Carry rights on private property?

[divemedic]

I'm still unsure why you feel like you have the right to do anything but leave and remain unharmed on any property that you don't own or pay for. If you're entitled to carry in walmart, why aren't you entitled to hold your religious service in walmart?

That property (a store) relies on things provided for by the public. The public, providing these services to your business, requires that you follow certain rules: fire codes, handicapped parking (under ADA), civil rights act, and others. It is within the constitutional authority of the citizens of this country, through their elected representatives, to do so. Show me where it isn't.

Without access to a public right of way, public utilities, a business license, as well as police and fire protection, that business could not exist. A business owner cannot violate someone's rights simply because that person has entered his property. You can no more do that than require all females on your property to perform sexual acts upon you, or require all males entering to stand still and be struck over the head with a hammer.

Comparing the possession of a gun to delivering a sermon is not a fair comparison. The simple possession of an object does not equate to loudly disrupting your business. A better analogy would be prohibiting the delivery of sermons = FIRING a weapon, or perhaps: possessing weapon = possessing a political pamphlet or bible.

Possession does not mean the same thing as use.

 

[TwitchALot]

These never end well but since you asked...... Which one of the Bill of Rights ensures private property rights? I'm pretty sure one of them ensures my right to "keep and bear arms"........

First of all, the Bill of Rights limits government, not private, action. Second of all, if I didn’t, I suppose you wouldn’t mind if anyone walks into your home right?

After all, we have the right to peaceably assembly, and so long as I’m being peaceful, I take it that you will let them enter your home at any time, and you will not object because you believe in their right to peaceably assemble as supposedly protected by the Bill of Rights. Is that an accurate assessment? If not, I know what you don't like about it, so just read right below because I address that too.

Texas Rifleman hit it on the head. If a business is a public accomodation, meaning open to the public, except in very limited circumstances (private clubs, churches, etc.) they have to play by the governments rules. No "no blacks" or "no Jews" signs are allowed. A public accomodation's restrictions on Constitutional rights should also be limited.

Ah the old, “above the law” kind of case again. When you don’t like applying your rules to yourself, make an exception for yourself. If people do this, it’s a crime. If the President does it, it’s not a crime because I’m the President…

This is an old argument. People argue that the Bill of Rights applies to individuals and private property. When you point out that this would allow anyone to peaceably assemble in their home, they try create an exception for themselves. “Well, if you use your private property in a certain way, THEN it’s open for regulation…” (their way and class, of course, happens to be closed to regulation).

Of course, when you try to regulate their property based on how it is used, whether it be regulating what happens in the bedroom (or how), on a private range, or with the thermostat...

What good are Constitutional rights if we can't exercise them?

You should be able to exercise them on public property and on your private property. Just because the First Amendment protects my right to peaceably assemble and petition, however, doesn’t mean I have a right to walk into your home and petition you (so long as I do it peacefully, that is). Right…?

If a private property owner wants to prevent carry on their property, they should be made liable for all actions on their property.

Why? Who forced you to go on that private property? You have no right to be there. You are a guest on someone’s private property. If you don’t like their rules, don’t go. If you want to accept the risk, you’d better be ready to accept the consequences.

However, a business which is private property, but having public access does make a bit of a different situation. I tend to agree that by opening the door to the public, they are also subscribing to what governs the public.

Private property is private property. All private property “having public access” is is private property being used a certain way. It should have no bearing on the matter. If you agree on making restrictions on private property based on how it is being used as a matter of principle, you should have no objections if I want to make restrictions on private property based on how it is used, as a matter of principle. Can you see where this is going to go?

Corporations, particularly the larger ones are more of a governing body than they are a "person". And while they do have certain legitimate powers to dictate what behavior may or may not take place on the premises, I do not think that dictating what may or may not be stored in your vehicle is one of those "legitimate" powers.

Corporations shouldn’t have any authority to determine what is stored in your vehicle. It’s not their property. What they should have is the authority to determine what is stored on their property, just as YOU should be able to determine what is stored on your property. If they don’t want guns on their property, then that’s that. They may not have the authority to search your vehicle (unless you agreed to that as a stipulation for parking there or something), and they may not have any authority to remove the gun from your vehicle, but they certainly should have the authority to remove your vehicle from the premises out if it is found (by visual inspection or your consent) to have guns.

My only real issue is that I do not think that anyone has the right to tell me that in order to spend time at their location for a portion of the day, I MUST render myself "rightless" for not only the time required while I'm there, but also for the trip there and back - and also require me the additional travel to return home (or some other off site storage area), that I would not have had to take if I had been "allowed" to keep those items secured in my "private property" vehicle.

Find somewhere else to park. It might be long, tough, tedious, inconvenient, or expensive, but it’s up to you to weigh the costs and benefits.

And as for the BOR only applying to "government"....The unwarranted search and seizure of a persons property by another individual is often referred to as burglary, breaking and entering, theft, etc.

Because you have a right to private property, not because the criminal was violating your Fourth Amendment rights.

What about all this private property rights stuff? Why are none of you out protesting the Civil Rights Act? It's clearly infringing on the property rights of business owners right?

I don’t agree with the Civil Rights Act any more than I agree with using torture to “achieve security.” The ends DON’T justify the means to me.

Why are gun owners second class citizens? Doesn't the Bill of Rights tell me I can "keep and bear" arms?

Why are trespassers second-class citizens? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights tell them they can peaceably assemble?

Why should I have to leave my gun in the car? Should Jews have to convert to Christianity to eat at a McDonalds? Of course not.

Why should I have to stay out of your home? Should peaceful people have to ask for your permission to enter your home? Of course not.

Should Jews have to pretend to be Christians to eat at Mc Donalds?

… Should violent people pretend to be peaceful to enter your home?

Well that's what you are asking gun owners to do for the sake of this "private property" business; pretend to be something they are not.

Well that’s what you are asking peaceful citizens to do for the sake of this “private property so long as it’s being used in a certain way (my way)” business; pretend that they don’t have a right to just enter your home whenever they feel like it (peacefully, that is).

I'm a gun owner, why should I pretend that it's NOT in the Bill of Rights because I want to buy a hammer at a hardware store?

I’m a peaceful citizen, why should I pretend that it’s NOT in the Bill of Rights because I want to sit on your couch and eat your food? Because you're part of a special class because you ostensibly use your property in a "superior" way that is out of the reach of regulation, while my way is within reach of regulation because you don't think it's as worthy as yours?

Why should a business owner be able to infringe on any civil right and why would you NOT consider the Second Amendment a civil right?

Why should a private property owner be able to infringe on any civil right and why would you NOT consider the First Amendment a civil right?

Sure the financial argument is fine, that boycotting the businesses sends a message, but there simply are not enough concealed carriers to make a boycott effective.

So if a peaceful, proper, and just method for achieving your goals isn’t working, you should start blowing up innocent civilians to prove your point or achieve your goals? The ends justify the means?

What if the same argument had been applied to Blacks? Well Blacks should boycott businesses that don't let them come in.

Yeah, that's sort of exactly what racist store owners wanted anyway wasn't it?

The argument should apply to EVERYONE. And if I could have been there and opened up a business serving blacks, I would have. People who make economic decisions on non-economic factors will suffer, plain and simple. It might take time. But it will happen, just as many other things will with or without the use of force.

So you're going to refuse to go into a place that doesn't want you there in the first place? That sounds real effective.......

I’ll go to a business that appreciates my money.

LOL. Why in the world do you think the Civil Rights Act was passed in the first place? This idea of people coming to do the right thing by osmosis didn't work then what makes you think it would work now?

Didn’t work? You think justice can be achieved in a year? Two? Ten? If I get sick of bargaining with you for your 1911, or it’s just taking too damn long, I have a right to just point MY gun at you and take it from you? Because it’s just taking too long for me to get what I want?

This is the High Road isn’t it? Well what the hell is that? Is that, use violence to get what want if you don’t get it, or don’t get it fast enough? Is that, “the ends justify the means”? What IS the “High Road”?

There were more than enough people perfectly happy to have Black only water fountains and restaurants just as there are people today who are more than happy to have those "dirty gun carrying people" stay out of public places.

Water fountains… well, I certainly don’t think you have any right to use my water either. But wait. Those were PUBLIC accommodations. Well so much for that…

If it's not governments job to make sure the Bill of Rights is followed then whose job is it?

Uh, let’s see. OURS?

What, you think GOVERNMENT is going to protect OUR rights and liberties?

I don't care if people are bigoted towards me as a gun owner, they can talk about me behind my back all they want to as long as my rights are intact. If it takes government to force public recognition of a civil right, the Second Amendment in this case, then so be it.

Correction: “If it takes government to force public recognition of a civil right on PRIVATE property, then so be it.”

Over several threads on this lately it's clear that many gun owners do not believe the Second Amendment protects a "civil right".

Or it’s just clear that many gun owners believe that they don’t have a right force their beliefs, opinions, and morals on someone else and their private property.

That property (a store) relies on things provided for by the public.

…

Without access to a public right of way, public utilities, a business license, as well as police and fire protection, that business could not exist.

Like what? I’ not sure what you mean by a, “public right of way,” so I’ll skip that until you can explain that. Public utilities. Uh, do businesses not pay bills? A business license. Shouldn’t even be there… Police and fire protection. You would die without it? I certainly hope not…

The only thing a store "relies on," provided by the public, is their money. Just as the public relies on their services. Except for a license or three required by law (a law which shouldn't exist), stores need nothing that can't be provided privately any more than a citizen does. Should we be open to regulation because without access to "a public right of way," public utilities, and police and fire protection, we could not exist?

The simple possession of an object does not equate to loudly disrupting your business.

Unfortunately, for people who ARE scared of guns, having guns on the property DOES disrupt business. And since people like that exist, and do complain about it, why shouldn’t a business be able to control firearms on their property now? What is the next excuse for restricting someone’s right to dictate what happens on their private property?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Which one of the Bill of Rights ensures private property rights? I'm pretty sure one of them ensures my right to "keep and bear arms".......

You are kidding us, right? You really don't understand this? It isn't in the Bill of Rights, but in the original text of the Constitution. See Articles I (esp. section 8), II, and III.

Your perception of your Second Amendment rights on my private property are no more or no less valid than my first amendment rights on your property. If you have the right to carry a gun on my property against my will, then I probably have the right to hold church services and publish a newspaper on your property.

After all,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Autolycus]

The No Blacks or No Jews analogy is a bad one. The signs are banning a device, not a person.

 

[GEM]

I disagree - whenever we have these debates, the property rights teams clealry come down in favor of racial, religious discrimination. In fact, IMHO, the gun ban in business issues is a stalking horse for a belief set that includes racial, etc. discrimination. They are highly correlated.

Neither is acceptable in the United States.

 

[hugh damright]

It occurs to me that when a restaurant did not serve negroes that the USBOR had nothing to do with it. And the 14th "Amendment" says "no State shall" and a restaurant is not a State. So the SCOTUS said that restaurants had to serve negroes or it would impact interstate commerce. So maybe if a business doesn't allow people to carry guns inside it is an interstate commerce issue. Personally, I think it's something that was purposely left beyond the reach of federal government.

 

[Blackbeard]

Private property rights trump Constitutional rights.

If you're on my property, I can ask you to leave for ANY reason except race, gender, religion, etc. If you own a store, you can ban people from carrying guns. You can ban people who aren't carrying a gun if you like. You can ban people for wearing Obama t-shirts. You can ban people for wearing sandals. You can ban people for wearing a suit and tie. Any reason is ok except those spelled out in the Civil Rights Act.

 

[divemedic]

Private property rights trump Constitutional rights

No court- that's right- NO court has ever taken such a position. Ever. Not in this country.

The Constitution is a restriction on government, not on property owners. With that being said, a government law that forces a property owner to allow certain persons on his property is perfectly constitutional. If for example, a law was passed requiring all business owners to refrain from discrimination against ethnic groups, it would be constitutional, as would a law preventing business owners from discriminating against gun owners.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Regardless of the heuristic banter, the real life, day-to-day operations reality bottom line is that local laws (with apparently some jurisdictional exceptions) allow for banning of devices/objects and behaviors (amongst other things) on publicly accessed private property such as businesses.

Simply put, I don't have to allow you to carry a gun in my business and I don't have to allow you to be able to preach your particular religion or political persuasion in my business, regardless of what you claim are your Constitutional rights.

If such 1st and 2nd amendment absolutist views were indeed viable as claimed, then no doubt this would have been resolved in court a long time ago and would have been established valid. This is not the case.

The arguments are fun, but 2nd Amendment absolutism is not a reality, regardless of wishful thinking.

 

[hugh damright]

If for example, a law was passed requiring all business owners to refrain from discrimination against ethnic groups, it would be constitutional,

You mean a federal law? I don't see how it is constitutional for the federal government to pass a law which it has no power to pass. What part of the US Constitution delegates the federal power in question?

 

[SCKimberFan]

"If you're on my property, I can ask you to leave for ANY reason except race, gender, religion, etc."

Not so Blackbeard...If you are on my property I can ask you to leave without giving you a reason. If you fail to leave, it then becomes trespassing.

 

[jaholder1971]

SIGH.

One time I believed that Libertarian beliefs involved free exercise of one's civil and human rights at all times provided that no one was injured in some way. This also involved very limited government interference in one's life.

Now I understand that modern Libertarian thought is nothing more than a bunch of self absorbed wannabe dictators with no regard for anyone's personal liberties other than their own. The government treating YOU like serfs is wrong, yet it's just fine if you do it yourself. Hypocrisy.

If I'm carrying, concealed or OC, if I'm not threatening anyone or interfering with your life then how exactly it's any of your business?

 

[divemedic]

What part of the US Constitution delegates the federal power in question?

The takings clause of the fifth amendment.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The No Blacks or No Jews analogy is a bad one. The signs are banning a device, not a person.

A CHL holder is not a person now?

I could CHOOSE to abandon being a gun person just as a Jew could choose to abandon Judaism.

Neither group should have to abandon who they are to go buy a donut.

The analogy is exactly the same.

 

[hugh damright]

A declaration of a principle of free government, that private property isn't taken for public use without just compensation, empowers the federal government to prevent a business from discriminating? I don't think so.

 

[Soybomb]

The government treating YOU like serfs is wrong, yet it's just fine if you do it yourself. Hypocrisy.

I don't think you understand the libertarian philosophy then. Libertarian thought includes the ability to make bad choices, harm yourself, and be a miserable excuse for a human being. The libertarian support the right of fred phelps group of wackjobs to go out and be hateful bigots even if we strongly disagree. Just what is your philosophy? Everyone is free to do what they want on their property as long as it doesn't harm you...and you agree with it?

I don't want to turn it into a "true scotsman" thing but it seems like you want to take the good of the libertarian philosophy and not the corresponding bad stuff that might follow with such freedom.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Water fountains… well, I certainly don’t think you have any right to use my water either. But wait. Those were PUBLIC accommodations. Well so much for that…

No, those include privately owned but publicly accessible properties, which is what we are talking about here.

You guys with your "private property rights" thing always turn this to rights in your living room but that is not the discussion. This isn't about your home, your "castle".. that's an entirely different discussion.

The discussion is limiting rights in a place that you by intent make accessible to the public; a business.

This isn't about the right to carry concealed in your living room, it's about the right to carry in a business where the owner has INVITED the public.

You hang an "open for business" sign in front of your restaurant then you think it's OK to hang a "Whites Only" sign next to it?

 

[JWarren]

TexasRifleMan is correct in his interpretation.


Private property is significantly different than private property that is used for some sort of public enterprise.


If it is my house, I can restrict access for any reason that I want. It can be based upon any criteria I want-- even less politically correct ones such has been mentioned on this thread: Race, Gender, Creed, Sex, etc.

But I can't do that with my business. But can I restrict access because of other factors? Yes, I can. People have freedom of speech. But if I have a person screaming obscenitites in my lobby, I *CAN* have them removed, and the law will support that.

Can I have someone removed who is standing in my lobby quietly engaging my clients about converting to Islam? I don't know. I believe that I SHOULD be able to since I am not Islamic and have no interest in advancing it.

Concealed Carry? Again. I don't know.

I do know this. I am not in favor of any FORCING of anyone to have to accept anything or anyone. And yes... that includes on Civil Rights Issues. This ain't the 60's and I don't see it needed anymore. Society has changed to the point that it isn't needed. A business operating in such fashion is inviting the impeading "Going Out of Business Sale."


-- John

 

[TexasRifleman]

I do know this. I am not in favor of any FORCING of anyone to have to accept anything or anyone. And yes... that includes on Civil Rights Issues. This ain't the 60's and I don't see it needed anymore. Society has changed to the point that it isn't needed. A business operating in such fashion is inviting the impeading "Going Out of Business Sale."

I'm not crazy about it either.

But in the case of guns, if for a moment we do pretend they are a civil right, assuming that businesses will respect that right simply because it's the right thing to do is hoping for too much.

You think non gun owners will band together in protest in front of a store that posts a "no guns" sign the same as if that store put up a "no women" sign?

That's the problem with this. If guns are a civil right who is going to stand there with us? Alone there are not enough of us to get anyone's attention.

But apparently many gun owners don't believe it's a civil right in the first place so it doesn't really matter.

 

[divemedic]

Exactly, debating the constitutionality of laws prohibiting discrimination is a waste of time. To deny the constitutionality of the regulatory taking of property is also a waste of time. The courts have settled both issues, and nothing is going to change in either case. The government has the power to pass such laws. period.

The real question here is whether or not the 2A is a civil right. I believe it is, because of this fact:

I do not lose the right to defend my life simply because I enter private property. To believe otherwise is to say that one person's right to own property is more important than another person's right to live. If this were the case, then I could be killed after entering private property, even if I was invited. To deny a person access to arms is to deny them the most effective means of defending their own life. Therefore, possession of arms is a civil right, because it flows from the right to defend oneself.

 

[Rule556]

...interfering with your life then how exactly it's any of your business?

If you choose to come onto my property and behave in a manner that bothers me, you are interfering with my life and your behavior becomes my business. Whether that behavior is wearing a gun, using drugs or shouting obscenities doesn't matter. Whether that property is a home or business doesn't matter. When you step foot on my property, you become my guest and agree to behave by my rules. If you find my rules too onerous, you can leave at anytime and find more suitable surroundings. So long as you do abide by them, you will be welcomed and treated with the utmost hospitality. If you do not, you will be asked to leave. At that time, you can either return to your own property and behave as you like or go to the property of another individual who doesn't mind your use of guns, drugs and obscenities. Once you've done this, you can behave as you like with out interfering with my life and thus your behavior is no longer any of my business.

Similarly, if I choose to come onto your property and behave in a manner that bothers you, I am interfering with your life and my behavior becomes your business. Whether that behavior is bitching about your gun, bitching about your drug use or bitching about your use of obscenities doesn't matter. Whether that property is your home or your business doesn't matter. When I step foot on your property, I become your guest and agree to behave by your rules. If I find your rules too onerous, I can leave at anytime and find more suitable surroundings. So long as I do abide by them, I expect to be welcomed and treated with the utmost hospitality. If I do not, I will be asked to leave. At that time, I can either return to my property and behave as I like or go to the property of another individual who doesn't mind my being an uptight square. Once I've done this, I can behave as I like without interfering with your life and thus my behavior is no longer any of your business.

Personally, I see nothing objectionable about this system. In fact, I view it as the most basic form of civility and mutual respect.

And hypocritical? How so? I am extending to you the very same powers and rights that I would claim for myself. I am not denying you anything that I do not also deny myself. Those are hardly the actions of a hypocrite.


(Please note that I don't intend to imply that you use guns, drugs and obscenities or that guns, drugs and obscenities are necessarily bad things or that guns, drugs and obscenities bother me in the least. They exist in this post only to serve as examples of potentially objectionable items or behaviors. Thank you and have a nice day.)

 

[TexasRifleman]

If you choose to come onto my property and behave in a manner that bothers me, you are interfering with my life and your behavior becomes my business.

Try owning a retail store, then try to kick out a customer that has not had a bath in a while, or has objectionable cologne, or smells like 4 packs of stale cigarettes.

It would probably bother you and your other customers for Mr Smelly to be there, but is it his civil right to stink?

Try kicking him out and see where that gets you. It will get you the label of "discriminatory", it might hurt your business, hard to tell.
Look what happened to the airlines when they tried to implement the extra seat rules for overweight folks. But in the end they can do those things because it's for aesthetics, not discrimination.

How many trendy LA nightclubs have bouncers that only let in the "pretty" people. No one complains because this is based on aesthetics only right?
If that same nightclubs does that with race, religion, etc they are going to be in a world of hurt.

Try kicking out Mr Smelly because of a religious emblem on his t-shirt. You are lord and master of your private property right? You can tell anyone to leave for any reason right?

Try telling a guy with the Star of David on his shirt to leave because it offends your other customers. You're now entering discrimination territory rather than aesthetics.

Now you're interfering with your customers rights so it's "yours" vs "theirs". Well the courts have held that in that case "your" property rights get trumped by the civil right of your customer. So, he keeps on wearing his t shirt with the Star of David and there is little you can do besides close your business and go home. That's civil rights. Might not like it, might not be fair, but it's been upheld long enough in this country where debating it's legality is no longer useful. It does in fact work that way in our country at the moment.

Over and over, don't forget, this discussion is NOT about your home but a place you INVITE the public to enter when you open a business.

So, are guns purely aesthetic? Or are the a "civil right"?

If they are a civil right then your private property rights, on property that you open to the public, take a back seat to the civil rights of those you invite in.

 

[divemedic]

To complicate things further, the courts also will restrict property owners when they sell that property. Try to refuse to sell your private home to a man because of the color of his skin.

Remember that we are talking the constitution and the law here, not anyone's opinion of how it should be. The law is on the side of civil rights, and against property owners. That is just the way it is, and no amount of wishing will change that. The only way to change it is to get enough people to agree with you to change the law through their elected representatives, or to have the COTUS changed through the amendment process.

 

[Guns and more]

I've never seen so many jailhouse lawyers.

 

[divemedic]

Way to add to the discussion. What's the matter, too many big words for ya? Maybe I can type slower.