• 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
You keep talking about the way things are as though I don't know. The way things are today is what my objections are based on, so restating the status quo doesn't advance the discussion.

Restating the status quo what the hell are you going on about now? I directly responded in context to your tiny sentence about if a employer put their hands on you against your will. But if you are here to fantasize about Jerry's version of the world I think there can be no progress. Progress in these types of conversations usually involve mutual understandings there may be some give and take on issues, but if we cannot honestly talk about reality nothing really is progressing. I stated how things are where I live and that even in states with parking lot laws private property owners can still have gun free zones. The reason the Private property owners still retain the right to disallow guns on the property is because of the importance of private property in America.

Private property is a fundamental right no less equal to the right to bear arms. The Constitution clearly makes it clear that our rights cannot disallow other peoples rights. And I have made it clear that private property rights are established for the land owners property before the gun owner voluntarily goes onto the land. For a gun owner to demand his right to bear arms while on private property he has to take away the established rights of the private property owner. Face it a gun is not a natural right. A gun is an object a weapon and nothing more. It is not like you would die by not having a gun in your possession. And the main factor is that no one is forcing you to go on someones private property, and I do mean no one. You are not required to enter private property at any time you can choose to not enter the property and leave at anytime. So if you go into a so called gun free zone you did so voluntarily. The choice is yours and has always been yours alone.
 
Restating the status quo what the hell are you going on about now?

Every instance where you've stated what the law is today and what employers can do today.

Constitution clearly makes it clear that our rights cannot disallow other peoples rights.
Therefore you cannot logically disallow the 2A while the gun is on an employee's or customer's person, without a need to do so.
 
Every instance where you've stated what the law is today and what employers can do today.


Therefore you cannot logically disallow the 2A while the gun is on an employee's or customer's person, without a need to do so.

Let me put it in simply terms for you.

"Thank you for your concern but I have the security of my property under control please remove your weapon from my property now or I must have you arrested for breaking security protocol. If you refuse to do what I demand of you I will be within the rights of the Constitution to protect my land. "


3475. Right to Eject Trespasser From Real Property
The (owner/lawful occupant) of a (home/property) may request that a trespasser leave the (home/property). If the trespasser does not leave within a reasonable time and it would appear to a reasonable person that the trespasser poses a threat to (the (home/property)/ [or] the (owner/ [or] occupants), the (owner/ lawful occupant) may use reasonable force to make the trespasser leave.
Justia :: Criminal Law 3476. Right to Defend Real or Personal Property


It can be considered reasonable that if you refuse to leave my property (when asked nicely) and have a deadly weapon in your possession that you are a threat. See the question is why do you want to stay on private property that you have no claim to, when the owner clearly does not want you there? Just because you are carrying a gun does not make you a special person. Again a gun is an object that is not important to your survival as a human being. Yes a gun can be quite handing in self defense or even to shoot. But it is neither part of your race or any of the normal attributes covered by the anti-discrimination laws. And it would just be stupid to add gun owners as a protected class since we all are gun owners we are not the minority we are the majority. Besides you would get other groups that would want the same protections under law. It would instantly cascade into ridiculousness. Next you know Ipod owners would want protections as well.


Here is an interesting read that dives into your idea that private property rights cannot infringe on your right to bear arms. Property Rights: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights. For decades social critics in the United States and throughout the Western world have complained that “property” rights too often take precedence over “human” rights, with the result that people are treated unequally and have unequal opportunities. Inequality exists in any society. But the purported conflict between property rights and human rights is a mirage. Property rights are human rights.

All private property owners have the right to delegate the rent of their property. In many cases the owner will negate rent and just allow a person on their property out of goodwill or sound business choice. Since the modernization of calling portions of private properties now public spaces property owners have lost some of their rights. The NRA is exploiting this hedging of freedom by insisting that the 2nd Amendment extends to private property because of the new definitions of private property. If we were still using the original definitions of public space the NRA would have no legal grounds to insist the right to carry a firearm on private property. Clearly this means that the NRA supports this relativity new definition of public space.

Now also clearly the intentions of the framers were to give private property owners freedom and liberties. The problem is that gun owners used to have more rights to carry their weapons about. But overtime laws have hedged that freedom in the same way that laws have hedged the private properties owners rights.

My point all along has been that further hedging private property owners rights will not make things better for Americans. I even pointed out al;l of this for you before but you keep ignoring it and fall back into "I have gun want to go anywhere". Even after I pointed out that you cannot go anywhere with a gun nor could you ever go anywhere you wanted with a gun. Culturally no one shows up in church packing a side arm. That would be disrespectful and aside from a few modern churches most people attending the church would be highly offend to take any weapon into gods home. And no one in their right mind would even think that it would be ok to swing by the White House with a gun. The same respect goes for some ones private property. I do not know where you grew up at but I remember as a kid there were two things that you did not do: Go into another mans house with a loaded gun or enter any house with a hat on. Laws are but a reflection of society. We do not go running around having sex in public because most of society frowns on such behavior. Constitutionally speaking what in the Constitution makes it illegal to be naked in public? There is nothing really in the Constitution about nakedness. But you will not anytime soon or in the near distant future be able to walk around naked anywhere you want to. Even if we enact laws that allow more places to be naked there will still be places off limits to nakedness. Its the same exact concept with guns except of course there is the 2nd Amendment but the question has already been ruled on about where guns can be allowed. So the NRA wishes to create more and more laws to hedge our freedoms through laws that pave the way for other unrelated laws. If you allow one group you must allow them all it will be the end of us if we let it go too long....
 
All interesting points. Does that mean you can walk up to a customer and say,

"Hi, your a "Green" colored man, I object to you being in my store. Please leave?"
"Hi, your a "Green" colored lady, we have special drinking fountains for your kind. It's outside the store and three blocks down."
"Hi, "Green" people cannot park in my parking lot or use my bathrooms."
"Handicapped? Get Lost. Female, get lost."

I suspect your going to argue that civil rights trump property rights but the 2nd amendment somehow does not.

Your well spoken and I sincerely await your answer.

Thanks
 
BTW, this just goes to show that Capitalism isn't actually about "freedom," it just shifts the power to the Capitalist rather than a democratic process.
 
All interesting points. Does that mean you can walk up to a customer and say,

"Hi, your a "Green" colored man, I object to you being in my store. Please leave?"
"Hi, your a "Green" colored lady, we have special drinking fountains for your kind. It's outside the store and three blocks down."
"Hi, "Green" people cannot park in my parking lot or use my bathrooms."
"Handicapped? Get Lost. Female, get lost."

I suspect your going to argue that civil rights trump property rights but the 2nd amendment somehow does not.

Your well spoken and I sincerely await your answer.

Thanks

Everyone has the right to own a firearm equally in the US. Gun owners are not a specific race. Owning a gun is not a disability. No one was born with a gun so in reality gun ownership is optional.

Specifically I have no argument against carrying a legal gun in a public space. Semi-public places on the other hand should retain the discretionary rights of the landowner to decide what is best for security of the property along as those measures are legal. The 2nd Amendment specifically covers the right to bear arms in public spaces. Historically public spaces were all in areas that were not on private property. And remained that way for a great deal of American history. But times have changed and now some private property legally is defined as public space.

On semi-public and private property the owner of said property isnt telling a person that they cannot enter their property based on race, religion etc. but rather that an physical object a gun cannot enter the property. There is no real act of discrimination since anyone can own a gun race, religion etc. has no bearings on who can own a gun. Gun owners are not a specific class of people other than there are age limits to carrying a handgun and no convicted felons can carry or own a firearm.

BTW I do not agree that felons should be banned for life from their right to bear arms. A felony is really just a crime that involved a sentence of one year or more. You can get probation and never serve any prison time and lose your right to bear arms. And why can you lose the right to bear arms in the first place? All what a corrupt government would need to do is accuse everyone of committing a felony crime to disarm us. I think the concerns of the 2nd Amendment were centered on the Governments ability to disarm us not a properties owners ability to disarm visitors to their property. We can chose to not go onto private property. Therefor our disarmament of private property in voluntary. You simply have a choice to disarm or leave if the properties owner requests it.
The key is that you can still go on the property just that your gun may not. A "green" colored person cannot change their color, a handicapped person cannot become unhandicapped, a person cannot change their sex (well the sex one is debatable but generally speaking...).
 
All interesting points. Does that mean you can walk up to a customer and say,

"Hi, your a "Green" colored man, I object to you being in my store. Please leave?"
"Hi, your a "Green" colored lady, we have special drinking fountains for your kind. It's outside the store and three blocks down."
"Hi, "Green" people cannot park in my parking lot or use my bathrooms."
"Handicapped? Get Lost. Female, get lost."

It's actually more along the lines of "No Shirt, No Shoes, No service".

Gun rights are not civil rights. People have a choice whether or not to carry a gun, they don't have a choice about skin color, gender or having a disability.
 
It's actually more along the lines of "No Shirt, No Shoes, No service".

Gun rights are not civil rights. People have a choice whether or not to carry a gun, they don't have a choice about skin color, gender or having a disability.

And what about the 4th, 5th or 7th and 8th amendments? Can those rights be removed when you enter my store as well? People can certainly choose not to become criminals?

I believe no shirt, no shoes, no service is directly related to the health department.
 
As I've said before, I'm perfectly okay with a store owner telling me I can't carry into his place of business...


... as long as his denial of my right to self-defense means he is 100% liable for any harm I suffer due to crime while in his property, or going to or from between his front door and my car.

If he disarms me, then he should provide for my safety while I'm there, and be liable for his failure to do so if I come to criminal harm.
 
As I've said before, I'm perfectly okay with a store owner telling me I can't carry into his place of business...


... as long as his denial of my right to self-defense means he is 100% liable for any harm I suffer due to crime while in his property, or going to or from between his front door and my car.

If he disarms me, then he should provide for my safety while I'm there, and be liable for his failure to do so if I come to criminal harm.

By leaving your weapon in your vehicle you have assumed a certain amount of risk as a trade off for permission to enter the property. You still have the choice to not to enter the property if you feel inclined. And a sign stating that you are entering the property at your own risk would deny your claim of liability as long as the sign or even a verbal warning was issued that crossed all the T's and doted all of the legal I's. Any law that gave gun owners special liability privileges over non gun owners would be obviously exploited.


Again the point is that you are not required to enter someone elses property even if that establishment is the only one of its type around. If you do not feel safe going somewhere without a gun then for your own safety do not go to such places.
 
By leaving your weapon in your vehicle you have assumed a certain amount of risk as a trade off for permission to enter the property. You still have the choice to not to enter the property if you feel inclined. And a sign stating that you are entering the property at your own risk would deny your claim of liability as long as the sign or even a verbal warning was issued that crossed all the T's and doted all of the legal I's. Any law that gave gun owners special liability privileges over non gun owners would be obviously exploited.


Again the point is that you are not required to enter someone elses property even if that establishment is the only one of its type around. If you do not feel safe going somewhere without a gun then for your own safety do not go to such places.


If we were talking about something relatively minor, I'd agree with you.

I think the fact that we're talking about an ENUMERATED Constitutional right, and something that can potentially be a matter of life and death, elevates this to a whole different category.


Or should, at least.
 
If we were talking about something relatively minor, I'd agree with you.

I think the fact that we're talking about an ENUMERATED Constitutional right, and something that can potentially be a matter of life and death, elevates this to a whole different category.


Or should, at least.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Again you must make the decision to enter and be on private property. In making the decision to enter privately owned property you are consciously making an agreement to respect the ENUMERATED Constitutional right's of the property owner. Of course there are limitations on ENUMERATED Constitutional right's in that your rights may not take away someone elses rights. The property that you wish to go on is stationary but you are not, so it would be logical that you are trying to impose on the rights of the property owner not the other way around.
 
And what about the 4th, 5th or 7th and 8th amendments? Can those rights be removed when you enter my store as well? People can certainly choose not to become criminals?

Reread the bill of rights. Stores cannot make policies that violate any of the rights contained within it. It's impossible.

There is a reason for this.

That reason is why no individual in the country can possibly do anything at all to violate your 2nd amendment rights. Even if someone prevented you from bearing arms under certain circumstances, they could not possibly violate your 2nd amendment rights.

I believe no shirt, no shoes, no service is directly related to the health department.

Even in places that don't serve food? Fascinating.
 
And what about the 4th, 5th or 7th and 8th amendments? Can those rights be removed when you enter my store as well? People can certainly choose not to become criminals?

I believe no shirt, no shoes, no service is directly related to the health department.


A business has the legal right to stop patrons form engaging in activity that the establishment was not designed for. This means that what you wear can get you restricted from entering a business. In a theater loud talking can get your thrown out despite the Constructional right to free speech. Even in the most gun rights friendly establishment you will not be able to walk around with a gun in your hand. No mater how much you want to you may not go in the ladies room if you are male. Ypu cannot just walk into a Christian church and start preaching about allah, and if you did you would soon find yourself outside.

You simply cannot do whatever you please on someone elses property.
 
Reread the bill of rights. Stores cannot make policies that violate any of the rights contained within it. It's impossible.

There is a reason for this.

That reason is why no individual in the country can possibly do anything at all to violate your 2nd amendment rights. Even if someone prevented you from bearing arms under certain circumstances, they could not possibly violate your 2nd amendment rights.



Even in places that don't serve food? Fascinating.

The gun lobby has successfully fought off the infringement of the second amendment every time thus far. Sort of a lame argument to put forth since it simply pointing a finger at another argument but there you have it. Should someone get taken into custody at a movie theater for talking too loud, the charge would most likely be disturbing the peace or some other minor charge. You most certainly can walk around your local restaurant with a pistol in your hand and you can be arrested but nothing will stick. You can be arrested for anything, be charged with anything legally what matters is if those charges can or will lead to prosecution and survive the appeal process.

Call or otherwise inquire with your local health department. Last I really looked at one, those signs all said by blah-blah of the department of health.
 
The gun lobby has successfully fought off the infringement of the second amendment every time thus far. Sort of a lame argument to put forth since it simply pointing a finger at another argument but there you have it. Should someone get taken into custody at a movie theater for talking too loud, the charge would most likely be disturbing the peace or some other minor charge. You most certainly can walk around your local restaurant with a pistol in your hand and you can be arrested but nothing will stick. You can be arrested for anything, be charged with anything legally what matters is if those charges can or will lead to prosecution and survive the appeal process.

You can get charged with trespassing if the restaurant has a policy of no guns allowed and you refuse to leave when asked. That charge will stick.

Stores do not make gun laws, ergo they cannot infringe upon your right to bear arms. Stores do not make laws, thus they cannot infringe upon any of your rights described by the bill of rights.

Call or otherwise inquire with your local health department. Last I really looked at one, those signs all said by blah-blah of the department of health.

why would the health department be dictating policy in stores that are not under the purview of the health department.
 
You can get charged with trespassing if the restaurant has a policy of no guns allowed and you refuse to leave when asked. That charge will stick.

Stores do not make gun laws, ergo they cannot infringe upon your right to bear arms. Stores do not make laws, thus they cannot infringe upon any of your rights described by the bill of rights.



why would the health department be dictating policy in stores that are not under the purview of the health department.


Yep, if a business asks you to leave and you don't go they can charge you for trespassing. But if a business asks you to leave and you DO go, you can sue them if your rights are being infringed upon.

Company policy means exactly squat when you come up against a law, much more so an amendment.

A business resides in a state (or territory) and will fall under that jurisdiction. That jurisdiction will obey the Constitution.

Back to the Health Department. I'm fairly certain the Shirts / Shoes 'thing' is due to the germ breeding ground that is our armpits and foot fungus. I do know that 'thing' is not optional and a business will be fined for not complying with the 'Law, ordinance, regulation' or what have you that applies.

A very similar discussion to the 2nd amendment one would be a 1st amendment discussion concerning pornography. It's regulated and controlled but very protected.
 
Yep, if a business asks you to leave and you don't go they can charge you for trespassing. But if a business asks you to leave and you DO go, you can sue them if your rights are being infringed upon.

Company policy means exactly squat when you come up against a law, much more so an amendment.

A business resides in a state (or territory) and will fall under that jurisdiction. That jurisdiction will obey the Constitution.

Back to the Health Department. I'm fairly certain the Shirts / Shoes 'thing' is due to the germ breeding ground that is our armpits and foot fungus. I do know that 'thing' is not optional and a business will be fined for not complying with the 'Law, ordinance, regulation' or what have you that applies.

A very similar discussion to the 2nd amendment one would be a 1st amendment discussion concerning pornography. It's regulated and controlled but very protected.

You can legally be thrown out of a business for wearing a t-shirt with pornography on it. Like wise if you show up in a restaurant that has a dress code wearing jeans out the door you go.
 
You can legally be thrown out of a business for wearing a t-shirt with pornography on it. Like wise if you show up in a restaurant that has a dress code wearing jeans out the door you go.
Define thrown out. Do you mean physically manhandled?

What would likely happen, if the business was trying to act in a lawful manner is they would ask me to leave and when I told them no, the cops would show up. They would make the determination regarding offensiveness of the shirt.

Where it bounces from there, I don't know. If you are ejected and it is pornographic or if it is found not to be. I think it has to do with offensiveness but as I said I'm not sure. You certainly cannot be thrown out for wearing a shirt with a weapon depicted on it or a Glock logo. Pornography is somewhat different I'm pretty sure it boils down to offensiveness or 'community' guidelines.

Being refused admittance and being 'thrown out' are two different issues.
 
Define thrown out. Do you mean physically manhandled?

What would likely happen, if the business was trying to act in a lawful manner is they would ask me to leave and when I told them no, the cops would show up. They would make the determination regarding offensiveness of the shirt.

Where it bounces from there, I don't know. If you are ejected and it is pornographic or if it is found not to be. I think it has to do with offensiveness but as I said I'm not sure. You certainly cannot be thrown out for wearing a shirt with a weapon depicted on it or a Glock logo. Pornography is somewhat different I'm pretty sure it boils down to offensiveness or 'community' guidelines.

Being refused admittance and being 'thrown out' are two different issues.

Why split hairs about the term thrown out? You could just look up the laws and then you would have known that its slang for legally removing the patron from the premises. There's an entire legal procedure for doing such things. Which as you mention ends with the cops showing up. Since what I am talking about are actual laws on the books then the cops would make you leave. And since the cops were needed you possibly just earned yourself a ban from the property and any future time that you show up and get caught you will be charged with trespassing.


Again it is silly to concentrate on the term thrown out as if my argument involves illegal behavior.


My point is that the person in control of the private property has the right to make the rules for that property as long as they follow all of the laws pertaining to their business. And what I said above is that you cannot expect to be allowed into a restaurant that only allows formal wear if you have jeans on. Clearly it is legal for the restaurant to refuse you service for violating the rules that they set for the type of business that they are engaging in.

Disney World Prohibited Items and Dress Codes

A store may legally prohibit the patrons from bringing items into the store. For example back packs are legally prohibited from many stores. Or more to the point like Disney World Weapons of any kind can be prohibited. Dont agree just dont go there dont try to force someone to comply with your wants.
 
Why split hairs about the term thrown out? You could just look up the laws and then you would have known that its slang for legally removing the patron from the premises. There's an entire legal procedure for doing such things. Which as you mention ends with the cops showing up. Since what I am talking about are actual laws on the books then the cops would make you leave. And since the cops were needed you possibly just earned yourself a ban from the property and any future time that you show up and get caught you will be charged with trespassing.


Again it is silly to concentrate on the term thrown out as if my argument involves illegal behavior.


My point is that the person in control of the private property has the right to make the rules for that property as long as they follow all of the laws pertaining to their business. And what I said above is that you cannot expect to be allowed into a restaurant that only allows formal wear if you have jeans on. Clearly it is legal for the restaurant to refuse you service for violating the rules that they set for the type of business that they are engaging in.

Disney World Prohibited Items and Dress Codes

A store may legally prohibit the patrons from bringing items into the store. For example back packs are legally prohibited from many stores. Or more to the point like Disney World Weapons of any kind can be prohibited. Dont agree just dont go there dont try to force someone to comply with your wants.

There is the legal way to eject someone and the illegal. if the cops know better than to arrest you the meaning changes

I'm going to repeat myself. By your logic a business can discriminate against anyone. Clearly they can't.

Dress codes are internal policies and not laws. There's a clear display of stupidity regarding that code. What exactly constitutes a weapon? I can tell you a bottle of water is, a soda can certainly is, a 4 year old could kill someone with a ball point pen where he couldn't without one. Weapon, Weapon, Weapon.

Your going to have to show me where a backpack is LEGALLY prohibited anywhere.

You can be sued for something you couldn't be prosecuted for.
You can be prosecuted for things you can't be sued for.

Were mixing and matching different legal codes and definitions here.
 
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet, but where does the employer's property end and mine begin? If I have a gun in my car, but my car is parked in their lot, who is infringing upon who?

My car.
Their lot.

The whole thing seems silly to me. How long until it escalates further?

Seems like leaving the gun in the car prevents both parties from having their rights infringed. If the employer does not want cars with certain items in them on their property, then maybe they should reconsider providing parking to their employees.
 
Yep, if a business asks you to leave and you don't go they can charge you for trespassing. But if a business asks you to leave and you DO go, you can sue them if your rights are being infringed upon.

No rights described in the bill of rights can possibly be infringed upon by a business owner, so that's a losing lawsuit.

The rights contained in the bil of rights cannot be infringed upon by anyone other than the government.

Company policy means exactly squat when you come up against a law, much more so an amendment.

It is impossible for a business policy to "come up against" any amendment in the bill of rights.

You certainly cannot be thrown out for wearing a shirt with a weapon depicted on it or a Glock logo.

Yes, you can. A business can certainly have attire requirements and restrictions. Many of them do.
 
There is the legal way to eject someone and the illegal. if the cops know better than to arrest you the meaning changes

I'm going to repeat myself. By your logic a business can discriminate against anyone. Clearly they can't.

Dress codes are internal policies and not laws. There's a clear display of stupidity regarding that code. What exactly constitutes a weapon? I can tell you a bottle of water is, a soda can certainly is, a 4 year old could kill someone with a ball point pen where he couldn't without one. Weapon, Weapon, Weapon.

Your going to have to show me where a backpack is LEGALLY prohibited anywhere.

You can be sued for something you couldn't be prosecuted for.
You can be prosecuted for things you can't be sued for.

Were mixing and matching different legal codes and definitions here.

By my logic? Just because you think that you have a case to sue someone does not mean that you do. Clearly the rules that I linked from Disney World are not laws. Why you would make such a nonsensical comparison is beyond me. The truth of the matter is that legally private property owners can make rules for the well being of their property and everyone that goes on it. Obviously the rules that a property owner makes must follow the Constitution, Federal, State and local laws.

Incredibly you are arguing the rules of Disney World as if they cannot make any rules for their theme park. Perhaps you should test that theory? And a weapon is a weapon what is hard to understand about any legal definition of a weapon? No one is talking about anything other than a legal definition of a weapon in the Disney World rules on prohibited items allowed on their property.
If you want to go into Disney World you will follow their rules or you will not be permitted to enter. If you feel that the rules violate any law you can take them to court and play with their lawyers all you want, but that still does not show that you are correct right now in this debate.

My point is easily provable that property owners can and do legally make rules that all patrons or anyone wanting to enter the property must follow. Backpacks can be prohibited from a store because a backpack owner is not a class of people. Everyone can own a backpack and no law protects backpack owners from being discriminated against. Backpacks have nothing to do with anything considered civil rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom