• 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.

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
That's essentially my argument.

People can do whatever they please, but they will be held liable once their actions transgress against others.

The reason they may be held liable is that such transgressions fall outside the purview of 'right'. This is by definition.

I suspect that what I'm arguing is really very elementary to yourself, and so you're inclined to take it to the next stage. Which is fine, and I agree with you fully.

I'm just trying to be clear on the semantical uses of "right" et al.
What you guys are suggestting is totally counter to the PC doctrine in vogue now.
rolleyes.gif
Yes, it is. Hence my initial "It's good to know two wrongs finally make a right" remark. ;)
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Banning guns because someone MAY do something bad is like banning speech because someone MAY say something bad... preemptive laws and actions are usually always bad and wrong and we should avoid them as much as possible.
OK, I missed this part.

When it comes to a state ban, I agree completely. Mere possession of a firearm does not constitute an act of aggression, and so preemptive laws against it are invalid/immoral/contrary to right.

But, does not the private property owner retain the discretion to trespass those who violate his own rules of conduct on his own property?

Is it not equally preemptive to prohibit this discretion, instead of merely applying liability to said discretion the instant it results in harm?
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
That's essentially my argument.

People can do whatever they please, but they will be held liable once their actions transgress against others.

The reason they may be held liable is that such transgressions fall outside the purview of 'right'. This is by definition.

I suspect that what I'm arguing is really very elementary to yourself, and so you're inclined to take it to the next stage. Which is fine, and I agree with you fully.

I'm just trying to be clear on the semantic uses of "right" et al.
What you guys are suggesting is totally counter to the PC doctrine in vogue now.
rolleyes.gif
Of course it is... but one must remember, a right not used is one that will soon be lost as those who hate all Liberty will perceive that no one cares about that right and they can then ban it. There are a good deal of control freaks in this country whose primary goal seems to be to get into some position of law making so they can impose their views on everyone else... these people are dangerous and should never be allowed to be in public office... but we have a long way to go to argue for true Liberty as most sheeple in this country have lost sight of what that truly is.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

This is a great video, ceasefire says more guns more gun violence, Judge Andrew says More guns less gun violence, they just needed to show something tangible to the ceasefire guys to re-enforce that. I think thats one of the roadblocks and the media needs to force-feed the true statistics down the publics throat.Nice to see them list some places that allow OC. I don't think this denies any private establishment that caters to the public, from denying service to anyone who is deserving of being made to leave. If I am open carry, and someone does not like it and I am being civil unlike the oc guy at the starbucks meet, then I should be allowed to receive the service that is offered at the establishment. If someone says something and I partake of the argument instead of filing a complaint to the management, then I should be kicked out. The screaming and yelling is annoying.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Banning guns because someone MAY do something bad is like banning speech because someone MAY say something bad... preemptive laws and actions are usually always bad and wrong and we should avoid them as much as possible.
OK, I missed this part.

When it comes to a state ban, I agree completely. Mere possession of a firearm does not constitute an act of aggression, and so preemptive laws against it are invalid/immoral/contrary to right.

But, does not the private property owner retain the discretion to trespass those who violate his own rules of conduct on his own property?

Is it not equally preemptive to prohibit this discretion, instead of merely applying liability to said discretion the instant it results in harm?
If you keep your property private, you are correct, However when you open it up to the public, as in a retail store, a sports arena. etc, then you have made your property public and you loose the private privilege.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Can a business ban someone who wears an Obama shirt into there business (again, only business that open their doors to the general public) jurisprudence in this area says they can not. Free speech wins in this case.
Got a cite or two for that?
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote
But, does not the private property owner retain the discretion to trespass those who violate his own rules of conduct on his own property?
Sure, when those rules do not violate our most basic fundamental rights AND the property is not an "ALL" public access facility. If we're talking about a private company which has no public access i.e. Microsoft which requires everyone to "BUZZ" into all of its buildings, then... they have a right to ban anyone from those "access restricted" areas they want, however, Microsoft cannot ban you from carrying concealed right up to the receptionist in their public lobbies.

More to the point, in the areas which are considered to be "ALL" public access, the owner is limited to who he can trespass and why he can trespass. If someone is actively bothering customers by getting in their face and threatening them or actively bothering them... he can be trespassed. But you cannot trespass a person just because you don't like his color can you? At least not in a public access place. And in the same way, if you don't need a pass or permission to get in to a place, the proprietor of the place should not be able to trespass you for exercising a fundamental right.

In the past, I've taken the same position as you and thought that property owners should be able to trespass anyone from their property for any reason... then I realized that places that are considered "ALL" public access must comply with the social contract that is our most basic and fundamental agreement codified in our Constitution. Private property with no public access can do as you say, private property with unlimited public access cannot. What can I say, my understanding of our most basic social contract is beginning to evolve.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

I see your point, but I'm disinclined to agree with the standard line of thought as to what constitutes "public access".

A parking lot is clearly not a curtilage or a place where people ought to be arbitrary denied entry for reasons not connected to specific harm of the property.

But what about McDonalds? How does that door, that threshold which must be crossed, not signify an entrance into the private sphere?

Your position leaves no middle ground between "parking lot" and "door buzzer".

I will not abandon my conceit that, justly, that threshold creates a line whereby a property owner may rightly allow and prohibit behavior at will.

I fail to see why, as a matter of right and law, that door buzzer ought to give the property owner rights which would lack were the buzzer also to be lacking. Why should we have so little respect for his property that we do not consider it private until he excludes, by default, everyone?

Why may he not be permitted to allow, by default, everyone, yet still enforce rules on his side of that voluntarily-crossed threshold?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
What can I say, my understanding of our most basic social contract is beginning to evolve.
This remains to be demonstrated. As yet, your reference to the social contract is little more than a blind appeal to authority.

You've yet to convince.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
Can a business ban someone who wears an Obama shirt into there business (again, only business that open their doors to the general public) jurisprudence in this area says they can not. Free speech wins in this case.
Got a cite or two for that?

First, in practice we know this to be true and yes I am being overly broad in this case.

The case would be Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins which the Suprem Court (US) held:

"A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center."
 

N6ATF

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

marshaul wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Banning guns because someone MAY do something bad is like banning speech because someone MAY say something bad... preemptive laws and actions are usually always bad and wrong and we should avoid them as much as possible.
OK, I missed this part.

When it comes to a state ban, I agree completely. Mere possession of a firearm does not constitute an act of aggression, and so preemptive laws against it are invalid/immoral/contrary to right.

But, does not the private property owner retain the discretion to trespass those who violate his own rules of conduct on his own property?

Is it not equally preemptive to prohibit this discretion, instead of merely applying liability to said discretion the instant it results in harm?
Hmm, conduct is an interesting word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduct
the act, manner, or process of carrying on : management <praised for his conduct of the campaign>
a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles <questionable conduct>

If the owner's rules of conduct prohibit the lawful behavior and act of carrying a gun based on the moral principle that one will defend life, then the owner's rules are that criminals shall reign within. A government serving the people would not approve and allow of of such an "anything goes" zone, since private property rights do not extend to criminal enterprise, and at least in legal theory, crime buildings can be condemned and destroyed.

But as we know so well, our government serves criminals at the expense of everyone else.
 

ghosthunter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
283
Location
MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
imported post

Iam interested in this. If it came to pass that the right to carry a firearm oc or cc into anyproperty open to the public as a basic right. How would this effect Costco?

Costco is a membership only business.Costco could not exclude someone because they are black.
 

phoneguy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
447
Location
, ,
imported post

ghosthunter wrote:
I am interested in this. If it came to pass that the right to carry a firearm oc or cc into any property open to the public as a basic right. How would this effect Costco?

Costco is a membership only business. Costco could not exclude someone because they are black.  
You do not need to be a "Costco member" to purchase prescriptions from the pharmacy.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

N6ATF wrote:
If the owner's rules of conduct prohibit the lawful behavior and act of carrying a gun based on the moral principle that one will defend life, then the owner's rules are that criminals shall reign within. A government serving the people would not approve and allow of of such an "anything goes" zone, since private property rights do not extend to criminal enterprise, and at least in legal theory, crime buildings can be condemned and destroyed.

But as we know so well, our government serves criminals at the expense of everyone else.
Your conclusion does not follow.

What if the owner has hired security, who do not engage in criminal behavior of their own?

What if the owner has implemented sufficient means to prevent criminals from successfully bringing weapons into his establishment?

Also, WFL argued that even shouting "Fire!" ought to be perfectly fine so long as nobody gets up from their seats (I agree).

Why ought the private proprietor not be allowed to prohibit whatever, and be held liable in the event criminal activity occurs, but otherwise be in the right so long as no criminal activity occurs?

You've taken the argument to a point where I think probabilities are no longer sufficient. For your premise to be valid, Peet's would have to be victimized as a result of their policy. Has their policy automatically caused crime? Or does it merely leave the door open for a potentiality?
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs,

First, in practice we know this to be true and yes I am being overly broad in this case.

That's fine for yourself, but does nothing to further the understanding of anyone else here; that's why we have such a strong tradition here of providing citations in evidence of claims.
The case would be Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins which the Supreme Court (US) held:

"A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center."
Thanks, that's more helpful.

Unfortunately, it's pretty weak tea: it says a state can prohibit owners, not that it must (so what's the case here in WA); and furthermore in referencing the "open areas of shopping centers" it still very much leaves open the question of the premises of individual businesses.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
In the past, I've taken the same position as you and thought that property owners should be able to trespass anyone from their property for any reason... then I realized that places that are considered "ALL" public access must comply with the social contract that is our most basic and fundamental agreement codified in our Constitution.
So what about the property owner who wants to operate a nice restaurant. What if he does not allow customers to enter without certain types of dress specifically to attract a better class of patron and allow them to enjoy a nice meal? I am referring to jacket and tie type places. Why should he be forced to admit people wearing nothing but a pair of sandals and shorts with no shirt?

My personal opinion, although it hurts me right now as a carrier, is that property rights should be absolute. Don't like your looks, get out of my business. The proper way to punish the businesses that enact arbitrary or offensive bans on classes of people would be to refuse to do business with them, much like we do here on the board.
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

"What if he does not allow customers to enter without certain types of dress specifically to attract a better class of patron and allow them to enjoy a nice meal? I am referring to jacket and tie type places."

They would likely have to become "club style" because at that point, and as a club, they could say that doing this, wearing that, or not having your gun, is part of belonging to, or retaining privilege to that club. So businesses that were either coat and tie, or seriously ant-gun could utilise a membership system to curtail their environmental conditions, at that point they are not "open to the general public".
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Batousaii wrote:
"What if he does not allow customers to enter without certain types of dress specifically to attract a better class of patron and allow them to enjoy a nice meal? I am referring to jacket and tie type places."

They would likely have to become "club style" because at that point, and as a club, they could say that doing this, wearing that, or not having your gun, is part of belonging to, or retaining privilege to that club. So businesses that were either coat and tie, or seriously ant-gun could utilise a membership system to curtail their environmental conditions, at that point they are not "open to the general public".
So to operate a nice restaurant you have to only be open to members? Seems sort of silly.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

heresolong wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
In the past, I've taken the same position as you and thought that property owners should be able to trespass anyone from their property for any reason... then I realized that places that are considered "ALL" public access must comply with the social contract that is our most basic and fundamental agreement codified in our Constitution.
So what about the property owner who wants to operate a nice restaurant. What if he does not allow customers to enter without certain types of dress specifically to attract a better class of patron and allow them to enjoy a nice meal? I am referring to jacket and tie type places. Why should he be forced to admit people wearing nothing but a pair of sandals and shorts with no shirt?

My personal opinion, although it hurts me right now as a carrier, is that property rights should be absolute. Don't like your looks, get out of my business. The proper way to punish the businesses that enact arbitrary or offensive bans on classes of people would be to refuse to do business with them, much like we do here on the board.
Washington State law says "No shirt, No shoes, no service" So your example is lacking at best.
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

heresolong wrote:
So to operate a nice restaurant you have to only be open to members? Seems sort of silly.

To have a dress code you'd have to be members only... lots of things in life are silly, and often swayed into place through contradictions and societal whims..... ant-gunners for example.. are kinda silly too.

- I guess to point out the end mechanic here, these things will ultimately step on someones toes. The fact is that some rights overlap, and sometimes contradict, and to that end, someone will get shorted. The final choice usually defined by the more logical, or as can be seen, the more popular opinion. The two wholes cannot fit in the same space, and though both may be right, one will ultimately succumb to the others rights as being more fundamental (or in cases popular).
 
Top