Posted on 02/08/2006 7:13:35 AM PST by neverdem
The liability falls on the owner of the property, and it comes down to the property owner to make the decision as to what may serve him best.
While I disagree with the idea, the property owner may believe that no guns protects his interests better than guns do, and since all liability falls on him, it is on him that the decision should rest on how to best address the possibility of liability.
You still don't own that property, whoever pays taxes on it gets to set rules for access, not you.
So as I said before, decisions would best be made on the side of individual liberty. Decisions made by the business owner, preferably.
That's not true at all, you are not impeded from carrying to and from, you are inconvenienced by having to park elsewhere, that's all.
There is no Constitutional right guaranteeing you to be free from being inconvenienced by your insistence on exercising your Constitutional rights.
You can enter my property according to my rules, or you can park elsewhere. How I chose to exercise my rights as a property owner is none of YOUR business.
I pay taxes on my property, you don't.
Individual liberty is enforced when the owner freely decides to not allow anyone to park on his lot if they carry a gun, and the person carrying the gun choses to park elsewhere.
Individual liberties are lost when one of the two individuals involved are forced, via force of government, to act against their wishes when it comes to their individual rights.
We really don't have a free market. The state controls about 40% to 60% of our economy depending on what you count (direct and indirect taxation, regulation, and so on).
Many, if not most, large corporations receive some sort of federal aid or subsidy (sometimes this "aid" is in the form of making it difficult for smaller competitors to compete, but it is still aid). If the government gives assistance to a corporation, then that corporation enacts an anti-gun policy, isn't the government de facto infringing upon the 2nd amendment?
The government does this all the time. There are all sorts of laws regulating what you can and cannot do on "your" (stop paying your taxes and find out who really owns it) property. If you conduct a business open to the public or have employees on your own property, there are even more rules to follow. Do you support the repeal of ALL of these laws? If not, you're just being a chump to allow big corporations to run over the Rights of individual citizens.
If forcing me via legislation to allow you to enter my property bearing arms against my wishes is conservative, then imminent domain is as well.
No comparison whatsoever.
Now, list some of those laws you're making reference to and we can discuss them...I'm not about to have some global, vague "they already do all these things, why not this" bullsh#t session that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You're dreaming.
They are both a violation of the individual's property rights by other people via the force of government.
We're not talking about your private residence here, we're talking about a place of employment. As you are aware, there are all sorts of rules and laws that apply at the latter.
You can't demand that your workers all be a certain skin color or religion. You can't demand that your workers surrender their jobs one day before they are vested in the company pension plan. You can't pay them in company script. You can't dictate who they vote for. You can't dicate who they sleep with. And so on.
And you shouldn't be able to dicate what they have in their privately owned vehicle, unless you pay for that vehicle, and pay the employee for time to and from work.
The government may not abridge a citizen's right to bear arms, I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution.
Perfect example...if you come on my property and start conducting Islamic prayer services in my yard, I'll have you removed, by force if necessary, because your right of freedom of religion does not supersede my rights as a property owner.
Your rights end where mine begin. -72-
Luis Gonzalez argued recently:
--- we govern according to what the Constitution says.
It says that Amendments apply to the States, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Luis, Article VI goes on to say that all officials "-- shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; --"
Do you disagree with this principle?
Have you ever served in any official capacity, been a member of the armed forces, or a naturalized citizen?
-- All of us have sworn that oath.. -- Would you refuse on the basis that "-- I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution. --"?
All this started when a large corporation in Oklahoma brought in dogs to sniff through their workers vehicles. They "hit" on several vehicles, and the company then conducted a search of those vehicles. They found some guns and fired the workers that had them in their vehicles. The OK legislature then acted to put an end to this nonsense.
Does being a "conservative" now mean supporting multinational corporations conducting Soviet-style invasions of privacy against their workers?
The truth is that this is NOT something that should happen in America. Corporations shouldn't be able to rifle through their workers vehicles any more than they should be able to dictate who they vote for, or who they sleep with. Of course, you could argue "contract law" to defend any of the above. But when contract law unduly infringes upon individual Rights, the state has the power and the obligation to step in and stop it.
You cannot contract away your basic Rights. Period.
That Constitution does not give you the right to violate my rights as a property owner, and my right as an individual to my property and my person is as inviolate as your right to be protected from the government disallowing you to bear arms.
We are discussing individual liberties here.
The right of the individual who owns the parking lot, and the right of the individual who owns the gun.
When are the individual rights of all best served?
Are they better served when the individual who owns the property makes the free decision not to allow guns in his property, and the individual who owns the gun makes the decision to not enter the property without his gun, or are individual rights better served when the many (those not owning that parking lot) use the force of government to violate the individual rights of the few (parking lot owners)?
You best defend that Constitution when you disallow the government from violating the individual rights of the citizens, not when you facilitate the violation of those rights by the many acting in concert with the government.
Why does the liability fall on the property owner? Is this not a result of actions by the state (judicial and legislative)?
Therefore, if state action (placing all liability on the property owner) is the reason for banning guns, is this not a de facto infringement on the 2nd amendment by the state?
You can also list your business at anticcw.com.
Come on man, you can't be this thick and actually believe yourself a conservative.
If I fall down on your drive way, you are liable for my injuries. If I am attacked on your property, you are liable for my injuries.
The reason for "banning" guns is that the property owner has the right AS A PROPERTY OWNER to set rules and conditions for your access and continued presence in his property.
Your right to free speech does not exist in my property, and should you decide to exercise that right in a manner not consistent with my beliefs, I can (and will) have you thrown out...by force if need be.
How about if my skin is black, and you require that people have white skin before entering your parking lot?
Your arguments sound a lot like the segregationists in the South. By chance are you a former Dixiecrat?
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.