Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: William Tell
William Tell wrote:

the rights of private proprietorships to control their parking areas would be preserved,

What is being "preserved"?

What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?

They gain the right to be secure in their private property.

My gun locked in my car is not a security threat to their property. Can you agree?

I believe that few will choose to take a stand against firearms in the face of competition from corporations which are not allowed to infringe the right.
You may not carry on my private property even if I choose to carry on business on that property.

A gun locked in my car is not being "carried" on your property. Can you agree?

There is no right to incorporate and be granted limited liability. That is a legal privilege granted by legislatures based on expected benefits to the whole people. One of the benefits can be the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to corporate parking lots.

You are making part of my argument for me. Thanks. Are we in agreement then on the other parts above?

32 posted on 10/09/2005 11:56:34 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: faireturn
faireturn asks: "What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?"

You are asking the wrong question. A person doesn't have to gain anything to have rights. I predict that any law which forces private property owners to tolerate firearms owned by others on their property could be struck down by the US Supreme Court.

A law which requires someone to tolerate your bearing arms on another's property, in effect, prohibits that person from excluding you because you are bearing arms. Similar laws do exist in some circumstances with regard to racial discrimination. If you are suggesting that a law prohibiting discrimination against a person bearing arms, then that is much broader than a law concerning what people may have in their parked cars.

I would support laws which prohibit discrimination against those who bear arms, but I think that practicality concerns dictate that private property rights take precedence.

I still maintain that mandating that arms be allowed in corporate parking lots would achieve 99 percent of the benefit with virtually NO legitimate private property concerns.

36 posted on 10/09/2005 12:20:04 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: faireturn

RKBA applies to public property and your own private property, not the private property of others. Same goes for the entire BOR.


39 posted on 10/09/2005 12:24:55 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson