celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Is property of a corporation private property?
Not all citizens carry a gun. Your point?The difference here being that not all privately owned businesses actually ban guns.
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.
Wow, what a load of bull****.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?
Try Google.Is property of a corporation private property?
Try reading the rest of the paragraph......Not all citizens carry a gun. Your point?
So you do not agree with your main source of reference in this debate?You assume to much.
Nice debating skills, you do know how to debate right?Wow, what a load of bull****.
I read your entire post. Don't assume that your words weren't read just because they weren't quoted and/or were ignored.Try reading the rest of the 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.So you do not agree with your main source of reference in this debate?
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.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."
The right to self defence is inalienable. Your argument is invalid.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
The right to self defence is inalienable. Your argument is invalid.
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 read your entire post. Don't assume that your words weren't read just because they weren't quoted and/or were ignored.
I have no expectations that you will agree with everything that I say. But since you have been touting and protecting the NRA and are indeed a lifetime member of the NRA I would halfway expect that you are speaking for the NRA as a member. You would do well then to determine that you are speaking personally when speaking about your own opinions. And to point out when you are representing your club.I don't agree with their opinion on the issue, no. They're still a great hub of legal information, though, providing accurate quotes and links directly to the actual state laws they cover. I'm a life NRA member, that doesn't mean I agree with the NRA's opinion of disarming when a private owner wants, even where there's no legal need to comply. Within pro-2A, opinions can very greatly.
Well if you can pick and choose from your own references I assume that everyone can as well. And I did just that either your source is good or is it not? Your source backed my argument so my argument stands by your own source.I'm not going to buy 'no-gun = no-money' cards and hand them to businesses with gun-buster signs. My thoughts on those cards is 1. a person with a gun can't give the card to the owner because the person with the gun isn't supposed to enter the property in the first place...so if you're going to enter the property with the gun then save the card and just do your shopping; 2. if you're going to disarm so as to deliver a card to the owner, then since you're disarming anyway just save the card and do your shopping.
Then in most states you are claiming that you would break the known laws on the issue. Which I agree is your choice but I do not have to agree that its a wise choice, but its your liberty.I don't recognize a business owner's authority to ban my firearm from my person just because they feel like it. I carry regardless.
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.
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.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
I did, and since my body is my property, I reserve the right to protect it.Did you know that we have an inalienable right to protect our private property?
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.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.
Unfortunately that doesn't fit the actual definitions for what each right is.I agree with your premise that self-defense is inalienable. I don't immediately follow the logic of how that invalidates my argument.
But after some thought, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I see what you're trying to say: that our right to have the ability to defend ourselves with lethal force is inalienable. (A subtle difference, but an important one I think... here's why: )
Again, I would suggest that if this is the case, and it is true that inalienable rights are inherent to being alive, that you have that right simply by living, then we as a society have a responsibility to arm our citizens. Because we do not do this, this right to defend yourself with lethal force is a civil right, not an inalienable right.
The 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
The employee owns their body, the employer chooses to do business with the public. Property rights, obviously, guns must be allowed.The employer owns the property, the employee chooses to work there. Property rights, obviously.
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.
So are you defending and supporting the NRA or not?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.
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.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.
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.That law's not reasonable, 'm not even necessarily talking about businesses, even just my own personal property.
No one is talking about your residence except you.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.
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.