Is property of a corporation private property?
Is property of a corporation private property?
My point though is that property owners should maintain historical Constitutional rights, that those rights should not be abridged by new over reaching laws. That the 2nd Amendment already serves the purpose of protecting our right to own and bear arms making additional laws pointless and in effect weakens the powers of the 2nd Amendment.
So you do not agree with your main source of reference in this debate?You assume to much.
Nice debating skills, you do know how to debate right?Wow, what a load of bull****.
I think it is very relevant to this debate that the site that you keep running to as a reference is saying the exactly the same thing that I have been saying from the beginning.
"As responsible gun owners and upholders of the 2nd Amendment we should also honor the rights of property owners to control their own property even if we disagree with them.
If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave."
I'm not going to buy 'no-gun = no-money' cards and hand them to businesses with gun-buster signs. My thoughts on those cards is 1. a person with a gun can't give the card to the owner because the person with the gun isn't supposed to enter the property in the first place...so if you're going to enter the property with the gun then save the card and just do your shopping; 2. if you're going to disarm so as to deliver a card to the owner, then since you're disarming anyway just save the card and do your shopping.
I don't recognize a business owner's authority to ban my firearm from my person just because they feel like it. I carry regardless.
I'd like to approach this question by describing difference between 'inalienable rights' and 'civil rights'.
An inalienable right is a right that is inherent to life. The right to live, etc.
A civil right is to "ensure a citizen's ability to fully participate in the civil and political life of the state" (per wiki).
When you enter into private property, you're exiting public 'civilization' and entering a private civilization. Therefore, you are giving up your civil rights, as defined by the government.
Inalienable rights cannot ever be given up, as they are inherent to life. So you maintain your inalienable rights while on my property.
So the question is: Are gun-laws inalienable? Or are the civil?
I would argue that gun rights are Civil rights. If they were in alienable, it would be the responsibility of society to be sure all people had guns. However, because it is a civil right, we simply allow people to have guns.
Ergo, you give up your right to possess a gun, a civil right, by entering my private property
I agree with your premise that self-defense is inalienable. I don't immediately follow the logic of how that invalidates my argument.
But after some thought, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I see what you're trying to say: that our right to have the ability to defend ourselves with lethal force is inalienable. (A subtle difference, but an important one I think... here's why: )
Again, I would suggest that if this is the case, and it is true that inalienable rights are inherent to being alive, that you have that right simply by living, then we as a society have a responsibility to arm our citizens. Because we do not do this, this right to defend yourself with lethal force is a civil right, not an inalienable right.
`The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require, that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.' Cross v. State, 370 P.2d 371 - Google Scholar
The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require, that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred. At least no court of justice in this country would be warranted in assuming, that the power to violate and disregard them; a power so repugnant to the common principles of justice and civil liberty lurked under any general grant of legislative authority, or ought to be implied from any general expressions of the will of the people. The people ought not to be presumed to part with rights so vital to their security and well being, without very strong and direct expressions of such an intention. In Terret vs. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43, it was held by this Court, that a grant or title to lands once made by the legislature to any person or corporation is irrevocable, and cannot be re-assumed by any subsequent legislative act; and that a different doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the great and fundamental principle of a republican government, and with the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of their property lawfully 658*658 acquired.Cross v. State, 370 P.2d 371 - Google Scholar
It would seem to me that hedging private property rights is a anti-American move.
I have no expectations that you will agree with everything that I say. But since you have been touting and protecting the NRA and are indeed a lifetime member of the NRA I would halfway expect that you are speaking for the NRA as a member. You would do well then to determine that you are speaking personally when speaking about your own opinions. And to point out when you are representing your club.I don't agree with their opinion on the issue, no. They're still a great hub of legal information, though, providing accurate quotes and links directly to the actual state laws they cover. I'm a life NRA member, that doesn't mean I agree with the NRA's opinion of disarming when a private owner wants, even where there's no legal need to comply. Within pro-2A, opinions can very greatly.
Well if you can pick and choose from your own references I assume that everyone can as well. And I did just that either your source is good or is it not? Your source backed my argument so my argument stands by your own source.I'm not going to buy 'no-gun = no-money' cards and hand them to businesses with gun-buster signs. My thoughts on those cards is 1. a person with a gun can't give the card to the owner because the person with the gun isn't supposed to enter the property in the first place...so if you're going to enter the property with the gun then save the card and just do your shopping; 2. if you're going to disarm so as to deliver a card to the owner, then since you're disarming anyway just save the card and do your shopping.
Then in most states you are claiming that you would break the known laws on the issue. Which I agree is your choice but I do not have to agree that its a wise choice, but its your liberty.I don't recognize a business owner's authority to ban my firearm from my person just because they feel like it. I carry regardless.
I am not trying to stop you personally from doing anything. This debate is not about you. But take note that what I have restated is relevant regardless of your personal opinions. I have stated the American concept of private property rights which in most states are actually proven by law. You can choose to ignore the law and the Constitution in your daily life, but in this debate you cannot. Which at times you have made attempts to show legal support of your claims but when confronted with the fact that American history does not agree with the new laws you start ignoring the legal facts to pad your opinion.Everyone already knows this. Constantly restating it changes nothing I've said. I carry regardless. If I'm caught then it's my fault for not concealing correctly.
Again one of those pesky American facts for you to argue against: `The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require, that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.' Cross v. State, 370 P.2d 371 - Google Scholar