2A rights vs "No Gun sign"

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

imported post

bohdi wrote:

..."bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".

Click to expand...

I did not know you held electiveoffice, bohdi....

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]

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

HankT wrote:

bohdi wrote:

..."bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".

Click to expand...

I did not know you held electiveoffice, bohdi....

Click to expand...

I didn't know I did either

imported post

bohdi wrote:

HankT wrote:

bohdi wrote:

..."bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".

Click to expand...

I did not know you held elective office, bohdi....

 

Click to expand...

I didn't know I did either

Click to expand...

I didn't know you were married.:lol:

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

bohdi wrote:

HankT wrote:

bohdi wrote:

..."bohdi is a wife beating, theiving, unscrupulous senator".

Click to expand...

I did not know you held electiveoffice, bohdi....

Click to expand...

I didn't know I did either

Click to expand...

I didn't know you were married.:lol:

Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be his wife. Could be anybody's...

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.

imported 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. 

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

kasteer71 wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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

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...

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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...

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.