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 3 of 54 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #21
    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
    Yay for expansion of government power, regulation, and encroachment into the private sector!
    LOL! Good one.
    “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

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    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.
    I frankly find this more of a problem area with regards to how property rights are viewed with regards to your car and a location you're parked on. That said, they're not disallowing you to do any such thing because you are in no way required or mandated to be working at said business or engaging in commerce with them. They're at best causing you to potentially voluntarily restrict it. And if you choose not to do so, they have no immediete legal recourse against you.

    And that's really the thing. With it being a gudieline of a private entity, it's got none of the teeth of law.

    They can't force you to allow a search. They can't force you to tell them you have a gun. They can't force you to not bring your gun. The best they can do is if they find out in some fashion they could fire you, if you're an employee, or ask you to leave the premisis, if you're a patron. And that's really only if they made it explicit from the point you entered onto the property that such a policy exists. Now, if you refuse to go after they tell you to get off their property when you were fully aware on the time of coming on about their rules, then you may have some legal issues. But that's due to your decisions after you've been asked to leave, not because you have a gun on you.

  3. #23
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,580

    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?
    This is where it gets sticky, indeed. If you are not allowed to bring a weapon onto the private/public property what LAW are you violating? In addition, should someone harm you while on that property, as in the case of the Batman (Joker?) shooting, is that property owner then liable for NOT enforcing the ban? After all, if they (property owner/gov't) do not allow you to defend yourself then are they not liable for allowing you harm for denying your RIGHT to do so? Many states have laws prohibiting being armed in bars and schools, yet provide ZERO security or enforcement. It should work BOTH ways, if you impose the ban then you are responsible for enforcing it, and GUILTY (at least civilly liable) if you do not do so. We see cities, such as Chicago and DC that prohibit LAWFUL possession of arms yet they take NO responsibility for your protection or strict enforcement of these "gun free zones". Just what penalty would be imposed for one having a gun in their vehicle and how would it be enforced?
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 08-01-12 at 02:48 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #24
    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 frankly find this more of a problem area with regards to how property rights are viewed with regards to your car and a location you're parked on. That said, they're not disallowing you to do any such thing because you are in no way required or mandated to be working at said business or engaging in commerce with them. They're at best causing you to potentially voluntarily restrict it. And if you choose not to do so, they have no immediete legal recourse against you.

    And that's really the thing. With it being a gudieline of a private entity, it's got none of the teeth of law.

    They can't force you to allow a search. They can't force you to tell them you have a gun. They can't force you to not bring your gun. The best they can do is if they find out in some fashion they could fire you, if you're an employee, or ask you to leave the premisis, if you're a patron. And that's really only if they made it explicit from the point you entered onto the property that such a policy exists. Now, if you refuse to go after they tell you to get off their property when you were fully aware on the time of coming on about their rules, then you may have some legal issues. But that's due to your decisions after you've been asked to leave, not because you have a gun on you.
    I don't know. Good luck getting a judge to side with the employer on the "you don't have to work there" line of argument. In this economy, I believe a judge would side with the employee. Just on that particular argument though.
    I agree on the search aspect though.
    “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

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I don't know. Good luck getting a judge to side with the employer on the "you don't have to work there" line of argument. In this economy, I believe a judge would side with the employee. Just on that particular argument though.
    I agree on the search aspect though.
    Well, you wre asking it seemed on which one we feel should hold sway.

    If you're asking me which way the ruling would actually go, that's a whole different ball of wax that'd largely depend on the location its getting tried at and the type of judge that's hearing the case.

  6. #26
    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 ttwtt78640 View Post
    This is where it gets sticky, indeed. If you are not allowed to bring a weapon onto the private/public property what LAW are you violating? In addition, should someone harm you while on that property, as in the case of the Batman (Joker?) shooting, is that property owner then liable for NOT enforcing the ban? After all, if they (property owner/gov't) do not allow you to defend yourself then are they not liable for allowing you harm for denying your RIGHT to do so? Many states have laws prohibiting being armed in bars and schools, yet provide ZERO security or enforcement. It should work BOTH ways, if you impose the ban then you are responsible for enforcing it, and GUILTY (at least civilly liable) if you do not do so. We see cities, such as Chicago and DC tha prohibit LAWFUL possession of arms yet they take NO responsibility for your protection or strict enforcement of these "gun free zones". Just what penalty would be imposed for one having a gun in their vehicle and how would it be enforced?
    Great points. I agree, additional immediate security should be provided if firearms are prohibited. I think making that law would severely discourage employers from restricting firearms on their property. Why? It costs money to pay security guards.
    “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

  7. #27
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    That's why I just never bring it up. I'm there to work, not advertise for Smith and Wesson.

    On the other hand, this Christian has entered the homes of a few somewhat (not overly so) anti-Christians. One was an atheist couple and one was a pagan couple. I wear a rosewood crucifix, so I put it on a longer cord (I usually wear a choker style cord) and went about my work. No harm don.

    Had either couple discovered my faith and ordered me to leave for that reason, I would have been entitled to compensation. Now since the 1st Amendment is just as specifically enumerated as the 2nd Amendment, I should therefore also be entitled to protected and compensation were I ordered to leave for carrying a pistol.

    When a private resident hires me, they have signed a contract agreeing to allow me onto their property and in so doing have accepted a temporary level of infringement upon their rights through the enforcement of workplace safety rules and employee rights.

  8. #28
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,580

    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.
    That depands on the wording of the local statutes, if you are by definition trespassing (simply by being armed) is that NOT then comitting that crime (trespassing) "while armed"? Many states have added penalties (even mandatory minimum prison sentences) specifically for the "while armed" part of their laws. It would indeed be WRONG to be charged (and convicted) with trespassing WHILE ARMED simply for having a firearm locked in your trunk in a parking lot that the owner has designated as a "gun free" zone.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #29
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    The one issue with the civily liable part is that you could argue it in either way. In our sue happy world, we can't sit here and honestly think that people wouldn't sue and claim the business civily liable for NOT banning guns and a shooting end up happening just as much as they'd attempt to sue and claim the business is civily liable FOR banning guns and a shooting ending up happening. And while I may agree with one side more than the other, if I'm not attempting to be biased I don't really see how you can say one is less correct than the other. You COULD argue that "The guy would've brought a gun in anyways if it was a no gun zone" but that's speculation, not fact. The fact would be it wasn't a gun free zone, he brought a gun, he shot someone. I can understand someone arguing that should be allowed to make the business as civily liable as you're suggesting for the other way.

    The one counter to that I think would be that a business should not be liable for not taking additional messures BEYOND what is required by the law.

  10. #30
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    It would seem clear that a business could ban employees (or anyone else) from having guns on their property. However, that power ends at the property line.

    HOWEVER, there could be some civil liabilities resulting from that restriction.

Page 3 of 54 FirstFirst 123451353 ... 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
  •