Property Rights vs. 2A Rights

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and if they persist?  the usual nonsense like the larouche whack job?

[RevDisk]

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.

[Thor]

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)

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.  

[makattak]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[KD5NRH]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[zahc]

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.

[HankB]

. . .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.

[Thor]

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??

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[sanglant]

which state banned patrol officers from carrying into gas stations that sold beer/wine?