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 34 of 54 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #331
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    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.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  2. #332
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,044

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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
    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.

  3. #333
    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 Lakryte View Post
    If you own the property, you can dictate what people can bring onto that property.
    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.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-19-12 at 02:14 AM.

  4. #334
    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 PirateMk1 View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #335
    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?

    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.

  6. #336
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,044

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 08-19-12 at 05:15 PM.

  7. #337
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Not true. Gun owners can store their firearm in their car even if the property owner doesn't like it.
    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.
    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?
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  8. #338
    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 Lakryte View Post
    The car the property of the gun owner. Of course a gun owner can store his weapon in his own property.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Why is the private person not justified in owning hand grenades?
    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
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Why is the property owner not justified in setting the conditions of his own 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, 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.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-20-12 at 01:32 AM.

  9. #339
    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 FreedomFromAll View Post
    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.
    Then employers can provide gun lockers just as they have to provide uniforms and PPE.

  10. #340
    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?

    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"

Page 34 of 54 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... 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
  •