• 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"

N6ATF

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

ChinChin 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?

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.

Littering and vandalism. Both accepted restrictions on the 1A.

Ejecting people who break the law is one thing; prohibiting the law-abiding from having the best chance at staying alive is another.

The legal standard for No Guns signs on businesses should be "Murder/Suicide Zone, DIE NOW, PLEASE."
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

I have long held a position that compromises property rights somewhat.

My philosophy is that if you invite the general public i.e. retail establishments then you should be quasi-public. That is private owned but subject to many of the same laws/rules as any public facility. It is not a particularly popular line of reasoning, but one that I think has merit.

My point of contention is that I do not think that I should need be a member of a protected class to retain my rights under the Constitution and the exercising my 2A rights does NOT put me in a protected class.

Private property would remain as your home or any organization/entity that does NOT invite the general public.

Seems easy to me.

Yata hey
 

Steve B

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

If public IS invited in, yet "No Firearms", isn't that the same as "No Blacks", "No women", "No Christians", etc. Seems to me that IS discrimination, dis-allowing a particular group
 

ChinChin

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

Steve B wrote:
If public IS invited in, yet "No Firearms", isn't that the same as "No Blacks", "No women", "No Christians", etc. Seems to me that IS discrimination, dis-allowing a particular group

Apples and oranges. A firearm is a material object. Black, female and christian are catoegories of people. People have protections against discrimination, material objects do not.

Banning firearms is no different than the "No hats, no hoods" policies banks have.
 

ChinChin

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

Grapeshot wrote:
I have long held a position that compromises property rights somewhat.

My philosophy is that if you invite the general public i.e. retail establishments then you should be quasi-public. That is private owned but subject to many of the same laws/rules as any public facility. It is not a particularly popular line of reasoning, but one that I think has merit.

My point of contention is that I do not think that I should need be a member of a protected class to retain my rights under the Constitution and the exercising my 2A rights does NOT put me in a protected class.

Private property would remain as your home or any organization/entity that does NOT invite the general public.

Seems easy to me.

Yata hey

Consider the venues which host gunshows.The venues (private property)ban loaded firearms inside their private property for liability reasons. Should an ND take place inside the venue owner can be liable for the unsafe actions of others. I've seen people at the Dulles gunshow do really stupid things with firearms and act the fool (to include shooting the cement floor and hitting another vendor in the leg) .

As a property owner I don't want to have any civil liability for the stupidity of others which is not under my control.
 

N6ATF

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

ChinChin wrote:
Steve B wrote:
If public IS invited in, yet "No Firearms", isn't that the same as "No Blacks", "No women", "No Christians", etc.   Seems to me that IS discrimination, dis-allowing a particular group

Apples and oranges.  A firearm is a material object.  Black, female and christian are catoegories of people.  People have protections against discrimination, material objects do not.

Banning firearms is no different than the "No hats, no hoods" policies banks have.

Hats and hoods don't save lives. These signs give carte blanche to criminals.
 

ChinChin

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

N6ATF wrote:
ChinChin wrote:
Steve B wrote:
If public IS invited in, yet "No Firearms", isn't that the same as "No Blacks", "No women", "No Christians", etc. Seems to me that IS discrimination, dis-allowing a particular group

Apples and oranges. A firearm is a material object. Black, female and christian are catoegories of people. People have protections against discrimination, material objects do not.

Banning firearms is no different than the "No hats, no hoods" policies banks have.

Hats and hoods don't save lives. These signs give carte blanche to criminals.
And dogs have four legs; but none of that is relevant to this discussion. The question posed was "is the banning of firearms a form of discrimination similar to banning a race of people, a gender of people or a religious sect of people? " The answer to that question is quite simply no.

The signs banningfireamrs are no different than a gun. . .a sign is an inanimate object. It's the mentality of the people who authorize the signs being put up that give carte balance to the criminals. However it still remainsthe lawfulright of the property owner to dictate what is and is not allowed on their property; despite the fact that it doesn't prevent the crimes they hope it will. It is the consumer's right to take their business and their currency to another trade peddler if they dislike the rules of that property owner.
 

N6ATF

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

ChinChin wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
ChinChin wrote:
Steve B wrote:
If public IS invited in, yet "No Firearms", isn't that the same as "No Blacks", "No women", "No Christians", etc. Seems to me that IS discrimination, dis-allowing a particular group

Apples and oranges. A firearm is a material object. Black, female and christian are catoegories of people. People have protections against discrimination, material objects do not.

Banning firearms is no different than the "No hats, no hoods" policies banks have.

Hats and hoods don't save lives. These signs give carte blanche to criminals.
And dogs have four legs; but none of that is relevant to this discussion. The question posed was "is the banning of firearms a form of discrimination similar to banning a race of people, a gender of people or a religious sect of people? " The answer to that question is quite simply no.

The signs banningfireamrs are no different than a gun. . .a sign is an inanimate object. It's the mentality of the people who authorize the signs being put up that give carte balance to the criminals. However it still remainsthe lawfulright of the property owner to dictate what is and is not allowed on their property; despite the fact that it doesn't prevent the crimes they hope it will. It is the consumer's right to take their business and their currency to another trade peddler if they dislike the rules of that property owner.
If it was simple, this wouldn't be up for debate.

These signs are the owner's way of saying All Criminals Welcome, All Law-Abiding Citizens, Prepare To Die.

Property owners should not be allowed to tell people to commit suicidal acts.

Voluntary disarmament is suicidal.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

ChinChin wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
I have long held a position that compromises property rights somewhat.

My philosophy is that if you invite the general public i.e. retail establishments then you should be quasi-public. That is private owned but subject to many of the same laws/rules as any public facility. It is not a particularly popular line of reasoning, but one that I think has merit.

My point of contention is that I do not think that I should need be a member of a protected class to retain my rights under the Constitution and the exercising my 2A rights does NOT put me in a protected class.

Private property would remain as your home or any organization/entity that does NOT invite the general public.

Seems easy to me.

Yata hey
Consider the venues which host gunshows.The venues (private property)ban loaded firearms inside their private property for liability reasons. Should an ND take place inside the venue owner can be liable for the unsafe actions of others. I've seen people at the Dulles gunshow do really stupid things with firearms and act the fool (to include shooting the cement floor and hitting another vendor in the leg) .

As a property owner I don't want to have any civil liability for the stupidity of others which is not under my control.
Gun show admittance and unloaded guns is controlled generally by contractual agreement - one buys a ticket and agrees to honor certain rules thereby, it is a bit like a one day membership/permission slip.

True quasi-public can also be put into the position potential liability for failure to protect if they intentionally and specifically disarm legal patrons. Yes I know this would require a new law so stating.

Yata hey
 

ChinChin

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

N6ATF wrote:
If it was simple, this wouldn't be up for debate.

These signs are the owner's way of saying All Criminals Welcome, All Law-Abiding Citizens, Prepare To Die.

Property owners should not be allowed to tell people to commit suicidal acts.

Voluntary disarmament is suicidal.
No property owner is telling people to commit suicidal acts; "people" have free will and are able to enter a store forbidding firearms, or not enter them and take business elsewhere. It's "people's" choice as to opt to continue to frequent that establishment or go elsewhere.

As a property owner, their rights to dictate what is allowable on their property trumps your 2nd amendment right. That is fact. If you don't like that fact then petition your local government to have that law put into place that your rights override the rights of a private property owner, and let us know how that worked out for you.
 

N6ATF

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

Grapeshot wrote:
ChinChin wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
I have long held a position that compromises property rights somewhat.

My philosophy is that if you invite the general public i.e. retail establishments then you should be quasi-public. That is private owned but subject to many of the same laws/rules as any public facility. It is not a particularly popular line of reasoning, but one that I think has merit.

My point of contention is that I do not think that I should need be a member of a protected class to retain my rights under the Constitution and the exercising my 2A rights does NOT put me in a protected class.

Private property would remain as your home or any organization/entity that does NOT invite the general public.

Seems easy to me.

Yata hey
Consider the venues which host gunshows.The venues (private property)ban loaded firearms inside their private property for liability reasons. Should an ND take place inside the venue owner can be liable for the unsafe actions of others. I've seen people at the Dulles gunshow do really stupid things with firearms and act the fool (to include shooting the cement floor and hitting another vendor in the leg) .

As a property owner I don't want to have any civil liability for the stupidity of others which is not under my control.
Gun show admittance and unloaded guns is controlled generally by contractual agreement - one buys a ticket and agrees to honor certain rules thereby, it is a bit like a one day membership/permission slip.

True quasi-public can also be put into the position potential liability for failure to protect if they intentionally and specifically disarm legal patrons. Yes I know this would require a new law so stating.

Yata hey
Why a new law? Simply charge under the existing laws. For example, accomplice to MURDER.

Property rights should not be used to justify aiding and abetting murderers, and compelling their victims to commit suicidal acts such as disarmament. Even if the victims don't realize it.

If I were to own a business, put up a sign saying No Guns, and the statistical probability that it will be a massacre scene comes true, I would confess to aiding and abetting the mass murder on the ABC Nightly News. There is no other way to atone for this sin against human life.
 

N6ATF

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

Bill in VA wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
Why a new law? Simply charge under the existing laws. For example, accomplice to MURDER.

Property rights should not be used to justify aiding and abetting murderers, and compelling their victims to commit suicidal acts such as disarmament. Even if the victims don't realize it.

If I were to own a business, put up a sign saying No Guns, and the statistical probability that it will be a massacre scene comes true, I would confess to aiding and abetting the mass murder on the ABC Nightly News. There is no other way to atone for this sin against human life.

I'm still trying to make sense of your reaction to all of this. I find it remarkable that someone who is legally required to go about his daily business unarmed is making such a fuss about being disarmed by someone other than his own government. Dosen't Kalifornia generallyrequire that if carry a gun you must carry it unloaded?

How is being disarmed by a property owner any different than being disarmed by your home state? IMHO an unloaded gun is a blunt-force weapon, kind of like a rock. (Maybe that's why Superman always ducked when the bad guy threw the gun at him?) Since Kaliforniarequires thatyou carry an unloaded gun, if you decide to carry, you're just as unarmed as if you carried nothing. Where is the difference? Why aren't you making a fuss at home?Why are you trolling in the Virginia forum? Why isn't anyone charing the Governor, the Kalifornia state legislative representatives, or the city council members with murder? Aren't they just as guilty as your alleged store/home owner since they have disarmed you and thusabrogated your rights?

I see/hear from youa lot of fairly unsubstanntive whining from you, and most of it isabout your rights, but nothing about others' rights. PS, you may also want to double-check your facts on just what the statisitcal probability of getting caught up in "massacre" not of your own making. I seriously doubt the risk is anywhere near as prevalent as you claim.
Yawn, state-based insults, repeating trolling FUD (blunt-force weapon) posted and thoroughly debunked on the CA forum and Calguns.net.

The government is more guilty, as they don't want anyone except criminals (themselves) and campaign contributors armed. Business owners are only responsible for their corner of the world. At least in theory, since they will try to get away with no liability whatsoever for the result of their pro-victim-disarmament, pro-massacre policies.

John Lott would seem to disagree with your last two sentences.
 

N6ATF

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

Bill in VA wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
Yawn, ....yada yada yada...
John Lott would seem to disagree with your last two sentences.

"Yawn" is right. Answer the questions. How is being disarmed by a property owner any different than being disarmed by your home state? Why do you make such a fuss over property owners but not over the state? As far as John Lott, I don't recall you posting any specific statistics over how likely it is that one will be caught up in a "massacre" (your words, not mine, and I doubt Dr. Lott's either.) You're trolling over here, pure and simple.

If you want to at least sound like you know what you're talking about in regards to COnsitutional rights, read the Constitution. It's chock full of property rights.
Guess you don't want to comprehend my last reply.

/unwatch topic
 
Top