Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
By Vin Suprynowicz
For years, Garry Watson, 49, of little Bunker, Mo., (population 390) had been squabbling with town officials over the sewage line easement which ran across his property to the adjoining, town-operated sewage lagoon.
Residents say officials grew dissatisfied with their existing easement, and announced they were going to excavate a new sewer line across the landowner's property. Capt. Chris Ricks of the Missouri Highway Patrol reports Watson's wife, Linda, was served with "easement right-of-way papers" on Sept. 6. She gave the papers to Watson when he got home at 5 a.m. the next morning from his job at a car battery recycling plant northeast of Bunker. Watson reportedly went to bed for a short time, but arose about 7 a.m. when the city work crew arrived.
"He told them 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you,' " Bunker resident Gregg Tivnan told me last week. "Then the three city workers showed up with a backhoe, plus a police officer. They'd sent along a cop in a cop car to guard the workers, because they were afraid there might be trouble. Watson had gone inside for a little while, but then he came out and pulled his SKS (semi-automatic rifle) out of his truck, steadied it against the truck, and he shot them."
Killed in the September 7 incident, from a range of about 85 yards, were Rocky B. Gordon, 34, a city maintenance man, and David Thompson, 44, an alderman who supervised public works. City maintenance worker Delmar Eugene Dunn, 51, remained in serious but stable condition the following weekend.
Bunker police Officer Steve Stoops, who drove away from the scene after being shot, was treated and released from a hospital for a bullet wound to his arm and a graze to the neck.
Watson thereupon kissed his wife goodbye, took his rifle, and disappeared into the woods, where his body was found two days later -- dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Following such incidents, the local papers are inevitably filled with well-meaning but mawkish doggerel about the townsfolk "pulling together" and attempting to "heal" following the "tragedy." There are endless expressions of frustration, pretending to ask how such an otherwise peaceful member of the community could "just snap like that."
In fact, the supposedly elusive explanation is right before our eyes.
"He was pushed," Clarence Rosemann -- manager of the local Bunker convenience store, who'd done some excavation work for Watson -- told the big-city reporters from St. Louis. Another area resident, who didn't want to be identified, told the visiting newsmen, "Most people are understanding why Garry Watson was upset. They are wishing he didn't do it, but they are understanding why he did it."
You see, to most of the people who work in government and the media these days -- especially in our urban centers -- "private property" is a concept out of some dusty, 18th century history book. Oh, sure, "property owners" are allowed to live on their land, so long as they pay rent to the state in the form of "property taxes."
But an actual "right" to be let alone on our land to do whatever we please -- always providing we don't actually endanger the lives or health of our neighbors?
Heavens! If we allowed that, how would we enforce all our wonderful new "environmental protection" laws, or the "zoning codes," or the laws against growing hemp or tobacco or distilling whisky without a license, or any of the endless parade of other malum prohibitum decrees which have multiplied like swarms of flying ants in this nation over the past 87 years?
What does it mean to say we have any "rights" or "freedoms" at all, if we cannot peacefully enjoy that property which we buy with the fruits of our labors?
In his 1985 book "Takings," University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein wrote that, "Private property gives the right to exclude others without the need for any justification.
Indeed, it is the ability to act at will and without need for justification within some domain which is the essence of freedom, be it of speech or of property."
"Unfortunately," replies James Bovard, author of the book "Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen," "federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors are making private property much less private. ...
Park Forest, Ill. in 1994 enacted an ordinance that authorizes warrantless searches of every single-family rental home by a city inspector or police officer, who are authorized to invade rental units 'at all reasonable times.' ... Federal Judge Joan Gottschall struck down the searches as unconstitutional in 1998, but her decision will have little or no effect on the numerous other localities that authorize similar invasions of privacy."
We are now involved in a war in this nation, a last-ditch struggle in which the other side contends only the king's men are allowed to use force or the threat of force to push their way in wherever they please, and that any peasant finally rendered so desperate as to employ the same kind of force routinely employed by our oppressors must surely be a "lone madman" who "snapped for no reason." No, we should not and do not endorse or approve the individual choices of folks like Garry Watson. But we are still obliged to honor their memories and the personal courage it takes to fight and die for a principle, even as we lament both their desperate, misguided actions ... and the systematic erosion of our liberties which gave them rise.
I see that you're descending into your usual juvenile tactics.
I was just correcting you on your correcting me. I said it was a bill, you said it was a proposed bill. You are incorrect. It is a bill.
And your continued diversions such as 'neener neener' and calling me Marsha (Where on earth did you get that?) results in a loss of credibility.
"Nope, the bills object is to stop an employer from banning weapons from his employees private property, their vehicles." -- tpaine
(b) Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply: (1) To an employer providing applicable employees with a secure parking area which restricts general public access. -- The Bill
"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine
"As Luis commented, there ~is~ an 'age old tradition' [reinforced by our 4th] that people have a right to be "secure in their person, houses, --"; thus they can ban arms from their home property." -- tpaine"Our US Constitution makes it clear that the peoples owning & carrying of arms is not to be infringed. - By anyone" -- tpaine
"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine
"I fight against majority rule." -- tpaine"How many millions of our peers support the NRA & similar gun orgs luis?" -- tpaine
"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine
"I fight against majority rule." -- tpaine"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine"How many millions of our peers support the NRA & similar gun orgs luis?" -- tpaine
"Authoritarian socialism is a political disease just as bad as liberal socialism, -- all socialists, left & right, -- want to enforce majority rule by government force." -- tpaine"I think it fair to say that throughout this threads discussions, you've been playing wordgames with the truth." -- tpaine"Actually, millions of us, -- and the NRA, - are demanding that governments do their duty and stop business parking lot owner's from violating an individuals right to carry arms in vehicles." -- tpaine
--Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?--
Pardon? You were the one that linked to the article on the bill you were supporting that allowed employers to ban weapons from private parking lots. You were the one caught denying that it would. Why? What is your agenda?
Luis,
I'm not familiar with this story. I just put a place marker so I can come back and review it.
'Pod.
When you decide to ignore my rules of access and bring something into my property that I don't want in there, you've stolen from me part of my rights as a propriety owner.
Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights.
You want what's in YOUR property to be respected, Correct. Nothing in your employees vehicle is your business.
while claiming that you don't have to respect what's in MY property.
Wrong. Nothing in your employees vehicle dis-'respects' what's in YOUR property. -- Even the concept is ludicrous.
When you decide to ignore my rules of access and bring something into my property that I don't want in there, you've stolen from me part of my rights as a propriety owner.
Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights.
You want what's in YOUR property to be respected, Correct. Nothing in your employees vehicle is your business.
while claiming that you don't have to respect what's in MY property.
Wrong. Nothing in your employees vehicle dis-'respects' what's in YOUR property. -- Even the concept is ludicrous.
Everything that you bring into my property is my business.
What right do you have to be on someone else's property against their wishes?
How telling is it that you refuse to answer that?
When you decide to ignore my rules of access and bring something into my property that I don't want in there, you've stolen from me part of my rights as a propriety owner.
Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights.
Everything that you bring into my property is my business.
Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights.
What right do you have to be on someone else's property against their wishes? How telling is it that you refuse to answer that?
Circular non-answer. --- Nothing in your employees vehicle affects a business owner`s private property rights. And it is obviously your 'wish' that your employees park on the designated lot.
You want what's in YOUR property to be respected,
Correct. Nothing in your employees vehicle is your business.
while claiming that you don't have to respect what's in MY property.
Wrong. Nothing in your employees vehicle dis-'respects' what's in YOUR property. -- Even the concept is ludicrous.
Why then do you ~want~ to give employers the power to ban guns from vehicles?
"-- Our existence carries a social contract that should be secured by the Rule of Law; whereas nowadays we progressively appear to be be enslaved by Mob Rule and survival of the fittest. --"
Well put. Our constitutional social contract should indeed be secured by the rule of law.
Watson insisted that ~his~ rules over his property trumped our rule of law.
Luis Gonzalez insists that ~his~ rules over his property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.
Luis's ludicrous counter:
No, you insist that your gun gives you the right to be on my propety against my wishes. Something that most murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves agree witn you on.
No luis, you absolutists insist that ~your~ rules about parking lots trump our constitutional rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.
Dream on.
The Bill of Rights impose restrictions on government, I've substantiated that with the Founder's own words during the debates surrounding the crafting of the Bill of Rights, as well as in posting standing case law...which means that by your own definition of public policy, the Second imposes no restrictions on private property owners.
Neither the Constitution of The United States, nor any State Constitution imposes the limitations detailed in the Bill opf Rihts on citizens. No statute, either Federal or State sets such a standard.
Property was considered a far greater right than any other right by the Founders; I substantiated that with the Founder's own words. They understood that without property there is no liberty.
Trespassing, defined as being on someone else's property against their expressed wishes, is illegal in every State of the Union; there are little if any limitations on what reasons private property owners may invoke to exclude anyone not bearing a properly issued Court order from their property, as a matter of fact, no reason need be given as to why property owners can exclude others from their property.
What laws exist prohibiting employers from banning guns from their company parking lots have come into being during the past two years, overturning long-standing tradition, and are being challenged on Constitutional grounds.
What you and the NRA are doing is in violation of the Constitution.
If passed, the legislation would allow employees to store the firearms in their cars or trucks in parking lots at their workplaces, as long as those areas are open to the public.
"If John Q. Public can drive in there with a gun, and the company would never know it, then they can't prohibit their employees from doing it," said Sen. Chip Rogers, R-Woodstock, the plan's sponsor.
Rogers said the plan is mainly geared toward employees of stores and restaurants with public parking. He said he did not know of any cases in Georgia in which employees were banned from keeping firearms in those instances.
So...if the employer marks off an area of the parking lot, calls it "Employee parking", does not allow the public to use it, makes it a rule of employment that all employees must park in the designated employee parking zone, and then bans guns from that area, all customers will have guns, and the employees will be forbidden IN ACCORDANCE TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW SUPPORTED BY YOU AND THE NRA, from having a gun in their vehicle while they work.
Brilliant...just brilliant.
"...as he did not know of any cases in Georgia in which employees were banned from keeping firearms in those instances."
So, you fixed what wasn't broken?
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Luis's ludicrous counter:
No, you insist that your gun gives you the right to be on my propety against my wishes. Something that most murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves agree witn you on.
No luis, you absolutists insist that ~your~ rules about parking lots trump our constitutional rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles. -- Dream on.
The Bill of Rights impose restrictions on government,
Our Constitution and its Amendments are our Law of the Land, and all of the people who live in the USA are bound to honor that Law. -- You and I swore an oath to that effect luis. -- Can you admit that?
I've substantiated that with the Founder's own words during the debates surrounding the crafting of the Bill of Rights, as well as in posting standing case law...which means that by your own definition of public policy, the Second imposes no restrictions on private property owners.
Your own sworn oath belies you luis. You swore to support & defend our Constitution - did you not?
Neither the Constitution of The United States, nor any State Constitution imposes the limitations detailed in the Bill opf Rihts on citizens. No statute, either Federal or State sets such a standard.
Dream on luis. You deny your own oath.
Property was considered a far greater right than any other right by the Founders; I substantiated that with the Founder's own words. They understood that without property there is no liberty.
Our constitution does not enumerate property as being considered "-- a far greater right than any other right. --" You're dreaming again luis.
Trespassing, defined as being on someone else's property against their expressed wishes, is illegal in every State of the Union; there are little if any limitations on what reasons private property owners may invoke to exclude anyone not bearing a properly issued Court order from their property, as a matter of fact, no reason need be given as to why property owners can exclude others from their property.
Bold dreams again luis. Your contracts for workers on your property cannot violate our laws/public policy's regarding our individual rights to arms.
What laws exist prohibiting employers from banning guns from their company parking lots have come into being during the past two years, overturning long-standing tradition, and are being challenged on Constitutional grounds. What you and the NRA are doing is in violation of the Constitution.
So you Brady Bunchers claim, as you disregard your own oaths to support & defend the 2nd Amendment.
You lie about the issue, which betrays the fact that you have no issue.
The issue is not driving, you're not supporting legislation about driving, you're supporting legislation about parking.
The issue is parking on someone else's property against their expressed wishes.
You have no inherent right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes...so you lie about it.
What right do you have to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes?
Answer that very simple question and you win this argument...but you won't because you can't.
I'm not a "Brady Buncher", I'm a John Adams Buncher facing you Karl Marx Bunchers down.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." -- John Adams
I'm defending the Constitution from the likes of you.
Can you answer anything at all t?
What gives you the right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes?
You're pitiful, and your efforst have hurt your own crusade.
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.