Property Rights vs. 2A Rights

[BridgeRunner]

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.  
 

[MechAg94]

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.  

[Boomhauer]

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.

[tyme]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[Hawkmoon]

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)

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.   

[MicroBalrog]

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

[freakazoid]

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.

[Tallpine]

I believe that there is a difference between a place of business and someones home.

Duh - I would hope so 

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.

[vaskidmark]

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.

[HankB]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[freakazoid]

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?

[T.O.M.]

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...

[Jamisjockey]

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. 

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[HeroHog]

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!

[Perd Hapley]

   Click on the link, man. 

[HeroHog]

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...

[Perd Hapley]

I was trying to draw a satirical analogy. Oh well.

[zahc]

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.

[Ron]

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.