Replies

Well reasoned and well expressed, Jeff.

Especially, ‘ ...in none of this have I violated your right to bear arms. I have asked you as the owner of the property in question to not bring them ... you are still free to choose either not to come, to come without them, or, as I have said, to bring them anyway and then be responsible for that decision.

I haven’t the time to read all of the responses on this thread just now (although I will when time permits), so forgive any repetition of opinion.

You and I are well aware of each others’ resolute determination to protect and defend our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But our Second Amendment RKBA does not trump the right of others to define what they are willing to abide on their own private property.

Recent government abuses of the once well-contained concept of eminent domain have certainly brought to the forefront the need to retain private property rights as among our three most important Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

And the Florida Chamber of Commerce vs. the NRA is yet another example (albeit significantly less offensive) of encroachment on that same right. The NRA may view its bill as noble, but its concept of nobility, in this case, is misplaced.

A business has every right to decide whether its employees may bring potentially dangerous items onto its property – especially, but not only, due to safety and insurance concerns. A good business, similarly, would view ensuring the safety of its employees as an obligation. If mandating that guns be disallowed on its property falls under that umbrella, then any employee who insists on carrying a gun to that place of employment is free to find employment elsewhere.

Such a business is not infringing on its employees’ RKBA. It is merely defining the employees’ RKBA on private property. What is the advantage of private property over public, if not the inherent ability to define the conditions under which it exists or is disposed of?

Among other carefully enumerated rights, the Constitution also guarantees us the rights to free speech and free assembly. But I have the right to curb your speech on my property, simply by telling you that, if you take the name of the Lord in vain in my home, I am going to ask you to leave. And, if you decide that you want to assemble a group of people in my front yard before marching down to picket in support of a nearby abortion clinic, I have a right to tell you that your freedom of such assembling ends at my property line.

With the exception of the right to life, your individual rights end where my private property begins.

At the same time, I think there are at least two (and probably more, that I haven’t considered) liberty-eroding forces that could be at work in a business’s decision to ban guns on its property:

(1) One concern would be whether the ban on guns is the result of government interference with business practices (such as the often unreasonable dictates handed down by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration). If a business’s decision not to allow guns on-site is solely the result of government strong-arm tactics, then the ban takes on an entirely different property rights vs. individual liberty context.

(2) Another concern would be whether the ban on guns is a result of trial lawyer machinations. If, say, a business has been sued because of the irresponsible action of one employee (similarly to the way gun manufacturers are sued when one individual uses one of their guns in the commission of a crime), then those businesses are being extorted into submission, and the banning of guns, by the corrupt legal/judicial system rather than by a purely business decision.

IMO, the bottom line is: If there is no inherent government coercion or legal extortion involved in the decision, a business (just as would a private individual) has every right to tell you that your gun is not allowed on its/his property.

~ joanie ….

Agree with most of what ya said cept the private property thing. Unless you have controlled / posted access to your private property then what I have in my vehicle or on my person is legal until you ask me to not bring said items on your property and post or gate it.

Now if I have put 17 years at acme inc making nerf cars errr whatever and acme inc decides to ban something in the middle of my career I don't think that is proper either. New employees can be briefed as to their choice or lack of in the employment agreements but I would grandfather the current crop of workers for such a rule if I were the judge in such a case. Through simple attrition such a policy IMO is legal if access to the property is limited, posted and controlled by a electronic or live rent a cop gate.

This argument has been on FR a few gazillion times so I suspect some will and won't agree but having carried since the ripe old age of 17 years old in some form or another and worked for Uncle Sugar and or his contractors this is what I have experienced and observed first hand.

Trust me I have complained and whined when defanged of my personal property, ability to defend myself and made to rely on others for my protection but it is my choice to quit and carry or stay and suffer.

I won't work where I can't carry........

I won't spend my money where I can't carry ......

I won't support any alleged pro gun organization that allows such a rule to pass muster.

Hope yer well and the new Casa is up and running !

Stay safe !!!

You are simply wrong.

A person's rights are the same whether they are on your property or not.

You mistakently think the fact that you can order someone off your property means you get to dictate their actions. Of course the fact you control the property gives you influence over them, this is not a right to violate their person.

A parking lot does not provide the same level of control as the inside of a home.

You may not allow someone to be in your lot but you have no right to invade his vehicle to determine what he has in it.

I am not arguing strict legal doctrine as we all know the government gives you very little actual control of your own property. I don't agree with that, but do agree they have an interest in keeping you from abusing your employees freedoms at your whim.

What is in my car parked in an area open to the public is just plain none of your business unless it poses some immediate danger to you.

Well said Joanie. I do not believe the force of government should be used to compel people in what they decide is best for their own property as long as they are not actively injuring others. People then have the choice of doing one of the three things I mentioned, and accepting responsibility for whatever course they take...thereby retaiing their own rights in the process.

It is a dangerous and a fatally slippery slope to use the force of law in such instances. The enemies of the very principle of the RKBA have been using them for so long...I pray we never join in on that when we have the majority...to force the countervailing views on them and their rights. It is just as wrong for us to do it to them ans for them to do it to us.

Anyhow...folks will debate this long after I am gone from this good green earth I am sure. I understand the desire to bear arms anywhere I go...but when it comes to a neighbor or someone else telling me to not carry on their property...then I generally choose to just go another way, staying armed in the process. In the back country...I go armed...and am willing to pay the fine and accept the responsibility of doing so should the owner confront me.

Sort of like seeing a no tresspassing sign and going around someone's property rather than going through it. It would not be right to indicate that my right to free travel trumps his right to post his property. Now, if my child was bleeding to death and going around would result in much more time in getting to the hospital...well, in that case I would go on through figuring that anybody of reason would understand...like speeding to a hospital with your pregnant wife.

Well, now I am rambling. Goodnight.

joanie-f wrote:

-- our Second Amendment RKBA does not trump the right of others to define what they are willing to abide on their own private property.

The 2nd is part of our "Law of the Land", -- as are property rights, -- neither of which 'trump' the other.
Reason dictates that a right to bear must include traveling to and from work.

-- the Florida Chamber of Commerce vs. the NRA is yet another example (albeit significantly less offensive) of encroachment on that same [private property] right.

A mandated customer/employee parking lot is not private property in a constitutional sense; it is part of doing business, -- forced on companies and employees alike by the way we commute.

The NRA may view its bill as noble, but its concept of nobility, in this case, is misplaced.

Defending our RKBA's to & from work is the correct thing to do.

A business has every right to decide whether its employees may bring potentially dangerous items onto its property – especially, but not only, due to safety and insurance concerns.

This 'dangerous' excuse is being used to bring about defacto gun control.
Business has no 'right' to ignore our public policy, our law of the land, our 2nd Amendment.

A good business, similarly, would view ensuring the safety of its employees as an obligation. If mandating that guns be disallowed on its property falls under that umbrella, then any employee who insists on carrying a gun to that place of employment is free to find employment elsewhere.
Such a business is not infringing on its employees' RKBA. It is merely defining the employees' RKBA on private property.

The employee is required to use the company lot by local ordinance. -- The employees RKBA's to & from work is being infringed.

What is the advantage of private property over public, if not the inherent ability to define the conditions under which it exists or is disposed of?

What advantage does business gain by banning guns?

Of course you do. -- This is not at issue.

With the exception of the right to life, your individual rights end where my private property begins.

This is simply not constitutionally true when you set up your private property as a business. -- Employees have human rights that are equal to your human rights as the owner.

-- snip --

Buildings, yes. Parking lots no. -- The people of quite a few States, [and more to come] can see through the 'dangerous item' excuse. -- Our RKBA's shall not be infringed by 'business'.