SB1427: Property Rights vs. Individual Rights

[Grapeshot]

It's a service I provide.

stay safe.

What are your rates?

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--
The restrictions you mentioned are what a business owner agrees to to get a business license. They are regulations, not necessarily law.


Sent from my Kindle via the NSA.

These conditions/restrictions are very much law in Virginia and most other (all?) states.

As a matter of fact so too are regulations via the Virgina Administrative Code , note that this is different/separate from statutory law.

 

[utbagpiper]

These conditions/restrictions are very much law in Virginia and most other (all?) states.

So too are a host of infringements on our RsKBA. We recognize that these statutory laws are unconstitutional and improper. We obey them for various reasons including avoiding the punishments affixed for violating them. But we recognize they are fundamentally unjust, unconstitutional, improper, counterproductive, and flat our wrong.

I recognize the support for RsKBA does not require any particular position on anti-discrimination laws nor other business regulations.

I personally find anti-discrimination laws imposed on privately owned businesses to be offensive to private property rights, to the fundamental rights to life and "pursuit of happiness" (ie earning an honest, peaceful living), and an offense to the notion of private property rights. But so long as such laws exist and we seem to be ever adding to the list of protected categories, I believe that lawful possession of a firearm should receive no less protection that afforded any other group or category.

And for the record, I think the vast majority of what people would agree is "discriminatory" is small minded, offensive, and generally bad for business. I just think it is a case where the fairly rare case of discrimination is less offensive than the use of government force against private business owners in the name of preventing discrimination.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

I just think it is a case where the fairly rare case of discrimination is less offensive than the use of government force against private business owners in the name of preventing discrimination.

Well, of course you do. It's near and dear to you.

I'd be more inclined to agree if fewer businesses welcomed us.

 

[utbagpiper]

Well, of course you do. It's near and dear to you.

I thought freedom from government meddling was even more dear to you than to I.

I'd be more inclined to agree if fewer businesses welcomed us.

I believe business owners (Businesses, of themselves have very little free will. They are property, owned and controlled by their owners.) should have exactly the same legal ability to refuse service to those in lawful possession of firearms as they do to refuse service to a member of any protected category. I see no reason why the lawful, peaceful possession of a firearm should give a business owner any more right to refuse service than does a host of other characteristics or peaceful, non-disruptive behaviours.

Indeed, as I noted above, unlike many other characteristics and/or choices, possession of a self-defense firearm might be argued to be closer to building codes that protect life and limb from needless injury than to someone else imposing their moral/ethical beliefs about granting service to all comers. In that case, lawful possession of firearms would be granted more protections against discrimination than would today's protected categories.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

I thought freedom from government meddling was even more dear to you than to I.

My point is that, completely honestly, your reasoning comes across as forced. And this is a bit of an ad hominem (although the fact remains that many folks are going to have the same reaction), but it feels like you're rationalizing from the gut, and due to your personal attachment you lack credibility when you say things like:

In that case, lawful possession of firearms would be granted more protections against discrimination than would today's protected categories

[emphasis mine]

Well, maybe you're right in the strictly-moral analysis I tend to prefer. But in your own unabashed utilitarianism, you have to realize that anybody who doesn't already agree with you is going to find the above assertion absurd. The simple facts are that certain minorities experienced discrimination to the extent of effectively isolating them from mainstream society, culture, commerce, and the opportunities that go with those things.

Whereas OCers can't go to P.F. Changs.

Businesses, of themselves have very little free will. They are property, owned and controlled by their owners.

I see no reason why the lawful, peaceful possession of a firearm should give a business owner any more right to refuse service than does a host of other characteristics or peaceful, non-disruptive behaviours.

I can't see one either. Of course, few businesses seem to either.

Indeed, as I noted above, unlike many other characteristics and/or choices, possession of a self-defense firearm might be argued to be closer to building codes that protect life and limb from needless injury than to someone else imposing their moral/ethical beliefs about granting service to all comers. In that case, lawful possession of firearms would be granted more protections against discrimination than would today's protected categories.

That argument doesn't fly anyway. I actually can think of places which might have good reason to prohibit firearms but not groups of people (off the top of my head: swimming pools, crowded concerts, MRIs, and heck even most gun shows have seen fit to require carried guns to be unloaded and ziptied while everybody's going to be handling guns). Sure, you could force those places to figure out solutions (or try to), but there seem to be legitimate freedom- and market-related interest in allowing business owners this discretion.

If what you want to argue is public safety, discrimination laws aren't the framework you want. More appropriate would be explicit liability (or, perhaps regulations, since we are talking about your perspective) attached to places which prohibit weapons but do not provide security sufficient to stop an armed attack.

 

[utbagpiper]

My point is that, completely honestly, your reasoning comes across as forced. And this is a bit of an ad hominem (although the fact remains that many folks are going to have the same reaction),

So I'm not credible because I have certain objections to anti-discrimination laws? Gotcha.

We'll ignore the obvious contradictions of a libertarian/anarchist/volunteerist such as yourself arguing in favor of anti-discrimination laws to protect certain politically favored groups. Nor your notable position of seeming supporting/defending such laws even as you oppose similar protections for those in lawful possession of firearms, on an OC/RKBA board.

The simple facts are that certain minorities experienced discrimination to the extent of effectively isolating them from mainstream society, culture, commerce, and the opportunities that go with those things.

The simple fact is that blacks were subjected to legally imposed segregation of one kind or another for something like 300 years. I quesiton the wisdom of using government meddling to fix government meddling. But perhaps some legally imposed anti-discrimination was needed.....but for how long? We are now 40+ years or a couple of generations removed from the end of Jim Crow. A young man of 18 and looking at college admissions in 1970 could now well have grandchildren getting ready to apply to college.

And since first passed as a means to correct prior government meddling in the free market, anti-discrimination laws have become full employment acts for lawyers, a way for various additional groups to get special protections, and a litmus test for politicians to prove they care. Bigotry is ugly. But I note the Irish Catholics took over Boston, the Mormons did rather well, and Asians have excelled in our nation, without any special legal benefits while too many recipients of such benefits can't seem to rise above an unfortunate national history that is, fortunately, getting ever smaller in our rear-view mirror and might disappear entirely if our government would stop giving incentives to categorize ourselves.

My point is that my ability to defend my life and limb is at least as important as my ability to buy a sandwich at every diner in the nation regardless of what a few bigots think about my race, religion, political affiliation, gender, or sexual orientation.

That argument doesn't fly anyway. I actually can think of places which might have good reason to prohibit firearms but not groups of people (off the top of my head: swimming pools, crowded concerts, MRIs, and heck even most gun shows have seen fit to require carried guns to be unloaded and ziptied while everybody's going to be handling guns).

There are about very few locations where guns might be banned due to the inherent dangers of the gun itself: Rooms with or adjacent to MRIs or other huge electromagnets; Aluminum recycling plants that ban virtually all metal due to risks of contamination; and Explosives plants where a shot/spark could cause an explosion; and perhaps gun shows/gun stores where guns are handled. Perhaps we can include a space station. There are a few locations like jails, prisons, court rooms, etc where legitimate security concerns require bans on weapons.

But short of this very short list, there is no legitimate safety reason to ban lawfully carried guns. A crowded concert is no more dangerous place for guns than a crowded urban street or a crowded subway or bus. Swimming pools may pose a certain risk to guns, but I fail to see how guns pose any special risk to swimming pools or the customers there.

But this is all a red-herring anyway. Even anti-discrimination laws permit discrimination in certain limited cases. I'm allowed to refuse to hire a man to work as the women's restroom attendant. Disability laws allow employers to only hire those who can meet the physical qualifications of the job when physical qualifications are an essential part of the work to be done. Very small businesses are generally exempt. And religious employers including churches are entirely exempt from anti-discrimination laws. The Catholic Church is protected in its right to only hire unmarried, celibate men as professional clergy. Never mind that from an objective view there is nothing that keeps sexual active women from preaching, counseling, or otherwise performing the jobs of a priest; churches get to set and abide their own doctrines in such things.

Point is, the precedence for limited exemptions to anti-discrimination laws is well established.

Now, I wish to emphasize again that I generally oppose anti-discrimination laws. I favor free market solutions. But so long as such laws do exist, I believe gun owners should be protected.

If what you want to argue is public safety, discrimination laws aren't the framework you want. More appropriate would be explicit liability (or, perhaps regulations, since we are talking about your perspective) attached to places which prohibit weapons but do not provide security sufficient to stop an armed attack.

If I want to argue public safety, I will simply argue public safety and mandate personal guns be allowed just as we mandate proper building codes to bear loads, fire escapes, fire sprinkler systems and the like. I don't want to rely on strict liability or other civil laws to solve problems of chained shut fire doors after 100 persons die needlessly. Ditto for suing for damages after a mass murder at a shopping mall, vs legal protections for gun owners to protect themselves.



In brief then,

1-I generally oppose anti-discrimination laws; I favor letting the free market sort these things out.

2-So long as anti-discrimination laws exist, I believe the lawful possession of guns should be protected on par with other categories.

3-In the absence of anti-discrimination laws, I could make a fine case for including lawful possession of guns into public safety laws on similar footing with fire doors and other building codes.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

We'll ignore the obvious contradictions of a libertarian/anarchist/volunteerist such as yourself arguing in favor of anti-discrimination laws to protect certain politically favored groups. Nor your notable position of seeming supporting/defending such laws even as you oppose similar protections for those in lawful possession of firearms, on an OC/RKBA board.

Charles, you're back to being willfully dishonest, I see.

I said that you appear to be emotionally invested in the issue, because your argument seems forced. And I explained, since you apparently don't understand, why those who support anti-discrimination laws are going to see our circumstance as wholly divorced from the circumstance of discriminated-against minorities throughout American history. Those are entirely unrelated statements, and I didn't articulate a syllable in defense of anti-discrimination laws.

I know you have the ability to discern this sort of nuance, which again means you're discussing in bad faith. Have fun talking to yourself.

 

[utbagpiper]

Charles, you're back to being willfully dishonest, I see.

I said that you appear to be emotionally invested in the issue, because your argument seems forced. And I explained, since you apparently don't understand, why those who support anti-discrimination laws are going to see our circumstance as wholly divorced from the circumstance of discriminated-against minorities throughout American history. Those are entirely unrelated statements, and I didn't articulate a syllable in defense of anti-discrimination laws.

I know you have the ability to discern this sort of nuance, which again means you're discussing in bad faith. Have fun talking to yourself.

I'm afraid you lost me in your original verbose response. Do try to be more succinct in the future.

Of course there are those who will see this as very different than the situation endured by blacks. But is our situation very different than that of religious minorities? How many have been denied a job because they were registered Republicans? Those who hate guns and gun owners will find lots of ways to justify their bigotries and phobias or to simply make life as hard on gun owners as possible. That is no different than it has ever been. No amount of discussion will change those minds. So other than to acknowledge this, there is not much need to bring them up.

My arguments are aimed at those who are likely to be sympathetic, including many gun owners. Too many of our own are more than willing to endure discrimination and bigotry that if directed toward most other demographics would be widely condemned as unconscionable and worthy of criminal penalties. Many gun owners don't care for the over-reach or "reverse-discrimination" that has become part and parcel of anti-discrimination laws and so oppose these laws entirely.

My point to them is that we can oppose such laws even as we demand a level playing field. There is no virtue in being a martyr if martyrdom can be honorable and honestly avoided.

So again to be brief and clear:

1-I generally oppose anti-discrimination laws; I favor letting the free market sort these things out.

2-So long as anti-discrimination laws exist, I believe the lawful possession of guns should be protected on par with other categories.

3-In the absence of anti-discrimination laws, I could make a fine case for including lawful possession of guns into public safety laws on similar footing with fire doors and other building codes.

Charles

 

[skidmark]

This thread has generated some interesting and varied responses. However, property rights are rights. How about the gun range owner who has banned Muslims? Should the Muslims 1st Amendment rights trump her property rights? Absolutely not. It's a private business. Right of refusal has long been accepted, although challenged at times. You can't bring food into an establishment purchased elsewhere. I am not equating food with guns.
The restrictions you mentioned are what a business owner agrees to to get a business license. They are regulations, not necessarily law.


Sent from my Kindle via the NSA.

Apparently we need to go over it once more. The Government (through Congress) shall make no law ....

The range owner is not The Government and Muslims have no right - natural or statutory or make-believe - to practice their religion at that gun range that the owner might be abridging if she tried really, really hard.

Now if you wantb to discuss Civil Rights as established by the 13th and 15th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (or was it 64?) and the progeny thereof we could have a conversation.

stay safe.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

anybody ready for some more popcorn?

 

[countryclubjoe]

This should sum it up.

" As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights"

James Madison, on "property" National Gazette. ( 1792)

My .02

CCJ

 

[marshaul]

" As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights"

That doesn't really shed any light on the issue, in light of the fact that there is plenty of property one may not necessary bring onto another's property. Cars parked without permission come to mind.

 

[utbagpiper]

Apparently we need to go over it once more. The Government (through Congress) shall make no law ....

The range owner is not The Government and Muslims have no right - natural or statutory or make-believe - to practice their religion at that gun range that the owner might be abridging if she tried really, really hard.

Now if you wantb to discuss Civil Rights as established by the 13th and 15th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (or was it 64?) and the progeny thereof we could have a conversation.

On strict principle or strict use of language, you may be correct, skidmark. But in common usage, you are talking about a difference without a distinction.

When the civil rights act and/or other anti-discrimination laws require employers to make "reasonable accommodation" for religious garb or practices, the language used by those who support such laws most often involves something along the lines of "protecting our rights to religious expression".

There is often great value in setting the terms of the debate as when we refuse to use terms like "assault weapon". But there is often value in using terms that others understand.

From a pure rights theory perspective, nobody has any right to be at that gun range unless the owner invites them in. But from the perspective of current statute, once the owner gets a business license and hangs the "Open" sign in the window, she faces an uphill battle in denying service to anyone for reasons such as race, religion, gender, etc. The muslims may not have a natural right to practice their religion in her gun range. But under statute, they have a statutory right to receive services on the same terms as the rest of the population even if they choose to wear Islamic garb while receiving those services.

Of course, I write of things as they are, not of things as I think they ought to be. Like others, I can believe that government mandates against discrimination can be even more offensive than the discrimination itself.

Charles