A shopkeeper told me I couldn't wear my cross into his store. Then called the cops.

[BullpupBen]

They certainly have the right to discriminate against you and make restrictions against certain behaviors in their stores. The purpose of the bill of rights is to protect from a powerful government, no retail store could ever become powerful enough to warrant that kind of concern.

You sign a social contract with the government of this country, and its expected they will protect certain rights (life, liberty, and property) while you are a citizen as long as you follow the rest of their rules.

Which stores you shop at are decided not by social contract, but a choice which you can make and re-make every single day. If you dont like it then dont shop there and if enough people dont like it they will either change their rules or go out of business and be replaced by someone you will probably like more.
It is much harder to change governments so we need elaborate sets of rules like those established in the constitution.

 

[7.62X25mm]

Supra . . .

The government protects private property owners to "life, liberty, property."

Property belongs to the property owner, and the state protects the owner's right to control their property.

That would be the "property" part of "life, liberty, property."

 

[expvideo]

Supra . . .

The government protects private property owners to "life, liberty, property."

Property belongs to the property owner, and the state protects the owner's right to control their property.

That would be the "property" part of "life, liberty, property."

This I can agree with, but I still disagree with you on the subject of the 4th amendment protecting some right to exclude. While the right may be protected, it is not done by the 4th amendment.

 

[crebralfix]

Sorry...wasn't clear.

My state constitution guarantees me the RKBA.

The Fed. 2nd only acts on Fed action, as stated above, because it has yet to be incorporated into the 14th.

AFAIK, there is NO right to property in my state constitution (I will look again).

Therefore, now again, AT THE STATE level, how does the "notion" of property trump an enumerated right?

It does not. It's a fiction as far as I can tell in my state.

 

[MGshaggy]

And the Constitution simply does not regulate the conduct of private citizens. It regulates only the government.

-Fiddletown

Well, I'd say the 18th did, but only until the 21st.

 

[bruss01]

Some things we are accustomed to thinking of as "public" are now becomming privately owned. Some toll bridges and toll roads, for instance, are run by private enterprise, not by the public through the agency of our government. So what when the operator of a toll road declares no guns allowed to be carried on the toll road? It's private property, right? And the way that US cities are currently mis-managing themselves into bankrupcy, how long before the streets and sidewalks are maintained by some kind of private enterprise, and security is provided by a corporation (similar to Omni Consumer Products - OCP - in the movie Robocop)? If the company decides, as a mater of policy, that guns may not be carried on city streets? That doesn't work - just because the street may be "privately" owned, it is still a "public" place.

I don't believe that an individual can violate your fundamental rights without being liable for suit. Sure, I do believe in private property owners rights - but if your facility is open to the public, then you have accepted that people will be coming in, and as long as they aren't destructive or negatively impacting your business or whatever function is performed there, then you can't restrict their fundamental rights. Being open to the public implies that you accept that the public will be coming in. You accept that people have needs and rights. Their needs are defined in the health and safety code, their rights are defined in the constitution. You are accepting, in being open to the public, that you will accomodate their needs as defined in the health and safety code and their rights as defined in the Constitution.

The answer is for a business owner to not be open to the public at large. You set up a "membership" such as Costco or other warehouse club. Members sign an agreement in order to get a membership card. Members are then bound by a contract to adhere to whatever terms you agree on. That's the answer to the "private property owners rights" vs. "public rights". They don't have to become a member, but if they do, they have to abide by the rules. Of course they cannot shop there if they are not a member either, so the owner has a choice to make, doesn't he?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well, I'd say the 18th did, but only until the 21st.

Not really -- the key provision is Section 2 of the 18th Amendment, "The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." As a result, Congress was able to pass the Volstead Act.

...My state constitution guarantees me the RKBA....

Actually, your state constitution simply denies to your state government the power to deprive you of the RKBA. It doesn't deny to a property owner the right to deny anyone access to his property for any reason, including being armed and excluding, if a business open to the public, race, religion, or other reasons specifically prohibited by statute. (see post 54)

...Therefore, now again, AT THE STATE level, how does the "notion" of property trump an enumerated right?...

Because neither the U. S. Constitution or any state constitution protects any right that may be enumerated from interference by private citizens in the exercise of their legally cognizable rights. (see post 54)

I don't believe that an individual can violate your fundamental rights without being liable for suit. ..if your facility is open to the public,... then you can't restrict their fundamental rights...

An interesting notion, but it's not the law; and it won't get you anywhere in court. A business owner exercising his property rights can conduct his business open to the public with whomever he wants, except to the extent he is statutorily prohibited from excluding someone for certain reasons, such as race, religioun, etc.

 

[Dashman010]

fiddletown -

+1

 

[MGshaggy]

Not really -- the key provision is Section 2 of the 18th Amendment, "The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." As a result, Congress was able to pass the Volstead Act.

Not to further derail the main discussion (since I think we largely agree on that), but Section 1 does explicitly prohibit certain conduct by non-governmental actors ("After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."), and without it, Section 2 and the Volstead act implementing section 1 of the 18th amendment wouldn't exist...

or at least not for a few years until Wickard made the CC a viable basis of authority for that type of legislation.

 

[AgentAdam]

"separation of church and state"

 

[Frank Ettin]

MGshaggy, but without the Volstead Act, it's difficult to see how Sec. 1 of the 18th could be implemented.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You gotta understand: The Second Amendment and the several state's analogs only prohibit government from infringing your right to keep and bear arms. I can infringe your RKBA in my home if I so desire. I see nothing in the law that would prohibit me from prohibiting law enforcement armed access to my home as well. What a can of worms that could create!

Woody

 

[rscalzo]

How about "NO COLOREDS",

Something similar happened years back at a private swim club. without getting in to it, the state came in after complaints were filed and they were charged with administrative statutes. It's too long ago to remember the exact details but it cost them some big bucks.

 

[hso]

This one started off as more of a philosophical question and has wandered widely. OT