Oklahoma wins one in Fed court.

[Gewehr98]

"You have no right to bring guns onto private property, against the owner's wishes.  How is this difficult to understand?"

I'll have to admit, I'll need enlightenment, because the above makes perfect sense to me. 

Hang on, I'm popping a bowl of popcorn, BRB...

[roo_ster]

Let us assume fistful's conception is the correct one for private property. "Property uber alles," no bones about it.

Thing is, the "fistful doctrine of private property rights" when applied to any business other than a sole proprietorship is worthless/meaningless, as all other businesses have already ceded away the principle at hand.  The "property uber alles" doctrine just doesn't wash when the business owner has already ceded the principle of absolute freedom of action in exchange for particular benefits from the state.

All other business types: S corps, C corps, partnerships, LLCs, etc., rely on the state to charter them.  The state then treats them differently from a sole proprietor / property owner.  That different treatments involves various tax, liability, and other advantages.

IOW, the non-SP business owner agrees to conduct their business in a particular fashion as dictated by the state in exchange for advantages the state then bestows upon them.  Requirements in order to benefit might be accounting & reporting standards, equal opportunity/access provisions, sales tax collection, etc.

Even the SP example only holds true for localities that do not require licensing of businesses.  In that case, it is another example of the property/business owner entering into an agreement with the state as to how the owner will run the business.

At this point, the "property uber alles" doctrinaires are arguing for some sort of utopian minarchist society, as their doctrine is not compatible with the concept of federalism found in the COTUS and many state constitutions.

[roo_ster]

When we take the view that a right can be "trumped," out-competed, or out-balanced, we surrender the concept of rights altogether.  One either has a right, or one does not.  The very concept of rights is that there are principles that can never be rightfully trumped.

Err, wrong.

Person A: "I have the right to move about freely."
Person B: "I have the right to deny access to my property."

Person A: "I have a right to practice my religion, which includes hunting men down, eviscerating them, and draping their entrails on the branches of the nearest oak tree."
Person B: " I have the right to life."

Rights compete all the time.  That doesn't nullify them.

[Perd Hapley]

The OP refers to property on which business transactions with the public take place, not your neighbor's dining room.

A distinction without a difference.  Again, I beg to know why property rights and freedom of association must be laid aside, just because someone allows some people onto his property, and chooses to do business with them.  I see the distinction you draw between sole proprietors vs. corporations.  I freely admit, I am not at all familiar with the laws governing corporations.  What, specifically, is it that the .gov does for corporations, that requires them to give up so much discretion? 

[Perd Hapley]

Err, wrong.

Person A: "I have the right to move about freely."
Person B: "I have the right to deny access to my property."

Person A: "I have a right to practice my religion, which includes hunting men down, eviscerating them, and draping their entrails on the branches of the nearest oak tree."
Person B: " I have the right to life."

Rights compete all the time.  That doesn't nullify them.

I am aware that it is currently popular to speak of rights as "competing with" or "trumping" other rights.  What I am pointing out is that it is the wrong way to conceptualize the issue. 

The second example illustrates this very well.  The right to religious practice never meant a right to murder.  By setting up religious rights as in competition with the right to life, you say there is a right to murder, then deny that right, while denying religious rights into the bargain.  This makes no sense.  Worse, it means that my rights are simply claims that may be denied in favor of some subjective judgment of someone else's superior right.  Here is no certainty of rights at all, but rather a guarantee that some of my rights must be denied. 

The proper conceptual scheme is one that ponders where rights actually exist, then defends those rights without exception.  I have a right to religious practice that doesn't violate the rights of others, yes, but not a right to murder people as a form of religious expression.  The former will be defended, tooth and nail.  The latter, being no right at all, will be flatly denied as a crime.  You have a right to life, yes.  But not a right to kill innocent people and eat their flesh, so that you might live.  The former will always be defended.  The latter will be rejected outright. 

[jackdanson]

I agree with MTP.  A business can ban whatever it wants on it's parking lot and you can refuse to use said business.  This would extend to a toll road, if the road is privately owned they can ban whatever they want. (although I don't know of any toll road that has ever done this)  Just like I can't have a free-speech gathering on the walmart parking lot without their permission.  According to the first amendment I have freedom of speech, but their property rights override that.

As a side note my job has a ban on firearms on the parking lot... anyone want to guess if I follow their rule?

[Gewehr98]

No.

No guessing, and no discussion thereof.

One can simply leave it to folks' imagination.

We don't need to use APS as a sounding board to promulgate illegal activity, or put gunowners in a bad light.

I can just see somebody with both a CCW and a chip on their shoulder deciding they're going to carry onto somebody's private property, come hell or high water, and ignore whatever posted notices are on that property because their 2A rights trump the property owner's. News gets out, and voila!

Having a CCW does not make you large and in charge. 

You have a right to defend yourself.  Nobody, and I mean nobody in this thread has ever denied that or tried to insinuate it doesn't exist. 

You also have a right to defend yourself discretely.  CCW permits usually contain the word "Concealed".  Funny, that.

You also have the right to make decisions that could very well land you in hot water.  You make the choice, and you pay the piper when the time comes.  To feign ignorance after the fact is, well...

You want to carry onto your employer's private property, against rules issued by the employer forbidding such? 

Knock yourself out.  You, and only you, know what's going to happen to your career, your CCW, and your legal standing if things were to go south quickly.  If you're lucky, you'll merely get fired, and you hit the pavement looking for another job, no unemployment check, but you're alive and able to find work during the Recession.  It gets worse from there, even assuming it'll be adjudicated as a good shoot by the prosecuting attorney, etc.

Do establishments post "no firearms" on their doors?

You damn skippy they do.  I've been to many of them.

Do I leave the heat I'm packing in the car or off-premises at that point?

Yes.  I don't want the extra attention were it to be discovered that I'd violated the posted signage.  Learned that little trick from the LFI courses, which I highly recommend.

Choose your battles carefully.  You may indeed feel naked not being able to pack heat in a given place, but something tells me you'll get over it. I got over the angst of not being able to pack in my home shower quite some time ago. I was bummed until I realized that not everybody on the planet was out to get me.

That, or the business in question will have lost another patron or three...

[wmenorr67]

Wow,

Leave for a couple of days and this goes way back and forth.

To give a little insight into why the law became the law and then the lawsuit will follow.

For those of you unfamilar with the issue.

A couple of years ago a company in Southeast Oklahoma, has/had a rule stating no firearms on company property, even if you have a CCW and it is in your locked car.  The company went around the parking lot and found several weapons in locked cars.  This was in the middle of hunting season, in a rural area, where it was habit to go hunting before or after work and would be inconvient to go home before or after work to do so.  Plus most were CCW holders.

The individuals were fired.  Then the Oklahoma House and Senate passed a bill stating that an employer cannot fire you for having a legally owned firearm in your locked vehicle and the govenor signed it.

Conoco/Phillips along with seveal other companies filed lawsuit to prevent law from taking effect.  Stating OHSA rules and among other reasons to claim it was unconstitutional.  One judge stated it was and the law was not valid while under appeal.  It went before the 10th Circut in Denver and the law was deemed valid.

The biggest arguement for the law being that an employer cannot gaurentee an employee's safety while in route between home and work and work and home.

[Werewolf]

You have no right to bring guns onto private property, against the owner's wishes.  How is this difficult to understand? 


But, yeah, keep praising this anti-freedom decision.  I need something to amp up my blood pressure. 

Well - lucky for us Oklahomans you aren't a 10th Circuit Justice because as far as I/We are concerned our right to self defense while driving to and from work trumps a private corporation's right not to allow me to have a gun securely locked up in my car.

I quite often agree with you Fistful but on this one we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[roo_ster]

A distinction without a difference.  Again, I beg to know why property rights and freedom of association must be laid aside, just because someone allows some people onto his property, and chooses to do business with them.  I see the distinction you draw between sole proprietors vs. corporations.  I freely admit, I am not at all familiar with the laws governing corporations.  What, specifically, is it that the .gov does for corporations, that requires them to give up so much discretion? 

Uh, it is a rather large difference, both practically & legally.  Hop on thr.us and pm The Rabbi and he can give you a few examples, seeing that he is a business owner.

There are quite a few things, probably best addressed by accountants (taxation, expenses, reporting, sales tax numbers, etc.) & lawyer (legal liability on corp vs the SP's shoulders) types.  But, I can address one aspect: that a corporation is an artificial entity the does not exist until the state says so.  Before my wife submitted the legalese paperwork to the state of Texas and got back their legalese thumbs up, her corporation was just a notion in our brains.

[To get it approved by the state of Texas, we had to follow certain rules & regs.  Matter of fact, we were denied on the first attempt, because the name did not include the exact words, "corporation" or "incorporated."  IOW, we had to follow their rules for my wife's business to even exist in that form.  We did not have a "right to a corporation."

She did not have to form a S-corp to start business, but the advantages vs a SP are such that I would consider a SP to be damn near insane.]

Which brings us to another point.  What or who can have rights, especially property & association rights? 

Humans, presumably, are a given.

But what about non-humans?  Chimpanzes? Goldfish?  Single-celled animals?  Viruses?  Rocks?  Migratory coconuts? 

How about completely notional entities that exist only in the mind and on paper at the pleasure of the government...like corporations?  If property is owned by this corporation, does the corporation get citizenship and voting rights, too?  Or, are its rights circumscribed in ways that human citizens' rights are not?

[digitalandanalog]

How about completely notional entities that exist only in the mind and on paper at the pleasure of the government...like corporations?  If property is owned by this corporation, does the corporation get citizenship and voting rights, too?  Or, are its rights circumscribed in ways that human citizens' rights are not?

No, corporations are basically the dictators (or at least trying very hard to be) and they expect us to be good servants and never question their policies.

A business is an entity, not a person. Therefore it lacks the ability to claim certain rights. The owners of the business do retain the right to disallow certain items or activities though.

So, in that regard, unless all of the stock holders can come to a majority vote to disallow firearms on the business property then the law that says a person may retain a firearm in the vehicles must be upheld due to fact that most of the people who run businesses that disallow weapons in a vehicle are not majority shareholders.

Conoco/Phillips along with seveal other companies filed lawsuit to prevent law from taking effect.  Stating OHSA rules and among other reasons to claim it was unconstitutional.  One judge stated it was and the law was not valid while under appeal.  It went before the 10th Circut in Denver and the law was deemed valid.

How is insuring that a person has the right to be armed unconstitutional? The 2A makes no mention of property rights.

I will give ground on the issue of guns in the workplace building. I can see why employers would want them left outside. Liability is a bitch and it is best to make sure that potential ND's are absolutely avoided. I get that.

What I don't get is why they would object to a gun in the car.

If someone decides to shoot up their place of work they are going to give a rat's patootie about the gun policy at work that day.

Even the Arkansas public schools allow you have a firearm in the vehicle, just don't be stupid enough to take it in the building. This is provided that you are a legal CCWer.

I respect that a business owner may not want my gun is his establishment, but he needs to respect that his inability (or complete lack of desire) to protect me is just simply going to outweigh his property rights.

Sorry, but I see the right to self defense as the number one right. There are no other rights above this.

[Perd Hapley]

Which brings us to another point.  What or who can have rights, especially property & association rights? 

Humans, presumably, are a given.

But what about non-humans?  Chimpanzes? Goldfish?  Single-celled animals?  Viruses?  Rocks?  Migratory coconuts? 

How about completely notional entities that exist only in the mind and on paper at the pleasure of the government...like corporations?  If property is owned by this corporation, does the corporation get citizenship and voting rights, too?  Or, are its rights circumscribed in ways that human citizens' rights are not?

Yet the property owned by corporations is invested by humans.  The rights to that property can't simply disappear.  My argument has never been that corporations have rights, but that the humans who invest their property must have a say-so in the disposition thereof. 

[Perd Hapley]

Well - lucky for us Oklahomans you aren't a 10th Circuit Justice

Unless you run a business in Oklahoma, in which case your rights have been kicked to the curb. 

[KD5NRH]

A business can ban whatever it wants on it's parking lot and you can refuse to use said business.

Really?  Try banning assistance animals, Epipens, or insulin syringes and see how long that lasts.

I'd be willing to bet that even banning something as nonessential as the Koran would get you on the losing side of a court battle pretty quickly.

[MicroBalrog]

I think both Fistful and Jfruser are right, in a way.

On one hand, as a libertarian, I believe people should be allowed to ban anything they want from their property, whether open to the public or not. If a person wants to be a racist and refuse access to blacks, or anti-semite and ban Jews (and hereby give up the profit from serving them) it should be their own problem. If they want to ban gun owners (or Christians) access, it should be is their own business and their problem – but they'd lose these people's money. :D

On the other, in the modern world, we have laws differentiating between environments like your own home and environments like a shopping mall, on the argument that the shopping mall, though privately owned, is partially 'public' due to being open to access to the public, and therefore people feel that the government should be regulating access to these places. Where I like it or not, jfruser's POV is more commonly accepted.


Ergo, this bill.

[roo_ster]

Yet the property owned by corporations is invested by humans.  The rights to that property can't simply disappear.  My argument has never been that corporations have rights, but that the humans who invest their property must have a say-so in the disposition thereof. 

To better illuminate the point I am making:
1. The vast majority businesses have already exchanged what some consider inalienable rights to <fill in blank with right of your choice> by making an agreement with the gov't to be treated more favorably in some ways than they would be if not entering into that agreement (S-corp, C-corp, LLC, etc.).
2. That agreement is entered into willingly.
3. The benefits are not without obligation, the extent of that obligation determined by the various states & localities.
4. There is no fundamental "Right to incorporation and favorable tax & legal circumstances relative to a sole proprietorship."
5. If the business owner does not want the favorable treatment or balks at the obligations, they are usually able to run a SP or move to some place that has a more favorable business climate.

Those who own shares in a corporation partake in the benefits.  When Badcorp, Inc. dumps ground glass into baby food for fun & profit, the shareholders are not personally liable for the actions of Badcorp.  They may lose their investment, but they won't be sued and charged with a crime.  If Badcorp then goes bankrupt, the shareholders are not required to sell their house to make good the bad debt of Badcorp.

These benefits come at the cost of requirements, regs, and restrictions imposed by the state that charters Badcorp.

fistful, what you and others are arguing is something like the following:
"I want the benefits of a state-chartered corporation without incurring any obligation or meeting any requirements."


Perhaps it would help to think on other state-chartered agreements/constructs where benefits are gained for meeting requirements and obligations set by the state, presumably for the benefit of the state and the citizenry.  Lemme see, what could be such another example? 

Well, how about marriage?  The state has particular requirements to engage in marriage (one male & one female of suitable ages), bestows specific benefits (tax, legal, etc.), and imposes obligations (responsibility for damage done by family members, care standards for children, responsible for paying for medical care, mandatory schooling of minor children, alimony/child support in case marriage dissolved, etc.).

In either case, marriage or business corps, participants willingly enter into agreements with the state and incur obligations in exchange for benefits. 

[Jamisjockey]

To better illuminate the point I am making:
1. The vast majority businesses have already exchanged what some consider inalienable rights to <fill in blank with right of your choice> by making an agreement with the gov't to be treated more favorably in some ways than they would be if not entering into that agreement (S-corp, C-corp, LLC, etc.).
2. That agreement is entered into willingly.
3. The benefits are not without obligation, the extent of that obligation determined by the various states & localities.
4. There is no fundamental "Right to incorporation and favorable tax & legal circumstances relative to a sole proprietorship."
5. If the business owner does not want the favorable treatment or balks at the obligations, they are usually able to run a SP or move to some place that has a more favorable business climate.

As a business owner, I second that sentiment.  I've already entered into a contract with the government for my business entity to exist.  It only stands to reason that I should be subject to reasonable laws that might intrude on my private property rights.
Allowing employees to consider their vehicles private property and keep legally obtained and licensed (if necessary) seems quite reasonable to me, even if I were against it. 
Now, we actually allow concealed carry in accordance with all applicable VA laws on our property, but that's my choice as a business owner. 

[ronnyreagan]

To better illuminate the point I am making:
1. The vast majority businesses have already exchanged what some consider inalienable rights to < keep and bear arms > by making an agreement with the gov't to be treated more favorably in some ways than they would be if not entering into that agreement (S-corp, C-corp, LLC, etc.).
2. That agreement is entered into willingly.
3. The benefits are not without obligation, the extent of that obligation determined by the various states & localities.
4. There is no fundamental "Right to incorporation and favorable tax & legal circumstances relative to a sole proprietorship."
5. If the business owner does not want the favorable treatment or balks at the obligations, they are usually able to run a SP or move to some place that has a more favorable business climate.

Those who own shares in a corporation partake in the benefits.  When Badcorp, Inc. dumps ground glass into baby food for fun & profit, the shareholders are not personally liable for the actions of Badcorp.  They may lose their investment, but they won't be sued and charged with a crime.  If Badcorp then goes bankrupt, the shareholders are not required to sell their house to make good the bad debt of Badcorp.

These benefits come at the cost of requirements, regs, and restrictions imposed by the state that charters Badcorp.

Can't I fill in your blank with "The right to keep and bear arms" and suddenly you have justification for the government to require disarmament at those businesses as part of the regulations & requirements imposed by the state? Similar to smoking bans, wouldn't an argument for "safe work environment" laws banning guns at work look exactly like your argument?

[MechAg94]

They already do that with businesses that meet the 51% rule in Texas (make majority of money from alcohol sales).  I doubt Texas is the only state that has rules like that. 

[seeker_two]

Does a property owner have a right to prohibit firearms on their property?.....Yes.

Does a person have a right to keep and bear arms?....Yes.

Does a property owner have the right to search the sealed property of others sitting outside of their building (i.e. automobiles).....No.

So....does the rights of a property owner conflict with the right of a person to be secure in their person and possessions?......and should it conflict?.....

....that's the question, isn't it?..... 

[Gewehr98]

And a very poignant question, Seeker.

Rights trumping other rights - how well does that work?

[RaspberrySurprise]

Similar to smoking bans, wouldn't an argument for "safe work environment" laws banning guns at work look exactly like your argument?

But can you reasonably prove that guns cause an unsafe working environment? I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to do that from a rational standpoint.

Yes I know the words "government" and "rational" are contradictory.

[MicroBalrog]

1. The vast majority businesses have already exchanged what some consider inalienable rights to <fill in blank with right of your choice> by making an agreement with the gov't to be treated more favorably in some ways than they would be if not entering into that agreement (S-corp, C-corp, LLC, etc.).

This would be correct, however I would like to ask you a question. Is there – anywhere – a jurisdiction where you're free to enter business without entering some form of contract with the government? Can you open a restaurant, a grocery store, even a book store without requesting a permit from the government or registering in some way?  Is it really a 'choice' to enter the agreement?

[Matthew Carberry]

Does a property owner have a right to prohibit firearms on their property?.....Yes.

Does a person have a right to keep and bear arms?....Yes.

Does a property owner have the right to search the sealed property of others sitting outside of their building (i.e. automobiles).....No.

So....does the rights of a property owner conflict with the right of a person to be secure in their person and possessions?......and should it conflict?.....

....that's the question, isn't it?..... 

If as part of your hiring contract you cede the business the right to search your vehicle then they do have that right.  If you are not willing to cede them that access then you have two choices.  Roll the dice they won't search (and accept the firing if they do) or don't take/keep the job.

I'm not sure where one of the premises of this discussion was established that you had a right to employment at any particular business.

A large part of this isn't "competing rights" in the first place, it's simple contract law.

If you don't like the terms of a hiring contract, you don't sign it.

End of problem.

[Scout26]

We seemed to be confused about the definition of "Private" property.  

There's Personal Private property like your home.  It is generally not open to the public except on express invitation by the owner.  There you can still do pretty much as want as long as you don't harm others.  You want to exclude *insert group here*.  Fine, nothing says you have to have them over for tea.  

On business property, you essentially invite the public to your place of business (Some businesses more then others - say retail vs a manufacturing facility).  You still cannot curtail the rights of the public.  You cannot exclude *insert group here*, from becoming a vendor, customer or employee.