There's a combo for ya.
Posted on 10/16/2005 1:47:00 PM PDT by freepatriot32
Juneau
GladesGuru, I've been on the minority side in most of these parking lot debates, when I've participated.
Mainly because I think preventing people from disallowing firearms from being included as part of the contents of an automobile that accesses their own property amounts to a power grab by government. Government power is always a threat to our freedom, and at some date can always be turned against RKBA, as has traditionally been done by governments.
But I think you make a very good point, one that comes close to convincing me: if businesses become monolithic in their prohibition of guns in their parking lots, then indeed our RKBA would be infringed. For instance, I routinely drive up and down the east coast with various guns aboard my truck - what if all the fueling stops decided your vehicle coundn't contain a gun while you were fueling up? No question that RKBA is infringed at that point.
What I'm saying is that if we do get to that point, or something like it, or if you can convince me that we're already there, then I'll sadly agree that such laws are absolutely needed. For the time being, I'm not convinced that parking lot bans are monolithic though.
BTW, I would see the need for it as somewhat analagous (insofar as it represents an infringement on freedom) to the need for the original civil rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. In my mind, Americans should have the freedom to refuse service customers arbitrarily, without qualification. Unfortunately, we refused service on the basis of race, monolithically, this lack of virtue resulted in a loss of a bit of our freedom, the freedom to choose part of our customer base. And in turn, the government assumed a little more power, something that I oppose on principle, but something that was necessary in that case.
The article doesn't make clear how the law applies to residential property, or whether it differentiates between various types of businesses.
As an aside, I thought of another analogy. If you enter the Bahamas by boat, you are absolutely not allowed to be armed. However, the Bahamas considers firearms to be a legitimate part of a ship's equipment, so they do allow firearms on the boat, so long as they stay on the boat under lock and key. It's an enlightened policy, IMO, and one that other island nations do not necessarily follow.
I haven't had a chance to go fishing in quite a while, sometime soon, no later.
Many of the villages are very Liberal. The Univ of Alaska has its share of Liberals, but they keep their heads down because the students will speak up in class and confront them instantly if there is any hint of prejudice in that respect. A lot of that is due to the presence, in most classes, of returning, i.e., mature, students who have seen some of the world for themselves.
The keeping of a gun inside one's vehicle is a right and as such can not be abridged.
Why was this so written? So that some who just stops off enroute to other destinations does not lose his right to keep & bear arms.
That which locked in a visitor's car is considered not to have entered private property in the same sense that a gun on a visitor's person would be.
114 GladesGuru
Well put. -- It's amazing that so many have problems understanding such a simple concept.
GladesGuru, I've been on the minority side in most of these parking lot debates, when I've participated.
Mainly because I think preventing people from disallowing firearms from being included as part of the contents of an automobile that accesses their own property amounts to a power grab by government.
These laws have been passed at the request of citizens, citizens whose rights are being infringed, and who have petitioned their legislators for redress. Oklahoma, Utah, & Alaska have such laws, and other States are considering them egged on by groups like the NRA.
Government power is always a threat to our freedom, and at some date can always be turned against RKBA, as has traditionally been done by governments.
Your 'fears' are groundless in this instance.
The article doesn't make clear how the law applies to residential property, or whether it differentiates between various types of businesses.
Google up the statute then; -- and apply common law & common sense standards to how its written. -- As will the people of Alaska.
There were only 10,000 or so permits granted. The presence of the permit system affects general attitudes more than actual individual cases. The number of travellers to Outside destinations is in the millions each year, so permits are not significant to that industry. Alaskans travel, some of the most traveled people there are.
Their rights are not being infringed, until such practices become monolithic. Demonstrate to me that they are monolithic and I will agree with your position, as I stated. But for the time being, people are not being forced to take those jobs, nor are they forced to park in those lots.
In a pure democracy, you are right, the majority will rule; but that is not to say that their rule will be just. Nor do we live in a pure democracy, luckily.
I agree that GladesGluru's post is extemely well put, the best put I've seen this entire debate.
These laws have been passed at the request of citizens, citizens whose rights are being infringed, and who have petitioned their legislators for redress. Oklahoma, Utah, & Alaska have such laws, and other States are considering them, - egged on by groups like the NRA.
Their rights are not being infringed, until such practices become monolithic.
Amusing contention, that rights are not being violated unless they are 'uniformly' infringed upon. Who thought up that one?
Demonstrate to me that they are monolithic and I will agree with your position, as I stated.
I'm really starting to doubt that. The more you keep coming up with off the wall reasons, the more I doubt.
But for the time being, people are not being forced to take those jobs, nor are they forced to park in those lots.
We went over those facts previously. -- Most local governments force companies to provide off street parking for employee use.
As for jobs, companies cannot require you to abandon your RKBA's in order to hold a job.
faireturn, in answer to the question of whether the right to control a parking lot is universal or individual, even if every business in the land decreed that vehicles containing firearms were prohibited from their parking lots, they would be within their rights. However, IMO, if they did that it would create an intolerable situation, one that should result in the loss of the right.
Like I've tried to make clear, I hate to see us giving up our rights, whether it be control of personal property or the RKBA, but if we abuse them, we will lose them.
As an aside, businesses cannot make you give up the RKBA, only the state can threaten us with the power of law.
--- if every business in the land decreed that vehicles containing firearms were prohibited from their parking lots, they would be within their rights.
Not according to our constitutions 2nd amendment. - It "shall not be infringed"; --- which is part of the law of the land that we all are obligated to support & defend, businessmen included.
However, IMO, if they did that it would create an intolerable situation, one that should result in the loss of the right.
Businessmen have no such 'right' or power to infringe upon anyone else's 2nd amendment rights.
Like I've tried to make clear, I hate to see us giving up our rights, whether it be control of personal property or the RKBA, but if we abuse them, we will lose them.
Some businessmen are trying to abuse our RKBA's under the guise of protecting 'parking lot rights'. You've only made your support for these businessmen 'clear'.
As an aside, businesses cannot make you give up the RKBA,
For sure not in Alaska, Oklahoma & Utah, to date. Other states will follow.
only the state can threaten us with the power of law.
Obviously; -- just as it is also the duty of the state to help us protect our rights with the power of law.
My support is not for businessmen who like gun free parking lots, it is for their rights, which are also our rights.
why is there a S&W boycott?
Dear faireturn,
Alaskans realize that an armed society is s peaceful society.
There's a combo for ya.
Then they assume responsibility for your safety, correct, and can be sued?
The second amendmnent only protects us from federal infringement. States are guided solely by their state constitutions.
Down your pants of course! Is that a big gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? :)
Someone can't, that's for sure. Article VI says the U.S. Constitution (the contract) is the law of the land. That's it.
Parts of the Constitution apply to the states; parts to the federal government. The second amendment is one of those "parts to the federal government".
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.