away from anyone else. What gives?

    Thanks to ProShooter in another thread for this...
    18.2-308 (O) says that a CHP does not override the owner's desire to prohibit firearms on the private property.
    How is that constitutional?

    On the otherhand, how can a sign apply to OC the same as it applies to a CHP?

    Yes, I did a quick search and didn't see anything on this. If it's already addressed, please advise where I can read more. Thank you in advancefor your feedback!
    Think of it this way...

    I OC and am being an ass. I'm also in your front yard. Under your premise, I'd be able to ignore you and keep doing my thing regardless of your wishes.

    Under the way the world works...

    I do the same as indicated above. You tell me to leave. I refuse. You can then have me removed from your property. Why?

    Because I ignored your rights. Your House = Your Rules.

    Remember 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'? Property used to be in place of Happiness until it was changed to make a compromise with one of the Founding Fathers.

    Likewise, if I don't want police officers openly or concealed carrying on my property, I can forbid it (with the exception of while they are in the performance of their official duties). *I* can eject pretty much anyone I want from my property. The list of those I cannot eject are all covered by the exception listed above. Thus if you are carrying on my property and I don't want you to, I can make you stop carrying or force you to leave.

    Thus private property ownership overrides your public / societal rights. Incidentally, the same applies to free speech. I can just as easily forbid any exercise of free speech on my property.

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    kasteer71 wrote:
    Hi all. I've been thinking about my 2A rights vs someone with a sign banning handguns/weapons on private property. I just don't get that my consitutional RIGHT can be removed on someone else's private property with a gan/weapon ban sign. On that same token, how can they ask an OC'er to leave?

    I understand the constitution to say I have a right to bear arms. I don't know of anyplace where it says I have the right to take that away from anyone else.

    Why do you say that your right is being removed or taken away?

    Your right to bear arms is still in full force. Elsewhere.

    Almost everywhere else.



  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    It's really even simpler than all that. The Constitution protects your rights from abuse by the government, not by individuals.

    Discrimination laws are where you would need to go to establish a right to infringe upon someone else's private property.

    TFred


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    kasteer71 wrote:
    Hi all. I've been thinking about my 2A rights vs someone with a sign banning handguns/weapons on private property. I just don't get that my consitutional RIGHT can be removed on someone else's private property with a gan/weapon ban sign. On that same token, how can they ask an OC'er to leave?

    I understand the constitution to say I have a right to bear arms. I don't know of anyplace where it says I have the right to take that away from anyone else. What gives?

    Thanks to ProShooter in another thread for this...
    18.2-308 (O) says that a CHP does not override the owner's desire to prohibit firearms on the private property.
    How is that constitutional?

    On the otherhand, how can a sign apply to OC the same as it applies to a CHP?

    Yes, I did a quick search and didn't see anything on this. If it's already addressed, please advise where I can read more. Thank you in advancefor your feedback!
    Think of it this way...

    I OC and am being an ass. I'm also in your front yard. Under your premise, I'd be able to ignore you and keep doing my thing regardless of your wishes.

    Under the way the world works...

    I do the same as indicated above. You tell me to leave. I refuse. You can then have me removed from your property. Why?

    Because I ignored your rights. Your House = Your Rules.

    Remember 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'? Property used to be in place of Happiness until it was changed to make a compromise with one of the Founding Fathers.

    Likewise, if I don't want police officers openly or concealed carrying on my property, I can forbid it (with the exception of while they are in the performance of their official duties). *I* can eject pretty much anyone I want from my property. The list of those I cannot eject are all covered by the exception listed above. Thus if you are carrying on my property and I don't want you to, I can make you stop carrying or force you to leave.

    Thus private property ownership overrides your public / societal rights. Incidentally, the same applies to free speech. I can just as easily forbid any exercise of free speech on my property.
    ok. What about that security guard that tried to evict a "BG" from the store he was securing (he ended up using pepper spray and getting charged with assault)? The guy was told not to return, did and was told to leave again. He didn't....

    A private property owner can't take away your right to a trial by jury.

    A private property owner can not committ an unreasonable search and seazure.

    I def agree with 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'! But how does that trump my 2A right? Maybe I'm being rediculous, but I see my house a little different than my storefront restaurant (if I had one). If someone is being unlawful no problem, but if someone is not breaking a law... How can that stand up? As far as a home property goes, tresspassing would apply, but a business? I think personal rights should trump corporate/business rights (I don't know of any business rights in the constitution).

    Not trying to be difficult here. I thought about it and can't justify in my head a violation of the 2A. If I'm outa line, please let me know.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Try this one on. You have freedom of speech - it is a protection for you against the government. Not a protection of you against another person.

    Example A - You say "bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".

    Example B - You say "All male government employees beat their spouses and steal from the tax payers"

    A can get you into legal trouble. B will not. A you are making accusations against a person. B you are making accusations against the government. Both are done in a public news paper, only one protects you with your 1A rights.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    bohdi wrote:
    ..."bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".
    I did not know you held electiveoffice, bohdi....



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    You need to wrap your head around the fact you're talking about two separate issues...one being Constitutional Rights and the other being Private Property Rights. The Constitution onlyenumeratesthe powers of the federal government, as given to them by us, the people (I tried typing that with a straight face; but, couldn't.) Private property rights give property owners the right to exclusively control their own property...from Wikipedia:

    Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner's consent.[1][/suP] Private property can take the form of real estate, homes, factories, automobiles, capital, patents and copyrights. It is distinguished from public property, which refers to assets owned by a state, community or government rather than by individuals or a business entity.[2][/suP]



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Well, I don't like it. But ok.

    I'm all for private property rights, and comprehend that part of it. It's just the 2A part and the right to defend oursleves that gets me. I'll let it sink in on the drive home today.

    ... Similar subject then, with private property in mind... What gives the GOV the right to BAN smoking, vs leaving it up to the private property owner?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    kasteer71 wrote:
    Well, I don't like it. But ok.

    I'm all for private property rights, and comprehend that part of it. It's just the 2A part and the right to defend oursleves that gets me. I'll let it sink in on the drive home today.

    ... Similar subject then, with private property in mind... What gives the GOV the right to BAN smoking, vs leaving it up to the private property owner?
    Technically, I don't see how they *can* enact such a ban. But that said, I can imagine they would shoehorn it in under OSHA guidelines, Health & Safety in the workplace, etc.

    That method works fairly often, especially against known / imagined boogeymen like cigarette smoking. I'm strongly anti-smoking. I like the ban. But I am concerned that it's legally unenforceable and may be outright illegal. Thing is, smoking is know to be bad, especially when you account for the additives in the products.

    So it moves to a question of *can* the government step in to protect us from a product that may be harmful to our health? Then add in the tangled net of employment. It's not always easy to find another job, especially in this economy. So you may be forced to work in an environment that is ostensibly proven to be hazardous to your health because you cannot afford to get a better job that doesn't put you in the way of smoking. So in such a catch-22 scenario, who *can* you turn to for assistance to help you out of a no-win situation?

    As for private property, whenever I'm going over to a friend's house, I always make sure they are okay with me carrying before I walk onto their property. Their house, their rules. I'm a guest. Thus I have fewer rights on their property than I do on mine. Since it's not my property, I must abide by the host's rules.

    Those places that are private property open to the public have chosen to accept the public "as-is" and thus I don't ask first. If they don't want me carrying, it is incumbent upon them to duly inform me. Again, since it's not my property, I must abide by the host's rules.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    bohdi wrote:
    ..."bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".
    I did not know you held electiveoffice, bohdi....

    I didn't know I did either

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    bohdi wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    bohdi wrote:
    ..."bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".
    I did not know you held electiveÂ*office, bohdi....

    Â*
    I didn't know I did either
    I didn't know you were married.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    bohdi wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    bohdi wrote:
    ..."bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".
    I did not know you held electiveoffice, bohdi....

    I didn't know I did either
    I didn't know you were married.
    Doesn't have to be his wife. Could be anybody's...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    I charge $50 an hour, and I don't descriminate. I'll beat anyone's wife for that money . One hour up front, regardless if it takes a full hour or 30 seconds

    I am KIDDING.....I am not contract for hire wife beater, or any other type of wife beater.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    kasteer71 wrote:
    Well, I don't like it.Â* Â* But ok.Â*

    I'm all for private property rights, and comprehend that part of it.Â* It's just the 2A part and the right to defend oursleves that gets me.Â* I'll let it sink in on the drive home today.Â*
    It's really simple... you have a right to bear arms, which means the government can't infringe upon that.

    I have a right to do what I will with my property, which means ejecting whomever I please. Including ejecting people whom I would otherwise allow except for they are violating whatever arbitrary policy I've decided to enforce (no shirt, no shoes!).

    If you were to use government to prevent me from ejecting whomever I pleased, you would be abrogating my property rights.

    I have a first amendment right to free religious practice, and free speech. By your reasoning, I ought to be able to go stand on your front lawn and worship allah while advocating jihad against the US (not that I would do that, of course). Because, hey, I have first amendment rights, right?

    I mean, after all, I'm all for private property rights, it's just my first amendment right to speak freely that gets me. Why should you be able to tell me to stop preaching jihad on your property? Right?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    kasteer71 wrote:

    A private property owner can not committ an unreasonable search and seazure.

    Of course they can. Many sporting events search coolers and often at concerts purses are searched; hell, many banks now require patrons to remove their hats and sunglasses...

    But, you do have a choice - just don't patronize.

    Carry on

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    You make good points. I hadn't pieced it together like that yet.

    Many sporting events search coolers and often at concerts purses are searched; hell, many banks now require patrons to remove their hats and sunglasses...
    You makea great point about event locations. I hadn't heard of banks doing that!



    If you were to use government to prevent me from ejecting whomever I pleased...
    Like I said, I'm all about private property rights. I was only looking for more clarification on this subject as it was an unclear area for me. Couldn't get my head around it... but I think I've got it straight now.



    Thanks to everyone for chiming in on this and helping me see the light.

    Hopefully nobody's wife has been beaten in the process of this thread... :P



  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I understand. My use of yourself and myself in my hypotheticals is merely a rhetorical technique, in no way a reference to your actual opinions on the matter.

    That is to say, I put "you" in the hypothetical scenarios not because I believe you personally wish to abrogate my rights (in fact I'm sure you do respect my rights), only because it's a more direct way to bring my comparisons home in trying to show the ramifications of rights and how they affect one another.

  21. #21
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    Just my two cents; In all fairness to freedom and constitutional rights the property owner, as well as the business owner should have the main say on what is allowed on their property except in the case of allowing illegal acts. IE: Drug’s, Prostitution, Murder, or anything against what is mandatory law as to the establishment of ABC licenses and so forth. This is a sore subject for me but other than the proceeding, the government should have no say in what the owners allow. IMOA I believe the government overstepped its bounds with the no smoking laws in restaurants. To me this is a giant wrong if someone didn’t want to be in a restaurant allowing smoking they have the choice to go some where else. Now I have thought about it in depth and considered this would be an opening to make it against the law for business owners to disallow legal weapons carry. To me this is a life or death health issue as some would consider smoking, but again this would be a wrong. I believe we all have heard two rights don’t make a wrong and that would be the issue in this case and I really don’t want to stoop down on the liberal’s level. I guess for now we will just have to educate the public as much as we can as well as the business owners. If they just cant seem to see our side, we will just have to deal with what non smokers should have to do and that is take our business else where.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Hendu024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    447

    Post imported post

    kasteer71 wrote:
    darthmord wrote:
    kasteer71 wrote:
    ok. What about that security guard that tried to evict a "BG" from the store he was securing (he ended up using pepper spray and getting charged with assault)? The guy was told not to return, did and was told to leave again. He didn't....

    A private property owner can't take away your right to a trial by jury.

    A private property owner can not committ an unreasonable search and seazure.

    I def agree with 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'! But how does that trump my 2A right? Maybe I'm being rediculous, but I see my house a little different than my storefront restaurant (if I had one). If someone is being unlawful no problem, but if someone is not breaking a law... How can that stand up? As far as a home property goes, tresspassing would apply, but a business? I think personal rights should trump corporate/business rights (I don't know of any business rights in the constitution).

    Not trying to be difficult here. I thought about it and can't justify in my head a violation of the 2A. If I'm outa line, please let me know.

    On the part in bold above, if you owned a storefront you would understand the concept behind it. My storefront is like my 2nd home... wow now that I wrote that, I see I'm here waaay too much... Anyways, I guess you could say the feeling is different for a manager who works for a large corporate chain, but I've put blood, sweat, and tears (along with a ridiculous amount of time) into my business, and I'll be d@mned if someone's rights trumped mine on that piece of property, inside that building. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Hendu024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    447

    Post imported post

    jmlefler wrote:
    kasteer71 wrote:

    A private property owner can not committ an unreasonable search and seazure.

    Of course they can. Many sporting events search coolers and often at concerts purses are searched; hell, many banks now require patrons to remove their hats and sunglasses...

    But, you do have a choice - just don't patronize.

    Carry on
    Yeah I was in Navy Federal a few weeks back and saw the little sign on top of the counter, "No hats, no sunglasses, no hoods." I pretended to ignore it and kept my baseball hat on. I walked up to the counter, and the lady said in a loud obnoxious voice "SIR, did you not see that sign? You need to please remove your hat." I took my hat off and said "Oh, I suppose this doesn't make me a bank robber anymore." and gave her kind of a crazy smile. I thought it was hilarious. She, on the other hand, obviously didn't have my sense of humor. I don't think she got the point I was trying to make either. Oh well.

    I try not to patronize non-OC friendly places, but all my business accounts are through Navy Fed, so I just use the drive through instead of going into the defense-free zone inside.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    kennys wrote:
    Just my two cents; In all fairness to freedom and constitutional rights the property owner, as well as the business owner should have the main say on what is allowed on their property except in the case of allowing illegal acts. IE: Drug’s, Prostitution, Murder, or anything against what is mandatory law as to the establishment of ABC licenses and so forth. This is a sore subject for me but other than the proceeding, the government should have no say in what the owners allow. IMOA I believe the government overstepped its bounds with the no smoking laws in restaurants. To me this is a giant wrong if someone didn’t want to be in a restaurant allowing smoking they have the choice to go some where else. Now I have thought about it in depth and considered this would be an opening to make it against the law for business owners to disallow legal weapons carry. To me this is a life or death health issue as some would consider smoking, but again this would be a wrong. I believe we all have heard two rights don’t make a wrong and that would be the issue in this case and I really don’t want to stoop down on the liberal’s level. I guess for now we will just have to educate the public as much as we can as well as the business owners. If they just cant seem to see our side, we will just have to deal with what non smokers should have to do and that is take our business else where.
    Very well stated. Also, very much along my thought process. I too do not want to suggest stepping on anyone else's right, nor do I support gov overstepping it's legal bounds.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Hendu024 wrote:
    kasteer71 wrote:
    darthmord wrote:
    kasteer71 wrote:
    ok. What about that security guard that tried to evict a "BG" from the store he was securing (he ended up using pepper spray and getting charged with assault)? The guy was told not to return, did and was told to leave again. He didn't....

    A private property owner can't take away your right to a trial by jury.

    A private property owner can not committ an unreasonable search and seazure.

    I def agree with 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'! But how does that trump my 2A right? Maybe I'm being rediculous, but I see my house a little different than my storefront restaurant (if I had one). If someone is being unlawful no problem, but if someone is not breaking a law... How can that stand up? As far as a home property goes, tresspassing would apply, but a business? I think personal rights should trump corporate/business rights (I don't know of any business rights in the constitution).

    Not trying to be difficult here. I thought about it and can't justify in my head a violation of the 2A. If I'm outa line, please let me know.

    On the part in bold above, if you owned a storefront you would understand the concept behind it. My storefront is like my 2nd home... wow now that I wrote that, I see I'm here waaay too much... Anyways, I guess you could say the feeling is different for a manager who works for a large corporate chain, but I've put blood, sweat, and tears (along with a ridiculous amount of time) into my business, and I'll be d@mned if someone's rights trumped mine on that piece of property, inside that building. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
    Very well stated! You make A LOT of sense and I appreciate your view point. I do not have that experience and appreciate you sharing it with me.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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