Which right holds sway?

Jerry said:

Permit holders are the least likely demographic to commit any kind of crime. Not just violent crime, but any kind of crime at all, including theft while you're not home, or even littering on your property. Permit holders are not your enemy, the guy who has an illegal firearm and intends to brake some laws today is your enemy, and he's not gong to tell you he's armed or honor any sign. Gun control doesn't work, whether we're talking a public policy on public land or your own private rule in your business. Gun control does not work.

What does work, is an armed population. This is true whether we're talking about a public population, or the micro population just on your land. More gun = less crime, categorically.

Click to expand...

Thats great but I do not care demographically what people do, what I do care about is what a individual is doing on my property. This is not a social issue or a race issue etc. what is, is about is private property rights of individuals. And the NRA supports special laws that circumnavigate the Constitution in order to give a person carrying a gun a special right that no one else has.

The 2nd Amendment is all that us gun owners need, not yet more laws.

I dont really agree though with the reasoning that "More gun = less crime". In fact the notion is silly. There are plenty of historical examples that prove otherwise. Which puts all guns owners in a disadvantage when we parrot things like that. The reason is that it easily argued against. All one needs to do is point out that there are people that are not responsible gun owners, like gang members for example. Go into south central L.A. and tell me that all those guns made a safer society. Ever heard of the term outgunned? It isnt responsible gun owners that are being thought of when the gun control nuts go off on their tangents. They are afraid of the bad people with guns. Every time there is a mass shooting the gun control nuts capitalize on it. And when people like the NRA in tun claim that if there had been a gun carrier there all would have been different. But those that want gun control dont want people shooting it out with innocent people in between. And thats all they can see is people shooting despite people being around them. They think that guns are too dangerous for common people to own, since they are afraid of guns and would never own one. So it takes a little tact on our part to not say things like 'yep if I were there I would have..'. The fact is that you were not there, so its pointless to assume that you would have been a hero.

Better too attack illegal gun use in my opinion.

I try to state things as simply as I can, for my own sake if not for others...

We hold that just like race, religion, nationality, etc, that lawfully possessed firearms are part of what you are choosing to welcome on to your property when you welcome the public per-se onto your property, because lawfully possessed firearms are a part of the law-abiding public.

Click to expand...

A manufacturing plant does not allow the public on the property. And the employees in most cases are under strict orders to behave a certain way to dress a certain way and to not go in certain areas at all unless authorized. Which demonstrates that employees are invitees. AN employer at their own discretion can make any spot off limits to employees for the reasons that they want. AN employer can also ban personal music players and cell phones. An employer can make a rule saying that you cannot eat except during lunch or break. AN employer can make a rule against the employees speaking at certain times or in certain places or at least at a low volume. An employer can fire you for making rude comments. An employer can make you go home and change your clothes before coming back to work. An employer can require you to put all of your belongings in a locker and wear a uniform while at work.

The point is that the employee voluntarily does these things if they want the job. If there are rules you do not want to follow quit and get another job.

But a contractor working at someones home has even more stringent laws to follow than in a manufacturing plant. The home has special legal status under the Constitution. The right to privacy in a citizens home is top priority. Your right to carry a gun takes a bake seat to private property rights especially in someones home. Regardless of what corrupt laws that you and the NRA get passed most Americans will still choose who goes in their homes. Call us a bunch of assholes if you wish but it wont change a thing, we will still judge you as the people hedging liberties.

FreedomFromAll said:

I dont really agree though with the reasoning that "More gun = less crime". In fact the notion is silly.

Click to expand...

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

Click to expand...

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.

<snip>

Click to expand...

Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer

....The LA Times had an article about the The European disdain for America violence but shouldn't spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000 the rate at which people where assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden than in The United States. In the decade since England banned all private possessions of gun the number of gun crimes has gone up.Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence has occurred in Europe from students and teachers killed in Germany, 14 legislators shot in Switzerland to 8 city council members being shot outside of Paris.

Just recently a taxi driver in Cumbria, England killed 12 people and wounded 11.

Click to expand...

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Click to expand...

[The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

Click to expand...

The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England's Homicide Rate

The homicide rate (per capita) in England and Wales was 9.1 in the year 1900, a time when gun control laws were relatively lax.
In 2009, when gun laws are of draconian strictness, the homicide rate is 14.1
This is from an official parliament report.

Click to expand...

GunCite-Gun Accidents

Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drowning’s or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).

Click to expand...

England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found.

The study found that England and Wales ranked highly in a survey of crime rates among more than 30 developed counries, based on the frequency of crimes recorded by police for every 100,000 people.

• For burglaries and robberies England and Wales had more crimes per 100,000 people than the USA. England and Wales was ranked sixth for burglaries – worse than Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Italy and Chile - and for robberies, England and Wales was seventh.
• For rapes, England and Wales was ranked ninth, worse than the likes of Norway, Poland, Sweden, Australia and Germany, while for car thefts, England and Wales was eighth – worse than Slovenia, Chile, Mexico, Greece and the Czech Republic.

Nearly half of all offenders sent to prison are reconvicted within a year of release, creating a revolving door of crime.

Click to expand...

FreedomFromAll said:

Thats great but I do not care demographically what people do, what I do care about is what a individual is doing on my property. This is not a social issue or a race issue etc. what is, is about is private property rights of individuals.

Click to expand...

If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:

Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

~snip~

Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.

Click to expand...

I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.


******
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

For example:

South Dakota Code 20-13-23

20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.

Click to expand...

When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.

I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.


*****
The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.

FreedomFromAll said:

The point is that the employee voluntarily does these things if they want the job. If there are rules you do not want to follow quit and get another job.

But a contractor working at someones home has even more stringent laws to follow than in a manufacturing plant. The home has special legal status under the Constitution. The right to privacy in a citizens home is top priority. Your right to carry a gun takes a bake seat to private property rights especially in someones home. Regardless of what corrupt laws that you and the NRA get passed most Americans will still choose who goes in their homes. Call us a bunch of assholes if you wish but it wont change a thing, we will still judge you as the people hedging liberties.

Click to expand...

More sloganeering, not impressive. Your right to property has limits, especially when you open it to the public or hire employees.

Your irrational fear is just that, irrational, so why am I even entertaining your incoherent nonsense? Good question.

Later bud :2wave:

If you own the property, you can dictate what people can bring onto that property. The bill of rights are meant to limit government power, not property rights.

Jerry said:

If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:


I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.


******
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

For example:


When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.

I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.


*****
The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.

Click to expand...

There are 3 rights in play here. The right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment. The other right is that of the right to own property, property rights. The third right in play is the freedom of association.

In my opinion the SCOTUS opinion on the matter is wrong. For that matter the laws on public accomidation if they apply to privately held business are also wrong, and unconstitutional in my opinion. The public accomidation laws should ONLY apply to PUBLIC, IE government facilities. The SCOTUS opinion violates 2 rights that of association and property, as do public accomidation laws. Protected classess are also a violation of the constitution as ALL people must be protected EQUALLY under the law in my opinion.

As a property owner I have inherent rights associated with my property, among them who and what I allow on my premisis. The very nature of property ownership implies control. Do I the property owner, determine the conditions of entry and conduct on my property? If no, then I really don't own the property. Do I have a choice in who is allowed onto my property and the conditions under which they will be allowed. That is the question I think in a nutshell. This regardless of whether or not it is a business is the question. My answer is yes I have a choice. To say otherwise would be to deny me the rights that ownership implies. It also destroyes the whole notion of freedom. If I am not free to control my property as I see fit, what other rights are subject to others whims?

All people have the right to dend themselves. They also have the right to keep and bear the tools neccisary for their defence. To keep those tools about their person if they so choose. I would deny NO man this inherent right. However this is in public, in their OWN home, and I dare say in ANY PUBLICLY owned building. The freedom to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct in the Public sphere. I also allow them in my home so long as they notifiy me first. That said, what if I the property owner decided I do not want arms on my property for whatever reason you would care to think up or none at all. This is where the freedom of association and property rights come into play. Our domain is were we have our unique control. You have control over your domain, I have control over mine. Your domain is sacrosanct, as is mine. Should people be forced to associate with those they do not wish to?
I would dare say the answer would be an almost universal no.

So the crux of the argument comes down to this do I have the freedom to associate with those I choose, and do I have control of my property? I answer yes.

Jerry said:

More sloganeering, not impressive. Your right to property has limits, especially when you open it to the public or hire employees.

Your irrational fear is just that, irrational, so why am I even entertaining your incoherent nonsense? Good question.

Later bud :2wave:

Click to expand...

It is you that needs a gun for self defense, perhaps it is you with the fear? Logically if that is your purpose of packing a gun everywhere you fear something like for example gangs and wild dogs.


Your reaction tells me that you have nothing that can argue my claims.

Lakryte said:

If you own the property, you can dictate what people can bring onto that property.

Click to expand...

Not true. Gun owners can store their firearm in their car even if the property owner doesn't like it.

Property rights have limits, especially when you invite the public in or hire employees. Just like the private person isn't justified in owning hand grenades, neither is the property owner justified in banning lawful possession on a gun.

PirateMk1 said:

There are 3 rights in play here. The right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment. The other right is that of the right to own property, property rights. The third right in play is the freedom of association.

In my opinion the SCOTUS opinion on the matter is wrong. For that matter the laws on public accomidation if they apply to privately held business are also wrong, and unconstitutional in my opinion. The public accomidation laws should ONLY apply to PUBLIC, IE government facilities. The SCOTUS opinion violates 2 rights that of association and property, as do public accomidation laws. Protected classess are also a violation of the constitution as ALL people must be protected EQUALLY under the law in my opinion.

As a property owner I have inherent rights associated with my property, among them who and what I allow on my premisis. The very nature of property ownership implies control. Do I the property owner, determine the conditions of entry and conduct on my property? If no, then I really don't own the property. Do I have a choice in who is allowed onto my property and the conditions under which they will be allowed. That is the question I think in a nutshell. This regardless of whether or not it is a business is the question. My answer is yes I have a choice. To say otherwise would be to deny me the rights that ownership implies. It also destroyes the whole notion of freedom. If I am not free to control my property as I see fit, what other rights are subject to others whims?

All people have the right to dend themselves. They also have the right to keep and bear the tools neccisary for their defence. To keep those tools about their person if they so choose. I would deny NO man this inherent right. However this is in public, in their OWN home, and I dare say in ANY PUBLICLY owned building. The freedom to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct in the Public sphere. I also allow them in my home so long as they notifiy me first. That said, what if I the property owner decided I do not want arms on my property for whatever reason you would care to think up or none at all. This is where the freedom of association and property rights come into play. Our domain is were we have our unique control. You have control over your domain, I have control over mine. Your domain is sacrosanct, as is mine. Should people be forced to associate with those they do not wish to?
I would dare say the answer would be an almost universal no.

So the crux of the argument comes down to this do I have the freedom to associate with those I choose, and do I have control of my property? I answer yes.

Click to expand...

You don't have to open your property to the public. No one forced you to do that. When you choose to open your property to the public, you have engaged in commerce, and the Constitution does say the government has the authority to regulate commerce.

You retain the right and ability to close your property to the public at any time, and so doing removing government's regulation of commerce from your private property.

Re-reading my conversation with Tucker, I'll start leaving the gun in the car. Like most topics on this forum, it doesn't come down to who has what right, it comes down to respect and trust.

I run into a problem since I tend to ride my peddle bike everywhere in nice weather as a great way to train my Army PT standards...and I can't store a gun on a peddle bike...but we can approach that another time.

Jerry said:

Not true. Gun owners can store their firearm in their car even if the property owner doesn't like it.

Property rights have limits, especially when you invite the public in or hire employees. Just like the private person isn't justified in owning hand grenades, neither is the property owner justified in banning lawful possession on a gun.

Click to expand...

Not true since you need a special law to gain that right. And even then the property owner can still not allow you to store a gun in your car if it is a gated guarded parking lot. And they can make you park in a special parking lot for people with guns in their cars. Clearly you are wrong.

Jerry said:

Not true. Gun owners can store their firearm in their car even if the property owner doesn't like it.

Click to expand...

The car the property of the gun owner. Of course a gun owner can store his weapon in his own property.

Property rights have limits, especially when you invite the public in or hire employees. Just like the private person isn't justified in owning hand grenades, neither is the property owner justified in banning lawful possession on a gun.

Click to expand...

Why is the private person not justified in owning hand grenades? Why is the property owner not justified in setting the conditions of his own property?

Lakryte said:

The car the property of the gun owner. Of course a gun owner can store his weapon in his own property.

Click to expand...

Your body and person is also your property, more so than your car. Just ask folks who are pro-choice on abortion, they are the loudest proponents of 'bodily sovereignty'. I find myself sounding like them a lot when I discuss this topic.

Lakryte said:

Why is the private person not justified in owning hand grenades?

Click to expand...

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
~snip~

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Click to expand...

In order to be a protected, a weapon must be "in common use at the time", and may not be "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon failes one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:

Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Boo Radley said:

OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?

Click to expand...

Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.

Lakryte said:

Why is the property owner not justified in setting the conditions of his own property?

Click to expand...

Re-reading my conversation with Tucker, I'll start leaving the gun in the car. Like most topics on this forum, it doesn't come down to who has what right, it comes down to respect and trust.

I run into a problem, however, since I tend to ride my peddle bike everywhere in nice weather as a great way to accommodate a knee problem with low-impact cardio to train my Army PT standards...and I can't store a gun on a peddle bike. The laws protecting employees, to store a gun in their car, are based on the fact that the employer's policy over reached past their private property, that by banning a gun in the car the employer was banning the employee from lawful carry while not on the property or on the clock.

That's the problem I see here. A gun can't be properly stored on a peddle bike (or motorcycle). Also, for many people, public transit is far more economical than buying and driving a personal car.

When an employer bans firearms from the employee's person, the employer again is preventing that person from lawful carry while not on the private property nor on the clock.

The compromise I propose, is for the employer to provide a gun locker at work just as the employer would have to provide a uniform or PPE.

FreedomFromAll said:

And even then the property owner can still not allow you to store a gun in your car if it is a gated guarded parking lot. And they can make you park in a special parking lot for people with guns in their cars.

Click to expand...

Then employers can provide gun lockers just as they have to provide uniforms and PPE.

Dairy Queen employee shoots, kills sword-wielding robber, police say - Las Vegas Sun News

So you're all saying a private property owner has the right...to require me to be cut into pieces?

Surly you can see how that "right" is invalid.

"A basic human right is self-defense"

Jerry said:

Dairy Queen employee shoots, kills sword-wielding robber, police say - Las Vegas Sun News

So you're all saying a private property owner has the right...to require me to be cut into pieces?

Surly you can see how that "right" is invalid.

"A basic human right is self-defense"

Click to expand...

I can see the sticky widget you got with the peddle bike scenario. It bites. I guess without any laws in place it comes down to seeing if the employer or commercial entity can accomidate you. As for locker requirement I am loath to make laws that make people do something, though I can see where one might be required. I think the best way to solve this is to have the liability for any incidents fall on the entity for not allowing carry. Very specificaly not allowing their customers the tools to defend themselves, not providing adequate security, and negligent security practices. Let civil liability law hold sway. It will not be perfect for anyone but it probalbly will be the best solution. This way property rights are still respected.

PirateMk1 said:

I can see the sticky widget you got with the peddle bike scenario. It bites. I guess without any laws in place it comes down to seeing if the employer or commercial entity can accomidate you. As for locker requirement I am loath to make laws that make people do something, though I can see where one might be required. I think the best way to solve this is to have the liability for any incidents fall on the entity for not allowing carry. Very specificaly not allowing their customers the tools to defend themselves, not providing adequate security, and negligent security practices. Let civil liability law hold sway. It will not be perfect for anyone but it probalbly will be the best solution. This way property rights are still respected.

Click to expand...

I was confronted on another forum today, that riding a peddle bike was my *choice* and therefore I just shouldn't do it.

My job, my employer in the Army requires me to meet a PT standard. I don't have a choice in that.
I have a documented knee problem. I don't have a choice in that.
I don't have my own stationary bike, money to buy one, a place to put it, or 24/7 acess to a pool. I don't have a choice in that.
I can't go bike riding at a performance level that will challenge my cardio while my children are tagging along, nor do I have the money to pay a babysitter every other day so I can ride solo. I don't have a choice in that.

Riding my bike to work after the children have been put on the buss is the best way for me to get my low-to-no impact cardio in.

The same is true of my collage classes, but we're not debating carrying on school grounds here.

Jerry said:

I was confronted on another forum today, that riding a peddle bike was my *choice* and therefore I just shouldn't do it.

My job, my employer in the Army requires me to meet a PT standard. I don't have a choice in that.
I have a documented knee problem. I don't have a choice in that.
I don't have my own stationary bike, money to buy one, a place to put it, or 24/7 acess to a pool. I don't have a choice in that.
I can't go bike riding at a performance level that will challenge my cardio while my children are tagging along, nor do I have the money to pay a babysitter every other day so I can ride solo. I don't have a choice in that.

Riding my bike to work after the children have been put on the buss is the best way for me to get my low-to-no impact cardio in.

The same is true of my collage classes, but we're not debating carrying on school grounds here.

Click to expand...

Hey I understand completely, gun free zones are just markers for nut jobs to go do their killing. I carry openly in California a cap and ball type revolver using smokeless powder. I do it to get around draconian laws out here. I cant carry it a lot of places I go which bites. I try to get the places I go to to let me carry, and for the most part I have been accomidated. The people that dont accomidate me are the local Walmarts, and other corperate entities usually though there is the occasional mom and pop out here that dont like weapons of any kind. This IS California after all. That said I carry were I can, and where I cant I keep a very bright tactical flashlight and laser combo and a high powered taser so I have some sort defence. I practice with the light laser combo a lot so I can be ready use them tactically. I am also looking at a exteremly high decibel small profile horn defencive horn for area control. Ive seen videos of the thing making a charging grizzly do a 180 in mid stride, funny as hell and effective. I've been unarmed in war time doing my former job hauling fuel for our military so I am probably not as uncomfortable being unarmed as I have had to deal with it in active combat situations. Not fun. That said the thing I always told my crews was "Lose your head, and you lose your head. Keep your head and you keep your head." Johnny Jihad was fond of beheadings at the time, and I wanted to emphasise my point.

I personally think we should carry everywhere, the only exceptions being bars, drug dens, and the actual courtrooms. Everywhere else should A OK.

Private businesses have a right to restrict gun possession on their facilities. They have the right to post signs stating "This Is a Gun Free Zone". In fact I believe every school shooting and the recent Colorado shooting was done on such a premises...which means...it doesnt mean ****. But still...businesses have a RIGHT to make such declarations.

However...my car is my car. Even the police have to respect my car as private property, even in a parking lot. I dont know how they would be able to justify preventing me from keeping a weapon in my car, even in 'their' parking lot.

VanceMack said:

Private businesses have a right to restrict gun possession on their facilities. They have the right to post signs stating "This Is a Gun Free Zone". In fact I believe every school shooting and the recent Colorado shooting was done on such a premises...which means...it doesnt mean ****. But still...businesses have a RIGHT to make such declarations.

However...my car is my car. Even the police have to respect my car as private property, even in a parking lot. I dont know how they would be able to justify preventing me from keeping a weapon in my car, even in 'their' parking lot.

Click to expand...

Just as your car is your car and employers have to respect it even while it's on their property, so to is your body you body, and employers should have to respect it even while it's in their building.

Jerry said:

Just as your car is your car and employers have to respect it even while it's on their property, so to is your body you body, and employers should have to respect it even while it's in their building.

Click to expand...

Not ironically...the only people that will FOLLOW those laws are the people they actually have NO REASON to fear in the first place.

I read a few articles about this and one of the common 'type' comments I saw was "Do you want your pizza delivery guy coming to your door armed? What if he isnt satisfied with his tip?" Absurd questions. Do you want POLICE OFFICERS carrying armed? I think everyone would agree that at LEAST some of them dont have the mentality to be a cop...so do we REALLY want police officers to be armed? What if someone calls them a name or questions their authority?

Why I carry into businesses and have carried to work regardless of private policies:

Smoke Shop Robbery: Manhattan Beach Smoke Shop Clerk's Throat Slashed During Robbery - ktla.com

Jerry said:

Why I carry into businesses and have carried to work regardless of private policies:

Smoke Shop Robbery: Manhattan Beach Smoke Shop Clerk's Throat Slashed During Robbery - ktla.com

Click to expand...

Good point.

VanceMack said:

Not ironically...the only people that will FOLLOW those laws are the people they actually have NO REASON to fear in the first place.

I read a few articles about this and one of the common 'type' comments I saw was "Do you want your pizza delivery guy coming to your door armed? What if he isnt satisfied with his tip?" Absurd questions. Do you want POLICE OFFICERS carrying armed? I think everyone would agree that at LEAST some of them dont have the mentality to be a cop...so do we REALLY want police officers to be armed? What if someone calls them a name or questions their authority?

Click to expand...

Your avatar....man that was a while ago....MAX...I used to watch it all the time but for the life of me I can't remember what it was about. Same with Aion Flux(sp).

PirateMk1 said:

Good point.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of folks take it as disrespect, that I'm shrugging off their private property rights, and I see where they're coming from....but it's not about disrespect.

It's about self defense.