Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: T.O.M. on September 30, 2010, 02:07:29 PM
-
At lunch today, I was involved in a discussion with some fellow 2A supporters, and the subject of the Eric Scott shooting (Costco in Las Vegas ) came up. More specifically, the issue of whether Costco was right to ask Scott to leave because he was armed. Somehow, these two believe that Costco had no right to ask him to leave. The logic, it's a location open to the public, he was breaking no laws, so they couldn't ask him to leave.
My response was that the owner of property, or his/her agent has an absolute right to decide who can and cannot be on the property. If I don't like people with blond hair, I can tell blodie to get off my property. It has nothing to do with 2A.
The comeback was that it was pure 2A violation, and discrimiation against an armed citizen. I counter that it's not a 2A violation (no State action), and that discrimination is perfectly legal, so long as it's not based on a protected class (race, religion, gender, age, etc.). But it has nothing to do with that, it's the right of a property owner, whether he opens the property to the general public or not, to decide who can and cannot be present, and what rules he/she places on those that are allowed on the property.
Any thoughts?, or am I just being too much of a lawyer on this one? :lol:
By teh way, they bought lunch, so I let them win the argument. =D
-
Somehow, these two believe that Costco had no right to ask him to leave. The logic, it's a location open to the public, he was breaking no laws, so they couldn't ask him to leave.
If the FedGov, whose constitution features the 2nd Amendment, can refuse to allow private citizens to carry loaded guns quite often on its property (.mil bases and more), then private businesses should be able to do likewise.
Now - the wisdom of asking an armed individual to leave is seriously in doubt.
-
I think businesses should have the right to ask anyone to leave their place of business for any reason.
Since they don't have that right, I have no problem making gun owners one of the protected classes.
If hoplophobes don't like it, maybe they'll start realizing the virtues of property rights when it's someone they don't like being protected. I doubt it, though.
-
The logic, it's a location open to the public, he was breaking no laws, so they couldn't ask him to leave.
Except that Costco is not a location open to the public. You have to be a member to get in. At least where I've been, you have to show your card at the door. Otherwise, they'll escort you to the membership desk.
-
private property
whats hard to understand?
-
I think businesses should have the right to ask anyone to leave their place of business for any reason.
Since they don't have that right, I have no problem making gun owners one of the protected classes.
If hoplophobes don't like it, maybe they'll start realizing the virtues of property rights when it's someone they don't like being protected. I doubt it, though.
Pretty much my position.
I'm not going to make my reverence for property rights a suicide pact.
-
My response was that the owner of property, or his/her agent has an absolute right to decide who can and cannot be on the property. If I don't like people with blond hair, I can tell blodie to get off my property. It has nothing to do with 2A.
Any thoughts?, or am I just being too much of a lawyer on this one? :lol:
You are absolutely correct as a person, in a moral, ethical and Constitutional sense.
However... It is the opinion of the law (as opposed to moral, ethical, Constitutional sense) is that the government has every right to tell you as a private citizen who you may or may not discriminate against. The law currently forbids discrimination against a number of factors, it just so happens to exclude carrying firearms from that current list. Theoretically, the law could equally decide discriminating against firearm carry is equal to discriminating on the basis of gender or whatnot. It won't. So you are both right and wrong. But currently right. Just not for the reasons you specified.
A better solution would be to allow discrimination against firearms (private property rights), but hold the private property owner liable for any consequences thereof. If a person holding a valid CCW who is mugged, raped or killed on a business property forbidding carry, the business is liable. If the business does not forbid the carry of firearms with a valid CCW, they should be exempt from liability.
Thoughts?
-
What Rev Disk said.......
Look at the civil rights act of the 60s. It forbade discrimination against anybody due to race, gender, etc. That forces a restaurateur to serve anybody that comes in the place. I don't believe the civil rights act was the right thing to do, but it's done. Then we have all of the various states that have made it mandatory to not smoke in a bar or restaurant. Again, a violation of a property owner's rights. And I especially like this part:
A better solution would be to allow discrimination against firearms (private property rights), but hold the private property owner liable for any consequences thereof. If a person holding a valid CCW who is mugged, raped or killed on a business property forbidding carry, the business is liable. If the business does not forbid the carry of firearms with a valid CCW, they should be exempt from liability.
If someone deprives me of my right to carry, then they need to accept responsibility for my safety & well being. That doesn't mean that they only have to just call the cops. They need to be pro-active.
-
If someone deprives me of my right to carry, then they need to accept responsibility for my safety & well being. That doesn't mean that they only have to just call the cops. They need to be pro-active.
if you don't like the conditions on someone elses property don't go on their private property
-
If someone deprives me of my right to carry, then they need to accept responsibility for my safety & well being. That doesn't mean that they only have to just call the cops. They need to be pro-active.
if you don't like the conditions on someone elses property don't go on their private property
True. If you choose to go to such places, YOU are the one choosing not to exercise your rights.
Chris, do you recall the NRA being on the other side of this issue, when it came to Weyerhauser, and employees keeping guns in their cars?
-
If someone deprives me of my right to carry, then they need to accept responsibility for my safety & well being. That doesn't mean that they only have to just call the cops. They need to be pro-active.
Nope. A business preventing you from carrying ion their property is not is not depriving you of the right to carry, they're depriving you of the "right" to enter their property, which is a right you never had to begin with.
-
Thoughts?
The difference is that now, post-Macdonald, our 2A rights are affirmed as constitutional rights not to be screwed around with. I think that elevates the RKBA a little above what it used to be. Maybe to the level where nobody can screw with it. But it will take tort law and case precedents to make it routinely enforceable. i.e., some legal carrier will have to be turned away and re-enter unarmed, suffer damages logically tied to being unarmed, and sue. And prevail. IANAL.
TC
-
Nope. A business preventing you from carrying ion their property is not is not depriving you of the right to carry, they're depriving you of the "right" to enter their property, which is a right you never had to begin with.
I'd agree with this for truly PRIVATE entities, but for entities like Corporations I think it's inappropriate.
There's no way to enforce penalties for negligence against the people that make decisions for Corporations. The Board of Directors may decide that no guns should be on property, but you don't have a means to snatch them and personally stick them in jail for aiding and abetting in the assault/rape/murder that happened on their property.
A truly private business owner or property owner could potentially be held to that standard.
As such, corporate entities IMO should not be allowed to exclude gun carriers.
-
The difference is that now, post-Macdonald, our 2A rights are affirmed as constitutional rights not to be screwed around with. I think that elevates the RKBA a little above what it used to be. Maybe to the level where nobody can screw with it. But it will take tort law and case precedents to make it routinely enforceable. i.e., some legal carrier will have to be turned away and re-enter unarmed, suffer damages logically tied to being unarmed, and sue. And prevail. IANAL.
TC
Not true. We have one more level to go before it's classified as a right not to be screwed with. SCOTUS needs to decide what level of judicial review the 2A should be granted. If it is classed as "rational basis", the Second Amendment is ... mildly protected. It'll become like wiretapping, where the government can infringe on your rights with a letter written by a supervisor. If it is given "strict scrutiny", it's like the right to vote. Good luck infringing on it.
-
If I ask you to stay off my property while armed and you persist, you are a trespasser. If it was my home, many here would support my shooting you.
If it is a place of business, some of those same mentioned above not only go wobbly, but want the government to dictate to the property owners who they have to allow on their property.
You don't have a right to do whatever you want on other peoples property.
-
If it is given "strict scrutiny", it's like the right to vote. Good luck infringing on it.
So you're saying that dead people will be voting carrying guns. Great. Just great. :facepalm:
-
So you're saying that dead people will be voting carrying guns. Great. Just great. :facepalm:
Crap - the zombies will be shooting back after TEOTWAWKI? [ar15]
We're doomed...
-
Their property, their rules. Don't like 'em? Tough nuts. Now on the other hand if the company is taking federal subsidies that's another kettle of fish.
I think businesses should have the right to ask anyone to leave their place of business for any reason.
Since they don't have that right, I have no problem making gun owners one of the protected classes.
If hoplophobes don't like it, maybe they'll start realizing the virtues of property rights when it's someone they don't like being protected. I doubt it, though.
I like your idea, simply because of the number of heads it would cause to asplode.
-
Isn't your body your own private property ???
=|
-
I think that a private business should have the right to ask anyone to leave their property they wish, for any reason they wish, within reason.
What doesn't define within reason to me? Reasonable accommodation, such as storing your firearm in your car also being forbidden. I also don't think a sign should constitute notification. An actual person should have to ask you to leave, if they feel it's necessary.
-
An actual person should have to ask you to leave, if they feel it's necessary.
And an actual person should take personal liability for the safety of your person while on private property. Not a corporate liability shield.
-
As a point of comparison, the Supreme Court and various State courts have permitted land owners to limit 1st amendment rights on business (private) property. But the case law seems muddied here and there, and there are several reversals of decision.
-
You can really only look at it from a moral standpoint since law allows property owners, no matter their standing within a community, to bar anyone from their owned property that they'd like to keep out.
Now, personally, I don't think property rights should allow discrimination against Constitutional rights, but they do. So I'd modify that to say that I wish it would stop. If it isn't your private home, if you're inviting the public to do business with you, etc, then I don't like the idea of discriminating against the Second Amendment.
For now, I let my money talk, and share the knowledge of anti-Second Amendment businesses with friends and other pro-Second Amendment advocates.
-
If I ask you to stay off my property while armed and you persist, you are a trespasser. If it was my home, many here would support my shooting you.
If it is a place of business, some of those same mentioned above not only go wobbly, but want the government to dictate to the property owners who they have to allow on their property.
You don't have a right to do whatever you want on other peoples property.
My views exactly.
Now, personally, I don't think property rights should allow discrimination against Constitutional rights, but they do.
And thank God they do, because the Constitutional rights have everything to do with what the government is allowed to do, not what businesses and property owners are allowed to do or not do.
How many of you would tell someone that "APS is a private forum, not owned by the government. First amendment rights do not apply here"? Same thing applies to business owners, even if they are "open to the public".
-
if you don't like the conditions on someone elses property don't go on their private property
If a building is open to the public, then the owner(s) have already given up a whole lot of property rights. There are some grey areas -- lots of places ban barefoot customers, I assume because they are trying to reduce the chance of a customer stepping on something sharp that might create liability. Pets are generally banned, but if guns were as autonomous as pets we'd all be dead by now. Clothes are required, but they're required in public spaces as well.
It's pretty well accepted that a proprietor can ask you to leave if you're way outside the norm in dress or behavior, but to do that the proprietor has to notice something about you that's way outside the norm. Concealed carry is concealed, no easy way to tell for sure most of the time. Allowing proprietors of public establishments to discriminate against firearms carriers either amounts to unenforceable prior restraint, or requires the proprietor to get into others' personal business of what hidden stuff they can or can't carry.
Can we stop pretending there are only two classes of property -- public spaces and private property? It's simply not that simple.
If my store is private, can I ban Asians? People with eye patches, peg legs, or prosthetic arms? (triad members and pirates scare me)
-
Private property ought to trump constitutional rights. Protected classes should perhaps be expanded, but imho only for employees/education/access to vital services. A person should not have to lose his job, forego an education, or go without emergency medical treatment in treatment in order to remain armed.
The 'perhaps" is importatnt, though. What happens with the guy who is clearly unbalanced/violent/suicidal, even merely persistently unsafe? Enforcing a right to carry on private property in some circumstances might be a good thing, right up until the time an employee files an EEO complaint after being fired for throwing his pistol across the room when a client irritated him.
Enforcing a right to eat in a restaurant while black is a lot simpler. Being black doesn't actually require skills, knowledge, or judgment. Carrying a pistol does. Requiring private owners to honor that right would lead to requiring private owners to accommodate dangerous behavior.
-
I don't have a problem with any private property owner asking a concealed carrier to leave, but I would hesitate to give them some "signage" that would make carrying there an immediate crime, certainly nothing bigger than a citation.
I don't really think the Erik Scott case applies to this argument. If nothing happened after he walked through the doors, we would not even know who that guy is. It was the cops confronting him and shooting him that put that in the news.
-
If my store is private, can I ban Asians? People with eye patches, peg legs, or prosthetic arms? (triad members and pirates scare me)
Far as I am concerned- yeah! Now, if a whole bunch of angry citizens start marching on the public sidewalk, or you get talked about in a very unflattering manner, well, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, eh?
I don't have a problem with any private property owner asking a concealed carrier to leave, but I would hesitate to give them some "signage" that would make carrying there an immediate crime, certainly nothing bigger than a citation.
I think the current system that most states have- if you are asked to leave, but don't, then you are trespassing covers the problem quite well.
-
Carrying a pistol does. Requiring private owners to honor that right would lead to requiring private owners to accommodate dangerous behavior.
I disagree. Carrying a firearm requires no skill. Handling one does. If a proprietor sees someone handling a gun and it's not a gun range, more serious steps should be taken than merely asking the idiot to leave.
right up until the time an employee files an EEO complaint after being fired for throwing his pistol across the room when a client irritated him.
That is so obviously not related to proper carry of a firearm, there's no reason why such a firing would be discrimination.
"Vital" services? Does that include grocery stores and drug stores? What about pet stores? Auto shops? Computer stores? Anything remotely connected to someone's health or well being or job-related equipment could conceivably be a "vital" service.
-
Question: If I have a right(r) to something, but someone else's right(r') "trumps" or "outweighs" mine, then how can (r) have ever been a right to begin with? Would it not be more correct to say that the right to property applies in such cases, but the right to bear arms just isn't at issue, because the person choosing to enter said property has chosen not to exercise it?
-
I am thoroughly ensconced on the pointy edge of the fence on this question. I am pro-2A, and I am also pro private property rights. So how to resolve them is the issue.
For starters, we have to accept that there are laws that differentiate between businesses and individuals. Businesses may not discriminate against people on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, and a couple of other factors. But individuals can. Wal-Mart can't refuse entry to a negro because he/she is black or to a Pakistani because he/she is Muslim. But each of us is perfectly at liberty (legally, we're not doing morality here, at least not yet) to refuse admittance to our homes for any reason whatsoever, from "I don't like the color of your skin" to "you talk funny" to "I hate ___s."
So businesses must be different from individuals somehow. And places of business, must be different from private homes somehow. So, for purposes of making things capable of comprehension by my limited mentality, I'll say that (to me) businesses are "semi-private" (or "quasi-public"). They are not governmental or government-owned, so they aren't "public," but they depend on the public for their sustenance. If "the public" can't go in, the businesses can't survive. So government has decreed that if businesses want to allow some of the public in, they have to allow all of the public in. Or at least, most all of the public.
Businesses can still bar members of all classes from entry for non-discriminatory things like "No shirt, no shoes, no service." That treats everyone equally. One might argue that the same applies to guns. If you want to eat at Joe's luncheonette, you wear shoes and a shirt. If you want to eat at Joe's luncheonette, you leave your gun in the car.
Except that there is no "fundamental" Constitutional right to eat lunch while barefooted and shirtless. There IS a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. So I hold the position that a quasi-public place (remember, we are talking about places the Americans with Disabilities Act has defined as "Places of Public Accomodation") should not be allowed to discriminate against an individual because that individual is exercising a Constitutional right.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
At least until someone shows me where I'm totally wrong. (Which is different from Cassandra's Daddy telling me he doesn't agree with me. It'd be the end of the world tomorrow if he DID agree with me)
-
A better solution would be to allow discrimination against firearms (private property rights), but hold the private property owner liable for any consequences thereof. If a person holding a valid CCW who is mugged, raped or killed on a business property forbidding carry, the business is liable. If the business does not forbid the carry of firearms with a valid CCW, they should be exempt from liability.
Thoughts?
Better solution? Define "better."
Better than just allowing them to ban guns with no repercussions at all, I suppose, but overall I think I'd prefer the solution that allows me to shoot the bad guy before he shoots me over the solution that sends my widow a check after I'm buried.
-
I disagree. Carrying a firearm requires no skill. Handling one does. If a proprietor sees someone handling a gun and it's not a gun range, more serious steps should be taken than merely asking the idiot to leave.
That is so obviously not related to proper carry of a firearm, there's no reason why such a firing would be discrimination.
Of course not, but there's still a procedural issue when such a complaint is filed, which is what I was thinking of.
But, I like your point about the difference between carrying and handling and concede that aside from some vague marginal issues like pocket or purse carry that could present safety hazards, there is a reasonably bright-line distinction between carrying and handling.
I hope and suspect that if the current trend towards repopularizing firearms and regular concealed carry continues to grow we may see the beginnings of public safety ad campaigns promoting holster use and discouraging inappropriate (aka virtually all) purse carry.
"Vital" services? Does that include grocery stores and drug stores? What about pet stores? Auto shops? Computer stores? Anything remotely connected to someone's health or well being or job-related equipment could conceivably be a "vital" service.
Workplace where one is an employee, school where one is a registered student, hospital where one is receiving services or involved in care (such as a patient advocate/attorney-in-fact), and Starbucks. =D =D =D
-
Can we stop pretending there are only two classes of property -- public spaces and private property? It's simply not that simple.
The distinction of 'private property open to the public' has always been a creature of the legal system. It's not clear if it is a just or proper idea.
As an answer to your question: Yes, you should be able to, in a fair society, to ban Asians, Jews, legless individuals, and even [gasp!] BLACKS!!! [shiftone] from your property.
I'll call you names if you do that - but then I already do call you names. :D
-
If you say that a store owner has the right to tell someone to leave do to carrying, do they also have the right to ban having them in your vehicle? What if you're an employee, can they ban you from having them in your vehicle? Also, what someone renting an apartment?
I skate more on the side of saying they don't have that right. Do you lose the right to defend yourself when you step into a place of business? I believe that there is a difference between a place of business and someones home. You can say that people have the choice to shop/not shop and work/not work somewhere but what happens when all the businesses in the area discriminate against the same thing?
Really I would prefer that everyone was more educated on 2A rights to the point it was a non-issue but unfortunately we don't live in those times. Maybe someday.
-
I believe that there is a difference between a place of business and someones home.
Duh - I would hope so :facepalm:
From my/your home, all persons are barred except for those I/you specifically invite.
A business, all persons are generally welcome unless they become a problem.
-
Pretty much as usual I'm late to the party. I've been hashing and bashing the same subject over at a few gun boards.
I'm going to ask the same questions here as I've asked elsewhere: Where do you get off thinking you have any "rights" on another person's property? Where do you get off, after declaring your Big-L and small-l libertarian stand(s) saying that the government can/must/should/ought to impose its regulations on private property owners?
Yes, certain government actions such as the Civil Rights Act and the ADA do more good than harm and we are probably better off making folks toe those lines than letting the free-market economy deal with the issues.
But where does this "right" to carry a firearm onto the property of another come from? Please don't tell me "the Second Amendment" after we here have all agreed that the constitution and the first 10 amendments were all about declaring what the government (not private property owners) could not to to the citizenry.
Now, I have a fairly large desire to provide myself with an effective and efficient means of self protection, seeing as the cops and the private property owner have no or little requirement to protect me from the acts of third parties. I'd like to be able to exercise that means of self protection everywhere I go, and that includes doing away with being denied that means when I venture into the lair of the government (ban on firearms in federal office space). I'd also like to be able to protect myself from enraged bulk-lot purchasers during the annual feeding frenzy for Haloween candy (have you ever seen the fights over Kit-Kat miniatures?).
But I'm also aware that the Founders wanted to ensure my Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness (an euphanism they agreed on when some folks would not admit out loud they were all talking about private property) from the actions of a tyrannical government bent on infringing on that in any way, let alone taking it away from me. But the Founders were, as far as my reading and understanding have taken me, pretty much dead-set against the idea of being forced to kow-tow to the wishes of any man when standing on their own property. If they said you had to wear a clown suit if you wanted to stroll around Mt. Vernon or Monticcello or Scotchtown or the [original] Sam Adams brewery then there was nothing the government or anybody else could say except "Gee, I think I'll pass on strolling around."
Now, when we are beginning to see the possibility that some or a few or a whole lot of the restrictions on gun ownership and gun carry laws are about to be rolled back to the days before those onerous rules ever saw the light of day, there are some folks who are starting to believe they also have "rights" with respect to entering the private property of others. Where the heck did that notion come from? Especially from a bunch of supposedly libertarian-leaning folks?
I'd like to see the issue of where this "right" in regards to private property comes from addressed before we go any further. I'd like to read an answer that can make me agree that there in fact is a "right" with regard to the private property of another.
stay safe.
-
In terms of "private property" rights . . . property may be privately owned, but that doesn't necessarily make it private.
A private home is not generally open to the public; you have no right to enter that property without the consent of the owner, and he can impose any restriction he wants on you as a condition to enter . . . in fact, he can say you may NOT enter for any reason, or no reason at all.
A private business - say, an office, workshop, or "members only" wholesale club is privately owned, and is not open to the general public. The owner still has a lot of leeway in imposing restrictions to enter, though Federal non-discrimination laws can come into play. "No white/black/yellow folks" as employees or wholesale club members would draw the ire of various agencies. As far as carrying a weapon, sure, they can impose restrictions. But if they do, they OUGHT to be held responsible for your personal safety, as it is reasonably forseeable that operating a victim disarmament zone is a hazard, just like an unguarded machine tool or unshielded live electrical wires.
A private business that is open to the public - department store, supermarket, etc. - should have no more right to restrict the lawful carry of weapons as established by law than to exclude persons based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or any other arbitrary criterion.
Unfortunately, what "ought" to be the case isn't always what "is" the case.
-
I'm going to ask the same questions here as I've asked elsewhere: Where do you get off thinking you have any "rights" on another person's property? Where do you get off, after declaring your Big-L and small-l libertarian stand(s) saying that the government can/must/should/ought to impose its regulations on private property owners?
Yes, certain government actions such as the Civil Rights Act and the ADA do more good than harm and we are probably better off making folks toe those lines than letting the free-market economy deal with the issues.
I just wanted to highlight that juxtaposition.
If we can't trust the free market to deal with those issues, why can we trust it to deal with self-defence issues?
Again, my position is we should let the free market decide all those issues. Since we don't, I have no problem getting my preferred class protected.
-
I don't know if this is a Michigan thing or nationwide, but membership warehouses cannot restrict alcohol (and perhaps tobacco, I'm not sure) purchases to members. In its capacity as a retailer of alcohol, Costco is open to the public.
-
Another question:
I have heard some people say that prisons should be privatized. What about roads? If they were to become privatized and say one person owned a few sections of roads that happened to surround someones house, and they stated that they didn't want anyone to drive on there roads with firearms in the vehicle, should that be allowed?
-
Question: If I have a right(r) to something, but someone else's right(r') "trumps" or "outweighs" mine, then how can (r) have ever been a right to begin with?
And I think this is the big rub in a society like ours, or at least the idea of a society like ours. Where do your rights start, and my rights end? What happens when our individual rights compete with each other? How can the law decide when one person's rights are superior or inforior to another person's rights? Not to go off topic, but there's a case pending before the Supreme Court right now that may confront this issue. Next week, SCOTUS will address the Westnoror Church protests at military funerals. It's 1A vs. the privacy rights of the family. See how this one turns out...
-
Another question:
I have heard some people say that prisons should be privatized. What about roads? If they were to become privatized and say one person owned a few sections of roads that happened to surround someones house, and they stated that they didn't want anyone to drive on there roads with firearms in the vehicle, should that be allowed?
That is where easement laws come into effect.
-
In my area, someone spray-painted "Worship Satan" on a mosque, patiently waited for it to be painted over, then did it again.
http://www.kplr11.com/news/sns-ap-mo--mosque-graffiti,0,3233259.story
Sadly, the police are unable to deal with the individual, because the First Amendment trumps private property rights.
At the mall where I work today, Security caught a reporter taking photos for a story. He was told he would need to obtain permission from management, or he could leave the property. This is the mall's long-standing policy, even though freedom of the press outweighs the right to private property.
-
Sadly, the police are unable to deal with the individual, because the First Amendment trumps private property rights.
Say WHAT? That is vandalism, tresspassing and I don't know what else in any reasonable comunity!
-
:lol: Click on the link, man. ;)
-
Did right AFTER I posted that, I see it was THEIR choice. Well, it was nice to see them doing the Christian thing there... no... wait... somethin' is not right with that...
-
I was trying to draw a satirical analogy. Oh well.
-
I think property owners should be able to ban guns on their property, but I really oppose laws that make it some kind of special offense to carry on posted private property. For example, TX has the 30.06 thing, and OH had special laws that if you carried into a private establishment that had posted a "no-guns" sign, then it was a special weapons offense, rather than the trespassing (if you are caught, and refuse to leave) offense that it should be. Carrying a gun on somebody's property that has it posted "no guns" shouldn't be illegal in any sense other than normal trespassing.
-
Carrying a gun on somebody's property that has it posted "no guns" shouldn't be illegal in any sense other than normal trespassing.
I agree, there is nothing particularly egregious about it other than you aren't respecting someones property rights.
-
and if they persist? the usual nonsense like the larouche whack job?
-
I'm going to ask the same questions here as I've asked elsewhere: Where do you get off thinking you have any "rights" on another person's property? Where do you get off, after declaring your Big-L and small-l libertarian stand(s) saying that the government can/must/should/ought to impose its regulations on private property owners?
So if a person stepped on another person's property, it should be ok to do whatever you want to them? Assault, steal, rape, murder, etc? No? Then people do retain certain inalienable rights even when they leave their property.
We're just quibbling over which rights a person retains. A person NEVER gives up the right to self-defense. Whether they're at home or another person's property. We're merely bickering over if accessories should be allowed or not.
I do not believe that 99% of regulations are Constitutional, but I still do believe that the government does have the right to pass laws that do apply on private property. Liability for one's actions, IMHO, should be one of them. We already have this. Just at the moment, the government generally refuses to apply the concept to this particular situation.
Better solution? Define "better."
Better than just allowing them to ban guns with no repercussions at all, I suppose, but overall I think I'd prefer the solution that allows me to shoot the bad guy before he shoots me over the solution that sends my widow a check after I'm buried.
Better being "does not infringe upon folks' rights".
Companies are already held liable, to an extent, for the safety of persons on their property. This applies to individuals as well. If a company or individual knows about a gas leak, knowingly ignores the problem and the resulting explosion kills other persons, they will be held liable. I also happen to believe this liability should be held against federal, state and local government as well. Never happen, but it's just a thought.
The idea is to create an incentive to do the right thing without infringing on anyone's rights, Hawkmoon.
-
I'm still with RevDisk and Hank B and a few others......
Scenario: (Let's say I'm in MN, where open carry is acceptable w/ a permit to carry) I go to Acme Wholesale Club. I leave my weapon in my car because Acme Wholesale Club asks me to do that. OK, fine. I go into Acme Wholesale Club and in wanders an armed assailant. (Acme offers NO security beyond that of preventing shoplifting. You know, those folks rummaging through your stuff at the exit doors.) The armed assailant shoots and injures me and a few others, perhaps killing a few in the process of robbing the store. Since there is NOBODY around to protect me, now that I'm disarmed, I believe that Acme Wholesale Club should be held liable for my protection (and everybody elses). The answer is either to permit LEGAL carry with in their business so I can defend myself OR hire a proper amount of armed security guards. Am I asking a private property owner to give up their rights?? No. What I am asking of them is to allow me MY rights. I WILL submit that there is a significant difference between a property not open to the general public, such as a home and a business which allows anybody to come in and utilize their business. (Acme does issue "Temporary Passes" to non-members) It's in the same vein were the .Gov can tell a restaurant that they can't discriminate against a patron as long as they meet the "health code". (Shirts, shoes)
-
So if a person stepped on another person's property, it should be ok to do whatever you want to them? Assault, steal, rape, murder, etc? No? Then people do retain certain inalienable rights even when they leave their property.
We're just quibbling over which rights a person retains. A person NEVER gives up the right to self-defense. Whether they're at home or another person's property. We're merely bickering over if accessories should be allowed or not.
Murdering someone harms them. Stealing from them raping, assaulting, all this stuff harms them. This is why we criminalize murder, rape, assault, theft wherever it takes place.
Denying someone entry to private property does not harm them. Should we criminalize the act of a property owner deciding who can and can't enter his property? No. (Yes, I know that we do criminalize this in many instances. I'm saying that we shouldn't.)
You say you have the right to defend yourself wherever you are. This is true, you do. However, I believe you're confusing that with the right to be wherever you want on your own terms. That's a right you don't have.
I'm still with RevDisk and Hank B and a few others......
Scenario: (Let's say I'm in MN, where open carry is acceptable w/ a permit to carry) I go to Acme Wholesale Club. I leave my weapon in my car because Acme Wholesale Club asks me to do that. OK, fine. I go into Acme Wholesale Club and in wanders an armed assailant. (Acme offers NO security beyond that of preventing shoplifting. You know, those folks rummaging through your stuff at the exit doors.) The armed assailant shoots and injures me and a few others, perhaps killing a few in the process of robbing the store. Since there is NOBODY around to protect me, now that I'm disarmed, I believe that Acme Wholesale Club should be held liable for my protection (and everybody elses). The answer is either to permit LEGAL carry with in their business so I can defend myself OR hire a proper amount of armed security guards. Am I asking a private property owner to give up their rights?? No. What I am asking of them is to allow me MY rights. I WILL submit that there is a significant difference between a property not open to the general public, such as a home and a business which allows anybody to come in and utilize their business. (Acme does issue "Temporary Passes" to non-members) It's in the same vein were the .Gov can tell a restaurant that they can't discriminate against a patron as long as they meet the "health code". (Shirts, shoes)
Someone needs to explain to me why the property owner should be held responsible for the actions of other people who have nothing at all to do with the property or the property owner. I understand that under our warped laws property owner often are held liable, but my question is why should they be.
In your hypothetical situation, why should Acme bear any culpability at all for a nutcase shooting up folks on his property? Do you think that Acme wanted the nutcase to come there and shoot up their customers and store? Why is Acme blamed and not the nutcase himself? And did you stop to think that the reason Acme had its no-guns policy in the first pace was to reduce the potential for customers and employees to get shot while on the premises?
Let's say that Acme didn't have a no-guns policy. What if, instead of a murderous nutcase, there was an accidental shooting on the property? Would the victim be able to blame/sue Acme for not sufficiently protecting the patrons? (Yes.) Would any of us blame Acme for the injury instead of the klutze who couldn't safely handle his weapon? (I'd hope not, but if we were willing to blame Acme for the nutjob scenario then why wouldn't we blame them for this?)
Acme is screwed either way. Disallow CCW, and it's their fault when a nutcase comes and injures people. Allow CCW and it's their fault when an accidental injury results. Why either outcome is Acme's fault completely escapes me.
-
And did you stop to think that the reason Acme had its no-guns policy in the first pace was to reduce the potential for customers and employees to get shot while on the premises?
I was with you to this point.
Intention does not matter in the face of significant evidence to the contrary. They may not WANT people to get shot, but declaring their store a "gun free zone" increases the chances of some nutcase coming in and shooting the place up.
-
I was with you to this point.
Intention does not matter in the face of significant evidence to the contrary. They may not WANT people to get shot, but declaring their store a "gun free zone" increases the chances of some nutcase coming in and shooting the place up.
The reason for Acme's hypothetical no-guns policy probably has nothing at all to do with their intentions and everything to do with lawyers and insurers. Acme's corporate lawyers and insurance agents almost certainly studied the stats and legal precedents and agreed that the no-guns policy was the safest way to operate the business. So that's what they're going to do, period.
This is the way businesses have to operate. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a store's no-guns policy has anything to do with the owner's feelings or intentions towards guns.
All the owners can do is deal with the real world realities. And the big reality here is that if someone gets hurt on their property, whether it's their fault fault or not, it's still their fault. They need to protect themselves form legal and financial liability, not just physical risks, and that's why they have to have the no-guns policies.
Want to change things? Fix the legal liability rules that say anything happening on a given property is the property owner's fault. As long as the property owner is responsible for your actions, he isn't going to let you do whatever you want.
-
For a liability concern, consider the following: I walk into your taco restaurant. While I'm there, in some freak accident, a packet of ultra-super-hot sauce explodes in my face, causing me severe eye pain, and loss of effective vision for several hours. I'll probably call it even if you'll pay for the trip to the ER, a few quarts of eyewash, and maybe a few free meals.
Now, let's assume that I had originally walked in wearing safety glasses, and you told me I couldn't wear them in the restaurant. They're not normally required for eating tacos, however they do not legitimately interfere with my or any other patron's dining experience, so you unnecessarily deprived me of a safety mechanism that would have prevented the most severe of my injury and discomfort. You'd better believe I'm going to be after you for every penny of damages I can possibly wring out of you. Therefore, I see no reason not to increase the liability of a merchant who prevents me from taking reasonable safety measures.
-
If you feel the need for safety glasses wherever you go, then it's up to you to decide whether you want go to places that prohibit safety glasses.
-
If you feel the need for safety glasses wherever you go, then it's up to you to decide whether you want go to places that prohibit safety glasses.
Word.
-
. . .In your hypothetical situation, why should Acme bear any culpability at all for a nutcase shooting up folks on his property? Do you think that Acme wanted the nutcase to come there and shoot up their customers and store? Why is Acme blamed and not the nutcase himself? . . .
By creating a victim disarmament zone AND failing to provide security, Acme has knowinging created what some might term an "attractive nuisance" . . . it is reasonably forseeable that their twofold actions (disarming customers and failing to provide security) would encourage criminals, who do after all prefer unarmed victims. Giving their policy publicity would, if anything, increase the attraction to bad guys.
That's why in many places you are required to put a fence around a swimming pool in your own yard - it is reasonably forseeable that the pool might attract local youngsters and others to go for a swim, and if one drowns - even though he was a trespasser, and was NOT invited or wanted - YOU will be held liable.
The reason for Acme's hypothetical no-guns policy probably has nothing at all to do with their intentions and everything to do with lawyers and insurers. Acme's corporate lawyers and insurance agents almost certainly studied the stats and legal precedents and agreed that the no-guns policy was the safest way to operate the business.
Except for three states (AK, VT, and I believe now AZ) persons who carry firearms concealed legally are licensed to do so by the state for purposes of lawful self defense. If you can cite a case where some business incurred liability by NOT interfering with actions explicitly licensed by a government agency, please do so.
-
HTG, I see your point and am well aware of it. It was a major hot button issue when I was still up in MN. HOWEVER, I agree 100% with Hank B on this:
By creating a victim disarmament zone AND failing to provide security, Acme has knowingly created what some might term an "attractive nuisance" . . . it is reasonably foreseeable that their twofold actions (disarming customers and failing to provide security) would encourage criminals, who do after all prefer unarmed victims. Giving their policy publicity would, if anything, increase the attraction to bad guys.
That's why in many places you are required to put a fence around a swimming pool in your own yard - it is reasonably foreseeable that the pool might attract local youngsters and others to go for a swim, and if one drowns - even though he was a trespasser, and was NOT invited or wanted - YOU will be held liable. - This is so true in almost every state
Except for three states (AK, VT, and I believe now AZ) persons who carry firearms concealed legally are licensed to do so by the state for purposes of lawful self defense. If you can cite a case where some business incurred liability by NOT interfering with actions explicitly licensed by a government agency, please do so.
and with KD5 on this:
...Now, let's assume that I had originally walked in wearing safety glasses, and you told me I couldn't wear them in the restaurant. They're not normally required for eating tacos, however they do not legitimately interfere with my or any other patron's dining experience, so you unnecessarily deprived me of a safety mechanism that would have prevented the most severe of my injury and discomfort. You'd better believe I'm going to be after you for every penny of damages I can possibly wring out of you. Therefore, I see no reason not to increase the liability of a merchant who prevents me from taking reasonable safety measures.
Someone carrying a weapon, either openly or concealed doesn't really interfere with business. We watch LEOS come into a restaurant all of the time, armed to the hilt. Statistically, LEOS are more apt to cause collateral damage than permit holders. Why aren't they banned from bringing a weapon into a place?? Do they get "special privileges" above and beyond the average citizen?? (The answer is yes, they do) My question is what makes them any better than me?? Because they wear a state sanctioned badge??
-
Someone carrying a weapon, either openly or concealed doesn't really interfere with business. We watch LEOS come into a restaurant all of the time, armed to the hilt. Statistically, LEOS are more apt to cause collateral damage than permit holders. Why aren't they banned from bringing a weapon into a place?? Do they get "special privileges" above and beyond the average citizen?? (The answer is yes, they do) My question is what makes them any better than me?? Because they wear a state sanctioned badge??
If it's your business, you should be allowed to make that call. If you like cops with guns, but not John Q with a gun, you should get to say so. Ideally, you should be able to inverse that - only non-LEO can bring guns in your business. Unless the cops have a warrant, of course.
-
which state banned patrol officers from carrying into gas stations that sold beer/wine? [popcorn]