Posted on 02/28/2011 6:00:53 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
http://www.wsmv.com/news/27031094/detail.html
(Excerpt) Read more at wsmv.com ...
I have known gals that work the late shift and drive 70 mi on back roads in the dead of night to or from work.
To deny them defense is preposterous.
I carry 2 knives at work everyday.
I'm a hard-core 2nd supporter, but even more so when it comes to private property rights.
NO law should demand property owners allow anything on their ground that they don't willingly want.
Not quite; consider New Mexico's State Constitution which, in part, reads:
| Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.] |
|---|
| All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness. |
| Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] |
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) |
The way the English there is written it sets up a list, and in that list the qualifier 'lawful' applies only to the items "hunting" and "other purposes;" implicitly recognizing that it is never unlawful for a Citizen to keep and bear arms for his own security and defense as it forbids *ANY* law which would abridge that right.
In fact, it is theoretically possible to take a gun into a NM courthouse [NOT against the law, btw] in defiance of "court rules" [they would accuse you of contempt of court] BUT 'contempt of court' applies ONLY to lawful orders of the court, and because no law may abridge that right that order cannot be lawful. {Even further argument may be made that the disarming of Citizens not even indicted with violating a law is a violation of due process and that since the Supreme Court has ruled, multiple times, that law enforcement officers have no obligation to protect a private citizen that any guarantee by the State that its officers DO/CAN/WILL protect unarmed jurors is nothing but a legal lie.}
Depends on how it’s interpreted.
“possessing and protecting property,” can be read to mean the property owner gets to protect his property from those who would bring weapons onto the property.
Yes they should, just like cops do. Cops are not that statistically different than the rest of the population.
>Your right to carry doesn’t trump your employer’s property rights.
But what about YOUR property rights? Or YOUR self-defense rights?
If your right to be armed is recognized as inalienable/inherent then they are necessarily not-repudiatable; this can be seen as true even in disarmed prison populations: self defense *is* justification for even homicide. Why should you, who is not even indicted for a crime, be disarmed like a common criminal?
>Depends on how it’s interpreted.
>
>“possessing and protecting property,” can be read to mean the property owner gets to protect his property from those who would bring weapons onto the property.
In such a case he should be *utterly* culpable for the protection of my life. No?
Should be, but currently not.
I believe the rights of the property owner supercede the rights of the visitor.
For example, should someone who comes onto your property have the freedom to excercsie his rights to freedom of expression as First Amendment guarantees?
>For example, should someone who comes onto your property have the freedom to excercsie his rights to freedom of expression as First Amendment guarantees?
Of course!
But then again, I *ALSO* believe that someone coming onto your property uninvited* constitutes ‘trespassing’ and that shooting him constitutes the protection of [my/the owner’s] property.
*I also believe that even if someone *is* invited that invitation could be revoked by its issuer at any time and for any reason; though that revocation should be verbalized and not just “out-of-the-blue.”
You made me think, but yes, because a nutcase won’t care about the rules and is more than marginally less likely to go off if he knows someone else may be packing. Not only that, but he’s FAR less likely to kill near as many people.
“’If some nut job’ should never be the employer’s liability.”
Yes it should if the employer makes the nutjob’s actions more likely and more likely to be more lethal. It’s similar to why you don’t let known pedophiles work in daycare centers (except in certain lib states where said pedophile’s rights trump kids’ rights not to be raped by law).
“Your right to carry doesn’t trump your employer’s property rights.”
So your employer’s right to a thing (property) trumps your right to defend your life? Interesting thought process there. Sounds similar to some historical justifications of some pretty nasty things throughout history. Sorry, but it is...
Been an interesting discussion that has made me rethink my answer in that post. I hereby recant this part:
“Agreed, with one caveat:...”
Replace with “Disagree and...”
Someone’s right to a thing - property - does NOT trump the God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to effective defense of someone else’s own life. Period.
As a conservative, I hold property rights nearly inviolate. But I hold the right to effective self-defense COMPLETELY inviolate. After all, life trumps property...
BTW, the argument that “right to property” trumps “right to defend your life” justifies some pretty nasty things. One historical example: Slavery.
And that is the defining question, If I am to be disarmed by a property owner, it is then their duty to protect me when I am not armed... but me being me I don't leave my or my families security up to another individual.
Now I carry every single day, but when I worked for a couple of other companies, I made sure I got it in writing that the owner(s) did not allow weapons on their property and told my wife that should something happen, to pull out the documents and sue the living crap out of them until she owns the property/company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.