• 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
Nah.

1234567890

Great answer:roll:
Like I said before, you obviously don't care about liberty, since you have no problem with big government interventionism. You might as well switch your lean to Liberal, at least it would be intellectually honest.
 
On the other side we have a landowner who feels that they do not want just anyone running around in their place of business with a gun concealed or otherwise.


Your 'want' does not justify infringing on a specifically enumerated right as per SCOTUS 'Strict Scrutiny'.

(At this point I am going to ignore the anti gun nuts that just want no guns anywhere since that simply is not anywhere near what I want) I am not demanding that all work places are gun free zones. From my personal point of view I just want to be able to stop an employee that perhaps at onetime I trusted the employee with a firearm in my shop or just in his car on my property. But today he seems a little off or actually he has said some things that make me worried that he might go off and shoot me or someone else. No they didnt say enough for me to call the police its more of an hunch. So I want to tell him that today he needs to take his gun home. Which is a judgement call that I am employing to curb a possible bad scene. I could be wrong and up till now the guy was a good worker. So instead of mentioning the gun I just tell him that he is not needed today.

The next day he shows up looking even more unusual for him. Im not sure that he has a gun or not. So I again send him home.

Now if the law that you are wanting were be in effect I would not be able to justify a reason for sending this employee home.

That's correct. An employer should not be able to discriminate at-will. If you can not trust the employee then you need to let them go.

And at the key time when the guy demands a reason why I keep sending him home would get me in possible trouble.
That could already get you in trouble today, since employers can't dock hours without cause. The topic of guns aside, you already can't do that, so once again you're presenting an argument which is not specific to guns. He can file an unemployment claim against you for loss of hours, even while he's still employed with you.

perhaps if he had not had a gun present on himself or in his vehicle I would have just let him work and see how he does. But considering that I do not want to risk being shot or risk having to shoot someone myself I chose a much more civil course and just sent him away to sort out his own problems away from where if he does go off he will not be doing so anywhere near me hopefully.

And again, if you feel that you at risk then you need to terminate him 'with cause'. You could ban guns all day long but if he's a danger then he'll just find another weapon. All evidence shows that criminals are not detoured by gun bans or the unavailability of any gun, even illegally. If they can't get a gun they're use another weapon. You are using leftist gun-control arguments which don't hold up in court.

Under OSHA rules if a fear that a employee is potentially dangerous I can send them home. In fact OSHA refused to ban guns in the work place because they felt that OSHA regulations already cover anything including guns. 09/13/2006 - Request for OSHA national policy banning guns from the workplace and OSHA enforcement policy regarding workplace violence. "In a workplace where the risk of violence and serious personal injury are significant enough to be "recognized hazards," the general duty clause [specified by Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)] would require the employer to take feasible steps to minimize those risks. Failure of an employer to implement feasible means of abatement of these hazards could result in the finding of an OSH Act violation."

Yes, that's the workplace, and no one would be allowed to carry, not even you, even if it was your property. You just cited a perfect example of what I said earlier, that upon hiring me as a contractor, I'm already bringing infringements into your home, and I cited OSHA specifically.

If you're a big gun enthusiast, hire me to come do some welding for you, and I designate the aria as a no-gun zone due to the oxy-tank, you can't carry. Even-though it's your property, even your house, your residence, you can't carry, and neither can I.

You're talking about something different, though. You're talking about one specific employee, and you're talking about you making a judgement call. That is not what the OSHA regulation you quoted is regulating. When that OSHA regulation is executed, not even you would be able to carry.

Safety and Health Topics | Workplace Violence "How can workplace violence hazards be reduced?

In most workplaces where risk factors can be identified, the risk of assault can be prevented or minimized if employers take appropriate precautions. One of the best protections employers can offer their workers is to establish a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence. This policy should cover all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel.

By assessing their worksites, employers can identify methods for reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring. OSHA believes that a well written and implemented Workplace Violence Prevention Program, combined with engineering controls, administrative controls and training can reduce the incidence of workplace violence in both the private sector and Federal workplaces."

Carrying a gun is not a violent act. Also, CCW carriers are among the least likely demographic to cause workplace violence. For the sake of workplace safety it therefore behoves you to encourage CCWs to carry on the job.

You seemed to have asserted that the only thing that matters is that you have the legal right to carry your gun on your person. Does this mean that the employer is banned from making a judgement call and sending an employee home on a gut feeling?

You should always be ready to defend your decision to send an employee home to both the Department of Labor and the Unemployment Agency, regardless of guns being carried by the employee or not. Here again you not presenting an argument which is specific to guns. If the employee is a threat, you should terminate them.

Bob seem uptight today or Joe lost his house and his family or whatever is causing him such huge distress. Larry keeps yelling at his coworkers or refuses to work. Usually these situations call for some type of decision by the employer. In some cases an employer will give the employee some time off to sort things out. But if any of these employees are carrying a gun the employer may just cut to the chase and send any employee home that seems distressed for any reason. No one wants a person around that isnt themselves while carrying a gun. It doesnt matter where work a bar home or wherever any rational person would be at ease around a distraught person with a gun. But if your law bans employers from making the cautious call of sending a possibly dangerous employee home, well count me and opponent of your movements law.

You're making many assumptions without any evidence. I hope you realize that. Your post is showing only your fear, but you aren't substantiating any of this.

I would be happier with a law that bans the government from imposing new laws that limit places that you can take guns. I think that the fight to retain our rights are better fought in more logical locations. IMHO

Your happiness does not satisfy SCOTUS rules on 'Strict Scrutiny', so you happiness, and any other subjective emotion you feel, is invalid.
 
Last edited:
Your 'want' does not justify infringing on a specifically enumerated right as per SCOTUS 'Strict Scrutiny'.
Regardless landowners still have rights that go much further than wants. As I mentioned before I could fire anyone that I want for no good reason to remove them from my property. If I feel that I need to do so I will gladly go to court afterwards.



That's correct. An employer should not be able to discriminate at-will. If you can not trust the employee then you need to let them go.
You have noticed the obvious result of your movements laws. That an employer will just drum up something to fire the employer over. You can now claim that it would be illegal to do so, but companies bust unions the same way all the time. Sure they paid fines before it was over. But by the time their done there are no longer unions on their property. The local mine did it by shutting the mine down for a while then hiring non union employees exclusively. All any business would need to do is determine that guns pose a unnecessary risk on the job site. Gun powder and flying projectiles are a danger and can be proven to be a danger. Under OSHA rules about volatile substances gun powder can be legally banned from the work place with little effort. The end result may be no workplace allowing guns on the property if you guys push too hard the lawyers will find a way. Thats what they get paid for.


That could already get you in trouble today, since employers can't dock hours without cause. The topic of guns aside, you already can't do that, so once again you're presenting an argument which is not specific to guns. He can file an unemployment claim against you for loss of hours, even while he's still employed with you.
Again some employers are willing to go to court to fight for the right to make decisions own their own. SO gun owners should be prepared to end up in court when they push other people around while hiding behind specialty laws.



And again, if you feel that you at risk then you need to terminate him 'with cause'. You could ban guns all day long but if he's a danger then he'll just find another weapon. All evidence shows that criminals are not detoured by gun bans or the unavailability of any gun, even illegally. If they can't get a gun they're use another weapon. You are using leftist gun-control arguments which don't hold up in court.
My point is that an employer may very well jump to the cease employment conclusion well ahead of what they would have done had the employee not had a gun on the property.


As to for the criminals acquiring guns elsewhere it does not apply at all to anything that I have said. The presumption all along has been that the employee legally owns a gun so I have no idea why you are going on about banning guns. I do not support banning gun ownership, if I did i would be banning my own guns.



Yes, that's the workplace, and no one would be allowed to carry, not even you, even if it was your property. You just cited a perfect example of what I said earlier, that upon hiring me as a contractor, I'm already bringing infringements into your home, and I cited OSHA specifically.

If you're a big gun enthusiast, hire me to come do some welding for you, and I designate the aria as a no-gun zone due to the oxy-tank, you can't carry. Even-though it's your property, even your house, your residence, you can't carry, and neither can I.

You're talking about something different, though. You're talking about one specific employee, and you're talking about you making a judgement call. That is not what the OSHA regulation you quoted is regulating. When that OSHA regulation is executed, not even you would be able to carry.
Actually if you read the links that I gave you OSHA says that it is the responsibility of the business owner to watch for signs and identify employees that may pose a danger of violence. OSHA feels that it is unnecessary to ban guns in the work place since the employer already retains the right to do so. But OSHA says that if that right of the employer changes then OSHA will also change their rules too.



Carrying a gun is not a violent act. Also, CCW carriers are among the least likely demographic to cause workplace violence. For the sake of workplace safety it therefore behoves you to encourage CCWs to carry on the job.
No one said that carrying a gun is a violent act. What I was referring to was that regardless of a gun or not right now an employer can make a judgement call according to OSHA. A specialty law removes the ability legally to make judgement calls if the employee is a legal gun carrier.



You should always be ready to defend your decision to send an employee home to both the Department of Labor and the Unemployment Agency, regardless of guns being carried by the employee or not. Here again you not presenting an argument which is specific to guns. If the employee is a threat, you should terminate them.
You need to realize that the laws that your movement wants to be enforced do have gray areas. And all aspects need to be looked at not just the ones that you think that you can argue.



You're making many assumptions without any evidence. I hope you realize that. Your post is showing only your fear, but you aren't substantiating any of this.
fear bwhahaha I laugh in your face. No I am not making an assumption without evidence I am exercising my rights as expressed by OSHA. But your laws will take those rights away.



Your happiness does not satisfy SCOTUS rules on 'Strict Scrutiny', so you happiness, and any other subjective emotion you feel, is invalid.
Your desire to walk around with a gun on private property is a want. You would have to present evidence that says that a gun is necessary for either your protection or the protection of others. If you store your gun in your vehicle off the property you still retain the same rights that you want this specialty laws to cover. Which is why I made reference to you not actually losing legal possession of your gun. If the argument is for protection from at to work then it is your responsibility to find a location other than on the property that does not allow you to store guns there. I also pointed out to you that the states that do have parking lot laws allow employers to still ban guns in vehicles on their property under certain conditions like a gated parking lot or they may make the gun owners park in a separate parking lot providing that it isnt too far away. Which shows that even under the specialty laws you are still expressing a want and not a strict scrutiny. And since these laws have these loops holes for the employer it shows that it will be nearly impossible to ever make employers allow guns inside the actual work place.


Ill say it again I would rather see effort going toward stopping the Government from imposing more laws that limit the rights of gun owners and private property owners. Legally speaking the laws that your movement is fighting for actually promotes more Federal intrusion on the States and all Americans. Less laws not more laws!
 
I really wish Chrome would stop changing my instances of "your" to "you".
 
Regardless landowners still have rights that go much further than wants. As I mentioned before I could fire anyone that I want for no good reason to remove them from my property. If I feel that I need to do so I will gladly go to court afterwards.



You have noticed the obvious result of your movements laws. That an employer will just drum up something to fire the employer over. You can now claim that it would be illegal to do so, but companies bust unions the same way all the time. Sure they paid fines before it was over. But by the time their done there are no longer unions on their property. The local mine did it by shutting the mine down for a while then hiring non union employees exclusively. All any business would need to do is determine that guns pose a unnecessary risk on the job site. Gun powder and flying projectiles are a danger and can be proven to be a danger. Under OSHA rules about volatile substances gun powder can be legally banned from the work place with little effort. The end result may be no workplace allowing guns on the property if you guys push too hard the lawyers will find a way. Thats what they get paid for.


Again some employers are willing to go to court to fight for the right to make decisions own their own. SO gun owners should be prepared to end up in court when they push other people around while hiding behind specialty laws.



My point is that an employer may very well jump to the cease employment conclusion well ahead of what they would have done had the employee not had a gun on the property.


As to for the criminals acquiring guns elsewhere it does not apply at all to anything that I have said. The presumption all along has been that the employee legally owns a gun so I have no idea why you are going on about banning guns. I do not support banning gun ownership, if I did i would be banning my own guns.



Actually if you read the links that I gave you OSHA says that it is the responsibility of the business owner to watch for signs and identify employees that may pose a danger of violence. OSHA feels that it is unnecessary to ban guns in the work place since the employer already retains the right to do so. But OSHA says that if that right of the employer changes then OSHA will also change their rules too.



No one said that carrying a gun is a violent act. What I was referring to was that regardless of a gun or not right now an employer can make a judgement call according to OSHA. A specialty law removes the ability legally to make judgement calls if the employee is a legal gun carrier.



You need to realize that the laws that your movement wants to be enforced do have gray areas. And all aspects need to be looked at not just the ones that you think that you can argue.



fear bwhahaha I laugh in your face. No I am not making an assumption without evidence I am exercising my rights as expressed by OSHA. But your laws will take those rights away.



Your desire to walk around with a gun on private property is a want. You would have to present evidence that says that a gun is necessary for either your protection or the protection of others. If you store your gun in your vehicle off the property you still retain the same rights that you want this specialty laws to cover. Which is why I made reference to you not actually losing legal possession of your gun. If the argument is for protection from at to work then it is your responsibility to find a location other than on the property that does not allow you to store guns there. I also pointed out to you that the states that do have parking lot laws allow employers to still ban guns in vehicles on their property under certain conditions like a gated parking lot or they may make the gun owners park in a separate parking lot providing that it isnt too far away. Which shows that even under the specialty laws you are still expressing a want and not a strict scrutiny. And since these laws have these loops holes for the employer it shows that it will be nearly impossible to ever make employers allow guns inside the actual work place.


Ill say it again I would rather see effort going toward stopping the Government from imposing more laws that limit the rights of gun owners and private property owners. Legally speaking the laws that your movement is fighting for actually promotes more Federal intrusion on the States and all Americans. Less laws not more laws!

Mines are a good example of a workplace which has a demonstrable 'need' to ban firearms. Other good examples would include auto-body and machine shops, mental institutions, propane refueling stations, and any place with above ground refueling stations for equipment. A better example for you to use might be a retail clothing store, as there are no inherent dangers in that line of business.

I'm already willing to go to court, so if the employer is also, great, he'll answer the summons.

My right to carry a gun is a specifically enumerated right, not merely a preference; and a demonstrable 'need' exists for me to carry a gun. Unless you can demonstrate a 'need' to ban guns, constitutional rights supersede preferences every day.
 
Last edited:
Mines are a good example of a workplace which has a demonstrable 'need' to ban firearms. Other good examples would include auto-body and machine shops, mental institutions, propane refueling stations, and any place with above ground refueling stations for equipment. A better example for you to use might be a retail clothing store, as there are no inherent dangers in that line of business.

I'm already willing to go to court, so if the employer is also, great, he'll answer the summons.

My right to carry a gun is a specifically enumerated right, not merely a preference; and a demonstrable 'need' exists for me to carry a gun. Unless you can demonstrate a 'need' to ban guns, constitutional rights supersede preferences every day.

Then why do you need a special law if the Constitution enumerated your right to carry a gun onto Private property?
 
Then why do you need a special law if the Constitution enumerated your right to carry a gun onto Private property?
Why do we need special laws for any other type of discrimination? Why do we have a list of Federally Protected Classes and a host of anti-discrimination legal code?

Same answer.

To spell out exactly what is and what is not acceptable, and specify what exceptions to the rule exist, so that everyone is on the same page and playing by the same rules.
 
Last edited:
Why do we need special laws for any other type of discrimination? Why do we have a list of Federally Protected Classes and a host of anti-discrimination legal code?

Same answer.

To spell out exactly what is and what is not acceptable, and specify what exceptions to the rule exist, so that everyone is on the same page and playing by the same rules.

You are barking up the wrong tree since I oppose Federally protected classes. Laws should not need to be specialized to protect certain sections of society when we already have the Bill of Rights that equally protect every American. To be clear I also do not support affirmative action nor do I think that it is necessary to tell the government what color of skin I appear to have.

The 14th Amendment covers discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. You as a gun owner equally share the same protections that the rest of us enjoy as gun owner and not gun owners.

The fact is that no one is banning you as a person protested under the 14th Amendment. What is actually happening is that your gun is being banned not yourself. That distinction makes a big legal difference. Some states have made laws now that allow you to bring a gun into a parking lot if you wish. But the same laws still make it possible to just put up a gate and disallow you from having a gun in the parking lot. Are you aware of that?

Such provisions set a legal example that shows that even with a special law gun owners still do not have the Constitutional right to tell private property owners what they have to allow on their property.


Now lets see where we are:

1. The new laws in some states still respect that the private property owners have the right to refuse any guns within the work place. And they can even still refuse to let you have a gun in your car in a gated or secured parking lot. They can also make you park in a special parking lot away from other employees.

2. Even the right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution the laws protecting private property owners is still above that of gun owners when a gun wants to bring his gun on someones private property. This makes your assertion that the rights of the gun owner wins in valid and wrong.

3. After looking at the facts it is clear that gun owner do not have the right to carry guns on private property without making special laws that circumnavigate the Constitutional rights of the Private property owner. Making it clear that your movements goal of forcing private property owners to allow you to carry a gun on their property is legally impossible without further changing the Constitutional rights of Private property owners.

The NRA's attack on Private property owner Constitutionally protected rights will not go unnoticed. If they get enough states or power to attempt to make special federal laws the public will revolt against such intrusion on our Constitutional rights. Unfortunately the most vocal will be the Leftist gun control nuts. All what you and the NRA are doing is playing directly into the Leftists hand by attacking already established Constitutional rights you make all of us gun owners look bad. And because of such corrupted attempt's to change the Constitution are being used, it will just make it easier for the gun control nuts to convince some Americans that the NRA and thus gun owners must be stopped. It appears more than anything that those supporting guns in the work place are tools for the Leftist gun control nuts.
 
And because of such corrupted attempt's to change the Constitution are being used, it will just make it easier for the gun control nuts to convince some Americans that the NRA and thus gun owners must be stopped. It appears more than anything that those supporting guns in the work place are tools for the Leftist gun control nuts.

Amen, brother! People need to realize that guns are great, but you can't put guns above liberty.
 
Interesting, do all these laws apply when it comes to discriminating against various minority groups? Can I refuse entry to all Asians in my restaurants or not let them use my bathroom? Can I make Caucasians drink from certain water fountains in my museum or private school? Can I refuse Black people the right to park in my parking lot period.

I believe the legal answer is NO. So why can anyone discriminate against someone acting withing his or her 2nd amendment rights.

Do you still have the right to remain silent if arrested in my building?
 
Interesting, do all these laws apply when it comes to discriminating against various minority groups? Can I refuse entry to all Asians in my restaurants or not let them use my bathroom? Can I make Caucasians drink from certain water fountains in my museum or private school? Can I refuse Black people the right to park in my parking lot period.

I believe the legal answer is NO. So why can anyone discriminate against someone acting withing his or her 2nd amendment rights.
What is discriminatory about banning an object from Private property? Do you use the gun for recognized religious proposes?

Do you still have the right to remain silent if arrested in my building?
If you are arrested you are in custody of law enforcement there s no reason that your right to remain silent should compromised.

Why should any business owner be forced to allow a person to enter their private property? You point to discrimination but is it legally discrimination?


Local antidiscrimination laws have been used to deny funding to groups that bar members because of their sexual orientation. This was the case after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). The Court held that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), as a private organization, had the constitutional right to bar homosexual troop leaders and members from its ranks. The Boy Scouts hailed this as an important victory, but many corporations and local governments were angered by the decision.
discrimination legal definition of discrimination. discrimination synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Or what calls do gun owners belong too? The answer would obviously be all classes. So it would be hard to group gun owners as a class being discriminated against. I think it would be best to assume that all Americans are gun owners whether they actually are or not. I am a gun owner an advocate of gun ownership to be sure, but I am also a business owner. I think that private property rights are the trump card since the gun owner legally is an invitee on the private property as an employee or not. Again the gun owner is not being told to leave the property just to store his gun off of the property at the property owners request. The request is that the gun is not allowed not the person carrying the gun so they are still invited onto the property.
 
What is discriminatory about banning an object from Private property? Do you use the gun for recognized religious proposes?

If you are arrested you are in custody of law enforcement there s no reason that your right to remain silent should compromised.

Why should any business owner be forced to allow a person to enter their private property? You point to discrimination but is it legally discrimination?


Local antidiscrimination laws have been used to deny funding to groups that bar members because of their sexual orientation. This was the case after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). The Court held that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), as a private organization, had the constitutional right to bar homosexual troop leaders and members from its ranks. The Boy Scouts hailed this as an important victory, but many corporations and local governments were angered by the decision.
discrimination legal definition of discrimination. discrimination synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Or what calls do gun owners belong too? The answer would obviously be all classes. So it would be hard to group gun owners as a class being discriminated against. I think it would be best to assume that all Americans are gun owners whether they actually are or not. I am a gun owner an advocate of gun ownership to be sure, but I am also a business owner. I think that private property rights are the trump card since the gun owner legally is an invitee on the private property as an employee or not. Again the gun owner is not being told to leave the property just to store his gun off of the property at the property owners request. The request is that the gun is not allowed not the person carrying the gun so they are still invited onto the property.

The 2nd Amendment places no restrictions as to where I can or cannot carry my firearm. Various legal jurisdictions have placed guidelines and laws concerning such but none come from the Supreme Court directly. A property owner infringing on my rights because I chose to carry is discrimination.

Oh yes, you certainly should retain your legal rights, they are protected under the constitution. But your trying to circumvent that. What if your caught shoplifting or suspected of shoplifting and I hold you against your will until a judge and whoever the minimum entourage would be. The hell with the 4th, 6th,7th,8th and any other applicable Amendment. It's my establishment or home. According to you I can suspend whichever amendment I choose. So I choose to allow your speedy trial and execution or permanent imprisonment in my basement or hey lets make you an indentured servant.

You can't pick and choose which amendments to nullify when you find it appropriate. You can't. The Supreme Court can and Congress can amendment the constitution but until then property rights are a very small fish should it try and swim with any of the Amendments.
 
The 2nd Amendment places no restrictions as to where I can or cannot carry my firearm. Various legal jurisdictions have placed guidelines and laws concerning such but none come from the Supreme Court directly. A property owner infringing on my rights because I chose to carry is discrimination.

Oh yes, you certainly should retain your legal rights, they are protected under the constitution. But your trying to circumvent that. What if your caught shoplifting or suspected of shoplifting and I hold you against your will until a judge and whoever the minimum entourage would be. The hell with the 4th, 6th,7th,8th and any other applicable Amendment. It's my establishment or home. According to you I can suspend whichever amendment I choose. So I choose to allow your speedy trial and execution or permanent imprisonment in my basement or hey lets make you an indentured servant.

You can't pick and choose which amendments to nullify when you find it appropriate. You can't. The Supreme Court can and Congress can amendment the constitution but until then property rights are a very small fish should it try and swim with any of the Amendments.




The reason for bearing arms is to stop other people from trampling on your liberties. And the NRA in this case is trying to trample on the rights of all landowners. Gun rights are no more important than private property rights. In fact gun rights are really just private property rights. A gun is the owners private property. What the NRA is saying is that the person carrying the gun has more rights than the person the owns the land that the gun owner is standing on. What you are saying that I cannot tell you what to do with your private property but you can tell me what I can do with my private property.

I am not standing on the gun owners private property he is carrying his private property. And while he is carry his property he is standing the land that I own and that I am responsible for legally and rightfully. Land cannot move but guns can so logically the non moving private property is the private property that must stay is=n all casses while the gun can sinply be moved off of the larger private property. But you guys are insisting since my private property cannot be moved than to hell with my rights and so special laws need to be made to end the liberties that owning private property backed by the Constitution.

I am not against guns as I have said I am an gun owner and a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. I also own a business and do not want the NRA destroying my liberties in the name of the 2nd Amendment it is insulting IMO and under handed and the wrong direction for this country. And by no means is this action helping Americans retain our 2nd Amendment rights. In fact it will open the door for more not less Federal regulations of firearms.
 
The reason for bearing arms is to stop other people from trampling on your liberties. And the NRA in this case is trying to trample on the rights of all landowners. Gun rights are no more important than private property rights. In fact gun rights are really just private property rights. A gun is the owners private property. What the NRA is saying is that the person carrying the gun has more rights than the person the owns the land that the gun owner is standing on. What you are saying that I cannot tell you what to do with your private property but you can tell me what I can do with my private property.

I am not standing on the gun owners private property he is carrying his private property. And while he is carry his property he is standing the land that I own and that I am responsible for legally and rightfully. Land cannot move but guns can so logically the non moving private property is the private property that must stay is=n all casses while the gun can sinply be moved off of the larger private property. But you guys are insisting since my private property cannot be moved than to hell with my rights and so special laws need to be made to end the liberties that owning private property backed by the Constitution.

I am not against guns as I have said I am an gun owner and a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. I also own a business and do not want the NRA destroying my liberties in the name of the 2nd Amendment it is insulting IMO and under handed and the wrong direction for this country. And by no means is this action helping Americans retain our 2nd Amendment rights. In fact it will open the door for more not less Federal regulations of firearms.

You make difficult points to debate. Bravo for you :)

It's a legal issue not a rational issue and were talking constitutional law. If someone can arbitrarily nullify any amendment they can any other. What if your town decided that since the town is public property it belonged to everyone that same rational counted? They could prohibit firearms period. No one would argue that you cannot decide what you want on your private property. You can make anyone leave or call the police at will an no one can scream discrimination. In a commercially zoned semi-public venue people can and easily do scream discrimination and often for the right reasons. Did you know it's no coincidence the Amendments are placed in that order. Madison (or whoever decided on the thing) put the second amendment second for a reason and the Supreme Court recognizes this. The right to bear arms is second only to the First which is Freedom of Speech. No coincidence.

The trouble is no other law will trump an amendment until that amendment is changed or its legal meaning altered. This could have happened not long ago with District of Columbia v. Heller. The DC gun ban challenge so it could change. And if it did, I wouldn't be upset about it. I just recognize the law as it is currently written.

Our rights are falling like dominoes in this country already. Look at the power government agencies are gaining to let them circumvent the Bill of Rights. I understand these are designed to protect Americans but the military can detain you or me indefinitely without bail or trial or asking any Judge or legal authority 'May I'. Snatch you off the street and send you to some undisclosed location because you accidently ended up on the wrong web page one day. Its getting crazy.

Anyway you have good points but the law needs changing from the powers that be to alter things as they sit. At least in my opinion.
 
You are barking up the wrong tree since I oppose Federally protected classes.
Federally protected classes aren't going away, and what you view as an encroachment of your rights is going to continue, mostly because you're taking a position which is impossible to win; the elimination of Federally protected classes.

You would do well to use this forum to learn how to combat an argument's merits, show that the conclusion is not necessarily the logical consequence of it's premises, instead of trying to change it's premises (logical fallacies called Straw-Man and Moving the Goal Posts), which is all you've don on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Let's see if I can come up with a means to make everyone either Happy or Unhappy, depending on how you look at it.......

If you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, it should have to be indicated at the edge of your property. Whether that is the door to your building, the driveway, walkway, etc.... It should be required to be a large enough sign to ensure it is visible at all times. You should also be required to provide this information to the local and state police agencies and to maintain sufficient liability insurance in case I am assaulted and injured while unable to defend myself while on your property.

If you are a commercial business and you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, you should be required to provide a couple things.....

1. A means to legally secure my firearm while I am on your property doing business with you.
2. Armed security to ensure my safety while on your property
 
Let's see if I can come up with a means to make everyone either Happy or Unhappy, depending on how you look at it.......

If you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, it should have to be indicated at the edge of your property. Whether that is the door to your building, the driveway, walkway, etc.... It should be required to be a large enough sign to ensure it is visible at all times. You should also be required to provide this information to the local and state police agencies and to maintain sufficient liability insurance in case I am assaulted and injured while unable to defend myself while on your property.

If you are a commercial business and you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, you should be required to provide a couple things.....

1. A means to legally secure my firearm while I am on your property doing business with you.
2. Armed security to ensure my safety while on your property
I fall on the 'unhappy' side, naturally.

I seek protection of my right to carry a firearm everywhere not specifically designated as a 'gun-fee' zone by Federal law. There will be no compromise, no middle ground, and I will not agree to disagree.

So long as my right to carry is protected, I will offer concessions to the employer while the firearm is on my person. These concession include but are not limited to:
  • The employer my make a copy of my CCW for their records.
  • The employer my apply dress-code standards to the method of carrying the firearm.
  • The employer is exempt from liability from the use of a firearm on their property.
 
I fall on the 'unhappy' side, naturally.

I seek protection of my right to carry a firearm everywhere not specifically designated as a 'gun-fee' zone by Federal law. There will be no compromise, no middle ground, and I will not agree to disagree.

So long as my right to carry is protected, I will offer concessions to the employer while the firearm is on my person. These concession include but are not limited to:
  • The employer my make a copy of my CCW for their records.
  • The employer my apply dress-code standards to the method of carrying the firearm.
  • The employer is exempt from liability from the use of a firearm on their property.

My property = my right to say who is allowed on it for whatever reason I want. If I want to not allow you on it because you have brown eyes, I have that right. If I want to ban you from my premises because you have a gun, that's my right. And if you choose to not come on my land without a gun, that's your right.
 
Evidently I need to repost my argument more frequently:

Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
  • Private person > Private Business.

Independent Variables (the scope and context under which the point being debated should be true):
  • A right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
  • A right which is otherwise being lawfully exorsized.
  • A private 'real', 'natural' person exorsizing the right.
  • A private business forbidding the exorsize of that right.

My property = my right to say who is allowed on it for whatever reason I want. If I want to not allow you on it because you have brown eyes, I have that right. If I want to ban you from my premises because you have a gun, that's my right. And if you choose to not come on my land without a gun, that's your right.

You don't have any such right to do that to an employee now, to say that right should be protected.

If you hire someone and then fire them just because they have brown eyes, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

~snip~

Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.

I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list due to the fact that laws supporting preferences of private property owners do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards.

***
If you operate a private business and then kick a customer out just because they have brown eyes, you will be cited by the city for braking Public Accommodation codes.

***
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.
 
Last edited:
I fall on the 'unhappy' side, naturally.

I seek protection of my right to carry a firearm everywhere not specifically designated as a 'gun-fee' zone by Federal law. There will be no compromise, no middle ground, and I will not agree to disagree.

So long as my right to carry is protected, I will offer concessions to the employer while the firearm is on my person. These concession include but are not limited to:
  • The employer my make a copy of my CCW for their records.
  • The employer my apply dress-code standards to the method of carrying the firearm.
  • The employer is exempt from liability from the use of a firearm on their property.

Jerry, I understand where you're coming from. I'm much closer to your side on this than it might seem. I have businesses and individuals who I no longer interact with because I am not allowed to carry a firearm when interacting with them. However, I can also see why certain types of business (banks, jewelry stores, etc...) do not like the idea of having armed customers on their property. I can also understand why a private property owner might want to restrict the individuals who are allowed access to their property. Naturally, my first suggestion to those individuals is a fence with a locked gate, but that isn't always what they prefer.

We have to find a reasonable middle ground on this topic, or we're going to keep having the arguement ad infinitum.
 
Jerry, I understand where you're coming from. I'm much closer to your side on this than it might seem. I have businesses and individuals who I no longer interact with because I am not allowed to carry a firearm when interacting with them. However, I can also see why certain types of business (banks, jewelry stores, etc...) do not like the idea of having armed customers on their property. I can also understand why a private property owner might want to restrict the individuals who are allowed access to their property. Naturally, my first suggestion to those individuals is a fence with a locked gate, but that isn't always what they prefer.

We have to find a reasonable middle ground on this topic, or we're going to keep having the arguement ad infinitum.

All banks insured by FDIC (which is pretty much just 'all banks') are Federal "gun-free" zones. Anyone other than police, military, or armed currier bringing a firearm into a bank is comitting a Federal offence. They are not otherwise lawfully carrying that firearm (see my Independent Variable #2). Otherwise lawfully carrying the firearm is a premise of my argument. The moment the firearm is not otherwise legally carried, I'm not defending it.

I invite you to source a jewelry store's 'need' to be a gun-free zone, especially considering the following:

The moment 65-year-old woman thwarts robbery on jewellery store after opening fire on five armed men
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 14:07 GMT, 4 August 2012 | UPDATED: 14:50 GMT, 4 August 2012


Five armed men who attempted to rob a jewellery store were left scrambling for the door when a 65-year-old woman opened fire on them.
The handgun-wielding thieves, clad in hoodies, were forced to flee Continental Jewelry in Garden Grove, California, after the woman chased after them last week.
The men pulled up to the store in a white Ford SUV and entered one by one, pointing their guns at the clerks and one customer.

They ordered everybody to drop to the ground, while opening up pillowcases and demanding cash in what was likely to be a violent smash-and-grab heist.

But the robbers were thwarted in their tracks when the 65-year-old storeowner heard the commotion from the back of the store.

She ran into the main room while firing two rounds, causing the men to panic and attempt to flee the store.
The one-minute incident, which was captured on surveillance camera, shows the men falling over and stumbling into each other as they try to open the door.

You're telling me that the average CCW citizen, who has passed a background check, is the same as these criminals who have no regard for the law or the public?
 
Last edited:
All banks insured by FDIC (which is pretty much just 'all banks') are Federal "gun-free" zones. Anyone other than police, military, or armed currier bringing a firearm into a bank. They are not otherwise lawfully carrying that firearm (see my Independent Variable #2). Otherwise lawfully carrying the firearm is a premise of my argument. The moment the firearm is not otherwise legally carried, I'm not defending it.

I invite you to source a jewelry store's 'need' to be a gun-free zone, especially considering the following:

Continental Jewelry: The moment woman, 65, thwarts robbery on store after opening fire on five armed men | Mail Online

Under this logic, would you suggest legally licensed-to-carry individuals ought to be able to bring guns into local courthouses, etc.? What more 'need' does the court house have that a jewelry store owner does not have?

You do not have a 'right' to be on my property unless the government says that you do not. We're not talking about the right to bear arms. We're talking about your right to be on my property. Which you will have if I say you have, as it is MY property. If I set requirements, you ought to abide and the government ought to respect my rights as the owner of the property. I understand that this is not entirely how it currently is, but I am speaking ideologically. You cannot come on my property and say whatever you want, despite your freedom of speech. You cannot come on my property with a gun. You cannot come on my property and practice your religion.
 
I invite you to source a jewelry store's 'need' to be a gun-free zone, especially considering the following:

I don't necessarily think there is a NEED for it to be a gun-free zone. However, I would tend to believe that most jewelry store owners would disagree with me. Especially ones in places like malls or shopping centers. As both you and I know, the vast majority of people are not competent to handle a firearm in a self-defense situation. Most of the chain stores wouldn't even consider allowing an employee to do any such thing, nevermind require it.

Now, maybe I have a different take on this whole thing because there are certain groups of people who I would and do bar from my personal property; and who the inability to bar from a business would keep me from ever opening one of my own.
 
Back
Top Bottom