Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Globe Gazette l: Counties, cities and businesses have right to restrict gun carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rick H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hoover, Alabama
    Posts
    323

    Globe Gazette l: Counties, cities and businesses have right to restrict gun carry

    God Bless America.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    US Citizens have right to spend our money at locations which respect our CONSTITUTION

    Sure they do. Restrict themselves out of business, since more than 80% of us law-abiding US citizens won't do business with them.

    Just saying, because, apparently, some business owners just don't get it.
    Last edited by since9; 01-23-2011 at 04:42 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Valhalla, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    351
    Lucky for me I dont stop for gas in Watterloo. Usually in Dyke or Cedar Rapids. If I do in the future, I guess I'll be a criminal.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    It's obvious from the article that the writer does not understand much about the issue, a gun-issues dilettante.
    Private property rights do trump my desire to carry in a private business, and I'll continue to patronize gun-friendly businesses.

    Texas preempted cities and counties, since there is so little reason to have a statewide law when every jurisdiction could restrict it.

    I would also argue that no government should be permitted to take action which infringes on a right without due process and a compelling _public_ interest (not government self-interest.) And even at that, the reasonableness of a restriction can still be challenged.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Private property rights do trump my desire to carry in a private business, and I'll continue to patronize gun-friendly businesses.

    So then, I assume you have no problem with a business putting up signs saying "No Jews Allowed", or "No Baptists Allowed", or "No Asians Allowed", or "No Irish Allowed", or "No Whites Allowed"...

    Because under your "private property rights" argument, it's the same thing...

    Civil rights are civil rights--the Bill of Rights is NOT a buffet, where we can pick and choose only the parts we like and leave the rest out. The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition--either you sign on to the "Social Contract", or you are an enemy of Freedom. You can't "half-ass" Liberty...

    It really IS that simple...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 01-23-2011 at 06:21 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I agreee with you in principle, Dreamer, that carry ought to be a fundamental "carry anywhere" right the same as with any creed or religion. I cannot be denied service because I hold a particular belief.

    Property law being what it is here in the U.S., however, balances the rights of consumers with the rights of property owners. If this weren't so, I fear my rights as a tenant, and those of my parents as land/home owners, would be subject to some serious erosion. Castle laws are a good thing, and while I don't agree with those who refuse service to me because I carry a firearm, I do respect it.

    In contrast, in some other countries, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home or business, and in my mind that's too far in the other direction.

    What I would argue is that a city or any other jurisdiction, whether incorporated or not, has a the responsibility of easement, that is, allowing people to pass transit its boundaries, while exercising our fundamental 2A rights.

    We're clearly not there, yet!

    As for private property (someone's home) I respect the rights of the private property owner to refuse entrance, period, bar none. I'm less inclined to agree that Wal-Mart, because of it's implied consent invitation to transit their property, should be able to deny me a fundamental Constitutional right.
    Last edited by since9; 01-23-2011 at 09:39 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member billv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Houston now, Asheville soon
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I agreee with you in principle, Dreamer, that carry ought to be a fundamental "carry anywhere" right the same as with any creed or religion. I cannot be denied service because I hold a particular belief.

    Property law being what it is here in the U.S., however, balances the rights of consumers with the rights of property owners. If this weren't so, I fear my rights as a tenant, and those of my parents as land/home owners, would be subject to some serious erosion. Castle laws are a good thing, and while I don't agree with those who refuse service to me because I carry a firearm, I do respect it.

    In contrast, in some other countries, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home or business, and in my mind that's too far in the other direction.

    What I would argue is that a city or any other jurisdiction, whether incorporated or not, has a the responsibility of easement, that is, allowing people to pass transit its boundaries, while exercising our fundamental 2A rights.

    We're clearly not there, yet!

    As for private property (someone's home) I respect the rights of the private property owner to refuse entrance, period, bar none. I'm less inclined to agree that Wal-Mart, because of it's implied consent invitation to transit their property, should be able to deny me a fundamental Constitutional right.
    I tend to agree with both of you.

    IMHO, I think there are two classes of private property - 1) personal, which includes all your possessions and your home, and 2) commercial, which includes that which business is conducted on.

    I believe that one has a right to limit my transit on your private property and what I may bring and you control who and what comes onto your property. I assume that you will take on the responsibility of my defense and safety if you allow me onto your property. People get sued all the time for not doing so.

    But for commercial property, which you mention "implied consent to transit" (I like that term), I think the business owner should not be allowed to infringe on my 2A rights, since there is less control over who can and cannot transit the property and what they bring with them, unless they can provide the same level of security. They don't necessarily take on the responsibility for my safety. If they do, it's only to limit their liability, after the fact. It's hard to sue them when your dead. And yes I do know that I can take my business elsewhere, and I do.

    My employer bans firearms on their property. A friend and I were discussing why they would do this and we think it's to limit their liability. If an employee goes off the deep end, the company can say they violated company policy and they aren't liable. If they allowed firearms, and the same happened, then the victim's lawyers would have a field day. While I'd prefer to carry my firearm with me while at work, if my employer is going to ban carrying, then they should be required to provide secure lockers to store my firearm in while at work. Frankly, I'm less concerned about getting shot at work, but while out of the office at lunch and in transit to/from the office. And because of their policy I have no way to bring my firearm to the office for my self defense. I take a vanpool so I can't leave it there. And even if I drove to the office and left it in my car, I'd still be violation of company policy if I parked on their property.

    There is a third class of property, public, owned by the government, on behalf of the People. I think the Government limits where I can carry firearms way too much on The People's property. Yes, some places are needed - jails, courts (perhaps), high security areas (what ever that might mean), etc. But other areas, like Post Offices, normal government offices, DMV, tax assessor, etc really don't need a firearm ban.

    Just my opinion.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do *they* not understand?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The circumstantial logic of saying that some property owners have full property rights and others do not is the same kind of logic used against the RKBA: In some circumstances, the right should not exist or be limited.

    Bunkum.

    Property owners have the right to deny access to carriers. We have the right to take our business elsewhere. That is Liberty. For all.

  9. #9
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The circumstantial logic of saying that some property owners have full property rights and others do not is the same kind of logic used against the RKBA: In some circumstances, the right should not exist or be limited.

    Bunkum.

    Property owners have the right to deny access to carriers. We have the right to take our business elsewhere. That is Liberty. For all.
    +1
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  10. #10
    Regular Member billv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Houston now, Asheville soon
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The circumstantial logic of saying that some property owners have full property rights and others do not is the same kind of logic used against the RKBA: In some circumstances, the right should not exist or be limited.

    Bunkum.

    Property owners have the right to deny access to carriers. We have the right to take our business elsewhere. That is Liberty. For all.
    Point taken. I can and do take my business elsewhere, carrying or not.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do *they* not understand?

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Yours is a very well-reasoned argument! I'll try to reply in kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by billv View Post
    IMHO, I think there are two classes of private property - 1) personal, which includes all your possessions and your home, and 2) commercial, which includes that which business is conducted on.
    Agreed, and as for the latter, such as exists in my apartment complex, I'd like to think of it as an implied easement, although I don't think legal precedent has been established for that, yet. I carry anyway, and as the manager and staff and I know one another, things seem to be ok, but at least one of the maintenance workers seems to have a fit every time he and I see one another.

    Given the fact that moving can be very expensive, and Colorado law being what it is, if they tried to prohibit it, I'd sue, particularly as I cannot get to/from my vehicle to my personal without transiting joint property.

    I think this argument alone should be sufficient to overturn the bans from a few places of joint use. All hail to the corporate lawyers of Wal-Mart, IHOP, Starbucks and similar places! A big F for the idiot lawyers at Kalifornia Pizza Kitchen. Sorry to "single you out," but I really didn't. That was your own doing, probably at the behest of Brady-loving corporate type. (rolls eyes)

    You're not helping the crime issue, you know that, don't you? No? (rolls eyes again)

    Sheesh.

    I believe that one has a right to limit my transit on your private property and what I may bring and you control who and what comes onto your property. I assume that you will take on the responsibility of my defense and safety if you allow me onto your property. People get sued all the time for not doing so.

    But for commercial proprty, which you mention "implied consent to transit" (I like that term), I think the business owner should not be allowed to infringe on my 2A rights, since there is less control over who can and cannot transit the property and what they bring with them, unless they can provide the same level of security. They don't necessarily take on the responsibility for my safety. If they do, it's only to limit their liability, after the fact. It's hard to sue them when your dead. And yes I do know that I can take my business elsewhere, and I do.

    My employer bans firearms on their property. A friend and I were discussing why they would do this and we think it's to limit their liability. If an employee goes off the deep end, the company can say they violated company policy and they aren't liable. If they allowed firearms, and the same happened, then the victim's lawyers would have a field day. While I'd prefer to carry my firearm with me while at work, if my employer is going to ban carrying, then they should be required to provide secure lockers to store my firearm in while at work. Frankly, I'm less concerned about getting shot at work, but while out of the office at lunch and in transit to/from the office. And because of their policy I have no way to bring my firearm to the office for my self defense. I take a vanpool so I can't leave it there. And even if I drove to the office and left it in my car, I'd still be violation of company policy if I parked on their property.

    There is a third class of property, public, owned by the government, on behalf of the People. I think the Government limits where I can carry firearms way too much on The People's property. Yes, some places are needed - jails, courts (perhaps), high security areas (what ever that might mean), etc. But other areas, like Post Offices, normal government offices, DMV, tax assessor, etc really don't need a firearm ban.

    Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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