Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Property Rights v. Gun rights
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, January 26, 2006

Two points before I get into this. I am a proponent of the rights of a citizen to keep and bear arms. I am also a proponent of a citizen's right to control his property without intrusive and undo interference from the state.

Now those are both general statements, but they've come into conflict here in Georgia. I should probably make a third statement as well. The gentleman who's article I will cite, Jay Bookman (a local columnist), is someone who I almost routinely disagree with concerning his take on subjects. This is one of those rare occassions in which we agree. Speaking of a bill in the Georiga legislature, Bookman writes:
Under the bill, private employers would no longer be able to prevent their workers from bringing guns to the job and leaving them in the company parking lot. In fact, the proposed law would apply to any parking lot anywhere, with no exceptions for hospitals, prisons, churches or even schools. The bill is modeled after legislation passed in Oklahoma, and the NRA is now trying to push versions of the bill through state legislatures around the country.

[...]

"That bill causes quite a bit of concern for our members," says Fleming. "The chamber is without question supportive of the Second Amendment, but our members see this primarily as a property rights issue."
Not that it particularly matters, but Joe Fleming is a senior VP with the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. And I think that Fleming and Chamber's concerns are well founded. While it is certainly within the power and right of the legislature to dictate what can and can't be done in its government parking lots, for instance, I believe this to be legislative overreach which violates the rights of a property owner.

If you come to the door of my house wearing a pistol on your belt, I have every right to bar your entry and tell you that isn't allowed in my home. It's my property and I have the right to control who enters it and what goes on within its boundaries. Why wouldn't that extend, as well, to the driveway?

Private property owners, by right, must have control of access and activity within the boundaries of their property, or, in fact, they are prevented from exercising the rights of ownership. A gun owner's rights end at my property line.

Now obviously I don't check the trunks of my friend's cars when they come to my home and I don't search them as they enter, but that certainly doesn't preclude me from deciding, if I so desire, to ban firearms from my property and asking my visitors to comply with my wishes or not visit. And I certainly also have the right to ask anyone who purposely violates my wishes to leave and not return. Those are the rights of private ownership.

There are more ways than confiscation to abrogate the rights of private ownership. This bill, for instance, will most likely find sympathetic sponsors among gun owners who have a knee-jerk reaction to anything which even hints at restricting their second-amendment rights. But they're wrong in this case. As Bookman points out:
Even under the NRA's expansive and at times ludicrous interpretation, the Second Amendment can only be said to bar government from restricting gun possession. It cannot be twisted to say that private property owners cannot bar guns from their property if they choose.
I agree. And for the same reason I object to legislation which bans smoking on private property such as bars or restaurants. It is none of the state's business. They're welcome to ban smoking in every public venue they control, but stay away from private property. Camel's nose, slippery slope and all that. Why do you suppose they feel empowered to go from banning smoking on private property to now dictating that private property owners must allow guns on their property?

Because we let them get away with the smoking ban, that's why. While I don't smoke and prefer a smoke free environment, I don't agree that government has a role in deciding that for owners of private property, any more than I'd agree they could dictate whether anyone could smoke in my house.

As a final point. This is an example of what we were talking about when we said that on a national level we're much more likely to come down on the right of center, but that doesn't always mean we'll do the same on the state or local level, and in fact, may find ourselves, more often than not, supporting the left on issues. While this isn't a pure issue of the left, Bookman is an unabashed liberal and is the only one taking up this cause at the moment. For once, in a number of years, he and I agree.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I am an Oklahoman and schoolboard president. I cannot speak to the other venues you mention but schools are protected, by federal law, from weapons on the premises. That includes vehicles in their parking lots.
 
Written By: Walt Larsen
URL: http://
Now obviously I don’t check the trunks of my friend’s cars when they come to my home and I don’t search them as they enter, but that certainly doesn’t preclude me from deciding, if I so desire, to ban firearms from my property and asking my visitors to comply with my wishes or not visit. And I certainly also have the right to ask anyone who purposely violates my wishes to leave and not return. Those are the rights of private ownership.

At what point do the property rights of the owner of the property trump the property rights of the owner of the vehicle? For that matter, will the property owners be allowed to search the vehicles in question to determine if the visitors are in violation?

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
At what point do the property rights of the owner of the property trump the property rights of the owner of the vehicle?
Who needs who’s permission to enter the driveway?
For that matter, will the property owners be allowed to search the vehicles in question to determine if the visitors are in violation?
Good question. I doubt it. But then I think the rights of the property owner to control what happens on his property trump the right of another to bring what they choose on his property if he objects.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I’m a pretty big supporter of gun-rights, including concealed carry, but I too agree that this NRA supported legislation is simply wrong and inappropriate. Further proof that not every gun-rights supporter neccesarily agrees with everything the NRA does. I think they are generally a useful organization, but in cases like this I must distance myself from them.

I disagree with the comparison to the smoking issue, but that is on different grounds entirely, which are not neccesarily the scope of discussion here.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
I’m going with the Property Owner’s rights here. I can ban smoking, drinking, gambling, bikini’s, and R-rated films from my house. I can be a giant prig if I care to. YOU don’t have to come to my house.

I believe a reasonable owner and corporate policy is BEST but it isn’t required. So if the XYZ Corp, Inc. makes a rule about firearms on the property and announces a "zero tolerance" policy, it might lead to a few unjust firings and hard feelings, but overall the XYZ Corp. has the right to make rules for ITS property.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I am an Oklahoman and schoolboard president. I cannot speak to the other venues you mention but schools are protected, by federal law, from weapons on the premises. That includes vehicles in their parking lots.
What federal law would that be? All such federal laws were specifically declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Lopez in 1995, the legal underpinnings of which were strengthened by the Court’s decision in Morrison five years later. There may be a state law declaring such limitations on the carrying of firearms, but there is no (constitutional) federal law that does so.

To Bruce’s point, if someone wants to enter onto my property with a gun (or a pack of cigarettes, or a camel, or a tuba, or anything else I don’t want there), I can conceive of no Constitutional reason why I should have to let them. If, as posited above, someone decides to cart one of these banned items onto my property in the trunk of his car, I can certainly reserve the right to search that trunk befroe granting permission to enter. This is no more a violation of anyone’s Second or Fourth Amend. rights than it would be a violation of First Amendment rights for me to kick Cindy Sheehan off my front lawn if she started spouting off things I didn’t want her to. Except in a very few discrete instances, no one can enter upon my property without my permission, and I have no obligation to allow them to do so.

An interesting question will arise if, in the event the law is passed, a disgruntled employee decides to shoot up his place of employment with the gun he brought to work with him. Will the State accept responsibility for the tragedy or will the employer be left to hold the bag?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Will the State accept responsibility for the tragedy or will the employer be left to hold the bag?
That’s rhetorical question, right? Of COURSE, the employer will be left to hold the bag!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Mark,

"At what point do the property rights of the owner of the property trump the property rights of the owner of the vehicle? For that matter, will the property owners be allowed to search the vehicles in question to determine if the visitors are in violation?"

The solution is easy. If you park in my driveway and I suspect you have a gun in the trunk of your car, I will say that you have a choice, either you let me search your car’s trunk that is parked in my driveway or you get the hell off my driveway. At that point you can either let me look in your trunk or you can leave. Problem solved.
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
Let’s take this to the extreme and say that every property owner bans guns in their parking lot, how then is a conceal carry permit holder supposed to go anywhere? ...and then, more importantly, what would be the point in have a CCL license if you cannot carry a weapon between point A and B? I’m not attempting to support or refute the bill, but just asking questions. BTW, I consider that if the gun stays in the car, then it is still within the car owners property. What if there was some other item that a property owner didn’t like, say french fries; can the property owner ban all cars with french fries in them from being left in his lot? (I’m in trouble in this case, since there are plenty between the car’s seats and the center console.)
 
Written By: Coffee
URL: http://
I cannot speak to the other venues you mention but schools are protected, by federal law, from weapons on the premises.
****

And yet, weapons still show up on the premises of schools. Some "protection"

****
But then I think the rights of the property owner to control what happens on his property trump the right of another to bring what they choose on his property if he objects.


****

Putting up a sign is going to control what happens on his property??

Just as a restraining order only works if the person it’s against is a lawfull person, a property owners (or schools) desire to have a "gun free zone" is only applicable to those who willingly follow the law. In effect, you are disarming the good, in order to prevent yourself from being liable from the illegal acts of others.

If an employee, or robber, wants to come onto your property and shoot up the place and you or your employees, a sign saying "no weapons allowed", isn’t going to stop them. And whether that "disgruntled" employee had the weapon on him, in his car, or across town in his home, if he wanted to commit an illegal act, that sign isn’t going to stop him.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Let’s take this to the extreme
OK, what if Elanor Roosevelt could fly? See how easy it is to go to the extremes? Your point is almost nonsensical...I mean that in a non-inuslting manner, if that is possible. What IF EVERY (insert person here) bans (insert object here)? It’s not very LIKELY or even probable that EVERY property owner is going to do this. Sometimes discussions at the margins can be revealing, but sometimes they begin to take on an absurdist tinge, not everyone one is going to do anything and in this case we might really examine what is MOST likely, not simply the binary solution of all or nothing.
BTW, I consider that if the gun stays in the car, then it is still within the car owners property.

Yes the car is YOURS, but it’s on MY property and I don’t allow you to bring firearms onto my property. It is IRRELEVANT to the discussion whether or not the firearm is in your property or is your property or not. It is your firearm in your car, but on my LAND. On my land I can set the rules for the visitors.
What if there was some other item that a property owner didn’t like, say french fries; can the property owner ban all cars with french fries in them from being left in his lot?
Yes I believe the property owner can, as I wrote above, no nicotine products, no ethanol, no skimpy bathing attire, no soft-core porno on my land... it’s my land I can make the rules. You get the option of whether my rules are too onerous for you to comply with. If they are, don’t come. I take the risk of having a lonely life, because my rules are too onerous. It’s about options and accepting the consequences of chhosing certain options.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And is the property owner going to assume the active defense of my life, since he wont let me defend it in the way I see fit??
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I believe florida just passed a bill like this a few months ago.



But MichaelW, "An interesting question will arise if, in the event the law is passed, a disgruntled employee decides to shoot up his place of employment with the gun he brought to work with him." really, does that have anything to do with this law? Wouldnt an even more likely consequence if that happened would be for another employee who brought a gun in his car to get it and take out the disgruntled employee? Sorry to pick on you, but that example sounds just like every gun control supporters weak argument. This law would still make it illegal to take the gun out of the car, so the employee would still be violating many laws, and its not like if he was going to shoot the place up, the law would stop him from bringing a gun.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
If an employee, or robber, wants to come onto your property and shoot up the place and you or your employees, a sign saying "no weapons allowed", isn’t going to stop them. And whether that "disgruntled" employee had the weapon on him, in his car, or across town in his home, if he wanted to commit an illegal act, that sign isn’t going to stop him.


Yes that’s true, Keith, but you are arguing from a utilitarian standard or from one level down from the level of discussion. You are arguing, it seems, about the PRACTICALITY of a rule and/or its consequences. The discussion is about the RIGHT of someone to behave a certain way.

As an example, we could discuss the legalization of heroin. Your argument falls into the level of saying, "It’s wrong because heroin addicts lead bad lives." It’s true, but it’s irrelevant. It’s about the right to decide, even if the decision is practically bad.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
BTW, I consider that if the gun stays in the car, then it is still within the car owners property.
Well the same could be said if the gun were in a holster (i.e. the holster is the "car owners" property as well), but I’d be perfectly within my rights as a property owner to not allow him to bring the gun on my property.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Let’s take this to the extreme and say that every property owner bans guns in their parking lot, how then is a conceal carry permit holder supposed to go anywhere? ...and then, more importantly, what would be the point in have a CCL license if you cannot carry a weapon between point A and B?
You can carry your weapon in any public place (except where specifically prohibited). A CCL may not be of much use under such construct, but you don’t have any Second Amendment right to a CCL.
BTW, I consider that if the gun stays in the car, then it is still within the car owners property. What if there was some other item that a property owner didn’t like, say french fries; can the property owner ban all cars with french fries in them from being left in his lot? (I’m in trouble in this case, since there are plenty between the car’s seats and the center console.)
What difference does it make that the gun "is still within the car owners property"? All the gun owner’s property is now on my property. If I don’t want guns there, he will have to leave or will be a trespasser.

Think about it this way, what if YOU hate french fries, and you don’t want them in your car (they get in between the seats and the center console, etc.). I decide to get in your car with a McD’s bag full of fries all held in my briefcase. The fires are entirely within my property. Am I vilating your rule? What if I’m just holding a McD’s bag full of fries inside? Are you violating my property rights by forcing me to abandon the fries?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Employers have a right to regulate the workplace. To a certain extent. They should have a right to say whether employees can carry in the office, in the parking lot, and even if the employee’s job takes him out of the office. Anywhere the employee is representing the compnay. However, in my opinion, exercising that right should place a legal responsibility on the employer for the safety of their employees. If you significantly restrict a persons right to self-defense (which is what banning guns does), the employer should be required to provide security or have a damn good reason, like a serious workplace safety concern.

This is not like the "you come into my house or not" case because employment places serious financial power in the hands of the employer. Nor are the rules you operate under likely to remain constant over the length of your employment. And yes, you can always quit. Just like all those liberals could leave the country when Bush got elected. But that isn’t a serious option for most people who need the money to feed their families.

An example: I interviewed at a Thiokol plant once. You couldn’t bring anything flammable or any possible ignition sources to the workplace. This included firearms (ironically because of the "fire" part not the "arm"), matches, and cigarette lighters. Thiokol, as many may know, makes rocket motors. The plant contained more than enough rocket fuel to wipe it and everyone working there off the face of the earth. This regulation was a good thing and I don’t have a problem with it.

As another example: I work in a federal building and park in a federal lot. Because of federal law, I couldn’t have a firearm in my car even if I wanted to. The compound is surrounded by a fence and contains armed guards. This may cause a problem if someone starts threatening me at my home, but I really don’t think I will ever feel unsafe at work.

I do have a problem with employers regulating the contents of the employee’s vehicle. Firstly, it seldom accomplishes any more than regulating the parking lot itself. Generally you have to carry the gun through the lot before you threaten anyone. Secondly, the implications of regulating the contents of the employees vehicle spreads far beyond the employers parking lot. If the employee can’t keep a gun in their car, then they can’t carry anywhere between the workplace and their residence. They can’t carry if they stop at the grocery. They can’t start carrying (or effectively defend themselves) until they get home, get to their weapons, and arm themselves. So if someone decides to hurt you and waits for you to come home from work (a very likely scenario), you are screwed. This is a big deal and a serious abridgement of their self defense rights outside of the workplace and when they are not on company time.

I have to side with Mark. A person’s car is their personal property. It just happens to be mobile. Several states do officially and legally recognize a car as an extension of the home. This is a good thing. Searches and seizures within vehicles generally require probably cause or warrants for this very reason. Unless someone is carrying a fertilizer bomb, the likelihood that what is in their car poses any direct threat to me is pretty small.

 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
But MichaelW, "An interesting question will arise if, in the event the law is passed, a disgruntled employee decides to shoot up his place of employment with the gun he brought to work with him." really, does that have anything to do with this law?
Yes. It does. The law potentially affects who could be held liable for such an action (i.e. would a company that formerly took reasonable precautions against such an incident now be treated the same as one that never had).
Wouldnt an even more likely consequence if that happened would be for another employee who brought a gun in his car to get it and take out the disgruntled employee?
Possibly, yes. But that does answer the issue of liability.
Sorry to pick on you, but that example sounds just like every gun control supporters weak argument.
Pick away, but read what I actually wrote first. I never alluded to anything about gun control, and examples aren’t arguments.
This law would still make it illegal to take the gun out of the car, so the employee would still be violating many laws, and its not like if he was going to shoot the place up, the law would stop him from bringing a gun.
Again, this irrelevant to what I wrote. I did not address anything regarding crime prevention or protection from violence. I’m simply curious as to the legal ramifications of passing such a law — as in how liability for such a heinous act is divied up after the fact.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
ERRATA: "Possibly, yes. But that does [NOT] answer the issue of liability."
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Joe - I do know that... But it was exactly that argument that got the policy changed at my wifes company.

They had it in their policy that employees and vistors could not have a firearm, either on the property or in their vehicle. The company paid for part of the employees parking fees, but did not provide a secure facility for parking. It was a common parking garage under private management. I argued something to the effect that since they didn’t control the parking lot, in terms of who entered it (in a vehicle or walking), or what they had in their vehicle or on their person, they couldn’t have a policy for an employee or visitor in that garage.

The policy changed to only cover their actual offices, so it must have carried some weight with their lawyer.

Now, I have a strong dislike for such policies, and I have the choice to either, follow them, not follow them, or not work there.

But frankly, if the state of Indiana deems me reliable enough to carry a concealed firearm, why doesn’t my employer?
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Well Keith, cigarettes, alcohol, bikini’s, and R-rated movies are LEGAL, too, I just don’t want them on my land (OK, not really it’s merely an example). The fact that Indiana trusts you with a CCL doesn’t mean I HAVE to. No insult intended, it’s just that I might not believe in the right to bear arms, concealed or otherwise, and I don’t want them on my land. So on my land, my rules.
The Constitution applies, or the 1st and 2nd Amendment applies to the GOVENMENT, not to individuals. The government may not silence the Dixie Chicks, the government shall not abridge your right to keep and bear arms, but on MY LAND, I CAN. I can tell Natalie Maines (sp.?) to STFU and ask her to leave if she won’t. I can say, "No firearms, on pain of expulsion or termination."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
But frankly, if the state of Indiana deems me reliable enough to carry a concealed firearm, why doesn’t my employer?

Could be any number of reasons, or none, but it doesn’t matter. It’s still their right. As you said, you have the choice to ignore the policy and face any consequences, or just not work there.
 
Written By: K
URL: http://
If you use the same logic of personal property rights that you claim you have, then you are contradicting yourself and therefore it would be acceptable for government to demand you not to own a gun or anything else they deem appropriate. Afterall, your land sits on property owned by the town, which is within a state and part of the United States.
You have every right to tell me I can’t drive my car into your driveway, but you don’t have the right to tell me what I can carry in my car (my personal property).
Businesses who don’t want employees to park their cars in their parking lots if they have guns in them , I would assume have the right to say so but I don’t think the have the right to search my vehicle to find out.
If you are for personal property rights, the door swings both ways.
 
Written By: TomR
URL: http://
"If you significantly restrict a persons right to self-defense (which is what banning guns does), the employer should be required to provide security or have a damn good reason, like a serious workplace safety concern."

Your "right" to self-defense is not restricted. The second amendment applies to the government’s ability to restrict your ownership of weapons. The second amendment does not restrict an employer or a person from banning you from coming on to their property with a firearm. If you are worried about workplace security because no one is armed then find another job. Become a security guard.

People have choices. They can weigh the costs and benefits of working at a location that doesn’t allow firearms. If you find that the cost of not having a firearm is so great that it exceeds the benefits of an arms free workplace, then follow your heart and quit your job. You can start your own business and allow your employees to bring their weapons to work.
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
“Businesses who don’t want employees to park their cars in their parking lots if they have guns in them , I would assume have the right to say so but I don’t think the have the right to search my vehicle to find out.”

You’re right. A business does not have the right to search you vehicle, they will have to get your permission to search your vehicle. When you don’t give it to them then they can tell you to leave the premises.
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
If you use the same logic of personal property rights that you claim you have, then you are contradicting yourself and therefore it would be acceptable for government to demand you not to own a gun or anything else they deem appropriate.
How so? With respect to the employer/property owner prohibiting guns on their property, it is merely a question of competing property rights. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to break the close of my property without my permission, and even then, only under the conditions I set, no matter how unreasonable. There are a few limited exceptions to that rule, but your right to own a gun isn’t one of them.
Afterall, your land sits on property owned by the town, which is within a state and part of the United States.
Actually, no it doesn’t at all. Your real property is yours from the bowels of the earth to the limits of the sky. The State owns no part of it unless you are merely leasing the land and own just the building sitting on top.
You have every right to tell me I can’t drive my car into your driveway, but you don’t have the right to tell me what I can carry in my car (my personal property). Businesses who don’t want employees to park their cars in their parking lots if they have guns in them , I would assume have the right to say so but I don’t think the have the right to search my vehicle to find out.
This is pretty close to correct, but you seem to miss the point that the business doesn’t have to allow your car in the first place if you don’t consent to a search. Whether the car can be searched or not is irrelevant. The property owner can set whatever conditions he/she/it wants on a person’s freedom to enter.
If you are for personal property rights, the door swings both ways.
But this in no way trumps someone else’s property rights.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
"The second amendment does not restrict an employer or a person from banning you from coming on to their property with a firearm. If you are worried about workplace security because no one is armed then find another job. Become a security guard."

And thus, the lawyers enter the fray of outlawing guns.

Tom, if you want to outlaw guns, then at least be honest and say so.

Because if businesses are allowed to post, with no added cost (after all, your safety and security aren’t their problem), then it is insane for them (from a civil liability perspective) not to, and deal with any potential lawsuits from any violence that *does* occur.

It’s passing the nanny-state "disallow everything first" concept onto businesses. Their legal vulnerability is far greater if they don’t immediately disallow it.

Thus, by little bits, we lose our freedoms, abilities, and rights.

IANAL, but as I recall, all the cases where someone sued because they weren’t allowed to have a weapon, and were attacked have been thrown out. If you want to have this law, then you have to expose employers civil penalties to balance their exposure.

Currently, I work in a workplace that by state law, I *am* permitted to carry in accordance with my permit. So our policy manual states that I’m not allowed to. They can’t have me arrested, but they can fire me. So this means that on the way to or from work, I cannot be "armed" with a firearm. Does my employer take on my risk there? If they don’t, then that weakens the case for allowing them to post a sign and say "work at your own risk".
(I work for an arm of the Government, making this even worse).

What this does is create even more of a privileged class. Cops, prosecutors, judges are immune from these laws, but not "civilians". And if you don’t see the problem with that.... Well, there’s not a lot more to discuss.

"But this in no way trumps someone else’s property rights."

It trumps their right to life, (remember, Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness). In the name of "security" and "safety" (in quotes, because it’s none of these things, and if someone decides to ensue with violence, _they_ won’t be affected by the sign on the door.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
The second amendment does not restrict an employer or a person from banning you from coming on to their property with a firearm. If you are worried about workplace security because no one is armed then find another job. Become a security guard."

And thus, the lawyers enter the fray of outlawing guns.

Tom, if you want to outlaw guns, then at least be honest and say so.
Addison, this is absurd. I can say, "No guns on my property" and not believe in outlawing guns. Your opening statement demonstrates the limits of an NRA mentality, at the risk of offending NRA members. Saying that one is against guns in a PARTICULAR place is NOT the same as saying that one is against the possession of firearms in ALL places.
I think the American Library Association is whacked for its absolutist positions on access to materials and information. The NRA is equally whacked for pushing for laws upholding an absolutist position on the right to keep and bear arms. Everything, has a limit, to include the Right to Free Speech. Your right to speak or to bear arms ends at my property line. Over that line MY rights prevail. To include the rights of an employer.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So naturally you demand that people stop breathing in your oxygen when they step on your driveway? How about that old dude with the O2 tank? That thing’s dangerous! Get it out of here!!

Sheesh.
 
Written By: pdb
URL: http://pdb.blog-city.com
Your "right" to self-defense is not restricted. The second amendment applies to the government’s ability to restrict your ownership of weapons.
(1)If you restrict my means and therefore my capacity for self defense in the fact of threat, you are certainly infringing on my right to self defense. This is not something that should be done without just cause. Just because the government is not restricting it, does not mean that I should be happy about it.

(2)Actually the second amendment only says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn’t say who shall not infringe them. It’s that darn passive voice. Who gave the government the right to regulate against racial discrimination in the case of private companies and organizations? It isn’t in the fourteenth amendment, which only talks about laws passed by states and localities. The government enforcing it against discriminatory companies is all in the interpretation and application.

Of course 2nd amendment jurisprudence has very little to do with what the constitution actually says. It certainly hasn’t been interpreted to restrict the governments ability to regulate arms (even though both of us agree that it was at least meant to do that.) Self-defense is probably best regarded as an unenumerated right, not one specifically enumerated in the 2nd amendment.
The NRA is equally whacked for pushing for laws upholding an absolutist position on the right to keep and bear arms.
You do realize that most gun control passed in the US has the NRA’s stamp of approval on it, right? The NRA is far from upholding an absolutist position on Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In fact other gun organizations like Gun Owners of America have been highly critical of the NRA for being so relativist on the RKBA issue. In this case, they position they are taking is far closer to those who opposed random corporate drug testing on the basis of individuals Right to Privacy.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
"Addison, this is absurd."

Joe, not really.

"I can say, "No guns on my property" and not believe in outlawing guns."

Potentially, I suppose so. In practice, those two are pretty much correlated.

"Your opening statement demonstrates the limits of an NRA mentality, at the risk of offending NRA members."

Well, not being an NRA member, I’m not offended. They still might be. But we’ve been through this. Time and again.

When someone says, that opinion is contrary to the meaning, the purpose of the 2nd amendment, they’re lamblasted for being an NRA shill, and of course, there’s no such thing as a slippery slope. The NYC handgun registration will NEVER lead to confiscation. You insane NRA sorts just like to try and scare people.....

"Saying that one is against guns in a PARTICULAR place is NOT the same as saying that one is against the possession of firearms in ALL places."

When you say that you’re against guns, without a very good, and immediate reason (see the above Thiokol example as one that’s pretty decent), then guess what? Now you’ve started setting boundaries on where you’re "allowing" that.

And yes, historically, there’s a precedent there. It’s not my fault I’m aware of that, and you either aren’t, or insist that "That won’t happen here!"

By that same token, one might ask why you’d be parrotting the Brady party line on gun ownership at businesses. Care to defend that? I suspect not.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
"Tom, if you want to outlaw guns, then at least be honest and say so."

I am totally for the right for the people to have firearms and an totally against the government infringing upon that right. But I will decide what you may do on my property. If you don’t like my rules then get out of my house and off of my land. Others may let you carry a gun on their land and that is their business.

The same goes with an employer. An employer get to decide how to manage his property. If you don’t like it you can create your own business and make your own rules.
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
Joe:
Sorry, I missed this initially.
"Your right to speak or to bear arms ends at my property line. Over that line MY rights prevail. To include the rights of an employer."

So, once someone steps on your property, you can:
Kill them?
Enslave them?
Deny them due process?
Refuse them permission to leave?

I mean, c’mon here, let’s define the line of what you can do on *your* property.

Talk about absolute positions....

This is why it’s a conflict between property rights and the rights of the people you’re employing. You *cannot* do what you want to, just because you own the property. What I enumerated above are extreme, ridicolous examples. But according to you, given that "over that line MY rights prevail" is obviously *not* correct. So since we’ve established that, we can discuss why a law balancing those concerns isn’t such a bad idea.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
You do realize that most gun control passed in the US has the NRA’s stamp of approval on it, right? The NRA is far from upholding an absolutist position on Right to Keep and Bear Arms
And I realize that Fatah was criticized for accepting Oslo and that Hizbollah and Hamas snipe at one another, BUT I wouldn’t list any of those three organizations as "moderate" by any stretch of the imagination. Sorry to equate the NRA and terrorists, but simply saying that one group has criticized another group doesn’t make the criticism valid or warranted.

Addison are you saying, that if "Joe’s Nude Bar and Grill, Girls, GIRLS,
GIRLS
" wants to ban the possession and carrying of firearms, on property owned or leased EXCLUSIVELY for the use of my patrons, that the 2nd Amendment prevents me? I thnk not. The Bill of Rights is fundamentally restricting the GOVERNMENT’S powers, not mine as an individual. If I don’t want a bunch of drunken over-excited men to possess or bear firearms in my establishment I have every right to do so!

It does not follow one way or the other that one position, Joe’s Nude Bar will be gun free, leads to another, that Addison may not possess firearms.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Addison & Jeff:

There is no constitutional issue here, despite your seemingly inexaustable determination to raise one. YOUR property rights cannot superceded mine on MY property. It’s really very simple. That’s exactly why the NRA is trying to get this law passed in GA ... because the property owner has the last word as to what his invitees (in the instant case "employees") may or may not bring onto that property.

Furthemore, since when does "self-defense" equate only to "have a gun"? Chuck Norris would be quite surprised.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
"I am totally for the right for the people to have firearms"

OK, Great concept. So, renters, are they allowed the protections of the 2nd amendment?

"and an totally against the government infringing upon that right."

Standard boilerplate, check.

"But I will decide what you may do on my property."

Because your property rights trump all of mine when I leave my land. Hope you never leave yours, then.

"If you don’t like my rules then get out of my house and off of my land."

OK, so would it be analogous to say "If you don’t like guns, get your ass to NY/Mass/CA, rather than bring their screwed up systems here?"

"An employer get to decide how to manage his property. If you don’t like it you can create your own business and make your own rules."

To some degree, you’re right. We’re discussing here what degree that should apply to other people’s ability to possess firearms. Without, one would presume, creating a morass of liability and criminal intent that would requre a GPS PDA to inform you of what rules and requirements each piece of property would entail, and if you currently qualify or not. As well as what *requirements* any such demands by you should entail upon you.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
"So, once someone steps on your property, you can:
Kill them?
Enslave them?
Deny them due process?
Refuse them permission to leave?"

None of the above. Who has ever claimed any of the above? If someone is on your property without your permission you can tell them to leave or you will call the police and have them arrested for trespassing. Duh!

Next, I will be giving lessons on how to use the toilet!!!


 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
1)If you restrict my means and therefore my capacity for self defense in the fact of threat, you are certainly infringing on my right to self defense. This is not something that should be done without just cause. Just because the government is not restricting it, does not mean that I should be happy about it.
Absolutely not, Jeff. You have a choice. Enter my property under my rules or don’t and keep your gun.

I restrict nothing. You do so voluntarily or you choose not too.
(2)Actually the second amendment only says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn’t say who shall not infringe them. It’s that darn passive voice. Who gave the government the right to regulate against racial discrimination in the case of private companies and organizations? It isn’t in the fourteenth amendment, which only talks about laws passed by states and localities. The government enforcing it against discriminatory companies is all in the interpretation and application.
The amendments to the constitution apply to government and government only. That is why they were written. The first amendment, for instance, restricts government’s actions, not those of private people or enterprises.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Joe:
So you’re saying that Joe’s Nude Bar and Grill, Girls, GIRLS, can refuse entry to blacks, hispanics, and anyone with the last name of Smith?
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
I can say, "No guns on my property" and not believe in outlawing guns."

Potentially, I suppose so. In practice, those two are pretty much correlated.
Not at all. He can restrict you from bringing a gun on his property, but he can’t ban you from owning one.

The latter has to do with ’outlawing guns’ the former with property rights. After all, you have the option of keeping your gun and staying off his property.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Tom:
"None of the above. Who has ever claimed any of the above?"

Well, if my natural rights are abrogated crossing a property line, then those things logically follow.

If they *don’t* follow, then it’s up to you to explain the difference.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
Michael:
"Furthemore, since when does "self-defense" equate only to "have a gun"?"

Let’s just say Chuck’s roundhouses are several orders of magnitude more powerful than mine.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
So, once someone steps on your property, you can:
Kill them?
Enslave them?
Deny them due process?
Refuse them permission to leave?


I mean, c’mon here, let’s define the line of what you can do on *your* property.

Talk about absolute positions....

This is why it’s a conflict between property rights and the rights of the people you’re employing. You *cannot* do what you want to, just because you own the property. What I enumerated above are extreme, ridicolous examples. But according to you, given that "over that line MY rights prevail" is obviously *not* correct.
Which of those actions on the list above is an actual "right" held by Joe?:

Kill them? In certain circumstances, yes, Joe would have an unqualifed right to kill you on his property.

Enslave them? Does anyone have this right anywhere in the US?

Deny them due process? Assuming Joe is not a government (you’re not, are you, Joe?), and insofar as it is possible for Joe to deny you due process, yes, he can do that. If you think of Joe as a private university (St. Joe’s perhaps), and you as a student, the university most certainly can deny you due process as long as that’s what was agreed to before you entered the school. in fact, this happens all the time.

Refuse them permission to leave? There’s not actually much difference between this and "Enslave them?" so the answer, obviously, is no Joe doesn’t have that right ... anywhere. It’s got nothing to do with property rights.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
So you’re saying that Joe’s Nude Bar and Grill, Girls, GIRLS, can refuse entry to blacks, hispanics, and anyone with the last name of Smith?
In the perfect world, YES...and I’d have to accept the consequences, boycotts, bad press, etc. etc.
Practically, "no" I can not refuse service to someone on the basis on their race. HOWEVER!!!! Nonetheless, I believe that the USSC would grant me the right to refuse service or entry on the basis of a reasonable basis, drunken, over-excited men with guns is a bad idea on COMMERCIAL property. Now as to my private property, non-commercial, Yes, I could restrict entry on the basis of race...Not that I would, no White Sheets, or La Raza membership cards at my house.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I said: Potentially, I suppose so. In practice, those two are pretty much correlated.

McQ said: Not at all. He can restrict you from bringing a gun on his property, but he can’t ban you from owning one.

I said "correlated".

And I stand by that. There is a strong correlation there, and he was accusing me of being a NRA shill. Therefore, by the exact same logic, that would make him a Brady shill, since he’s espousing that party line.

"After all, you have the option of keeping your gun and staying off his property."

Or, we have the option of making it very clear that that’s not a legal thing to do. I tend to favor that, much as I favor the inability for people to discriminate on all the other outlawed reasons, even if I don’t like the implication inherent.

Basically, the whole argument boils down to, are you going to take gun control to the private sector, and push it there, and demonize an instrument. That is really what it distills to.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
MichaelW:
You’re trying to avoid admitting my point.
"Kill them? In certain circumstances, yes, Joe would have an unqualifed right to kill you on his property."

Now you’re tapdancing. Just because I step foot on his property - invited or no - does not allow him to abrogate my natural right to life. Now, if I threaten him, that’s another story - but that’s not what we’re discussing. Joe said his "right to property" trumps *ALL* my rights.

"Enslave them? Does anyone have this right anywhere in the US?"

Apparently, according to you and Joe, yes. If the answer from you is "no", then.. what does that _mean_?

"Deny them due process? Assuming Joe is not a government (you’re not, are you, Joe?), and insofar as it is possible for Joe to deny you due process, yes, he can do that. If you think of Joe as a private university (St. Joe’s perhaps), and you as a student, the university most certainly can deny you due process as long as that’s what was agreed to before you entered the school. in fact, this happens all the time."

We’ve actually already covered this. No, they can just expell you. They can’t seize your car, or your property, or search it, just because they’re private.

So in other words, there *are* rights that people have, even if they’re standing on someone else’s property.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
Or, we have the option of making it very clear that that’s not a legal thing to do.
Except we’re not talking about ’legal’ here. The discussion is about who has the right to do what.

Or said another way, does the right to own a gun trump the right of a property owner to restrict what can be brought on his property?

I fall on the side of the property owner’s right to restrict that which he doesn’t want on his property.

And since the gun owner has the choice as to whether or not he’ll abide by that restriction, there’s nothing there which threatens either his gun possession or ability to defend himself.

If, however, he choses to abide by the restriction, I’d argue he also agrees to live with the consequences.

So the choice is his, and since there is a choice, there’s nothing at all close to "gun control" involved.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
"Well, if my natural rights are abrogated crossing a property line, then those things logically follow.

If they *don’t* follow, then it’s up to you to explain the difference. "


First show how those things logically follow:

If you step on my property it logically follows that I can enslave you, etc., etc., because...?

 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
Addison, I am NOT nor did I call you an "NRA shill". I did say, "Your opening statement demonstrates the limits of an NRA mentality,..." and a better phrase would have been an "NRA-like" or simply an "asolutist" mentality.

MichaelW... yes, "St Joe’s" has a nice ring to it... we’ll have mixology and "dance" classes... I can see it now. With an intern/OJT program for the students and graduates! I’ll need a Provost, though.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe:
"Practically, "no" I can not refuse service to someone on the basis on their race."

You mean, legally. Practically, as well, but the defining point would be when the police showed up to arrest you, and the people you refused service to sued you civilly.

"HOWEVER!!!! Nonetheless, I believe that the USSC would grant me the right to refuse service or entry on the basis of a reasonable basis, drunken, over-excited men with guns is a bad idea on COMMERCIAL property."

That’s a good point. "Reasonable basis". Right. Given a _reasonable *immediate*_ basis, you can refuse service or entry. Intoxication is a fine one - it’s not due to race/name/color, it’s due to *condition*.
(I also don’t know anybody with a concealed permit who drinks while carrying. Cops, that’s another story)

Now, the difference between THAT case and the one we’re discussing (in theory, patting down people entering your house) is that you’re making a blanket, non-immediate decision that someone law-abiding shall be prohibited from your property.

"Now as to my private property, non-commercial,"

We’re discussing employers.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
Tom:
"First show how those things logically follow:
If you step on my property it logically follows that I can enslave you, etc., etc., because...?"

Because Joe said:
"Over that line MY rights prevail."
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
And an employer may cite "work place violence" and make that a reasonable concern, I’d argue. Do not confuse Reasonable with CORRECT. So a commercial establishment may make a reasonable objection to the possession of firearms on its property. It may be "reasonable" if not correct, reasonable means that on the face of it that it is not internally inconsistent.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Except we’re not talking about ’legal’ here. The discussion is about who has the right to do what."

Well, we’re discussing the law under consideration in GA, no? Well, that’s a law that I support. It brings a balance, and an answer (in some fashion) to where do you draw the line between those two rights. Actually, more than two, but leave it at that for now.

"Or said another way, does the right to own a gun trump the right of a property owner to restrict what can be brought on his property?"

Right.

"I fall on the side of the property owner’s right to restrict that which he doesn’t want on his property."

And I can see that as a reasonable choice. Problem is, I’ve seen job after job change the rule to not allow guns, in a defensive posture to try and avoid lawsuits. Soon, there’s a almost network effect, in civil court.

"And since the gun owner has the choice as to whether or not he’ll abide by that restriction, there’s nothing there which threatens either his gun possession or ability to defend himself."

Well, that’s not true. If I’m attacked on your property, and you’ve forbidden guns (and I’ve respected that, barring this new GA law) that _obviously_ threatens my ability to defend myself.

"If, however, he choses to abide by the restriction, I’d argue he also agrees to live with the consequences."

Not sure what you mean by this.

"So the choice is his, and since there is a choice, there’s nothing at all close to "gun control" involved."

Well, yes, yes it is. Because it demonizes guns, for one. Which is why the Bradys are sending all the emails to oppose it, they’re lobbying against it - surely you see that they’re hardly on the side of "property rights" - so why are they "supporting" you in this so heavily?

Because it *is* gun control. Masquerading as property rights, as opposed to "safety" or "for the children".
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
"First show how those things logically follow:
If you step on my property it logically follows that I can enslave you, etc., etc., because...?"

Because Joe said:
"Over that line MY rights prevail."

No one has the right to murder, kidnap, or enslave, but I do have the right to kick you off my property or have you arrested for trespassing if you refuse to leave.
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
Joe:
"And an employer may cite "work place violence" and make that a reasonable concern, I’d argue."

Yes, they probably would. But that’s different from you barring someone who’s _currently_ intoxicated, who’s _currently_ a threat.

Now you’re into the realm of the "well, you KNOW those NRA sorts *wink wink*, we can’t let THEM in here" "oh, no, heavens".

Which is different from what you were arguing before, that there was an immediate reason to bar someone drunk from carrying a gun in your club. Now you’ve got the employer citing ephemeral reasons (not unlike the racist/nationalist concerns that were so prevalent in earlier times about blacks/irish/chinese/japanese.....) that aren’t provable one way or the other.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
Addison:
You’re trying to avoid admitting my point.
Not at all. I’m showing in a rather concrete fashion that you have no point.
"Kill them? In certain circumstances, yes, Joe would have an unqualifed right to kill you on his property."
Now you’re tapdancing. Just because I step foot on his property - invited or no - does not allow him to abrogate my natural right to life. Now, if I threaten him, that’s another story - but that’s not what we’re discussing. Joe said his "right to property" trumps *ALL* my rights.
Well that’s not really what we’re discussing either is it? If you look at what the context of Joe’s comment was and the actual dialogue going here, you’d realize that the discussion pertains to property owners being forced by the state to allow invitees to carry firearms on to that property. The tension here is between the rights of the property owner (who does he/she/it have to allow on the property?) and the invitees rights to carry a firearm. Joe’s position (and mine, as well as several others) is that you have no right to enter my property without my permission, and then only upon the conditions I set. Your violation of either one of those precepts is, in the legal world, referred to as a "trespass."
"Enslave them? Does anyone have this right anywhere in the US?"
Apparently, according to you and Joe, yes. If the answer from you is "no", then.. what does that _mean_?
It means what I wrote. No one has such a right. It does’t matter if I’m on your property, my property or public property. There’s no right to enslave someone, so there can be no competing property rights in this situation.
"Deny them due process? Assuming Joe is not a government (you’re not, are you, Joe?), and insofar as it is possible for Joe to deny you due process, yes, he can do that. If you think of Joe as a private university (St. Joe’s perhaps), and you as a student, the university most certainly can deny you due process as long as that’s what was agreed to before you entered the school. in fact, this happens all the time."
We’ve actually already covered this. No, they can just expell you. They can’t seize your car, or your property, or search it, just because they’re private.
Well, none of those things has to do with due process. "Unlawful searches and seizures" maybe (but, again, only if Joe is a government). The process by which you are expelled is the "due process" ... the kind that you must be afforded at public schools, but are not guaranteed at private ones.
So in other words, there *are* rights that people have, even if they’re standing on someone else’s property.
Again, no one’s is arguing that all your rights vanish once you enter someone else’s property. The sole issue is, what conditions can I set on your entry onto my property?

You seem to think that your rights should trump mine. I can understand why that would be preferrable to you, but can you understand why property rights are not, in fact, that way?

 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Tom:
"No one has the right to murder, kidnap, or enslave, but I do have the right to kick you off my property or have you arrested for trespassing if you refuse to leave."

Thank you for answering. (Sorry, I might have to actually, you know, do some work in a minute, so if I get quiet..). Yep, you have that ability. But not for any reason you so desire. If you own a shopping mall, there’s a whole host of things you can’t enforce, no matter how you’d like to.

So yes, there *are* rights that you don’t abrogate by stepping over a property line. We’ve now established that, I think.

The question is where does that stand on (specifically, and right now, only) guns.
 
Written By: Addison
URL: http://
Well, we’re discussing the law under consideration in GA, no?
No. Read the title. The law was a starting point in a discussion of which right should be the predominant right.
And I can see that as a reasonable choice. Problem is, I’ve seen job after job change the rule to not allow guns, in a defensive posture to try and avoid lawsuits. Soon, there’s a almost network effect, in civil court.
So is that a problem with a lawsuit-happy society or a problem with property owners. Are you saying that they don’t have the right to avoid such liability? Are you saying you should have a superior right to force your desire on them as it pertains to carrying a gun on their property?
Well, yes, yes it is. Because it demonizes guns, for one.
How? It’s a matter of the owner’s preference. It has zip to do with demonizing a gun. Does he demonize dogs if he refuses to have one or allow one on his property?
Which is why the Bradys are sending all the emails to oppose it, they’re lobbying against it - surely you see that they’re hardly on the side of "property rights" - so why are they "supporting" you in this so heavily?

Because it *is* gun control. Masquerading as property rights, as opposed to "safety" or "for the children".
Who’s side Brady, et. al, are on is irrelevant to me, the question is indeed about the rights of property owners, whether the Brady bunch sees a benefit for them or not.

And it -isn’t- gun control. You can’t take your gun anywhere you want now. Try walking on a military post with your weapon and see how far you get with "this is my Consitutional right". Or an aircraft.

Property owners have a fundamental right to decide what they will and won’t allow on their property. Your desire to carry something on their property that they don’t wish to have there doesn’t negate that fundamental right of theirs.

What you’re suggesting is "property control" ... ok, I couldn’t help it, but I’ve got to tell you that considering the decision of a private property owner to not allow your gun on his property as ’gun control’ seems to border on paranoia to me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Here’s a suggestion, if you don’t want guns on your property, please put up a big old sign "GUN FREE HOME" or "GUN FREE BUSINESS" so that I may know, and have time to decide whether the benefit of stepping on your property is worth the cost of not being armed.

And while there are some people in the world who have the time and energy to train themselves into a fighting machine, like Chuck Norris, I do not have that much time, or energy, and so rely on a trusty 9mm handgun. So, let’s not use that strawman.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
And while there are some people in the world who have the time and energy to train themselves into a fighting machine, like Chuck Norris, ...
Didn’t you follow the link? There are no fighting machine’s like Chuck Norris. In fact, just suggesting that there may be a comparable is dangerous. Can you see Chuck Norris right now, Indy?
... I do not have that much time, or energy, and so rely on a trusty 9mm handgun. So, let’s not use that strawman.
What strawman? Unless that 9mm is surgically implanted in your heart, being relieved of it at the gate to my property is not going to cause you to die ... unless Chuck Norris is there, in which case the gun wouldn’t do you any good anyway.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
heh...

So, if some armed stranger decides to invade your home while I am there, are you going to shoot to kill them? Or do you have Chuck Norris in your closet...

No, disarming me wont cause me to die, it will put me at a disadvantage should we come to some misfortune of circumstances, and some miscreant decides your house is the house he’s robbing.

Granted, my friends and I have worked this out, and they don’t mind me carrying armed around them. They’ve seen my targets (heh I am proud of getting 15 shots in C.O.M. at 30 feet.) If you feel so strongly about not having firearms on your personal property, it isn’t likely we’d be friends anyway.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Tying in something from another thread:

If I have a moral right to dispose of my property as I see fit, then I have a moral right to place landmines on my property. And if your child steps on my property and gets blown to pieces....caveat pedestrian?

Should the State or parents of the child have recourse against me? And if so, why should my right to dispose of my property be limited in such a manner?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
So, if some armed stranger decides to invade your home while I am there, are you going to shoot to kill them?
If that worries you Keith, don’t come to my home.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Tying in something from another thread:

If I have a moral right to dispose of my property as I see fit, then I have a moral right to place landmines on my property.
Actually, Jon, you do have such a "moral right" (and by that I assume you are referring to the "natural rights" from the previous threads), but it has been tempered by the common law. You can’t keep a loaded spring gun aimed at the inside of your front door, for example, nor can you place incindiary devices in your garden to kill or maim intruders. You could do either of those things if you continuously monitor the traps, but yo can’t leave them on their own.

The long line of cases fleshing out this modification of one’s "moral" right to protect his property as he sees fit, essentially reflects the recognition of the empirical fact that mistakes happen, and that the punishment should fit the crime. With respect to the previous thread, however, that long line of case was necessary to temper the "natural/moral" right into something that complimented other societal norms. However, it is imporatnt to note that the default rule was in favor of placing traps/landmines/etc. on your property.
And if your child steps on my property and gets blown to pieces....caveat pedestrian? Should the State or parents of the child have recourse against me? And if so, why should my right to dispose of my property be limited in such a manner?
Well, in addition to the limitation noted above about traps, there is the doctrine of "attractive nuissance" which is best illustrated by the fact that everyone who has a swimming pool in their back yard has some means of either severely limiting who can see it, who can get to it, or some combination of both. There are a few other limited exceptions but, otherwise yeah, caveat trespasser. Generally speaking, neither the state nor the parents have recourse against you for the condition of your property in the event of a trespass.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
I’ve heard it said that the reason the Libertarian Party will never be a serious player is because it’s not a party so much as a debating society.

In all of the pages of arguments on this subject, there has not been one suggestion as to a way to solve the problem without treading on rights.

So here is the challenge: I’m an abused woman under an order of protection from my crazy boyfriend who has sworn to kill me if he ever finds me. I carry a gun in hopes of preventing him from doing so. I have a long commute to work every day and frequently have to take care of other business while I’m in town.

My employer – a crappy job but the only one I could find and the only thing I’m qualified to do – has decreed that no guns are allowed on their property – including in the parking lots and there is no way to reasonably park off of the property and still work there. The employer is not willing to make any exceptions or concessions.

This is a problem that could cost my life. What is the solution?

Come on libertarian geniuses… How do we solve this problem?

Is there a way to make sure I have the protection I need without trampling the property rights of my employer?

And I don’t want a bunch of arguments about my circumstances and picking my story apart. The bottom line is that the individual is the only person legally responsible for their own personal security and companies are taking away peoples means of ensuring that security – not only at work, but on the way to and from and everywhere in between.

So what is the solution?
 
Written By: JAK
URL: http://
Employers (other than the government) are within their rights to demand all sorts of behavior (or lack thereof) from their employees. Anyone hear about the company that banned smokers - and fired those employees that couldn’t quit? The Bill of Rights recognizes the limits of the government - not private companies.
...a crappy job but the only one I could find and the only thing I’m qualified to do...
Strawman, methinks. I’m trained in physics, have worked for years as a software engineer, and when I faced a long stretch of unemployement a couple of years ago, got a job in a gun store. Jobs really aren’t that hard to find, if one doesn’t set the minimum standard too high. Robert Heinlein once pointed out (in Job: A Comedy of Justice) that one could always find work as a dishwasher in a restaurant. I’ve also done that. It sucks. But it pays money while you look for a better company to work for and/or in your chosen profession.

I, personally, think that companies that make rules like the "no guns - not even in the parking lot", or "no smokers" are reprehensible. But that means I won’t work there. Nothing more.
 
Written By: Scott Crawford
URL: http://
Actually, Jon, you do have such a "moral right" (and by that I assume you are referring to the "natural rights" from the previous threads), but it has been tempered by the common law.
Ok, but, as was said earlier, "we’re not talking about ’legal’ here. The discussion is about who has the right to do what."

This is the kind of question that make libertarians uncomfortable, by putting them in an apparent moral dilemma where common sense conflicts with strict interpretation. So I’m not suprised that people haven’t jumped to answer it.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
This is a problem that could cost my life. What is the solution?
Find a new job.

You’re the one with the problem, not your employer.

Find an employer who doesn’t have a problem with you bringing a weapon to work.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Ok, but, as was said earlier, "we’re not talking about ’legal’ here. The discussion is about who has the right to do what."
It what sense are we not talking about "legal"? If the question is merely "Do you have a moral/natural right to defend your property as you see fit?" then I’ve answered the question: Yes, you do. I’ve given you an example of how it has been tempered for the benefit of living in a society governed by laws, but I’m not sure how this undermines my point.

You were right earlier when making the point that a recognition of rights in others is what really makes those rights important, and from that stems the ability to enforce such rights without overt violence. But that doesn’t change the the underlying source of those rights. Man does not create reality, he merely interprets it.
This is the kind of question that make libertarians uncomfortable, by putting them in an apparent moral dilemma where common sense conflicts with strict interpretation. So I’m not suprised that people haven’t jumped to answer it.
Well it doesn’t make me uncomfortable, but I suppose I’m not a typical libertarian (if I’m one at all). I’ve answered every question asked about the subject.

And in what way is "common sense" conflicting with "strict interpretation? The fact of the matter is that the common law (stretching back nearly 1000 years) has long recognized the right to, as you put it, "dispose of your property as you see fit." There may be circumstances where rights conflict, or where limitation on exercising that right are deemed useful to society, but that doesn’t abrogate the right or negate its genesis.

Keep in mind, Jon, that in forming your question you assumed a natural/moral right and presented a situation that you thought would be deemed contradictory through reductio ad absurdum. Instead it turned out that you perfectly encapsulated the default rule regarding the disposition of one’s property. Societal norms have indeed tempered the default rule, but society has also long understood what it was they were modifying.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
So here is the challenge: I’m an abused woman under an order of protection from my crazy boyfriend who has sworn to kill me if he ever finds me. I carry a gun in hopes of preventing him from doing so. I have a long commute to work every day and frequently have to take care of other business while I’m in town.

My employer – a crappy job but the only one I could find and the only thing I’m qualified to do – has decreed that no guns are allowed on their property – including in the parking lots and there is no way to reasonably park off of the property and still work there. The employer is not willing to make any exceptions or concessions.

This is a problem that could cost my life. What is the solution?
Sounds like a great pitch to be made to the company decision makers. Perhaps an exception to the rule can be made. Otherwise, as you pointed out, it is the up to the person to take care of her own safety, not that person’s employer. If she doesn’t feel safe in the situation she should find another job, higher a body guard, find someone to travel to and from work with, or move somehwere she does feel safe.

One of the basic tenants of libertarianism is that I don’t know what’s best for you, and vice versa. Therefore we shouldn’t make laws tailored specifically to either you or me.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Obviously I forgot my Wheaties this morning:

higher = hire

tenants = tenets

somehwere = somewhere
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
I can’t side with the "right to ban anything in parking lots" side. A parking lot is not simple property. It is a right of way, just like the sidewalk in front of your house. You own it, but the public has certain rights in connection with it.

Setting aside the idea that a government created fiction like a corporation can have any rights that trump an individual and lumping corporate prohibitions and private prohibitions together, when you create a right of way like a parking lot (significantly different than a driveway) then you surrender certain rights, the same as the person who walks onto the private area of the property surrenders rights.

You can prohibit someone from carrying a weapon in the private area, but I see no reason why someone should implicitly invite someone to enter an area by creating a parking lot and then justify having the right to restrict one from a normal usage of it — namely, parking a car, weaponless or not.

If you don’t want to surrender this ability to restrict others on your property, don’t create the right of way. Tear the parking lot up, and find employees who will work someplace that they can’t park at.
 
Written By: Phelps
URL: http://www.donotremove.net
My place of work does not allow employees to keep firearms secured in their vehicles. Doesn’t that, in effect, strip me of my rights under the Second Amendment and a state concealed carry law?

For example pretend I return home from work at 11 PM, unlock my front door and enter my home. The burglar has a pistol and doesn’t care if I allow firearms on MY property. I’m dead because my employer has barred me from having a firearm secured in my vehicle.
 
Written By: LukeM
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider