Firearms Owner's Rights V. Property Owner's rights

[Treo]

The only way to unload a muzzle loader was by firing it.

That's actually not true. Open the pan, blow the powder out and your flint lock is now functionally unloaded.

the nuances of the different powers of gun buster signs from place to place escaped you.

Not at all. I stipulated that it is legal for you to carry the gun in the establishment, which means that in the given situation the gun buster sign does not have the power of law

 

[accidentalfelon]

That's actually not true. Open the pan, blow the powder out and your flint lock is now functionally unloaded.

Try that next time you fly and let me know how that works out for you. Lol

Replace the former text reading "only way" with "only accepted way" and the statement is accurate.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Seeya]

When the private property owner installs functioning metal detectors and a restricted entry system that insures everyone else I come in contact with on the property will not be armed, then I have no issue with honoring a no weapons sign. Until that time I'm going to do what I feel I need to do to protect me and mine as best I can.

Yet you are left unprotected to and from your means of protection. I don't think that is a situtation I would like to be in.

 

[accidentalfelon]

Yet you are left unprotected to and from your means of protection. I don't think that is a situtation I would like to be in.

Justice would be served in a case like this if the business owner knew that he or she would be held liable if a criminal caused a loss of life had the rule not been in place.

I am all for property rights but choices should have consequences.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[maybejim]

Actually that is a health code and it can cause harm through transmitted disease

It may be but I doubt that it has any validity concerning "transmitted disease". Why would your feet carry any more disease than your shoe (or your bare belly any more than your shirt) or either any more than your face or hands?

 

[Treo]

Try that next time you fly and let me know how that works out for you. Lol

I bet it would work out a lot better for me than it would for you

 

[Treo]

choices should have consequences.

Please tell me you did not just type that

 

[Bikenut]

A rant... of course folks can ignore it if they wish...

I am dismayed that some folks want their right to bear arms to be respected yet will disrespect the property rights of others using excuses like...

"Concealed means concealed."

or

"If no one knows then there isn't any problem."

Well.. someone does know.. the person carrying is well aware they are disrespecting the rights of someone else by sneaking in a gun against the property owner's wishes...

And the same thing goes for that "concealed means concealed" thing because disrespecting the rights of others while expecting their rights be respected smacks of hypocrisy.. and gives the anti gunners plenty of fuel to paint all gun owners as hypocritically disingenuous.

Rant over.

 

[Caribou]

I am personally offended by the sign and as such I choose not to spend my cash in those establishments. The sign has no force of law here but any property owner can ask anyone to leave for any reason. I have no problem with anyone asking me to leave because of my gun. I will thank them profusely for informing me of the sign because I don't care to frequent such places. If enough people feel as I do they will change their policy or go out of business.

In my own business I have maintained policies that cost me thousands of dollars. They have every right to stand up for what they believe. If our beliefs are too far apart then it is proper that we do no business together. By ignoring their sign and making a purchase I feel that I have given them a moral victory.

 

[accidentalfelon]

Please tell me you did not just type that

Yes, I said it. Consequences should be in proportion to harm inflicted.

A dead father is of more value than a defied regulation.

Pray that you become more humble as you age and learn to understand that. I will pray for you brother.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[alternety]

I submit input. Last time I tried starting a thread on this subject, mortar rounds started dropping out of the sky.

My problem is in deciding the appropriate balance of rights. There are various constitutional and legal rulings/precedents that are not necessarily logically consistent (now there is a surprise).

I think we all (here on this site) believe in the rights affirmed in the 2nd amendment. Granted is not really the correct word.

Now let us examine some of the effects. If I try to enter into a private premise open to public commerce, what are the possibilities?
- I am carrying a gun and the owner disapproves so I can not enter - even if the "person" is a pseudo-entity as determined by a really really stupid Supreme Court decision. No general support from the public or assorted government/political organizations for my right to enter. Local LEO likely to forcibly remove you from the premises and put you in jail for further processing. In an annoying number of instances, the LEOs may simply shoot you down in a hail of bullets because you were guilty of legally walking armed.
- I am seriously walking while black (substitute race and religion as appropriate) and the owner disapproves, so I can not enter - now this is an interesting alternate situation. This will cause the US DOJ and all the various permutations down to the local politicians and TV stations to scream about intolerance/discrimination and descend on the responsible property owner. And their dogs. And the children carried on their shoulders to emphasize the horror. This is implementation (sort of) of the "all men are created equal" bit (sexist under today's idiotic interpretation, but not when written). But an armed "men" is not equal. Extend this to renting a property (e.g., apartment, house, car), sitting where you choose in a public conveyance, not getting pulled over for speeding/unsafe operation/light bulb burned out/strange looking car/looks like a drug dealer/seriously black (Hispanic/Oriental/not-white)/ really Muslim/clearly Jewish/ etc./likely to be carrying a gun (may closely relate to previous listed conditions).

Which or our "rights" trumps the others. What is the order of priority of "trumping"?

My problem is in accepting that my rights under the Second Amendment are overridden by rights of a property owner. I do understand the differing points of view. Logistically, it is potentially impossible to accommodate any significant incidence of property owners restricting my 2nd amendment rights. Where do I put the weapon in the meantime? Where can it be secured (state laws can make this tricky)? Please - the "well you don't have to go there" faction just butt out for the duration of this post. We also don't have to go to the supermarket, Comcast (there is another horror story), the phone company, the power company, etc.

If the 2nd Amendment says I can defend myself in the USA, and your property is in the USA, then I can by God carry on your property! If you don't like this - move your damn property!

 

[Axeanda45]

No matter how many times these "private property rights" people argue these so-called imaginary "rights" it still does not make it true.

A firearm that is concealed will in absolutely no way infringe on anyone elses "rights".

 

[alternety]

I agree about the imaginary rights. But, concealed or not concealed - it is not really the issue.

 

[Bikenut]

One of the things that tends to confuse folks is the protections afforded to the right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment only applies to the government... it is only the government that is (supposedly) restricted from infringing upon the right.

"Shall not be infringed" does not apply to "we the people" property owners.

Oh.. and no matter how many times the "Hooray for MY right to bear arms and to hell with your right to ban guns on your property." people try to say that a concealed firearm doesn't disrespect anyone elses rights.... the plain fact is that I have the right to do what I want with what I own whether it be my home or my business. I own it, it's mine, and I decide how it will be used and who will use it.... and if I say that people with guns cannot use my property and someone sneaks a gun in concealed that someone is disrespecting my right to do what I want with what I own.

And I consider it to be exceedingly arrogant for other people to think they can dictate what I will do with what I own... with what is mine.. and what I will allow, or not allow, on/in my property.

But then what many of the "concealed means concealed" folks are really saying is that as long as they sneak the gun in and don't get caught then no one knows they are disrespecting the property owner's rights. But that falls flat too because the guy sneaking the gun in knows they are disrespecting the other guy's rights......... and then it becomes a matter of the how much personal integrity the person thinking about sneaking the gun in has.. or doesn't have.

I'm beginning to think that the phrase "concealed means concealed" could be translated into....

"I can disrespect the rights of others as long as I don't get caught".

And private property rights not only enable businesses to keep unwanted people out those same private property rights enable home owners to keep unwanted people out.

If private property rights are "imaginary" then not only would businesses be unable to throw anyone out... you would not be able to throw anyone out of your home either. Because without private property rights everyone would have just as much right to be in your business AND in your house and use your property in any way they wanted... the same as you do.

 

[TAC]

Well, first of all you must understand that the private property owner is not denying anybody their Second Amendment rights. What they are doing is saying that if you wish to enter their property/business then they want you to abide by their wishes or you will not be welcome. You are still welcome to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you just are not welcome on their property or in their place of business.

As long as it is private property, or a private business, then their wishes trump yours in regards to your behavior while on their premises. After all, if you owned a small store and did not allow your customers to bring alcoholic beverages in, would you be wrong? Saying that a business should not be allowed to prohibit firearms is like saying that because the customer is 21, and therefore legal to drink, you should not be allowed to prohibit them from bringing alcoholic drinks into your store.

Keep in mind that being “open to the public” is not the same as being “public”. For instance, a privately owned store is “open to the public” but the County Library is a “public” building. The private business owner (the owner of the store) is free to place restrictions on the behavior of their patrons while the library must follow the guidelines set forth by the Federal, State and local governments. Some people don't understand the difference between “open to the public” and “public”. One is privately owned and managed while the other is owned and managed by, or on behalf of, some branch of Government, either local, State or Federal.

The Constitution, and thus the Second Amendment, is there to protect you from the Government, not the private property owner.

 

[kerb]

When the private property owner installs functioning metal detectors and a restricted entry system that insures everyone else I come in contact with on the property will not be armed, then I have no issue with honoring a no weapons sign. Until that time I'm going to do what I feel I need to do to protect me and mine as best I can.

Why not just do the honorable thing and go somewhere else?
How would you feel if it were your place, and your rule that was being ignored?

 

[doublebarr]

Here's a bit deeper thinking for you surface folks: Why do states have laws that the "legally posted signage" carries no weight of law? A "law" that is not a law in effect. Think that one through carefully before typing Those of us that have been instrumental in helping to write the laws know why. Do you?

 

[BluesStringer]

So one day awhile back I was reading on this site and found out that Costco has a corporate no-weapons-allowed policy. I go to Costco at least a couple of times a month, and have for at least the last 10 years or so, and have never seen a sign stating such. I've never disarmed to go into the store. Am I disrespecting their property rights? Is my personal integrity contingent on knowing the corporate policy of every chain store or restaurant? Do I take the word of a bunch of strangers on this internet forum that Costco's policy is indeed as they say it is, even though I have no way of verifying it for myself unless I ask at the door if it's true?

So make it more generalized than just Costco, because sho' 'nuff, someone is going to post a link to their website with the no-weapons policy there in black and white just to make sure that I either respect their rights or damage my own personal integrity if I ignore that new-found knowledge. Say it's "Jimmy Joe's Bargain Basement Outlet" stores. I've been going there for years and never seen a sign and miracles of all miracles, no one from USA Carry has gone out of their way to post their no-gun policy here, so I'm blissfully ignorant of it. Does "respecting others' property rights" include disclosure of your armed status before entering a place of business that you have no idea what their policy is, and it isn't posted?

Because that's where the "respect the property owner's rights" argument falls flat as far as I'm concerned. Now, I know that Bikenut open carries much of the time, maybe most, maybe even all of the time, so there's no disclosure question when someone is OC'ing. But for the vast majority of us who normally CC, is there anyone here who asks before they enter a business where the policy isn't known and/or posted "out of respect for the property owner's rights?" I'm gonna have to call bull if anyone says they do.

If it's disrespectful to carry when you know the property owner's against it, why is it any less disrespectful of his/her rights not to ask if they mind? If it's all about "respecting their property rights," then dammit, respect their rights and ask, right?

Nah. Keep your mouth shut, your weapon concealed, your situational awareness acute, and go on about your business. And then come here and play holier-than-thou because you claim to have so much "respect" for others' rights, except if you have to go to the trouble of simply asking them how they prefer their rights to be respected. Can't have it both ways. The line between exercising your RTKB and being a disrespectful hypocrite is just a little too thin for me. I carry. Always. I avoid courthouses and places where I'm forced through a metal detector as much as is humanly possible. Otherwise, it's always. Call me whatever pejorative you wish, but that's my policy, and I respect the heck out of it.

Blues

 

[travis smith]

We're all guaranteed of our rights by law... in-so-much as they don't impede on the rights of others. That being said, in Mississippi the law is they must have a sign visible from 10 feet away, or ask you not carry in their establishment. Of course anyone could ignore the law, but as "law abiding citizens" we have the responsibility of accountability to the law. If I wanted to make it an issue I'd ask the manager the purpose of the policy, then politely explain law abiding CC holders are not the threat and "criminals" don't abide by the laws...that's why they're called criminals. If I didn't like the response I'd go somewhere else. It's easy to say "They are infringing on my rights" without stopping to think we may be infringing on theirs! Just sayin....

 

[Treo]

anyone here who asks before they enter a business where the policy isn't known and/or posted "out of respect for the property owner's rights?" I'm gonna have to call bull if anyone says they do.

Didn't actually see this with my own eye but the guy that "taught" my CHP class claimed that anytime he entered a building that had uniformed security he would approach them and ask if it was OK to carry there.