Lawsuits against organizations that prohibit concealed carry

[Double Naught Spy]

That seems an unlikely requirement to me. If a doctor or hospital deliberately withholds a possible medication/treatment, your statement implies that one would have to prove that the treatment would actually have worked before prevailing in a suit. That’s not the way I have heard it goes. Simply denying a possibly useful option could be a tort, I believe.

Well glummer, you may feel it is unlikely, but that is specifically what is being argued, that having a gun would have changed the outcome.

Of course, if you can come up with court cases involving not allowing guns and showing I am in error, I would appreciate the information. What tort cases do you have to offer? Don't you think gun organizations such as the NRA have considered such causes? If it was reasonable, I think they would have given it a go.

 

[Werewolf]

Quote:
One's property rights end where my right to survive begins. Too bad the law doesn't see it that way.

So, if you decide you need my property for your survival, I’m supposed to accept that?
How do you differ from a thief?
Why should I not treat you as such?

reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.

Sorry - but property rights are not natural rights - not even close.

You’re entitled to your opinion.
Unfortunately, just about everyone who wrote the Constitution disagreed with you. So your opinion has no bearing on the question of Constitutionality.

And you're entitled to be wrong (especially since you chose not to rebutt any of my arguments with other than baseless generalities and ad hominem attacks). You won't find the phrase natural right in the constitution anywhere - at all. I will go so far as to admit that the framers probably did consider the rights delineated in the BOR as natural and therefore were important enough to list as rights the government must not mess with. Only the 5th can be considered as addressing property rights and then only the aspect of taking. The notion that a property owners rights trump an individual's right to self defense isn't in there at all. In fact in most states even if a property owner says no guns and you use one to defend yourself there's a legal principle I don't recall the name of that boils down to carrying may have been illegal but since you needed it to save your life the illegality becomes moot. So there is law and precedence which shows that in fact the legal rights of a property owner do not trump an individual's right to self defense.

Natural rights are generally considered to be rights that are god given or extend to humans from nature. Not being terribly religious I can't speak about whether or not God considers someone's right to tell another he must be defenseless while on his property valid but considering that Christians believe that the body is the temple of the soul I imagine that in God's eyes one's right to defend one's self trumps the property owners right to tell you you can't.

I've already explained why property rights don't derive from nature (something you chose to ignore and not address at all in your response - why?) so I will not go into that again.

Here's a definition of natural rights derived from the opinions of men like Thomas Payne and John Locke which explains the concept of Natural Rights much better than I can:

The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right: A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members. The question of which rights are natural and which are legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all rights are legal rights, while proponents of the concept of natural rights in countries such as the United States assert that founding documents like the American Declaration of Independence and social contracts like the Constitution of the United States make natural rights valid by implication.

Property rights fall into the category of Legal Rights not Natural rights. There's a big difference. If one buys into the whole notion of natural rights then there's no way a legal right trumps a natural right and since property rights are a legal construct and a right

specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members...

and not a natural construct there can be no doubt that a man's natural right to self defense trumps a property owner's rights when that man enter the property owner's property by invitation. Keep in mind we're not talking about someone's home but the property of a public entity be it business or government that by it's nature invites one into it.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Property rights??---what property rights???-----if there were any property rights I'd be able to smoke in any bar in town---unfortunately there's a city ordinance against that.