There is an issue that is way broader (not necessarily more important) than just the right to carry a firearm, but is used to prohibit such carry in narrow areas. It is a two edged issue. The same rights are provided to both private citizens and the idiotically "judged to be a person" corporations (Attention - Supreme court. What were you thinking?).
Should an individual or corporation be permitted to nullify the provisions of the constitution on their own property? It would seem to me that the rights of the many (US Constitution) supersedes the wish of an individual (person or Corp. owning/controlling property) to deny this right. But we allow (actually generally provide this as lawful through various legislation and rules) said "individual" that a property owner may suspend the rest of the citizens of the USA's right, under the 2nd amendment, to protect themselves by carrying a legally possessed firearm. This really seems to me to be a serious conflict between civil law and the Constitution. But I have not really seen any significant discussion of this point. The issues generally are treated as "a property/homeowner can make their own rules" with the implication that it is OK for them to nullify the Constitution. Please don't flood this post with rabid defenses of every property owners right to do damn near anything they want as an unassailable right regardless of the harm to others rights they probably also support.
Generally speaking, the property owner can not violate civil law with impunity simply because they have decided they don't like some particular law. The Constitutional right to self defense should not (and, in my mind, must not) be arbitrarily revocable by anyone with enough money to buy some land. Or, in many instances, just come up with enough to rent something. The belief of a homeowner/property owner/renter is not sufficient reason to override the 2nd amendment or any other Constitutional guarantees. There are a whole lot of laws that prevent other Constitutional rights from being disregarded by private citizens and corporations; but this one just seems to fall through the cracks.
We are rightfully concerned about the government nullifying our rights, but we actually support an individual (Corp.) doing it. Now we generally treat the nasty corporations (fast food stores, big box stores, theaters, etc.) differently than the good corporate entities (+ schools, churches, Sports teams, etc.). But it is really all the same. If you want to sign up for ******* (for *** substitute google, a bank account, facebook, credit card, a retail sale, paypal, ebay, cable TV, mobile phones, ad naseum). To make use of these services you are forced to relinquish many personal rights. Privacy, legal recourse when they screw you (e.g., mandatory arbitration [with their arbitrator]), non-disclosures about actual resolutions, bribery and threats at all levels, the unstoppable machine with money vs the individual that has been screwed, ID to return an item with a receipt. It just goes on. We are abrogating out rights and legal system to a small number of individuals (or pseudo-individuals) who have the money (power) to simply squash any push back. A simple legal argument can destroy an individual financially, hence no legal recourse is available. We have a country that is run by corrupt officials and persons or corporations that simply have enough money to suppress any push-back. And we allow it! Our legal system is owned by lawyers and rich entities. It no longer really serves the populace. Money always wins. Right or wrong. Responses to this issue frequently involve "well, you don't have to deal with ***. Just find another preeminent search engine or bank with a different perspective. Our society has made things like banks, retail stores, and credit cards pretty much a requirement for mainstream existence. We really don't have a lot of choice here.
This is an issue that the NRA and our so-called representatives in government need to address. Instead of working at stopping online ammo sales, taking away guns, etc.
A sample of other random areas that are screwing over the common citizen; patent and copyright laws (high level view) software and business process patents should never ever be allowed, patent trolls should get capital punishment, the motion picture and recording industries draconian response to avoid their need to change business models (involving fictitious and unsupportable numbers about losses from "piracy", ignoring real market data (from rationally credible sources), charging ridiculous amounts of money for a simple technology advance ( e.g., price of VHS vs DVD vs blue ray), hounding end users with just plain insane compensation claims. Same content; vastly different concept. Think about pricing of DVD vs blue ray and the new structure that simply throws in the DVD if you buy blue ray. Only to buy music on an album vs buy what track your want (think cable systems here as well - paying to support 65,000 channels while watching 25 (or less)). They want you to have to pay per view as opposed to just buying a copy. Can we say bull ****? Prohibiting resale of software in violation of the first sale rules. Adding DRM (Digital Rights Management) AKA copy protection that consistently causes grief (i.e., seriously pisses off the legitimate buyers) and causes legitimate purchasers to go to a cracked "pirate" version just so they can use the software like a normal application (pretty much everything digital will be cracked in the first few days after the release, or before). Thus it has been since CPM (you young whipper snappers out there can research this reference). Where does it say that retailers can organize their stores so that it looks good but then assume everyone leaving the store is stealing. What is the law that says they have the right to demand a receipt and check you goods after you hadve just left the check out station. Which is not an isolated area like it should be; but that would spoil the consumer ambiance. How many cases of injury and death does it take before the retailers are forced to use a rationally isolated check-out area rather than this stupid and confrontational practice. Butthey get to make their own rules because it is private property.
There is a whole new sub-government out there, and we are not objecting to it or fixing it. Capitalism has re-evolved feudal rule.
Should an individual or corporation be permitted to nullify the provisions of the constitution on their own property? It would seem to me that the rights of the many (US Constitution) supersedes the wish of an individual (person or Corp. owning/controlling property) to deny this right. But we allow (actually generally provide this as lawful through various legislation and rules) said "individual" that a property owner may suspend the rest of the citizens of the USA's right, under the 2nd amendment, to protect themselves by carrying a legally possessed firearm. This really seems to me to be a serious conflict between civil law and the Constitution. But I have not really seen any significant discussion of this point. The issues generally are treated as "a property/homeowner can make their own rules" with the implication that it is OK for them to nullify the Constitution. Please don't flood this post with rabid defenses of every property owners right to do damn near anything they want as an unassailable right regardless of the harm to others rights they probably also support.
Generally speaking, the property owner can not violate civil law with impunity simply because they have decided they don't like some particular law. The Constitutional right to self defense should not (and, in my mind, must not) be arbitrarily revocable by anyone with enough money to buy some land. Or, in many instances, just come up with enough to rent something. The belief of a homeowner/property owner/renter is not sufficient reason to override the 2nd amendment or any other Constitutional guarantees. There are a whole lot of laws that prevent other Constitutional rights from being disregarded by private citizens and corporations; but this one just seems to fall through the cracks.
We are rightfully concerned about the government nullifying our rights, but we actually support an individual (Corp.) doing it. Now we generally treat the nasty corporations (fast food stores, big box stores, theaters, etc.) differently than the good corporate entities (+ schools, churches, Sports teams, etc.). But it is really all the same. If you want to sign up for ******* (for *** substitute google, a bank account, facebook, credit card, a retail sale, paypal, ebay, cable TV, mobile phones, ad naseum). To make use of these services you are forced to relinquish many personal rights. Privacy, legal recourse when they screw you (e.g., mandatory arbitration [with their arbitrator]), non-disclosures about actual resolutions, bribery and threats at all levels, the unstoppable machine with money vs the individual that has been screwed, ID to return an item with a receipt. It just goes on. We are abrogating out rights and legal system to a small number of individuals (or pseudo-individuals) who have the money (power) to simply squash any push back. A simple legal argument can destroy an individual financially, hence no legal recourse is available. We have a country that is run by corrupt officials and persons or corporations that simply have enough money to suppress any push-back. And we allow it! Our legal system is owned by lawyers and rich entities. It no longer really serves the populace. Money always wins. Right or wrong. Responses to this issue frequently involve "well, you don't have to deal with ***. Just find another preeminent search engine or bank with a different perspective. Our society has made things like banks, retail stores, and credit cards pretty much a requirement for mainstream existence. We really don't have a lot of choice here.
This is an issue that the NRA and our so-called representatives in government need to address. Instead of working at stopping online ammo sales, taking away guns, etc.
A sample of other random areas that are screwing over the common citizen; patent and copyright laws (high level view) software and business process patents should never ever be allowed, patent trolls should get capital punishment, the motion picture and recording industries draconian response to avoid their need to change business models (involving fictitious and unsupportable numbers about losses from "piracy", ignoring real market data (from rationally credible sources), charging ridiculous amounts of money for a simple technology advance ( e.g., price of VHS vs DVD vs blue ray), hounding end users with just plain insane compensation claims. Same content; vastly different concept. Think about pricing of DVD vs blue ray and the new structure that simply throws in the DVD if you buy blue ray. Only to buy music on an album vs buy what track your want (think cable systems here as well - paying to support 65,000 channels while watching 25 (or less)). They want you to have to pay per view as opposed to just buying a copy. Can we say bull ****? Prohibiting resale of software in violation of the first sale rules. Adding DRM (Digital Rights Management) AKA copy protection that consistently causes grief (i.e., seriously pisses off the legitimate buyers) and causes legitimate purchasers to go to a cracked "pirate" version just so they can use the software like a normal application (pretty much everything digital will be cracked in the first few days after the release, or before). Thus it has been since CPM (you young whipper snappers out there can research this reference). Where does it say that retailers can organize their stores so that it looks good but then assume everyone leaving the store is stealing. What is the law that says they have the right to demand a receipt and check you goods after you hadve just left the check out station. Which is not an isolated area like it should be; but that would spoil the consumer ambiance. How many cases of injury and death does it take before the retailers are forced to use a rationally isolated check-out area rather than this stupid and confrontational practice. Butthey get to make their own rules because it is private property.
There is a whole new sub-government out there, and we are not objecting to it or fixing it. Capitalism has re-evolved feudal rule.
