View Poll Results: Which right holds sway?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2nd Amendment

    17 21.52%
  • Property Rights

    62 78.48%
Page 2 of 54 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    Private property rights. People should be able to govern their own property according to their own standards as much as possible, specifically in ways that do not harm others. Banning guns from your private property, home or business, allows people to govern their property without hurting others. If people don't want to work at places that don't allow guns, then they can work somewhere else.
    That's interesting to me because my employment is not tied to one physical spot on the map. Residential construction requires me to enter all manor of properties all over the county (we do some commercial projects now and then), sometimes out-of-state.

    It's best if I just not bring it up before entering someone's home. My method of concealed carry makes it very hard to detect, the downside being it takes longer to draw. I usually carry a snub-noes in my right front pocket, and the orientation of the pouches of my tool belt mostly cover that pocket. They don't ask, I don't tell, and that seems to be a fair arrangement. 90% of the time the homeowners aren't there anyway.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Therein lies the debate my friend. If the gov't upholds a policy by a employer to disallow firearms on their property, is the gov't not now enforcing said policy by ruling in the employer's favor?
    If the government is trying to put you in jail, yes.

    If the government is denying your unemployment claim because you violated a term of your employment agreement, then no.

    Fortunately for me most construction companies don't bother putting anything about weapons in an employee handbook. How silly would it be to tell someone not to bring any kind of weapon and then give them a framing hammer, any kind of saw or nail gun, or even an 'powder-actuated' nail gun (classified as a 'firearm' in my state). Construction workers could have all these other means to kill someone, just not a 5-shot .38 with less range, power, and far fewer rounds then the DeWalt roofing nail gun in my hand.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-01-12 at 02:22 PM.

  3. #13
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Okay, now I'm Romneying on this. I am going to have to research this thing more. Great points by all btw.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    I am in favor of allowing Private Businesses to decide themselves that their property is a gun-free zone. Any enforcement of this would be private. IE the Business could terminate you as an employee if you violate the agreements of your employement (By bringing a gun on the premises) or they could instruct you to leave if you're a patron (and if you refuse, if that justifies as tresspassing, then the law could come into effect).

    I am NOT in favor of the government dictating to private businesses that their locatoins MUST be gun-free zones, under penalty of law. That is the government forcing it upon people and it would require government enforcement of the ban.

    The government stating that private property owners have a right to forbid guns on their property does not equal the government taking action against your rights, it simply is affirming the rights of the property owner.

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I disagree. I think they would rule it based on property rights vs 2nd Amendment rights. Reason being, the private property is still in the US and Americans are working there. Those Americans have rights. Owners of private property can't take away Constitutional rights can they? I'm being the devil's advocate btw. Personally, I believe the property rights should hold sway. I'm just thinking out loud.
    Private property absolutely CAN take away with your constitutional rights while in their establishments OR require you to leave their establishments.

    Ask yourself this...can a movie theater tell a Patron they must leave because they're standing up in the middle of the theater during the movie expressing their political views to people in the audience?

    Can you and 10 of your friends simply walk into a Curves and begin having a meeting about Guns and Manly things because of your right to assembly?

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    If the government were called upon to rule on an employer who tagged his place of employment as a gun-free zone, the government would rule on it based on property rights. And property rights alone.
    That's my point exactly: The gun is my property and it's on my person, the employer does not have a default right to regulate my person, there has to be a 'need', general a search warrant along with it, therefore my private property rights take precedence.

    I'm sure the pro-choice'ers out there would agree: It's my body so it's my choice. The government has the obligation to protect my rights unless and until my executing those rights harms someone without justification. Merely carrying a concealed gun onto an employer's property doesn't effect you or anyone else in any way. It doesn't harm you so it must be allowed.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-01-12 at 02:29 PM.

  7. #17
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I would go further, that the employee has the right to carry the firearm on their person at all times, unless....

    An employer who wishes to maintain a gun-free zone should have to comply with four requirements to maintain an annually renewed permit to have the gun-free zone.
    • Demonstrate a 'need' to have the gun-free zone, such as the presence of hazardous chemicals on the property. If the employer has no 'need', merely a preference, then the employee's right supersedes. Terminating and employee for possessing a firearm is to be treated as discrimination, the same is as if the employee were fired simply for being black.
    • Provide armed security.
    • Legally defined 'no-firearms' signs must be posted at every entrance and exit to the property and each building.
    • Pay a special insurance to cover the increased crime rate on gun-free-zones and cover liability (because the employer will be fully liable).


    If an employer doesn't like it, they are free not to engage in commerce.
    Yay for expansion of government power, regulation, and encroachment into the private sector!

  8. #18
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I am in favor of allowing Private Businesses to decide themselves that their property is a gun-free zone. Any enforcement of this would be private. IE the Business could terminate you as an employee if you violate the agreements of your employement (By bringing a gun on the premises) or they could instruct you to leave if you're a patron (and if you refuse, if that justifies as tresspassing, then the law could come into effect).

    I am NOT in favor of the government dictating to private businesses that their locatoins MUST be gun-free zones, under penalty of law. That is the government forcing it upon people and it would require government enforcement of the ban.

    The government stating that private property owners have a right to forbid guns on their property does not equal the government taking action against your rights, it simply is affirming the rights of the property owner.
    I tend to agree with you. However, I wouldn't like the idea of not being able to bring it into the parking lot in my vehicle. I can understand not bringing it into the building. But the parking lot? Let's put it this way. By saying I can't keep a weapon in my vehicle, you are now disallowing me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights because I can't carry a gun on the way to work. Maybe they provide a place to check my weapon in? Maybe in the same manner as when you come aboard a Federal Park. You can check in your weapon with the Park Ranger.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  9. #19
    Guru
    Aberration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,699
    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.
    Correct. Yet in turn where do the laws that establish property rights and business license?
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

  10. #20
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's interesting to me because my employment is not tied to one physical spot on the map. Residential construction requires me to enter all manor of properties all over the county (we do some commercial projects now and then), sometimes out-of-state.

    It's best if I just not bring it up before entering someone's home. My method of concealed carry makes it very hard to detect, the downside being it takes longer to draw. I usually carry a snub-noes in my right front pocket, and the orientation of the pouches of my tool belt mostly cover that pocket. They don't ask, I don't tell, and that seems to be a fair arrangement. 90% of the time the homeowners aren't there anyway.
    As long as you are complying with the gun laws of your state/city/etc, unless there is clear indication that a location requires no firearms then the default expectation on the part of an individual should be whatever is the baseline law of the land. It would only be in cases where private property is marked clearly as requiring no firearms on the premises to enter, or it's agreed upon as part of the condition to be on the property (Such as being employed), that it should allow the private property owner the right to deny you access to their property and take actions appropriate for individuals who attempt to enter/remain in private property when they are not invited to be there.

Page 2 of 54 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •