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.