Posted on 12/16/2004 6:17:56 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
I jumped in on a discussion at TCF regarding this news item. Companies that ban guns put on defensive.
Ronald Honeycutt didn't hesitate. The Pizza Hut driver had just finished dropping off a delivery when a man holding a gun approached him.What happens in these arguments is that most people wind up focusing solely on guns, with all the attendant concern about fear, violence, hostility, etc. that comes with them. In that context, both sides can point to anecdotes of either workplace violence (see "going postal") or parking lot attacks where the victim either was able or unable to defend herself late at night in a parking garage or dimly lit parking lot in a bad section of town. This is becoming more of a concern in recent years as states pass less restrictive concealed carry legislation. Two states, Oklahoma and Kentucky, have laws specifically protecting keeping guns inside a locked vehicle in workplace parking lots. (Note that Whirlpool has backed off.)
Honeycutt wasn't about to become another robbery statistic. He grabbed the 9 mm handgun he always carries in his belt and shot the man more than 10 times, killing him.
Honeycutt faced no criminal charges, because prosecutors decided that he acted in self-defense. But the 39-year-old did lose his job: Carrying a gun violated Pizza Hut's no-weapons rule.
"It's not fair," says Honeycutt of Carmel, Ind., who has found another pizza-delivery job and continues to carry a gun. "There is a constitutional right to bear arms. If I'm going to die, I'd rather be killed defending myself."
Employers have long banned guns from the workplace as part of a violence-prevention strategy, but those policies are being tested as states pass laws making it easier for residents to carry concealed guns - in some cases, crafting legislation that strikes down employers' attempts to keep guns off company property.
But unlike a number of gun rights activists I believe property rights trump all.And this is the springboard for the discussion which seems, to me, sadly lacking from the coverage of the issue. The following is a restatement and expansion of my comments at TCF.
Indeed, John.
Your right to defend yourself, i.e. your life, is a property right. What is the most dear thing you possess? Your own self. Your own body. Your own life. Just as it is your right to prevent someone from stealing your tangible property (e.g. land, a car, etc.) it is also your right to prevent someone from taking your life from you. Do you think the the term "taking your life" as a synonym for murder is a coincidence? Rights inhere to possession. A fundamental right from possession is control over how a possesion may be used.
This issue is a really good one for understanding rights. It regrettably gets lost in the hollering from both sides, and so a really good airing of the philosophical questions doesn't happen. Instead, we get complaints such as Honeycutt's "It's not fair". How is it not fair, sir? Did someone coerce you into entering into an employment agreement?
Everybody understands that "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose starts". This is a statement of balancing rights based on burden. Is it a greater burden for me to accomodate your rights, or the other way around? Is it easier for you to deal with a broken nose, or for me to not swing my fist?
The parking lot question is a little more difficult, because there's an economic burden in having difficulty finding a job with an accomodating employer. The burden a company would bear in accomodating gun-carrying employees (or customers for that matter) is more difficult to define, but it includes such things as a risk of violence, and all the liabilities which could come from that. Note that some gun-rights advocates are arguing for a law which makes a company liable for damages resulting from an inability to defend one's self, if a company has a no-guns policy.
But the person who is entering the property carrying a gun is the active party, and thus I think that from a philosophical point of view, it's less burdensome for that person to cease the activity than it is for the passive party (in this case the company owning the property) to accede.
Let's assume that the state steps in and passes a law which states that business owners may not prohibit carrying of weapons onto their property. The businesses' property rights have been diluted with no recourse other than the courts for restoration of their rights (in the eyes of the law #&151; I stipulate that the law may never actually take away a right, so there's no need to argue the point). This is a significant burden upon the right to control the use of their own property.
By contrast, the burden on the individual for restoring full exercise of his right to self preservation (via carrying a gun) is to simply leave the property, or not enter in the first place. This is really the same as saying that his rights have never been diluted in the first place, since it is a personal choice to enter such a property (where the owner states guns may not be carried). There is no coercion on the part of the state, or either party, in what is, in effect, a contract between two parties, the terms of which specify under what conditions a person may enter the property. By the act of entering the property, the individual implicitly consents to the terms of the property owner. If you don't consent, don't enter, or leave when you are informed of the terms.
So there are really two rights at work here. Right in property, and right of self-defense. By passing a law restricting businesses' ability to make policy, the state infringes on both.
So in the end, I wind up not liking it when I see gun-rights advocates arguing in favor of infringing on other rights. For when you argue that under some set of circumstances, the state may burden a particular right, you put the others in jeapordy of similar reasoning.
That's correct. It's classified as a crime against property in all 50 States.
I agree completely.
No one is extending property rights beyond reasonable boundaries other than those who claim that they can posses items not allowed by the property owner on his property simply because they are hidden away.
Just answer the question.
You are. The vehicle isn't your property. The vehicle is the only property you have a say about. THat's it.
Correct, unless the property has signs posted ;" all vehicles subject to search" Then your vehicle can be broken into and searched.
And that's what it comes down to, you feel that you are entitled to lie to a property owner and violate his rights, and that your lie is constitutionally protected by the same right that you wish to violate.
The hypocrisy of your argument is beyond belief.
You want to claim property rights to the inside of your car, while denying the property rights of the other individual while you are inside his property boundaries.
Unbelievable hypocrisy.
Answer the question...why are you scared of typing down a simple yes or no?
Where did I lie? You can choke on your damn job as far as I care and I'll do everything I can to shut down your unjustifed violations of other peoples rights. Either claim your and gun grabber and that's who you exclusively associate with, or move in with the PRC. You don't have the right to dictate what property others have in their cars, or do off your little piece of hell.
Your question was answered above and your analogy had no similarity whatsoever with the topic.
A dangerous criminal, who has most likely threatened the life of other people, is dead and no longer a danger to society. The criminal would have continued to do what he was doing until he got caught or killed. End of Story!!
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
Your vehicle isn't allowed on my property if there is a gun inside ---
You dolt...you have been arguing in favor of the government's violation of property rights for a damned week now!
YOU ARE THE ONE ADVANCING THE NOTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO VIOLATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!
You, and people like you, will be at fault for the loss of our rights.
You have spent entire threads justifying your right to lie to property owners.
What's in your car, as well as what's on your person, is my business as a property owner as long as you are on my property. If you don't like that, don't come on my property.
The only violation of rights is the one you favor...using the force of government to violate my property rights.
You don't have to enter my property, you don't have to accept a job if you don't like my job rules, you don't have to park on my property if you don't like the rules I set in place for those using my parking lot. But you want my rights as a property owner violated because you believe that you are entitled to take a job from me under false pretenses, to park on my property, and to do it in violation of my expressed wishes.
Then you argue that if I can't see the gun you're keeping in your car that's parked on my property, then that's just tough for me...the right to legally lie.
BS. I told you that by virtue of the 14th amend. you can't pull the garbage you're pushing. See, the post you failed to comprehend. Your idea of property rights went out with monarchies, company stores, towns and script.
"...lies, false pretenses, violate my property rights.
Drop the BS and libelous screaming and focus on what is.
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
You dolt...you have been arguing in favor of the government's violation of property rights for a damned week now!
Another interesting article from those who advocate "the superiority of private property over gun rights".
Monday, May 10, 2004
Gun rights don't trump property rights
By Stephen H. Gunn
What happens when the right to carry a gun collides with traditional Republican Party values like the sanctity of private property and the preference for local control compared to control by a central government?
The surprising answer in Utah is that gun rights win. There is perhaps no better illustration than the recent passage of SB48 by the Utah Legislature. That bill was designed to prevent the University of Utah and other state universities and colleges from regulating the possession of guns on campus.
It was passed over the opposition of the trustees, faculty, administration, staff, students and alumni association of the university. SB48 is yet another extension of earlier legislation that prohibited local governments from regulating concealed weapons in places like government buildings, libraries and parks. The Legislature's stated justification for banning local control is the need for uniformity — the same rationale used to support federal control over some state functions, like education. But although Republicans give lip service to the superiority of local control where the federal government is concerned, the principle is quickly jettisoned when applied to the relationship of the state to its counties, cities, school districts and universities — particularly in matters relating to firearms.
An even more striking difference between theoretical Republicanism and actual practice can be seen in the willingness of Republican lawmakers to elevate gun rights over private property rights. Again SB48 provides an interesting illustration of this principle. The sponsor of the bill was Senator Michael Waddoups, the Republican majority leader. His original bill, which was passed by the Senate attempted to give gun owners absolute rights over the interests of other persons: "(P)rivate citizens may not inhibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property."
The Senate rejected an amendment which would have made clear the superiority of private property over gun rights.
Ultimately the Legislature adopted ambiguous language which leaves unresolved the relationship of gun rights to private property rights. In so doing, it showed its willingness to pander to the gun lobby at the expense of private property owners.
SB48 is one in a long line of bills passed by the Utah legislature which seem to state that owners of non-residential private property cannot prevent concealed weapons from being brought on to their premises.
The doctrine that Republican legislators appear to have adopted is that gun rights trump private property rights.
But perhaps the most startling characteristic of the current crop of Republican lawmakers is their willingness to experiment with the safety of society by allowing guns to be carried nearly everywhere. Again, SB48 illustrates this principle. It prevents state colleges and universities from banning guns in such places as dormitories, classrooms, tenure hearings, public forums, political demonstrations and sporting events. This radical step was taken without any evidence that the arming of the university community was necessary or even safe.
The University of Utah, like Utah's other colleges and universities, has until now had few problems with violent crime.
The Republican response to a violence-free environment is to replace it with one in which guns can be brought on campus, virtually without restriction.
The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" has been replaced with the new Republican doctrine of the gun:
loosen restrictions until somebody gets hurt.
We can only hope the only casualty of this social experiment will be Republican control of the Utah Legislature.
Steven H. Gunn is a former Republican legislative district chairman and a current member of the board of directors of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.
And who are the bad guys this time?
The guys who used government to violate the property rights of land owners.
Your rights were intact, no one violated your rights; you have the right not to work for a company whose regulations you do not believe in, you have the right to park elsewhere, you have the right to boycott the products made, and you have the right to carry a weapon up to the edge of their property...but that wasn't enough for you, you want the right to dictate how a landowner may use his land.
The only rights being violated are the rights of the property owner.
One day, your neighbors will get together and decide that you may not put up a nativity scene in your front yard, and they will do so claiming the same "right" that you now claim.
The right to dictate to others what they may or may not do on their property.
Jeff Head is a national figure in the fight to safeguard our Second Amendment rights, and he patiently tried explaining to you just how wrong you were, as did many people on this thread, unfortunately, you are the enemy in the fight to safeguard our freedoms...you are that well-intentioned paver of the road to hell.
People like you endanger the practical rights of people like me to carry. IMHO, we should deal harshly with those who make the rest of look bad by ignoring carry laws.
In Texas, you can not only lose your job, but you can go to jail. A distant acquaintance wore an ankle bracelet for what seemed like forever after being caught carrying a pistol on hospital property.
No, ignoring the wishes of the property owner is absolutely the wrong answer. I've got an honest streak that wouldn't allow me to do that.
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.