• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which right holds sway?

Which right holds sway?

  • 2nd Amendment

    Votes: 15 21.7%

  • Property Rights

    Votes: 54 78.3%
  • Total voters
    69
I would think that second amendment rights would trump property owner rights unless perhaps the property owner has a sign stating no firearms or no weapons or something. Of course, I'm not sure of the law, so that's just my opinion. :)
 
Airborne375 said:
It exactly why we have a supreme court. When one right overlaps another a ruling has to be made. I haven't bothered to look at all the cases the court has ever heard regarding the 2nd amendment but I'll say this, the second amendment surely trumps property rights. It's not stepped on in the above instances, it's recognizing that amendment #2 overrides the concerns of property owners. Madison didn't draft the bill of rights up willy nilly. He didn't just jot down what kept to mind and have that list make it to the final draft.

Questions:

Where does your concept of 'Property Rights' stem from?

Who do you think enforces them?

I'm not trying to be snarky. I am trying to figure out how to field your questions so you 'get' my answers. I've answered the above question 2+ times already in this thread.
Click to expand...

You left out the word private. Private property rights are the center of our liberties and freedoms the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is the right to protect our private property. Without private property rights, we have no right to own anything and therefore have no rights at all. In order to bear arms you must own a gun if you cannot own a gun then you live in a dictatorship.


So this is my point and listen closely. If we keep creating laws that take away private property rights eventually we will wont be able to own anything privately. We will have become like Cuba etc. where its almost impossible to possess a firearm. I am also saying that if I cannot decide how to protect my property then you have taken away me right to defend my property.

Also here this people are willing not only to retain the 2nd Amendment but also the right to own and private property. If I can no longer in control of my property it is no longer private property. Be it real estate or personal possessions (including guns) the more control that i lose the closer that I feel that I do not really own anything.


People will bear arms to protect the right to bear arms. People will also bear arms to protect their private property. In fact the part of the Constitution mentioning where the Government cannot house troops in our houses makes private property rights an enumerated right. Which also makes our private property protected by the Constitution.
 
I asked you 2 questions and haven't received a reply.

I cannot frame a discussion properly without knowing where your 'source' for your ideas on the law stem from.

Whenever I try and nail you down you wriggle away and argue another facet of your position.

If you can answer my questions we can continue the discussion. Otherwise we are wasting our time.

Edit: Are you saying you believe Property Rights are implied by the Constitution and not clearly stated or defined?
 
Airborne375 said:
I asked you 2 questions and haven't received a reply.

I cannot frame a discussion properly without knowing where your 'source' for your ideas on the law stem from.

Whenever I try and nail you down you wriggle away and argue another facet of your position.

If you can answer my questions we can continue the discussion. Otherwise we are wasting our time.

Edit: Are you saying you believe Property Rights are implied by the Constitution and not clearly stated or defined?
Click to expand...

In fact the part of the Constitution mentioning where the Government cannot house troops in our houses makes private property rights an enumerated right. Which also makes our private property protected by the Constitution. Nope they are clearly stated and built around the concept of private property.

Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty. (John Adams)

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (James Madison)

As I have stated private property rules that ban guns do not actually divorce the gun owner from their personal property. The gun remains in the gun owners possession at all times.


Private Property:

(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.

(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.

(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.

(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense. Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties


Bringing a weapon onto someone elses property is an intrusion. The Government does not have the right to intrude on our real property (without specific legal reasons) and neither due private citizens.

Constitution: List of constitutional rights 12. Exclusion of government actors from intrusion into one's real property, body, or use of one's personal property, for search, seizure, or for any other reason, without consent, a declared state of war or emergency threat to public, safety, a warrant supported by an affidavit of probable cause, and just compensation for any losses incurred, for each incident.



"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life,
but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty,
but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty,
is to still leave him a slave."
- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.
 
If you don't like guns in your store, don't carry one.
 
Goshin said:
As I've said before, I'm perfectly okay with a store owner telling me I can't carry into his place of business...


... as long as his denial of my right to self-defense means he is 100% liable for any harm I suffer due to crime while in his property, or going to or from between his front door and my car.

If he disarms me, then he should provide for my safety while I'm there, and be liable for his failure to do so if I come to criminal harm.
Click to expand...
See I don't accept those terms because the point is to not be a victim in the first place, not receive compensation for damages.

If the store owner says I "can't" carry in his store, I'm going to carry anyway. You see, despite what any property owner says, I actually can carry. It's his job to catch me.

I have no obligation to any private property owner.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
By leaving your weapon in your vehicle you have assumed a certain amount of risk as a trade off for permission to enter the property. You still have the choice to not to enter the property if you feel inclined. And a sign stating that you are entering the property at your own risk would deny your claim of liability as long as the sign or even a verbal warning was issued that crossed all the T's and doted all of the legal I's. Any law that gave gun owners special liability privileges over non gun owners would be obviously exploited.


Again the point is that you are not required to enter someone elses property even if that establishment is the only one of its type around. If you do not feel safe going somewhere without a gun then for your own safety do not go to such places.
Click to expand...
Permission was given when you unlocked the front door and turned on the "open" sign. It's then up to you to rescind that permission individually. If you tell me to leave because I'm carrying in your store, then I interpret that as a fault on my part for not concealing properly.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
A business has the legal right to stop patrons form engaging in activity that the establishment was not designed for. This means that what you wear can get you restricted from entering a business. In a theater loud talking can get your thrown out despite the Constructional right to free speech. Even in the most gun rights friendly establishment you will not be able to walk around with a gun in your hand. No mater how much you want to you may not go in the ladies room if you are male. Ypu cannot just walk into a Christian church and start preaching about allah, and if you did you would soon find yourself outside.

You simply cannot do whatever you please on someone elses property.
Click to expand...
In Florida, for example, gun-buster signs are illegal. You, as the business owner, are not permitted to ban lawfully carried firearms from your property when that property is open to the public. You can be fined for trying.

The reason behind the law is that only the State has the authority to ban firearms from publicly accessible places.

A business owner can still require that all such firearms be concealed, however, just as they can require shoes and shirt.
 
Tucker Case said:
If the policy breaks the law, then the issue still has nothing to do with rights being violated, though. :shrug:
Click to expand...
It absolutely does, the violation is just going the other direction.
 
Tucker Case said:
Do you mean that the state would be violating the store owners rights?
Click to expand...
By enacting an illegal policy, the store is violating the customer's rights. If a customer were found in violation of an illegal policy, asked to leave, and refused, that is not trespassing. It is the business who is in the wrong.


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...


******
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.


***
Going back to the example of Florida, if a customer were asked to leave just because they were lawfully carrying a concealed firearm, that business could be fined by the state.
 
Jerry said:
By enacting an illegal policy, the store is violating the customer's rights.
Click to expand...

NO, they are breaking the law. No rights are violated.

The 2nd amendment isn't a civil rights issue. you can't try to crowbar it into one simply by citing case which are not relevent to the issue at hand.
 
Tucker Case said:
NO, they are breaking the law. No rights are violated.
Click to expand...

Both occur. The law is protecting the individual's right. An illegal policy violates that right and brakes the law. In addition to a fine by the state, a civil suit could be perused.
 
Jerry said:
The law is protecting the individual's right.
Click to expand...

You just said that the law is protecting the State's right when you said "The reason behind the law is that only the State has the authority to ban firearms from publicly accessible places."

It can't be that AND protecting individual rights. Mutually exclusive situations.
 
Jerry said:
See I don't accept those terms because the point is to not be a victim in the first place, not receive compensation for damages.

If the store owner says I "can't" carry in his store, I'm going to carry anyway. You see, despite what any property owner says, I actually can carry. It's his job to catch me.

I have no obligation to any private property owner.
Click to expand...


My point is that if this liability were spelled out in law, very few business owners would be inclined to post against carry... EVERYTHING is liability and insurance driven these days.
 
Oklahoma state legislature gave the right to ban firearms from stores to local municipalities. Local ordinances allow a business to post the prohibition as long as they follow a few guidelines.

That worked for awhile and then some employees of a couple of bigger companies here, I want to say one was Kerr-McGee or some such, got into trouble for weapons in their vehicles. Made for a few uncomfortable days for Republicans, some on each side.

Court decided employees could keep firearms in their vehicles and employers gained extra protection from liability.

Seemed a rather reasonable solution. I have read several gun forum sites where the advise given is unless you uncover in the store no one will know you are carrying so just go ahead and do it. Most ordinances are misdemeanors and difficult to enforce in a timely fashion.

Guess it is the easier to ask for forgiveness than permission thing.
 
Tucker Case said:
You just said that the law is protecting the State's right when you said "The reason behind the law is that only the State has the authority to ban firearms from publicly accessible places."
Click to expand...
Uh, no. I don't even see how you could infer that. Only the state has the authority to ban firearms because only the state can execute Due Process, which is required in order to properly infringe.
 
notquiteright said:
Oklahoma state legislature gave the right to ban firearms from stores to local municipalities. Local ordinances allow a business to post the prohibition as long as they follow a few guidelines.

That worked for awhile and then some employees of a couple of bigger companies here, I want to say one was Kerr-McGee or some such, got into trouble for weapons in their vehicles. Made for a few uncomfortable days for Republicans, some on each side.

Court decided employees could keep firearms in their vehicles and employers gained extra protection from liability.

Seemed a rather reasonable solution. I have read several gun forum sites where the advise given is unless you uncover in the store no one will know you are carrying so just go ahead and do it. Most ordinances are misdemeanors and difficult to enforce in a timely fashion.

Guess it is the easier to ask for forgiveness than permission thing.
Click to expand...

Until more states are like Florida, where businesses are explicitly exempt from liability, gun owners almost need carrying to be taboo so that employers can just look the other way and hide behind a no-gun policy should something happen.

I carry a self-defense ride-along on a hunting liability policy through the NRA just for this purpose.
 
MarineTpartier said:
The NRA has gone after a Tennessee Congresswoman due to her lack of support for a law stating that businesses should not be able to restrict employees from having a weapon on their property ie the employee having a weapon in their vehicle while it is parked in the parking lot. When I heard this story I initially wanted to come home and research it. However, I thought it would be more fun to put it up to debate. So what say you? Private property rights or the 2nd amendment? Which one holds sway in this case?
NRA hits Republican roadblocks - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Private property rights undue carrying a gun.
 
jet57 said:
Private property rights undue carrying a gun.
Click to expand...
If this were true, then employees couldn't store a gun in their car.

This alone proves your premise false.
 
Jerry said:
If this were true, then employees couldn't store a gun in their car.

This alone proves your premise false.
Click to expand...

What premise?? the average person can't take a gun into a federal or state facility either. If you show up at my door, and you work for -- the phone company, and you're packing heat that I can see; you're not coming on my property. And you know what? I win!
 
jet57 said:
What premise?
Click to expand...
This one:
jet57 said:
Private property rights undue carrying a gun.
Click to expand...

jet57 said:
the average person can't take a gun into a federal or state facility either.
Click to expand...
That's government property, not a private business, so that's not what we're talking about.

jet57 said:
If you show up at my door, and you work for -- the phone company, and you're packing heat that I can see; you're not coming on my property. And you know what? I win!
Click to expand...
That's a residence, not a private business, so that's no what we're talking about.
 
Jerry said:
This one:



That's government property, not a private business, so that's not what we're talking about.


That's a residence, not a private business, so that's no what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

A private business is private property! If they say "no skirts at work"; guess what? the girls wear pants. If a private business says "no guns on the property", then guess what? no guns on the property. And thay can call the police and have you escorted off the property and get a restraining order in a heartbeat to keep you and your gun from coming back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom