Gun bans on "private property" - completely stupid!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dave3006

member
Joined
Jul 18, 2003
Messages
898
Think about it. The law allows so-called private property owners to post a sign saying against concealed weapons. Therefore, at various stores, sporting events, and other businesses - you must be made defenseless.

Besides the fact that these places are not completely private property. They are all open for public use... The (il) logic is that an owner can do what he wants on his own property. Therefore, I suggest the following must also be okay for the owner to do:

1. Confiscate all your money upon exit.
2. Force you to leave naked to assure you have not stole anything.
3. Deny service to blacks, jews, and women.

The private property argument doesn't wash. Reason #4597 why this is really not a free country.
 
Actually I'm all for private property rights.

My property, my rules. Private ownership is one of the basic premises vital to our country. I don't care for the government telling me what I can or cannot do with property that I own...including whether I allow the carrying of weapons.

Smoke
 
Doesn't one of our senior members hand out a card to these types saying that they'll be sued for denying him the ability to protect himself if he gets hurt?
 
Up to you whether or not you want to spend money at establishments that prohibit concealed carry, but I show the utmost respect for the requests and requirements of property owners, even if I don't agree with them.

And if I really disagree with them, they won't find me on their property any longer.
 
Re: respecting property rights

My outer clothing and everything under them is my own private property, which I take with me wherever I go.

pax
 
you'd be surprised

I can't remember exactly who it was. (for some reason I want to say blockbuster, not sure though, its been 5 or 6 yrs) There was a business here in SC that prohibited carry. It was changed in short order due to the rapid decline in business. (Here in SC we have strong RKBA representation. And grass roots organizations. AG was Charlie "invade a home invite a bullet" Condon. We have Andre Bauer who advocated reform of CWP restrictions to take out senseless restrictions and to clarify grey areas.)Most places I know of now have seen the light.
Plus as many others say, concealed is concealed. I am not advocating or disapproving, either way, since if you get caught you could lose your license... personally I just avoid the places that cut in on my right to bear arms.
Another example of poorly done prohibition of firearms is a local Bojangles. I always check the doors on an establishment before I go in, to see if there is a prohibited sign. I got to the desk and began to place my order when, what should I see posted on the inside at the counter? I had to cease and desist with my order and bow out gracefully. they don't get my business or any of my friends' now... Hmmm... I haven't been back to see if it has changed. I think I will stop in to see today.
 
Think about it. The law allows so-called private property owners to post a sign saying against concealed weapons. Therefore, at various stores, sporting events, and other businesses - you must be made defenseless.
Click to expand...
The private property argument doesn't wash. Reason #4597 why this is really not a free country.
Click to expand...

You are nt thiking this through. IF the Government didnt allow private property owners to do this we would be a less free country. no one forces you to go to a private place that does not allow guns. therefore your rights are not infringed on.
I think private property owners should be able to refuse service to anyone. IF some business wants to discriminate against people based on Race, sex,etc, that should be their right. Whenever the government tells someone what they can or cant do with their own property they are infringing on our freedoms. Would you like the government to take away your right to post no tresspassing signs, or your right to run people off your property or your right to tell people not to smoke or use profanity on your property, or any other thing you might not want people doing on your property? If you are nt willing to give up those rights then it is hypocrisy to want the government to force private property owners to allow you to carry on their property that you enter at your own discretion.
we have to ask ourselves do we love carrying a gun more than freedom? Typically people who carry tend to love freedom. If we forsake our love of freedom for our love of guns we have become as bad as the blissninnies.
 
I think there is a little bit of "reverse-the-tables" going on here. The left constantly dictates what private property owners can do. It would be fund to have the state force our stance down everyone's throats for once.

But. alas, we are the bearers of freedom and we can not allow the state to infringe upon private property.
 
The fact that the property is being used in a public manner makes this different. You can not do whatever you want on any type of private property, much less private property used by the public. No one has the right to violate your human rights, just because it is his property. If you open your property to the public, you can not descriminate. The laws even make property owners rent to homos in most states. You would be sued if you tried to make blacks sit in the back of your fast food store. There are plenty of precidents.

I can make a policy that any woman that enters my store can be sexually assaulted if I see fit. Women across America can decide to boycott my store. However, the first time one walks in and I cross that line, I have committed a crime.

Just because I enter your store that is open to the public, you have no right to disarm, rape, or violate me in any way.

Think about it.
 
So would it be ok with you if John Kerry held a campaign rally in your front yard, with Whoopi, Rosie, Sarah, and all the trappings under the protection of the First Amendment?
 
Dave,

You are comparing an overt criminal act to a preference. Raping a woman is criminal. Allowing guns on private property is a preference. The 2A states that Government may not infringe on your rights.

Be very careful calling private property public property simply because a business is open to the public. Be very careful what you wish for.
 
The fact that the property is being used in a public manner makes this different.
Click to expand...
no it doesnt. Its still owned my the owner, he hs the right to do as he pleases. you have the right to not go there. You do not (or should not) have the right to shove what you want to do down his throat if you chose to go there.
I can make a policy that any woman that enters my store can be sexually assaulted if I see fit.
Click to expand...
thats an absurdity. her body is privat property, if we are consistant in our view that people can decide what to do with their property then you cant force them to do anything.
now if you wanted to open some house of pervision where everyone entering had to do something weird then that would be your right and people would have the right to go there or not of their own free will.

Just because I enter your store that is open to the public, you have no right to disarm, rape, or violate me in any way.
Click to expand...
I have no right to violate your private property rights if you enter my store. I cant force you to give me everythign you have. but I can charge admission. as long as the rules are known going in then someone should be able to do what they want with their property.

you open your property to the public, you can not descriminate. The laws even make property owners rent to homos in most states. You would be sued if you tried to make blacks sit in the back of your fast food store. There are plenty of precidents
Click to expand...

and those examples are right how??
the property owners SHOULD be able to discriminate if they want to, that is called freedom. I should be able to open a men only club. oh wait they have those.

yes there are laws that infringe on property owners and force them to allow people to do things that they do not want. But we as freedom loving people should not infringe furthter on peoples rights to get our way. leave that to the leftist.
 
pax said,
My outer clothing and everything under them is my own private property, which I take with me wherever I go.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I see the matter of carrying a handgun on someone else's property to be perfectly consistent with the primacy of property rights. The main reason someone would be carrying, after all, is to protect their personal property, namely, themselves. Being allowed to protect your own property is key to the primacy of property rights.

The Libertarian principle, as I understand it, is that people have the right to do with their own property whatever they want so long as it does not significantly affect another person's property.

Wherever I go, I am my own property. I do not suddenly belong to someone else simply because I walk onto their land. The same thing goes for whatever I bring with me. My car is still my car even when it is being driven on someone else's road.

I may be standing in a house that someone else is king over, but I am still king over myself and my property which I brought with me, and I can do with it whatever I want (It's mine) so long as it doesn't significantly affect their property.

If I pull out a cigarette and start to smoke, I am interfering with their property (since I can not keep the smoke to myself) and so I do not just have an automatic right to smoke just because the cigarettes are mine. Likewise, If I pee in their toilet, I'm affecting their property (messes up the toilet, fills the septic, consumes water) and so I don't even have an automatic right to pee in their bathroom.

However, a gun that is concealed, and properly and safely holstered upon my own person and under my control at all times does not affect the other person's property even though it is within their house.

If they want to kick me off their property, so be it. My presence must necessarily affect their property and so I don't have an automatic right to be there. But, following the libertarian principle of property rights at least, they do not have the right to tell me I can not carry my gun to defend my own property.

Don
 
Absent constraints imposed by governments, the proprietor of a business has the private property right to establish his rules. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" has long been common. Same for "No smoking".

If you don't like his version of "No guns", you have the option of shopping elsewhere. The possibility exists that if you meet his "No guns" rule, he has indeed assumed tort liability for your safety while on his premises.

A member of the public can tell me how to run my business only by withholding his money, by shopping elsewhere. Anybody doesn't like the rules of my game? Hey, don't play.

:), Art
 
I normally refrain from threads of this type; however, Art is "dead on target" here. Private property owners have the right to be "stupid" and the rest of us have the right to express our disapproval by taking our business elsewhere.
 
If they want to kick me off their property, so be it. My presence must necessarily affect their property and so I don't have an automatic right to be there.
Click to expand...

Since you don't have an automatic right to be there, if I decide to post a no guns sign then by coming on to my property you agree to abide by the rules as they were set forth.

If I don't have a sign but find out after you have come to my property that you are armed, I might ask you to leave. If you don't, it''s called "Criminal Trespassing.

You are fully free to choose where you go. I am fully free to make people that are on my property follow my rules. IF the two don't jive - go someplace else.

Pretty simple really.

Smoke
 
Private Property Rights

The concept of private property and the right of an owner to control what happens on that property is one of the most basic principles that define the idea of freedom.

I do not agree with those who would prevent concealed and unobtrusive carry, within the local law, of a weapon, but their restriction of conduct – on their property – should remain an inviolable right. After all, they also have the right to ask for conformance in other aspects of behavior, such as wearing apparel, the consumption of specific beverages, or use of tobacco products. In fact, the owner can even prohibit patrons from bringing food and beverages from outside.

Concerning one’s presence at sporting events, stores, or other businesses - that presence is voluntary. In this type of case, the individual makes a choice to enter that private property. This does not mean the proprietor gives up his rights as a property owner.

The comparison of prohibiting the possession of a weapon to prohibiting admission based on gender or skin color or religion is similar to that of apples and oranges. One has no real control over gender or skin color (medical science and Michael Jackson notwithstanding). Religion is generally transparent – but the owner could legally prohibit the overt practice of religion on his property (such as the sacrifice of chickens). But that prohibition chicken sacrifice would be a restriction of behavior, not a restriction in the belief in such sacrifices. The prohibition of the possession of a weapon is a restriction of behavior, not the restriction of a belief that carrying a weapon is a good thing.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service†is a restriction on behavior. One has the “right†to dress as one pleases, but a property owner has also the right to restrict dress to that which he thinks appropriate. That dress code can extend to the carry of a camera, a ballpoint pen, or a weapon on property that is privately owned.

No, an owner can not do anything he wants on his property – such as stealing someone’s money or committing assault. That would be a violation of the law whether on private or public property.

Using private property to have a sporting event or to sell groceries does not make it public property, even though the public has access. That access is granted at the will of the owner, as long as he does not deny access illegally – such as by violating civil rights laws or any other law. Just because he is using that property for a commercial purpose does not mean he gives up his right to control the behavior on that property.

Everyone has the right, however, to refuse to patronize any business. One also has the privilege of telling or writing a letter to the owner or the local newspaper with the reasons for non-patronage explained.

But, if one’s weapon is concealed, who’s to know?
 
(dave3006) The fact that the property is being used in a public manner makes this different. You can not do whatever you want on any type of private property, much less private property used by the public. No one has the right to violate your human rights, just because it is his property. If you open your property to the public, you can not descriminate. The laws even make property owners rent to homos in most states. You would be sued if you tried to make blacks sit in the back of your fast food store. There are plenty of precidents.
Click to expand...
This is the case now, but it is not liberty. Liberty, as others have mentioned, is when a private property owner can make the rules about who gets to enter and use his land or buildings and how they are to behave while there.

The idea that when one "opens up his property to the public" he loses his right to dispose of it is statist oppression. Forcing restaurants to serve blacks or men's clubs to accept women is tyranny.

MR
 
What's operative here is the balance of rights, which can get to be a thorny legal question. We're all familiar with the statement that Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

A slight digression. The right of self defense, hence the RTKBA, is also rooted in property rights, since a right to property implies a right to defend it, and our rights to our selves -- our lives, body, thoughts, etc. -- are the most basic of property rights.

The question, I think, to the balance here lies in the burden of remedy. In resolving the conflict of rights, which party has the greater burden? It would be far more burdensome for the shop owner (or any real property owner) to move their property away from an individual's sphere of personal protection, than for the individual to move himself away from the sphere of risk created by the no-CCW policy.

When the situation goes to the extreme, as in the "all persons entering consent to physical assault" mentioned earlier (generic rendition of Dave3006's example), I think the balance shifts, because of the difference between an actual harm, vs. a potential harm. And yes, I acknowledge the argument that deprivation of the means of self-defense is an actual harm, but it's less immediate, and more easily remedied (by simply leaving, or not patronizing the business, in this case), than an actual assault.

Edit: I didn't get that quite right there. Obviously, the same remedy applies in either case, above, i.e. that of just not entering the property. The right of property doesn't always extend to the act of assault, though. Defense against theft, etc. of course come into play. Does the right of property extend to shooting trespassers who are otherwise acting peaceably? I think most here would argue that it doesn't. But further, the balance issue (or in some cases proportionality) would determine whether an act commited by a property owner is legally or morally actionable, which is where, I think, the difference lies between the actual harm vs. potential harm.
 
Property owners also have the right to limit free speech and assembly.
 
The possibility exists that if you meet his "No guns" rule, he has indeed assumed tort liability for your safety while on his premises.
Click to expand...
This possibility should be made a reality. Law should be passed where the property owner who denies his patrons the right to carry is responsible for any injury suffered as a result.

I'd also like to see law requiring lock boxes or check rooms for any places which require you to be unarmed. If you allow the public access, but ban the carrying of concealed weapons, you should have to provide a safe place for the disarmed public to store the weapons. :)
 
Private property owners have the right to be "stupid" and the rest of us have the right to express our disapproval by taking our business elsewhere.
Click to expand...

This is the solution. Evolution doesn't favor retailers who chase away customers (which is why Jim Crow laws had to be passed to make Southerners ACTUALLY discriminate, instead of just talking about it; read Sowell and Williams), and whenever we have a choice of a rights-respecting store over a victim zone we should take it.

(Of course trying to disarm only the law-abiding customers is really, really @#$%ing stupid, I'm not going to argue with you there).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Florida's "Individual Personal Private Property Protection" Comes Before Senate Soon!
Replies
2
Views
401
PPGMD
P
A
  • Locked
1,000 Katrina guns found in Nawlins
Replies
4
Views
727
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Seattle's Mayor Nickels Defends Gun Ban on City Property
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Update on AOL anti-gun action
Replies
15
Views
912
Spot77
S
D
  • Locked
(MN) Building owners voice gun-law worries
Replies
4
Views
388
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top