Our Right-to-carry Is Under Attack!

[Jeff White]

Nolo said;

The difference is that they'd be protesting on your property. A car owned by someone else parked in your yard is not your property.

So you'd be in favor of a law that allowed someone to park their car in your front yard? I suppose it would be ok for the overflow traffic from the nightclub across the street to park in your front yard? After all, they are just parking, not protesting.

Then you shouldn't have put a public parking lot on your property.
That is a form of granting permission.

Ever see a NO SEMIS sign at the entrance to a so called public parking lot? Do you consider that an unconstitutional infringement of the right to park?

Supposedly, a person's car is considered (by me and others) their private property (a mobile oasis, if you will), so, while you may not be able to carry on someone's property (being anywhere outside the doors of your car), you should be able to carry in your car and have a weapon in your vehicle.
Cars are an extension of the home, especially for those people who live in their automobiles.

Cars are not an extension of anyone's home. A car is a car. Some states with their so called Castle Doctrine laws have made defending yourself in your car the same as defending yourself in your home, but that is the only thing it extended to cars. Cars are still treated differently them homes for search and seizure.

We are opening an Pandora's Box that we'll never shut if we start taking private property rights away from people because we wish to carry a gun on private property without the owner's consent.

What will you do when the Sierra Club gets a law passed allowing people unlimited access to your property to birdwatch, check for endangered species or enjoy the sunset from your deck?

Jeff

 

[Nolo]

So you'd be in favor of a law that allowed someone to park their car in your front yard? I suppose it would be ok for the overflow traffic from the nightclub across the street to park in your front yard? After all, they are just parking, not protesting.

I say that because what we are talking about is a parking lot, which is (by and large) open to the public. Do not misconstrue what I say, please.

Ever see a NO SEMIS sign at the entrance to a so called public parking lot? Do you consider that an unconstitutional infringement of the right to park?

Yes, that means that you cannot have semis. It says nothing like "NO SEMIS WITH GUNS IN THEM". While I think such a sign would be perfectly legal, I think that enforcement of such a sign (i.e., searching) is illegal. It is worth noting that I would abide by such a request.

Cars are not an extension of anyone's home.

What if you live in your car?
What if you sleep in your car?
What if you've slept in your car once?
If you say that my automobile is not private property even if I have only ever inhabited it once, then is the same true for houses? What about twice? You cannot qualify such things, and you cannot base law on an "I know it when I see it" philosophy.

 

[wcb]

Regarding the OP, your letter is somewhat well written. You have some superfluous information and it seems as if you are preaching to the choir , being that you are writing this to the governor, no?

What does your letter say; at least I wrote one AND contributed to the cause.

Also, you repeat yourself in pretty blatant ways

I only retyped a portion of one section of the booklet "Gun Facts"; I thought I was being clear enough for a politician to understand, not redundant.

and you make some spelling errors.

80% of what I sent was cut and paste; MS Word caught all but one I missed correcting (doesnt matter where you live, Walmart lives everywhere); sorry I forgot the " ' ".

Not big problems, but noticeable ones that an anti could take and use as grounds for continued ignorance.

Personally I think anyone who loses the content of a letter because it isn't written they way they might have is far more ignorant than any anti might think I was for the content of my letter. I think I would very accurately judge the anti as having been beat by my content and all they could do is point out spelling and/or grammar errors. That's when I almost always know I have beat a Liberal fatally.

 

[wcb]

Mil-Dot

(QUOTE) "wcb,
What he's saying is that the Constitution only limits the government from infringing on your rights. It doesn't limit private citizens from infringing on them.
I'm with the property owners here."

That wasn't quoting me; I agree with you on this. I dont know where you got this as my quote.

 

[Nolo]

What does your letter say; at least I wrote one AND contributed to the cause.

WCB, I did not mean to be overly malicious, just meant to give some constructive criticism. I pointed out what I saw wrong, all of it. Which means that you did very little wrong. I was not trying to attack you, just trying to help proofread the letter.
Did you send it yet?
If you did, I apologize, there's no use proofreading a letter that's already been sent!

 

[Jeff White]

Nolo said;

If you say that my automobile is not private property even if I have only ever inhabited it once, then is the same true for houses? What about twice? You cannot qualify such things, and you cannot base law on an "I know it when I see it" philosophy.

I never said an automobile wasn't private property. I said it wasn't the same as your home. It's not the same by law. Even if you live in it, such as a motor home, it doesn't have the same legal protections as a residence. For instance, there are very few exceptions that allow a warrant less search of a residence. However the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago, that because automobiles are so mobile they can be searched without a warrant under a lot of different circumstances. There is tons of case law on this, so it's not an "I know it if I see it" proposition.

Florida and maybe some other states have extended their castle doctrine laws to say that you don't have to retreat if you are attacked in your automobile. That doesn't make it the same as your home.

Yes, that means that you cannot have semis. It says nothing like "NO SEMIS WITH GUNS IN THEM". While I think such a sign would be perfectly legal, I think that enforcement of such a sign (i.e., searching) is illegal. It is worth noting that I would abide by such a request.

If you would abide by a No Semis with guns in them sign, why do you balk about a no cars with guns in them sign? What's the difference? Is it because you drive a car and not a semi?

Where do you think those policies come from anyway? If you think they come from some vast gun hating conspiracy, you're wrong. They are CYA policies set up by insurance companies. The insurance companies want to protect themselves from the trial lawyers. They want to be able to say; "I'm not liable for the serious injury and death caused by those two gangs going at it in my parking lot, I have a policy that forbids firearms on the premises and they gang bangers broke it. I was trying to look out for my customers."

What we need is legislation that would make it impossible to collect damages if an incident that a person had no reasonable control over (like a gunfight on the parking lot). I bet you wouldn't see nearly as many places posted. But you can't run a business without insurance. And if the insurance company requires you to post your property to get insurance then you post your property.

What's needed is some common sense tort reform, not the sale of our private property rights.

Jeff

 

[Nolo]

If you would abide by a No Semis with guns in them sign, why do you balk about a no cars with guns in them sign? What's the difference? Is it because you drive a car and not a semi?

I would abide by such a sign as well, and not park there. Because I'm a nice person. However, such a request is unenforceable and so is moot.

It's not the same by law.

The way laws are are rather stupid sometimes.
You have refined my opinion, I thank you for that.

 

[wcb]

If you did, I apologize, there's no use proofreading a letter that's already been sent!

Yes they are sent; that's the idea isn't it?

Apology accepted I just think there's a bigger issue than spelling. I get genuinely pissed when my rights get messed with about guns especially since the ultimate results are disastrous.

 

[ptmmatssc]

Here we go again with the "private property" thing . Nowhere in the constitution do I see " the right of the corporation" . It's the "right of the people" . A person(the people) can be seen , heard , and be incarcerated . Can the same be said about a corporation?

Now , as a business , you invite the public onto your property , be it for sales or employment . You have gotten gov authorization to create that business , and with it were GRANTED rights . And those rights can be changed or taken away as to not infringe on the individual's rights .

As individuals , we invite only those we know and want on our property .Otherwise it's trespassing . Our rights of "the people " are recognized by our constitution .

Can a corporation vote in an election? Can it donate a pint of blood? Can it mow a lawn? Some might say "yes it can using it's representatives" . But "it" can't do any of those itself . That's because it's only a construct and not a person . Therefore , it has no "rights" as compared to a real person .

I'll tell you what . When a living breathing corporation can come knocking on my door and speak to me , then I'll gladly abide by their "private property " rights . Until then , my humble living breathing body , within my own "private property" will do as I please on or within it .

Arguing private property rights of individuals vs corporations is comparing apples to oranges . They are not the same , and only one of them is covered by the constitution .

 

[Jeff White]

Tilting at Windmills?

I'll tell you what . When a living breathing corporation can come knocking on my door and speak to me , then I'll gladly abide by their "private property " rights . Until then , my humble living breathing body , within my own "private property" will do as I please on or within it .

So those people I have arrested for trespass on property owned by a corporation were really innocent and the arrests were unlawful? Funny, but their attorney's didn't think so when they advised them to plead guilty.

Private property is private property. It doesn't matter if it's owned by an individual or a corporation. If you'd like to test your legal theory in person, why don't you just go on some corporate property that's posted and refuse to leave. After you are arrested, you will have standing to run your rather unique legal theory of private property through the courts. It's only a misdemeanor conviction so it won't affect your future RKBA. Just don't resist when the officers arrest you. Take a lesson from the civil rights protesters.

Maybe if you post your plan in activism, you can get some support.

You see right now, the law doesn't read the way you want it to. So basically you have two options. You can try to get the law on defining private property changed in the legislature or you can try the civil disobedience method. Until one of those methods succeed, you can post that corporations don't have property rights on every internet forum in the world, but it won't change a thing.

What a world we'd live in if all 300 million + of us could decide for ourselves what the law was....

Jeff

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Nolo: If you want to be a hundred percent sure that there are absolutely NO firearms on your property, then you should not let an automobile, an extension of someone else's home and sovereign property, onto your property. It's that simple.

Would you argue that the human body is someone's sovereign property? I mean it makes sense to say that you own your own body. Thus couldn't you just apply this logic and say that it is now illegal to fire someone for having a gun on their body at work? I mean it is on their body and that is their sovereign property.

 

[lacoochee]

:banghead:

 

[Sage of Seattle]

So those people I have arrested for trespass on property owned by a corporation were really innocent and the arrests were unlawful? Funny, but their attorney's didn't think so when they advised them to plead guilty

Yes those were lawful arrests because the law granted the corporations the authority to trespass people.

Besides, I really don't want to yell here, so I'll refrain from that, but there are ALREADY hundreds of laws that control virtually every aspect of private property, both homeowner (a truly private property) and a corporation, so you guys can argue all you want about how it's an infringement of private property rights; you're probably right too, but it's irrelevant. You're about a hundred years too late to argue that. Talk about tilting at windmills; try instead of convincing the rest of the country that corporations and other businesses should be allowed once again to discriminate against black people, or Jews, or any other example you'd care to use.

It's amazing how much power and money and influence corporations have -- even to the point of having been GIVEN human rights, but lacking a corresponding RESPONSIBILITY -- and how so many of you are falling all over yourselves saying "hey, it's okay that I'm discriminated against, it's one of the most important rights of the constitution, it's such a bedrock solid foundation of that sacred document, that they never even wrote it down. But it's in there, I swear!"

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: tyranny by anyone other than a government is still tyranny. In fact, some of these corporations wield more power than some small sovereign nations and can blithely ignore American laws and well, I guess that's all hunky dory, because it's their God given right to discriminate!

 

[bogie]

Our right to pick nits is under attack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[C&R]

I believe

I believe that government has too many laws that infringe on our freedoms. It appears that in many cases we the people have requested this regulation.

We have government regulations that TAKE our land through restricting our use of it, without reimbursing us.

We have government regulations that require us to allow select individuals to be able to access our land, even if we don’t want them to.

We have government regulations that REQUIRE us to provide parking spaces, and further require that some of them will be set aside for select individuals.

We now have government in Florida allowing select individuals to bring firearms into the government mandated parking areas, within the terms of the regulations.

We have government regulations that allow select individuals to bring animals into business.

We have government regulations that prohibit business from not providing service to individuals – even if they have no expectation of being paid by the individuals that receive their services.

As one poster has on his signature “What part of shall not infringe don’t they understand?”

 

[lawson4]

Not all business' are open to the public. Take a firearms manufacturer for instance. It may be privately owned and only allow employees into the parking lot.
Shouldn't they have the same rights as a homeowner regarding guns on the property?

lawson4

 

[wcb]

Here's a suggestion, write your representative asking them to disallow this action in your state and donate to the NRA so they can continue to fight for our rights as we want them pertaining to our firearms rights.

That's what were on this thread for.:banghead:

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Here's a suggestion, write your representative asking them to disallow this action in your state and donate to the NRA so they can continue to fight for our rights as we want them pertaining to our firearms rights.

That's what were on this thread for.

Then this shouldn't be in legal, it should have been started under activism. Maybe a mod would move it for you...?

 

[VARifleman]

wcb,
What he's saying is that the Constitution only limits the government from infringing on your rights. It doesn't limit private citizens from infringing on them.

I'm with the property owners here. Private property rights are what our freedom is based on. Just like the right to keep and bear arms they have been infringed on too and have been diminished. If you are willing to accept that the government can tell you that you must allow someone to carry a gun on your property, then you must also accept that the government can tell you that you can't build on your property because it might endanger a species of flea or that you can only plant a certain type of grass in your yard.

The right to do what you want with one's own property is every bit as important as the right to keep and bear arms.

Jeff

Except in this law your gun is always on YOUR private property, not the company's.

 

[IllHunter]

In Chicago they call it "Clout",

You can choose to call it "leverage". It's the same thing.

The problem is that they cannot restrict customers since they have no real leverage. However they can restrict employees and they should have the ability to if they wish to.

I agree that the "rights" of Corporations are only there because they have "leverage". It happens that last night NBC-TV in Chicago ran a piece about WAl-Mart's chronic failure to maintain their parking lot cameras and security. If they are concerned with the the security of the lots impacted by my gun in my car,they can install their security devices and try and find it. I would be acting the same as the United States Navy who enter foreign and domestic ports that "ban" Nuclear devices. They neither confirm nor deny the presence of those devices and go where they will, when they will. Might makes right, most of the time.

 

[hitbackfirst]

Florida and maybe some other states have extended their castle doctrine laws to say that you don't have to retreat if you are attacked in your automobile. That doesn't make it the same as your home.

You don't have to retreat if you are attacked in your car, but if a company can make you leave your gun home, I guess you can get slaughtered while you stand your ground.

 

[wcb]

Quote:
Here's a suggestion, write your representative asking them to disallow this action in your state and donate to the NRA so they can continue to fight for our rights as we want them pertaining to our firearms rights.

That's what were on this thread for.

Then this shouldn't be in legal, it should have been started under activism. Maybe a mod would move it for you...?

Are you telling me that all these people would be doing the right thing for gun owners if it were simply posted in another category?

Somehow I find that hard to believe; this has been nothing but a judge and jury argument instead of what the NRA is pleading for and warning about. They want to take care of it for us not have us deliberate. Does anybody here even belong to the NRA or know what the NRA-ILA does?

 

[Feud]

Does anybody here even belong to the NRA or know what the NRA-ILA does?

Whether or not someone belongs to an organization, and whether or not a person supports every action an organization takes, are two different things.

 

[Jeff White]

Does anybody here even belong to the NRA or know what the NRA-ILA does?

I am an NRA Life Member and contribute to the ILA. But I don't think they are correct on every single issue. I don't agree with this legislation and I don't agree with the way they worded the model castle doctrine legislation.

One can be a member of an organization and not march in lockstep with everything they do.

Jeff

 

[wcb]

Well I'm seeing everybody talked themselves into thinking it's wrong without knowing what it's all about. I dont want Walmart telling me I cant carry my gun today because I plan to stop at their store and then if Walmart gets their way, everybody has the door wide open to say the same thing then next thing you know you can carry a gun but you just cant take it anywhere. Then what are you going to do?

Personally I dont think the NRA-ILA is fighting this because they have nothing better to do. I think all of you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt and/or find out what you dont understand as a result of all the arguing here.

If Walmart wins and gun owners lose, should we just make reference to this Forum Thread and keep the laws as they are for ourselves?