He said, 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you'

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."

"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.

"Dream on that ~you~ fellas can impune my crediblity." -- tpaine

Hell, you do that on your own.

"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

"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
"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

"Luis Gonzalez insists that ~his~ rules over his property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles." -- tpaine.

OK...so the argument is about carrying guns in your vehicle?

If that's the case, then show me verbiage in the proposed legislation in Georgia, or the legislations passed in either Oklahoma or Minessotta supporting the already existing right of people to carry weapons on their vehicles.

It's not there because that's not the issue.

"No luis, you absolutists insist that ~your~ rules about (PRIVATE) parking lots trump our constitutional rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles."

Ahhhh!!!!

So the issue is not about the gun in your vehicle, but rather about your vehicle on someone else's property!!!

What gives you the right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes t?

Luis Gonzalez insists that ~his~ rules over his property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.

OK...so the argument is about carrying guns in your vehicle?

Always has been luis; -- "the constitutions of the United States and all states except California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York protect the right to possess firearms for protection, recreation, sports, hunting, and other lawful purposes. Iowa and New Jersey`s constitutions protect the right to self-defense in general terms.

In 1998, Kentucky`s Attorney General determined that state law prohibits employers from prohibiting people from having firearms in their vehicles. Minnesota`s Right-to-Carry law (2003) prohibits employers from prohibiting carry permit holders from having firearms in their vehicles. Laws protecting the right of any lawful possessor of a firearm to have a firearm in a personally-owned vehicle were passed in Oklahoma and Alaska in 2005, and are currently under consideration in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Mississippi, and Virginia."

OK...so the argument is about carrying guns in your vehicle?
If that's the case, then show me verbiage in the proposed legislation in Georgia, or the legislations passed in either Oklahoma or Minessotta supporting the already existing right of people to carry weapons on their vehicles. It's not there because that's not the issue.

Wrong again luis. - See the quotes above. Luis, you absolutists insist that ~your~ rules about (PRIVATE) parking lots trump our constitutional rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.

Ahhhh!!!! So the issue is not about the gun in your vehicle, but rather about your vehicle on someone else's property!!! What gives you the right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes t?

Our employment contract specifies I can park on my employers property while I'm working, and no provisions of that contract can violate our laws/public policy's regarding our individual rights to carry arms in vehicles.

You Brady Bunchers insists that your rule over property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles, just as you disregard your own oaths to support & defend the 2nd Amendment.

"Our employment contract specifies I can park on my employers property while I'm working, and no provisions of that contract can violate our laws/public policy's regarding our individual rights to carry arms in vehicles."

The Georgia Bill the NRA and you support creates the public policy that supports a private property owner's right to do just that.

"16-11-135.(a) Except as provided in this Code section, no private or public employer shall establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting an employee from transporting or storing a firearm in a locked motor vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other employee parking area.(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 through the use of a gate, security station, or other similar means of limiting public access into the parking area;

"Our employment contract specifies I can park on my employers property while I'm working"

Made up bull hockers, created out of whole cloth and your fertile imagination.

Contracts specify only those things actually said in the contracts, if they say that you park conditionally, that's what you do.

You can't win this unless you answer a simple question...you know, the one you've avoided for going on two months now.

What gives you the right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes t?

What gives you the right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes t?

Made up bull hockers, created out of whole cloth and your fertile imagination. Contracts specify only those things actually said in the contracts, if they say that you park conditionally, that's what you do.

Contracts must comply with our Law of the Land, [ie - our public policy] to be enforceable. -- Contract provisions that violate our laws/public policy's regarding our individual rights to carry arms in vehicles are invalid.
Luis, you can't win this as you're ignoring both constitutional/contract law and common sense/common law . -- Give it up.

You can't win this unless you answer a simple question...you know, the one you've avoided for going on two months now. What gives you the right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes t?

You've been ignoring the answer above for two months now. You're stuck on 'property absolutism'.

You Brady Bunchers insist that your rule over property trumps our Law of the Land about carrying arms. -- Just as you disregard your own oaths to support & defend the 2nd Amendment.

I write employment contracts, and they do not specify any such thing, nor can you provide proof of anything even closely resembling. When contracts mention parking PRIVILEGES at all, they set the conditions for you to be ALLOWED to park on the property.

Further more, public policy, as defined by you, supports the rights of property owners to set rules of access to their property, if in doubt, check out the statute supported by you and the NRA in Georgia, which effectively protects the property owner's right to dictate to employees not only WHERE THEY MUST PARK, but WHAT THEY MAY HAVE IN THEIR CAR WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK.

The NRA supported a property owner's right to control access to their private property.

Your Marxist attempts to put a positive spin behind the eradication of private property, keeping in spirit with the Communist goal of eradicating it altogether are not going unnoticed.

"Communism is the positive expression of annulled private property." -- Karl Marx

Luis Gonzalez wrote:

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 of Rights on citizens. No statute, either Federal or State sets such a standard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Luis, you've been reading too much stuff like this:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE TIME BOMB IN OUR CONSTITUTION
by Kirk Brothers

In this Article we shall prove by at least preponderance of evidence that:

1) The so-called government of the United States is, de facto, operating in default;

2) We have no legal Constitution, and have had none for more than a century;
3) Every politician and Judge knows these facts to be true;

4) Our public schools, as a matter of official policy, suppress the truth of these facts, and teach propaganda designed to protect those in power by discouraging independent thinking on these crucial political realities.

You'll recall that, during the Revolutionary War, our fledg- ling nation had no time for orderly political processes, such as drafting basic legal documents like a Constitution. In default of a duly-written and ratified Constitution for our new Republic, the thirteen colonies fell back upon their pre-existing charters from the English crown, and the all-important rights embodied in English Common Law.

Now, we all talk about the Constitution, but most of us
don't stop to think very often about EXACTLY what a Constitution is. And if it isn't clear in our minds as to EXACTLY what a Constitution is, we can hardly do any rational thinking about it. So let's agree on the basic concept.

A Constitution is a unique type of CONTRACT--meaning, in the general sense, a legally-binding agreement. But the nature of its terms, and the large numbers of parties to the agreement, make it a UNIQUE contract--just as marriage is a unique contract.

In a Constitution, the people of a Republic agree on the
kind of government they shall have, and what LIMITS that
government MUST SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVE!

It is a popular misconception that a Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. That misconception was also prevalent in Paine's day, and in THE RIGHTS OF MAN Paine set forth the facts very clearly.

Government CANNOT be a party to the contract, for the simple and obvious reason that government does not come into existence until AFTER the contract has been duly ratified! The parties to the agreement are THE PEOPLE ALONE, whose representatives frame the contract for the people's CONSENT (ratification).

In a Constitution establishing a government, there is one
notable exception to one general rule of contract law--which
exception occurs in no other type of contract to our knowledge. That is, a Constitution may be binding if it be consented to by a MAJORITY of the citizens, rather than ALL. We must never forget that, in the final analysis, government is a form of NECESSARY COERCION, and the requirement of UNANIMOUS consent is necessarily void.

However, the voiding of ONE requirement--that of UNANIMOUS
consent--does NOT void ANY OTHER basic rule of Common Law of
contracts. Please take a few seconds to think about this next sentence--which we call the time bomb in our Constitution.

Death cancels all contracts.

Let us be more emphatic.

DEATH CANCELS ALL CONTRACTS.
EACH AND EVERY ONE.

It is, perhaps, debatable whether our Constitution was valid for a few years after the Framers had died--but it cannot be rationally argued that a contract executed by persons who are, each and every one, long dead, can be binding upon the living, by some perversion of Mortmain.
There can be no sane defense of a claim that anyone has ever had power to execute a contract which is BINDING UPON ALL GENERATIONS UNBORN!

Except in fictitious compacts with the Devil, NO CONTRACT IS FOREVER--under Common Law--and we are still a Common Law nation. The Constitution does not nullify or supplant Common Law--Common Law and the Constitution are merged.

Thomas Jefferson once remarked that every generation should write its own Constitution. This casual remark should not be dismissed as merely a "nice thing" that we "ought" to do--maybe! It is a LEGAL IMPERATIVE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Luis, for two months now you've been claiming, just like the guy above, -- that "-- Neither the Constitution of The United States, nor any State Constitution imposes the limitations detailed in the Bill of Rights on citizens. --"

Do you agree with this article?
Brothers argues like you, that: "-- it cannot be rationally argued that a contract executed by persons who are, each and every one, long dead, can be binding upon the living --"

t...substantiate the law of the land that compels me to do anything of what you claim I must do.

You haven't because you're wrong.

I can tell you what to wear, where to park, when to park, when not to park, where not to park, when you can smoke, when you can't smoke, when you can eat, wen you can't eat, when you must urinate into a cup, when you must submit yourself to a lie detector test, when I can search your car, when you're allowed on the property, when you're not, and I can change my mind about anything at all at any time, and all you can do is either accept my conditions and work, or not accept them and not work. I can even tell you what you CAN'T do after you quit my job and gone to another company.

Post the law of the land that tells me that I can't do any of the above.

Your word is not the law of the land, neither are Op Eds.

Post statutes.

I am defending the Constitution from being subverted by Marxists such as yourself.

You're trying to portray my exercising my Constitutionally protected rights as a property owner as being violations of the Constitution.

Marxist that you are.

The answer is that you have NO right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes, and to claim that your gun gives you that right is blatant crap.

No t, you haven't been reading anything beyond Lyndon LaRouche's (convicted felon) wild imaginings.

You need to read more of what The Founders said:

"One great object of Govt. is personal protection of the security of property." -- Alexander Hamilton

"Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." -- John Adams

"The right of property, is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty." -- Arthur Lee

"The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." -- John Adams Property -- This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." -- James Madison

“If therefore, any man, or body of men, claim a right to take away at pleasure from other men their property, and to dispose of it as they please[,] such claim tends to a dissolution of society, and is repugnant also to the law of nature, as it would place mankind in a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others.” -- Anonymous letter explaining the reasons behind the Boston Tea Party, published by the London Gazetteer on April 7, 1774

I agree with these men, they are all "property rights absolutists" in your book.

I write employment contracts, and they do not specify any such thing --

--- And luis, - you are violating your own oath to support & defend the Constitution, - by writing in such gungrabbing provisions. Be ashamed.

"--- you have NO right to be on someone else's property against their expressed wishes, and to claim that your gun gives you that right is blatant crap.

Your blatant hype that I've ever 'claimed that' is the "crap" here luis.

"Our employment contract specifies I can park on my employers property while I'm working."

There is no "our" commie, and if that contract also sets a condition to your parking PRIVILEGE that you can't carry a gun in your car, that's the rule.

"and no provisions of that contract can violate our laws/public policy's regarding our individual rights to carry arms in vehicles."

There are no laws that say that I must acquiesce control of my property to you as a result of my giving you a job, and if there is such a law, you have utterly failed to post it for the past two months. Furthermore, our public policies, being State Constitutions and judicial decisions, clearly state that the Second Amendment is a restriction on government, not an imposition on the individual.

I've detailed State statutes and quoted judicial decisions backing my position, you've done nothing more than repeat your same idiotic mantra.

Post back up already t...you're embarrassing yourself.

Bastible et al v. Weyerhaeuser (United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 13, 2006 ) The fact that the public is permitted to use the parking lot does not diminish its status as property belonging to Weyco. Weyco did not unlawfully infringe upon any right of plaintiffs in enforcing its no-firearms policy.
U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

You know what else clearly states that the Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the power of government?

The preamble to the Bill of Rights.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."

You should take some time off from reading Lyndon's demented crap and read that instead.

" And luis, - you are violating your own oath to support & defend the Constitution"

No I'm not, you're subverting the Constitution and turning it into a tool to violate property rights, just like the ACLU does, and the liberals within the SCOTUS did with the Kelo decision.

You stand on common ground with the liberals in the SCOTUS who decided Kelo...you argue in favor of the erosion of property rights by trying to give it a positive spin.

"Communism is the positive expression of annulled private property." -- Karl Marx

I'm protecting the Constitution from you.

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.