Wrong... Constitutionally, the rite to self-defense will trump personal property rites. There is a reason for it being the 2nd Amendment.
Do you believe that self-defense trumps property in all cases? In other words, do I not have the right to refuse someone entry to my property because I do not want them to be armed?
____
Do the same protections extend to the free speech rights of the 1st amendment? So that I would also not be allowed to deny entry to my property to someone holding or expressing beliefs I find repulsive?
____
Timm22
Bottom line is that it is Man’s God-given rite to ‘peaceably’ defend himself where ever he maybe. We have only been able to appropriately exercise this judicious use of force for the past 200-300 years thusly throwing off ‘most’ of the state’s yoke in addition to others whom by nature are compelled to oppress. If you chose not to properly defend yourself, that’s your unfettered prerogative. However, if I am ‘invited’ onto your property verbally by you or implicitly by way of a business, then you can be assured I will be able to appropriately defend myself since your invitation is more than likely open to nameless others in the community at large. That is an assumption I will defend just as my life. If I have no reason to be there in the first place, then as jesse jackson would put it, “The question is moot.”
As for the 1st, oddly enough, no. Nonetheless, the 2nd Amendment by its very nature is THE lynchpin not only to the Republic but as well to an open and civil society. Read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” and give the numbers a scant glance. I think it will be an illustrative exercise. Just remember, you’ll meet some of the the most polite at the range.
By the way, would you do MS-13 a big favor and put up a “Gun-Free-Zone” sign in your front yard?
No government has a monopoly on perpetuity. The 2nd is THE line we all man.
the Deets
Suppose a condition of my invitation is the requirement that any invitee be unarmed. I give ample notice of this condition well before anyone steps foot on the property. Would that situation qualify as one where you (or any other armed person) would have no reason to be on my property?
...By the way, would you do MS-13 a big favor and put up a “Gun-Free-Zone” sign in your front yard?
Why would I want to do that? I have no problem with people carrying weapons on my property. In fact, I generally feel safer when they do. I am familiar with Lott's work and I've quoted it to gun control advocates in other debates.
I don't think a person *should* ban weapons on their property. It's a dumb thing to do. This is just one of those areas where I believe a person has the right to do something stupid, if that's what they want.
If the property owner wants to subject himself to an increased risk, and any of his visitors also agree to accept that increased risk, who are we to tell them they have to do things differently?