Replies

Exsoldier did frame that very well, I also agree with it as far as it goes. My point is that corporations are not infringing anyone's right to bear arms because that right ends, as he says, at his nose. At the boundaries of corporate (private) property.

"The question remains, why do you think you need the power to keep me from having a gun in my car?"

I really don't need the power to keep you from having a gun in your car, I even want you to have one there. I just want the power to keep cars containg guns (or anything else) off my own property, if I so choose. If I want to keep cars containing little old ladies for Kerry (which, unfortunately are legal) off my property, I want that right too, in fact it seems more reasonable than keeping cars containing guns off. But it's the same right.

The idea that a car on someone else's property acts as a small oasis of its owner's property, and thus has immunity, like an embassy in a foreign country for instance, is kind of a fascinating idea. Not one which I agree with, though.

Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?

Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?

As long as you are in lawful possession, I have no right to bar you from the curtilage of my property. I can under the castle doctrine, prevent you from entering my domicile.

But folks lets leave aside the business aspect and private property for one moment. Can the government especially local government prevent me as a teacher from having a gun locked in my car? Because once I roll off school property....I'm in da HOOD......

Exsoldier did frame that very well, I also agree with it as far as it goes. My point is that corporations are not infringing anyone's right to bear arms because that right ends, as he says, at his nose. At the boundaries of corporate (private) property.

In this instance, the private parking lot property ends at my private property, my vehicle.

The question remains, why do you think you need the power to keep me from having a gun in my car?

I really don't need the power to keep you from having a gun in your car, I even want you to have one there. I just want the power to keep cars containg guns (or anything else) off my own property, if I so choose.

Why would you so choose, when you say you even want me to have one there?

The idea that a car on someone else's property acts as aof its owner's property, and thus has immunity, like an embassy in a foreign country for instance, is kind of a fascinating idea. Not one which I agree with, though.

Well, our constitution agrees with the citizens home as a "small oasis" from unreasonable searches, why would you consider a car any less?

Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?

Honestly, the thought never entered my mind [I'm 68]. -- I first saw that idea posted about a year ago here at FR, when the Oklahoma incident arose. Why on earth would anyone who supports the Constitution -want- to hang a sign prohibiting guns on his property? In America that's like waving a red flag at a bull.

Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?

I've heard this argument several times, and it isn't really germaine. Your property expectations as a homeowner are different that the expectations of a corporation which does business with the public. If you had a business where the public and your employees came and went in your driveway at will I would expect that you would have no right to say what they had in their cars.