Citizens can challenge state, local gun laws

It is purposely generic because they were not attempting to specify exactly all specific things they considered “arms”, as they understood that weapons would change over time. The principle of self defense and being able to defend oneself with whatever instrument constituted “arms” is what was being protected. Hell, a hammer becomes “arms” if used in self defense. A pitchfork becomes “arms” if you have to defend yourself with it. Chain saw. Pipe wrench. Sword. Musket. Glock. Lamp. Rock. The principle remains the same.”

That’s the part that usually gets discussed and the part that I’m less concerned with right now, except to comment that I wonder what to say to an LEO who asks me “Do you have any weapons?” As your comments imply, I almost always have something that could be a weapon if I wanted to use it as such. :)

“Bear” means to carry. While states cannot stop you from doing so (unless you’re a felon and served jail > 1 yr), they can set lawful regulations as to HOW people are to carry. Open or concealed. In the past generally everyone carried openly, whatever the “arms” were. Thieves generally carried concealed weapons. Hence things like forearm handshakes (to check for hidden daggers). .

That’s of more interest to me right now. You present what I consider to be an assumption that the “right to keep and bear arms” is not infringed by denying it to someone who has committed a felony. What’s the basis for that assumption or if it is a fact, why is it a fact? Should there not be some relationship between the felony and the keeping and bearing of arms? If littering becomes a felony would denial of the right to keep and bear arms based on a felony littering conviction be OK?

Regarding “In the past generally everyone carried openly, whatever the “arms” were”, I read once a long time ago (before I was really interested in all this) that in the early part of the nineteenth century concealed carry was made illegal in some jurisdictions because open carry was legal and anyone carrying concealed weapons obviously had some criminal intent that concealment would aid. Does that mean the “right to keep and bear arms” did or does not extend to concealed carry? Does it mean the right does not cover the keeping and bearing or arms for criminal purposes?

How about the conflict between the “right to keep and bear arms” and property rights? Some say that the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms” does not include doing so on someone else’s property without their permission, which would mean making it illegal to do so would not be an infringement (though they seldom word it that way). On the other hand, I don’t recall assertions that one completely gives up other rights when on someone else’s property. For instance there's still the liberty to leave and the freedom of speech to call for help if assaulted.

What we got in Heller was a big step in the right direction but it allows government to regulate gun possession in ways the authors never intended, such as licensing gun owners, registering guns, banning certain types of guns, and requiring government's permission to carry a gun anywhere except on personally owned property.

I'm more optimistic. Think of the right to vote. There's no poll tax any more. All these licensing and registration schemes will go out the window when the gov't can't charge fees for them. Why should folks in Vermont and Alaska have more Second Amendment rights than folks in gun grabbing havens? Prohibitions for violent felons and those who are a threat to themselves and others are the only prohibitions that make sense.

Generally this is where the courts have an important role, if it already has not been spelled out in laws and statutes.

True and something that is forgotten. People too frequently have a lot of trouble with a decision that goes against them in a conflict of rights.

They have no compelling reason to have to use a certain store…”

I think that view is too “urban/civilized” for a discussion on basic rights. There have been times when and there are places where “a certain store” is the only one available. Cities and suburbs of cities, where there are many stores, are not the only places people have lived in the past or live today.

Generally the courts side with people being able to control what goes on on their property (home, business). Generally that right trumps anothers’ right to exercise what they want to do.

The Second Amendment to the USC is a statement of the existence of the right to keep and bear arms. Where is a similar statement regarding property rights so we can clearly see which right trumps in any given case?

Certain store issue: the fact is that nobody puts a gun to their head and says “You must use that store, and therefore must disarm.”

Bottom line is, if you don’t agree that people cannot determine what others can and cannot do on property THEY own, we have no freedom at all. Whether we’re all toting guns or not. If you cannot control your own property and say either “It is ok to be armed” or “It is not ok to be armed”, the property owner’s rights are gone. When you cannot use your own property the way you want, that is not freedom. It’s socialism, or fascism, or communism.

If the neighbor you don’t get along with comes onto your property armed, and you don’t want them there armed, are you saying you don’t have the right to tell him to leave? Of course you do. If a friend of yours comes over armed, can you decide to allow him to stay on your property armed? You bet. Can you decide to let your friend be armed if he visits you at your house, but if you have a business you don’t want anyone walking into armed, can you do that? Damn right you can.

The property owner has more vested in the game than the non-property owner. It’s his land, it’s his stuff, and he can set the rules because it is PRIVATE PROPERTY. It is not PUBLIC PROPERTY. If you cannot control your own private property you have no control at all.

What all that means is that once I’m on your property your property rights trump my right to liberty and unless you let me I have no right to leave.

What all that means is that once I’m on your property your property rights trump my right to free speech and unless you let me I have no freedom of speech to say “No” or call for help in the face of sexual advances or assault.

What all that means is that once I’m on your property your property rights trump my property rights and unless you let me I have no right to keep any money or anything else I have in my pockets .

I know that’s not what you actually wrote. But it’s the underlying meaning of what you wrote.

The right to keep and bear arms is stated in the Constitution. Where are the property rights you claim stated with equal authority?

I’m not going to argue with you, you’re simply writing things I never said. You do not know how to read things clearly without ‘reading in’ your own distortions.

Your examples are totally bogus and disengenuous. You sound like a liberal and a communist. I am not trying to be insulting, but that’s what you sound like.

What it means is that if I don’t want you on my property you have no right (no legal claim against me) to be on my property. What it means is if I say it is okay for you to be on my property, you can be there. If I don’t want you carrying a gun on my property, you don’t have a right to carry a gun on my property. If I say it’s okay for you to carry a gun on my property, it’s okay for you to do so, as long as I say it is. It means that if I tell you to leave my property, you have no right (no legal claim) to stay on my property, and you need to get off my property.

What don’t you get about the concept of private property? The right to property and its control is where all our other rights come from, including the right to possess personal weapons.

The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments deal with property rights, at least with respect to what the government can and cannot do to person’s property. Common law that predates the Constitution recognized people’s right to private property and their ability to control what occurs on that property.

From Cato:
America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution they protected property rights—the rights of people to freely acquire, use, and dispose of property.

It is no accident that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to justice for all protects property rights. Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. Every legal claim, after all, is a claim to something—either a defensive claim to keep what one is holding or an offensive claim to something someone else is holding. John Locke, the philosophical father of the American Revolution and
the inspiration for Thomas Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, stated the issue simply: ‘‘Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property.’’

Here’s a good link to Cato’s document on this, it’s good:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-34.pdf

Another good read:

http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/articles/ril22.htm

It seems to me that you aren't thinking through to the (unintended) consequences of what you wrote.

Property is the foundation of every right we have...

I'd have to see a strong argument, not a mere assertion, that someone who is not alive can exercise property rights (or any other right) before I could agree that property, not life or the right to life, is the foundation of every right we have. So far as I know, without life you've got nothing, at least in this world.

Thanks for the links. They'll have to wait a little, particularly the Cato one. It's too long for tonight.

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.