• 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.

SB1427: Property Rights vs. Individual Rights

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Alright, let's hash this one out. Pop some popcorn.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the RKBA movement is the unmerited worship of property rights. Many, if not most supporters of gun rights draw the line at the personal property boundary. "If they don't want my gun, then they won't get my money..." "I may disagree with their policy, but I will support to the death their right to ban my gun from their property..." Yeah, OK, that last one is a little bit sarcastic, but we all know it's not far off from how some people actually feel...

The problem is that this completely ignores the inherent wrong perpetrated by that property owner to deny another human individual the right to defense of life, a right that most of us claim to be "endowed by their Creator" ... yes, even an "unalienable Right."

Do we need to refresh our minds on the definition of unalienable? From Google: "Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."

So what's the deal with SB 1427? It's not about the right to keep and bear arms... but another right that is just as inherent to the human race, just as important, and an excellent example of what we, who claim to be gun-rights proponents, should be striving for:
§ 32.1-370. Right to breastfeed.
A mother may breastfeed in any place where the mother is lawfully present, including any location where she would otherwise be allowed on property that is owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth in accordance with § 2.2-1147.1.


This individual right will soon be protected by state law to exist "in any place where the mother is lawfully present."

I'll guarantee you that there do exist people in this world who find breastfeeding in public more offensive than a lawfully carried firearm. This bill passed both the House of Delegates and the Senate unanimously! Not one single vote against this bill which grossly intrudes upon the rights of property owners. How could that possibly happen? Is the breastfeeding lobby that much more powerful than VCDL, or the NRA?

"In any place where the citizen is lawfully present" should be the ultimate goal of every gun-rights organization, with only VERY few exceptions.

We all need to learn from this excellent bill, and understand what it really means to be a proponent of an "unalienable right."

TFred
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Does this preempt trespass on private property?

If a breastfeeding mom is told do not come on my private property, what law would decide if she was law abiding or a law breaker, a new breastfeeding law or the already existing trespass law?
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Does this preempt trespass on private property?

If a breastfeeding mom is told do not come on my private property, what law would decide if she was law abiding or a law breaker, a new breastfeeding law or the already existing trespass law?
Interesting question, perhaps the bill should state, "in any place where the mother is otherwise lawfully present." That would seem to prohibit a no trespass policy based on the act of breastfeeding, whereas without the "otherwise," one might get away with that.

TFred
 

FBrinson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
298
Location
Henrico, VA
Unless I didnt read the OP correctly, this only applies to properties owned by the commonwealth?? Property owned by the Commonwealth is not private property. Or, im sticking my foot in my mouth again.. You decide! ;)
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
If a property owner wants you removed from his/her property while breastfeeding or feeding the pigeons, said property owner has every right to have you trespassed for trespassing on said property and not complying with the request to vacate the property.

My .02

CCJ
 

FBrinson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
298
Location
Henrico, VA
I think the addition of a comma would make it apply to only Commonwealth property, but the way it is written, it looks to actually say 'any' property. I'll wait for someone more skilled at legalese to explain it to me.. :D
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I think the addition of a comma would make it apply to only Commonwealth property, but the way it is written, it looks to actually say 'any' property. I'll wait for someone more skilled at legalese to explain it to me.. :D
Yes, that is the very purpose of this bill, to protect the right to breastfeed anywhere the mother is legally present. That is the whole point of my post. I believe the intent of this bill is to make it illegal for private property owners to prohibit the act on their property.

See also the bill summary:

"Right to breastfeed in public places. Provides that a mother may breastfeed in any place where the mother is lawfully present. Current law allows breastfeeding on any property owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth."

TFred
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
This seems to function only as an exception to some other law which may act to prohibit breastfeeding in public (public exposure or similar).

If it wasn't prohibited, it would serve little purpose to codify the fact that it was, by default, already allowed.

It's purpose may serve only to prohibit authorities from harassing women who breastfeed on public property, but it certainly wouldn't prohibit private property owners from declining to allow it.

Like the gun analogy, a private property owner may not disarm me but they can make my attendance and use of their property conditional. The choice is then mine to meet their conditions or leave.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
This seems to function only as an exception to some other law which may act to prohibit breastfeeding in public (public exposure or similar).

If it wasn't prohibited, it would serve little purpose to codify the fact that it was, by default, already allowed.

It's purpose may serve only to prohibit authorities from harassing women who breastfeed on public property, but it certainly wouldn't prohibit private property owners from declining to allow it.

Like the gun analogy, a private property owner may not disarm me but they can make my attendance and use of their property conditional. The choice is then mine to meet their conditions or leave.

This is the way I read it also. I don't believe it forces private property owners to allow breast feeding on on their private property.
Sounds like it will keep mother's breast feeding on a park bench from getting harassed about it.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
§ 32.1-370. Right to breastfeed.
A mother may breastfeed in any place where the mother is lawfully present, including any location where she would otherwise be allowed on property that is owned, leased, or controlled by the Commonwealth in accordance with § 2.2-1147.1.

Hmmmm..... at the point that a property owner stipulates that a person is no longer welcome on their property, then isn't that person no longer "lawfully present?"
 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
How about the old "cover all" disclaimer "management reserves the right to refuse service"?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
There is no "right" to breastfeed. At best the judiciary can interpret the laws of free access such that government entities can not bar/trespass someone for breastfeeding on public property - subject of course to existing public indency laws.

It seems we need to plow the ground again: constitutions generally list things that the government cannot do.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights
A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation. (emphasis added)

The most important expansions of civil rights in the United States occurred as a result of the enactment of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States. See U.S. Const. amend. XIII. In response to the Thirteenth Amendment, various states enacted "black codes" that were intended to limit the civil rights of the newly free slaves. In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment countered these "black codes" by stating that no state "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... [or] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the power by section five of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass any laws needed to enforce the Amendment.

As I understand it, mothers are not being denied or interferred with the act of breastfeeding on private property because of any of the bolded conditions listed above. If anybody even tries to bring up sexual discrimination, they had better have citations documenting that males are not discriminated against for breastfeeding in public.

There is a better and stronger argument for eliminating any ban or prohibition against same-sex marriage based on the fact that such prohibitions/bans interfere with the privileges available in the tax codes. There is the same better argument against prohibiting the bearing of arms in a lawful and peaceable manner on private property. The difference in both same sex marriage and breastfeeding is that those issues have gotten a more sympathetic response from the public because of PR that has demonized those that would abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens trying to breastfeed on private property or attain the benefits of marriage with a person of the same sex.

Negro African-American Blacks gathered on private property to protest not being allowed to buy lunch/ride at the front/get a room for the night and over time people began to say "Other than your personal bias and unwarranted hatred, why can't they?" Breastfeeding mothers gather on private property to protest not being allowed to breastfeed and everybody says "Aww, babies" and Aww, mothers." People who want to marry someone of the same sex gather together and do huggy-kissy to show they are not child molesting perverts and a lot of folks say "Aww, true love." People who want to keep and bear arms on private property occassionally gather together outside private property and even more rarely on private property and everybody says "ZOMG! Armed militia! They're going to overthrow the government!!111ELEVENTY!" (I'm not going to mention supporters of bearing arms on private property who warn that doing those things will cause the horses to faint and the women to stampede.)

In closing: "Aww, babies. Aww, mothers. Bah! Humbug!"

stay safe.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Hmmmm..... at the point that a property owner stipulates that a person is no longer welcome on their property, then isn't that person no longer "lawfully present?"

I suspect this is aimed at private business property. It is the breast feeding version of racial civil rights. Under current law, a business open to the public cannot decide that a black man is not welcome on the property simply because he is black.

Similarly, under this bill, I would guess that a business could not decide a breastfeeding mother (interesting that it limits it to "mothers", so much for wet nursing) is not welcome simply because she is breastfeeding.

A business could ask someone to leave if they were causing a problem, or occupying a table when not ordering a meal, or similar such reasons. This is true even if the person happens to be black or happens to be a breastfeeding mother. But the reality is, if a member of a protected group is asked to leave, the business owner better have really good and demonstrable reasons OTHER than their group status for asking them to leave because he is likely to have to prove his innocence against charges of illegal discrimination.

Charles
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
This seems to function only as an exception to some other law which may act to prohibit breastfeeding in public (public exposure or similar).

If it wasn't prohibited, it would serve little purpose to codify the fact that it was, by default, already allowed.

It's purpose may serve only to prohibit authorities from harassing women who breastfeed on public property, but it certainly wouldn't prohibit private property owners from declining to allow it.

Like the gun analogy, a private property owner may not disarm me but they can make my attendance and use of their property conditional. The choice is then mine to meet their conditions or leave.

I think that's the intent and again it's apples to oranges when talking about private property open to the public and private property that is not.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
There is no "right" to breastfeed.

There is no enumerated right to breastfeed.

Is there any delegated power of government to rightly prohibit the natural means of feeding the young and thus allowing their continued survival?

There is nothing sexual about this conduct except to the overly-sexualized who forget that the primary purpose of the mammary glands is to feed the young rather than as objects of sexual arousal or sex organs. And unlike relieving the bowels or bladder or even spitting, breast feeding poses no public health risk.

Obviously on public property, government cannot properly presume to ban breastfeeding, even under indecency laws.

The real question is whether government has the proper power to force private business owners, whose businesses are generally open to the general public to grant access and/or services to breastfeeding women.

I believe government has exactly the same amount of proper authority to force that, as it does to force private businesses to provide access and services without regard to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or the lawful possession of a firearm.

In principle, it has zero authority.

In practice, so long as it exerts authority to benefit any of these groups, there is no reason why gun owners should be left out in the cold. Why is it any less humiliating for me to have to go find a restaurant or hotel willing to serve "my kind" than it is for a black man, a Jewish man, or homosexual man or couple to have to do likewise?

African American African-American Blacks gathered on private property to protest not being allowed to buy lunch/ride at the front/get a room for the night and over time people began to say "Other than your personal bias and unwarranted hatred, why can't they?" Breastfeeding mothers gather on private property to protest not being allowed to breastfeed and everybody says "Aww, babies" and Aww, mothers." People who want to marry someone of the same sex gather together and do huggy-kissy to show they are not child molesting perverts and a lot of folks say "Aww, true love." People who want to keep and bear arms on private property occassionally gather together outside private property and even more rarely on private property and everybody says "ZOMG! Armed militia! They're going to overthrow the government!!111ELEVENTY!" (I'm not going to mention supporters of bearing arms on private property who warn that doing those things will cause the horses to faint and the women to stampede.)

Yup. When push comes to shove (and it often does eventually), public opinion matters.

The media (including news, TV, movies, etc) has been and is very sympathetic to blacks, homosexuals, women, and nursing mothers. They have been and remain hostile to gun owners.

Charles
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
This is the way I read it also. I don't believe it forces private property owners to allow breast feeding on on their private property.
Sounds like it will keep mother's breast feeding on a park bench from getting harassed about it.

This is intended to be a civil rights law -- although it goes beyond 'public accommodations' because it also features state agency preemption.

By the way, note the redundancy. Been there; done that. Mostly.

Perhaps Breasts OC trumps Arms OC.
 
Last edited:

Wolf_shadow

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,215
Location
Accomac, Virginia, USA
Barring rare medical conditions, is it possible for a woman to be capable of breastfeeding without being "a mother"?

Breast milk production in women who are not pregnant or breastfeeding could be due to elevated hormonal levels, specifically prolactin. It can be initiated using hormone therapy in women who are not, and never have been pregnant.:uhoh:
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Barring rare medical conditions, is it possible for a woman to be capable of breastfeeding without being "a mother"?

Good point. I believe hormone treatment can induce lactation. I was just thinking that the breastfeeding woman may not be the mother of the child she is feeding.

Charles
 
Top