Replies

Why use "caselaw"?

Because that's what we do in a common law system. You are advocating a novel legal position- you are claiming that exercising one's right to regulate whether firearms come onto one's property violates public policy. Other than your opinion, what legal basis do you have for this claim?

And don't say "the Constitution." The only place in the Constitution where you could find a right to bring firearms onto others' property is in the infamous penumbra.

The clear words of the 2nd support the peoples position. - Our rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

And courts have ruled in hundreds, if not thousands, of cases that the Constitutional prohibitions against infringements of rights applies to government action only. And, of course, SCOTUS has never actually ruled on whether the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms, but that's a discussion for a different day.

Back to the flat Earth position I see. Why are you parroting the Brady Campaign in that last paragraph? That is the exact argumentation they are using for every piece of legislation they try and push on us.

Are you actually going to say that one persons Rights can easily override another persons equal Rights? Kinda destroys the whole precept this country was founded on doesn't it? What next? Gonna try and claim Prima Noctem on your neighbors daughter? After all, if a restriction in the Constitution only applies to government action....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says "...the right of the people...". That is us. We individual citizens of the United States. Waiting for your judicial heros to stand up and mouth the correct words is like Galileo waiting in his tower for the Church to realize that the Sun does not orbit the Earth.

Modernman wrote:

Why use "caselaw"? --- Because that's what we do in a common law system. You are advocating a novel legal position- you are claiming that exercising one's right to regulate whether firearms come onto one's property violates public policy.

Other than your opinion, what legal basis do you have for this claim?

spunkets wrote:

Henry Perritt Jr., one of this country's foremost scholars on labor and employment law, advocates a comprehensive test for analyzing wrongful discharge claims involving violations of public policy. Perritt proposes four elements of a public policy tort case:

(1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element). Henry H. Perritt Jr., Workplace Torts: Rights and Liabilities § 3.7 (1991) (hereinafter Perritt).

(2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). Perritt § 3.14.

(3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). Perritt § 3.19.

(4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element). Perritt § 3.21. See also Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 69-70, 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995) (adopting Perritt's four element test).

The clear words of the 2nd support the peoples position. - Our rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
jones

The only place in the Constitution where you could find a right to bring firearms onto others' property is in the infamous penumbra.

And courts have ruled in hundreds, if not thousands, of cases that the Constitutional prohibitions against infringements of rights applies to government action only.

And, of course, SCOTUS has never actually ruled on whether the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms, but that's a discussion for a different day.

No, this day is just fine, --- seeing that you've made it quite evident that you don't agree our RKBA's is an
individual right.

Your belief:
"courts have ruled in hundreds, if not thousands, of cases that the Constitutional prohibitions against infringements of rights applies to government action only" --- is flawed by the words of the Constitution itself.

The 'peoples' rights can be [and are], infringed by any one or any organization.
It is the governments prime duty to defend our rights.