Property Rights vs. 2A Rights

[T.O.M.]

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?   

By teh way, they bought lunch, so I let them win the argument.   

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[Racehorse]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

private property

whats hard to understand?

[roo_ster]

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. 

[RevDisk]

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?   

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?

[Thor]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Leatherneck]

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

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[RevDisk]

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.

[Ron]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

 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. 

[erictank]

So you're saying that dead people will be voting carrying guns.  Great.  Just great. 

Crap - the zombies will be shooting back after TEOTWAWKI? 

We're doomed...

[RaspberrySurprise]

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.

[Tallpine]

Isn't your body your own private property 

 

[lupinus]

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.

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[drewtam]

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.

[Ryan in Maine]

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.

[Boomhauer]

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".

[tyme]

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)