• 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
Is property of a corporation private property?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The difference here being that not all privately owned businesses actually ban guns.
Click to expand...
Not all citizens carry a gun. Your point?

FreedomFromAll said:
I have noticed that on several occasions you have used a link to Handgunlaw.us Which I assume that you are in agreement with their advice otherwise why else would you repeatably link us to their us.
Click to expand...

You assume to much.

FreedomFromAll said:
To avoid over reaching laws that the NRA has been pivotal in getting enacted a business owner only needs to wish you to leave the property, they need not give a reason why. If they did mention a gun in the state of Florida then the legal CCW gun owner could file a civil suit. But none the less by law when asked to leave you must leave or you will be charged with a crime which would be a separate case from the civil suit. The gun owner could possibly (in Florida) win the civil suit but not the criminal case. You might be offered a plea deal though where you could avoid being convicted in a criminal case and possibly jeopardizing your CCW permit next time around. In other words you may have the legal right but not be able to enjoy that legal right to its fullest because of the fact that current concealed weapons laws require the permittee to qualify for their 2nd Amendment rights. These qualifications are the handy work of the NRA. The idea of qualifications makes one wonder how a Constitutional right needs qualifications? Do we need qualifications for the right to free speech? How about other Constitutional rights, should they only be allowed with certain qualifications? How can a Constitutional right require a test?
Click to expand...
Wow, what a load of bull****.
 
Jerry said:
Not all citizens carry a gun. Your point?
Click to expand...
Try reading the rest of the paragraph......

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.

You assume to much.
Click to expand...
So you do not agree with your main source of reference in this debate?


Wow, what a load of bull****.
Click to expand...
Nice debating skills, you do know how to debate right?

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."
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Try reading the rest of the paragraph.
Click to expand...
I read your entire post. Don't assume that your words weren't read just because they weren't quoted and/or were ignored.

FreedomFromAll said:
So you do not agree with your main source of reference in this debate?
Click to expand...
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.

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.
FreedomFromAll said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
fredmertzz said:
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
Click to expand...
The right to self defence is inalienable. Your argument is invalid.
 
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.
 
Jerry said:
The right to self defence is inalienable. Your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

Did you know that we have an inalienable right to protect our private property?

`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.
 
Jerry said:
I read your entire post. Don't assume that your words weren't read just because they weren't quoted and/or were ignored.
Click to expand...
Well then dont ask silly questions when you should have known my point to the sentence that you quoted by the supporting information of the entire paragraph.


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.
Click to expand...
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'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.
Click to expand...
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 don't recognize a business owner's authority to ban my firearm from my person just because they feel like it. I carry regardless.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.


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
 
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...
Here's the rub: both land rights and gun rights are property rights. Just as the building is privately owned, so is a person's body, and we're both in the public domain while doing business.

To discover who is obligated to accommodate who, follow the money. There is a long legal tradition establishing that the party drawing a profit has the obligation. The party taking a loss is to be accommodated. Protected classes, various specific regulation not tied to the Civil Rights Act itself, and the whole host of OSHA and labor law show that the business is to yield to the employee and customer's rights, unless doing so would cause a demonstratable damage.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...
As a member, I 'represent' the NRA about as much as I 'represent' Sam'sClub or DebatePolitics.com. My Battle.net account does not mean I speak for Blizzard, either.

I referenced the NRA because finding a self-defense policy ride-along for liability is very difficult.
 
fredmertzz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that doesn't fit the actual definitions for what each right is.
 
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...

The employer owns the property, the employee chooses to work there. Property rights, obviously. The property owner is not congress and therefore has no restriction against prohibiting the bearing of arms on his own property. By the way, he should also be able to hire and fire anyone he wants and serve anyone he wants on his own property and with his own property.
 
friday said:
The employer owns the property, the employee chooses to work there. Property rights, obviously.
Click to expand...
The employee owns their body, the employer chooses to do business with the public. Property rights, obviously, guns must be allowed.
 
Obviously, property rights trumps 2nd Amendment rights in this specific scenario. Unless it is a public building it is the discretion of the owner what is allowed on the premises and what is not within the limits of the law. US citizens are entitled to fair laws because the entire country is under their jurisdiction, but people are not forced to be on my property. They only enter my property with my permission, so they have to abide by my rules or they have no right to be here. If they are here without me allowing them to be here or against my specific wishes they are trespassing, and the government can prosecute them for that.

If the 2nd Amendment rights trump property rights, then logically all the the other BOR do as well. Forums cannot regulate what is posted as that is violating freedom of speech. Anyone can publish anything in a newspaper, freedom of the press.
 
MadLib said:
Obviously, property rights trumps 2nd Amendment rights in this specific scenario. Unless it is a public building it is the discretion of the owner what is allowed on the premises and what is not within the limits of the law. US citizens are entitled to fair laws because the entire country is under their jurisdiction, but people are not forced to be on my property. They only enter my property with my permission, so they have to abide by my rules or they have no right to be here. If they are here without me allowing them to be here or against my specific wishes they are trespassing, and the government can prosecute them for that.

If the 2nd Amendment rights trump property rights, then logically all the the other BOR do as well. Forums cannot regulate what is posted as that is violating freedom of speech. Anyone can publish anything in a newspaper, freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

Before getting up on your soap box about freedom, etc, check your local laws. In Florida, for example, private business owners are fined if they remove you simply for legally carrying a gun. I believe it's $5,000 per offence.

What a person carries on their body is non of your business unless it's going to harm you. A holstered gun is safer than the car you walk in front of in the cross-walk.
 
Jerry said:
As a member, I 'represent' the NRA about as much as I 'represent' Sam'sClub or DebatePolitics.com. My Battle.net account does not mean I speak for Blizzard, either.

I referenced the NRA because finding a self-defense policy ride-along for liability is very difficult.
Click to expand...
So are you defending and supporting the NRA or not?


BTW the right to protect private property is an inalienable right.

What is property?
So, what is property and why is it a human right? Currently most people view property as a parcel of land and “private property” is defined as the ownership of that land. Yes this is an important aspect of property and if someone owns private property, then he should have the right to do with that property as he will. Property development and management is an important aspect of that right that should never be infringed.
[.....]
Property and capitalism
Without the protection of property rights, capitalism either could not exist or would not be the vibrant part of the economy it is today. America has been the world’s innovation leader for the last 150 years precisely because people know that the money they make from their ideas and hard work belongs to them and not to the government. Unlike most other countries, America has very few and exceptional situations where an industry or company has been nationalized and usually those instances were temporary; the railroads were nationalized during World War I but reverted to private ownership after the war.

The right to own and control your own property is vital for a healthy country and our founding fathers recognized it as one of the major inalienable rights, right up there with Life, Liberty, and of course the Pursuit of Happiness. Why is the Right to Property an Inalienable Right? | Critical. Internet. Journalism.
 
Jerry said:
Before getting up on your soap box about freedom, etc, check your local laws. In Florida, for example, private business owners are fined if they remove you simply for legally carrying a gun. I believe it's $5,000 per offence.
Click to expand...
That law's not reasonable, 'm not even necessarily talking about businesses, even just my own personal property. Even though I support relatively lax gun laws I would not invite people to come with even a 9mm at say, a child's birthday party. If someone did arrive with a gun, but I knew he had no malicious intent I'd politely ask him to put the gun in his car.

What a person carries on their body is non of your business unless it's going to harm you. A holstered gun is safer than the car you walk in front of in the cross-walk.
Click to expand...

The thing is, what someone brings onto my property is my business. I can tell people they can't smoke in m house or bring in Burmese pythons. Since they can only enter my property with my permission, I can tell them what or what not to do. I don't necessarily agree with the business owner's decision but I recognize his right to control what belongs to him.
 
MadLib said:
That law's not reasonable, 'm not even necessarily talking about businesses, even just my own personal property.
Click to expand...
No, this is a critical point: We're only talking about places open to the public. My side on this argument is not talking about your home or private land which is not open to the general public. We are only arguing to carry in places the public has regular access to. The Florida law I referenced only applies to places the public has regular access to, not your home or anything else.

MadLib said:
The thing is, what someone brings onto my property is my business. I can tell people they can't smoke in m house or bring in Burmese pythons. Since they can only enter my property with my permission, I can tell them what or what not to do. I don't necessarily agree with the business owner's decision but I recognize his right to control what belongs to him.
Click to expand...
No one is talking about your residence except you.

Not all private property is the same as all other private property. There are differences. A business is open to the public, a residence is not.
 
Jerry said:
No, this is a critical point: We're only talking about places open to the public. My side on this argument is not talking about your home or private land which is not open to the general public. We are only arguing to carry in places the public has regular access to. The Florida law I referenced only applies to places the public has regular access to, not your home or anything else.


No one is talking about your residence except you.

Not all private property is the same as all other private property. There are differences. A business is open to the public, a residence is not.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do believe that business owners should have the right to decide what goes on their property, too, but I don't think it's a good idea to not allow guns.
 
Jerry said:
I've been using Florida as an example. Here's the law:


http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/florida.pdf
Click to expand...

Florida lives in the stone age as it is. I live in the civilized state of California; whith a population of 37 million, it's almost twice the population and size of Florida. You mentione comapnys opened to the public: many companies are not open to the public. My point was about my private property. I defy you to tell me that people entering Cape Canaveral are allowed to bring in guns . . .

Look; your argument is so weak as to simply be not worth the powder to blow itself to hell. You could not bring a gun onto someone's private property who didn't want you to.
 
Essentially it sounds like the NRA wants to make all businesses of any sort legally public property. Or in other words a move away from individual private property rights to collective property rights. Sounds a bit far Left to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom