• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

2A rights vs "No Gun sign"

kennys

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Ruther Glen Va
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.
 

Hendu024

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
445
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Hendu024

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
445
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
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.
 

kasteer

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
30
Location
Midlothian, Va
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.
 

kasteer

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
30
Location
Midlothian, Va
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.
 

kasteer

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
30
Location
Midlothian, Va
imported post

A little background...

This entire year has been a new experience for me. For some reason... I was compelled to pay attention to politics this year and I've never been interested in it before. So, I guess I've exposed myself to MANY new laws,the constitution, you name it... and I've had to piece everything together. I've realizedI leanlibertarian Conservativeand believe in following the constitution. But that doesn't always provide clear vision how things are applied in the real world.

I moved back down from MD a year ago into Va and am VERY glad I can carry again. I've already received my CC permit. I believe in the 2A and I believe it's been chipped away at far too much.

I found this website/forum to be very educational and valuable. Thank you all.
 

PoppaGary

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
119
Location
Vancouver, Washington, USA
imported post

darthmord wrote:
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.

The Loonie Lefties in power right now justify the smoking and other such bans and even the health care "reform" bill by either the Preamble to the Constitution (promote the general Welfare) and/or the Commerce clause of same. Ever since Wickard v. Filburn the Government thinks it can control just about anything.

How far we have come......

Gary
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

Refuse service all you want, but if you tell the .gov to trespass a law-abiding gun owner during business hours merely for that fact, and they do, then they are infringing. If you don't want law-abiding citizens in your business, have a controlled access door with a mandatory strip-search.

Can't have rights if you're dead.
 

kasteer

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
30
Location
Midlothian, Va
imported post

ok guys. Got a new form of the question for you...

What about the businesses partially owned by our gov now... Such as GM and some banks. If it's partially gov owned is it still private or is it public? At what point does it become public if it isn't?

I'm sure one of you will be all over this.

Thanks,

Eric
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

The Constitution is a limitation on the governmental powers. Not on individuals. Your constitutional protections don't mean spit as against another citizen. Your rights pretty much stop at his border, and if you don't like it, you can stay off his land.
 

Steve B

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
30
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

Just my opinion, so, let me know what you think----if public is openly invited in, as a store, restaurant and such, then "private property" shouldn't apply, as long as other laws are followed. The same rules SHOULD apply as for the sidewalk in front of such places (OC or CC) If the local Wal~mart leaves their doors open to general public to enter anytime they want, shouldn't it be the same as being "in public" Using Wal~mart as an example only, as I have had no problem with carrying on their property
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

user wrote:
The Constitution is a limitation on the governmental powers. Not on individuals. Your constitutional protections don't mean spit as against another citizen. Your rights pretty much stop at his border, and if you don't like it, you can stay off his land.
HALLELUJAH BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Steve B wrote:
Just my opinion, so, let me know what you think----if public is openly invited in, as a store, restaurant and such, then "private property" shouldn't apply, as long as other laws are followed. The same rules SHOULD apply as for the sidewalk in front of such places (OC or CC) If the local Wal~mart leaves their doors open to general public to enter anytime they want, shouldn't it be the same as being "in public" Using Wal~mart as an example only, as I have had no problem with carrying on their property
One of the reasons this country is on the rocks is because the government sticks it's nose in every part of private enterprise and anytime someone doesn't agree with a private company's rules, they go crying to momma.

If you don't like the rules, don't spend money there, encourage others to NOT spend money there. Hell, I do it all the time.

If you want the government to control it all, move to Venezuela. Im sure Chavez will tell those nasty business people to let you rewrite their rules.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Steve B wrote:
Just my opinion, so, let me know what you think----if public is openly invited in, as a store, restaurant and such, then "private property" shouldn't apply, as long as other laws are followed. The same rules SHOULD apply as for the sidewalk in front of such places (OC or CC) If the local Wal~mart leaves their doors open to general public to enter anytime they want, shouldn't it be the same as being "in public" Using Wal~mart as an example only, as I have had no problem with carrying on their property.
One problem with your scenario is that the government does not generally compel people to enter another's private property.

Since the Bill of Rights applies only to the govenment, and there is no governmental cause for you to enter the gun-banned property, the rights are not infringed.

In short, if you don't want to give up your gun, then don't go there. As long as there is no government-imposed consequence for not going there, then there is no constitutional issue.

TFred
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
imported post

The simplest (or most complicated) solution is to establish a third type of property: 'Public access' or 'Business'. This would be any business that is open to the public. Rights would be blended.
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
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?

Wanting to have the legal right/ability to lawfully carry a firearm on private property is very much a 2-edged sword that cuts both ways.

Let’s say you work hard for many years and after saving up and a little help from a business loan you decide to open your own business. It’s yours. You pay the bills, you buy the inventory to sell to the public, hire employees, pay taxes and are a good citizen for hiring local talent and helping the economy. Yours is a gun store where you sell firearms and firearm related material. The same day you open your store is the same day lawmakers/a law proposition passes which says the constitutional rights of an individual cannot be denied on private property by the deed owner/business manager/representative of same/etc.


After being in business for a year and making a nice profit you find out one of your regular customers just snapped one day and shot his wife and kids. ]It was all over the news, made national headlines for the brutality and your store is identified as the shop that sold him the shotgun he took his 3-year girl’s head off with.

Now here I come, all high and mighty against guns and the 2[suP]nd[/suP] amendment. I think guns are the root of all of society’s problems and because I hear yours is the store that sold the guy his shotgun I start to poster your store with anti 2[suP]nd[/suP] amendment propaganda posters, crime scene photos of the decapitated little girl and encourage people with these images to not frequent your store.

Because of that law which passed the same day you opened your business, it’s my first amendment right of free speech to have all that up and because of that law should you remove them or bar me from putting them up you will be guilty of denying my constitutional 1[suP]st[/suP] amendment right of free speech on your private property.

You begin to lose even more business because people don’t want to be associated with your store and the posters and photos I put up compound the issue to the point that your business fails. ]Yes the store and the land it sits on belongs to you; but you don’t have any say on the material which is put up outside.

Now imagine it’s your home and the guy down the street wants to place a NAMBLA support poster on your front lawn. ]Or it’s the lady across the road who wants to put a “Re-elect Obama ‘12” campaign poster on your porch.

As a private property owner (both a home and a business) that frightens me to no end.

 
Top