Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
So does the GA bill that you support.
Bill would let workers have guns in cars (GA)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
^ | 01/24/07 | SONJI JACOBS
Posted on 01/24/2007 3:00:17 PM PST by neverdem
Georgia lawmakers in both the House and Senate, backed by the National Rifle Association, are trying once again to pass a measure that would allow Georgians to leave registered guns in their vehicles while they are at work.
Seriously, though, private property rights do, IMO, trump certain other rights. The RKBA, for example. If a neighbor you visit demands you leave your weapons at the door (or at home), you're bound by their rules.
"I vuz only folliwink zee orders" didn't cut it at Nuremburg.
But seriously the shooter here would have had achieved a much better outcome if he'd gone after the folks who sent that $18,000 a year civil servant.
Maybe if these politicos see that there's a distinct possiblity of them paying a very high price for running roughshod over peoples property they'll be a bit more circumspect.
And if you can find a municipal sewer worker who makes 18 grand a year, I'll buy you lunch.
L L
I started this thread not knowing where tpaine was coming from but now I am more confused. He keeps needling me on my position which is in total agreement with the GA bill that he referenced and which he said he agreed with. I don't know your position but from some of your posts, it seems that you might also be in agreement with the GA bill.
;-)
I see it the following way; and this is the accepted and long-standing legal standing.
Since the Constitution does not delegate the power to set business regulations to the Federal government, then the power to enact statutes regarding parking lot regulations for privately owned companies falls on the States because the Constitution does not forbid the States from doing so -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In a State lacking specific statutes prohibiting private business owners from making their parking lots a gun-free zone, then the power to set those restrictions are left to the people, in this case, the property owners.
The Constitution is a grant of powers from the people to the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, not on people, so the Second Amendment is not a restriction on the actions of property owners on their own property.
You'll soon see that tpaine stands for the violation of all property rights in defense of his right to carry a gun on private property against the owner's wishes...under any and all circumstances.
I believe that the violation of property rights by citizens and the enlistement of the power of government to do so is every bit as wrong as the violation of Second Amendment rights by the government.
Rights can conflict, and when they do, you look down and see who owns the property you're standing on, and that individual wins.
The Boston Tea Party was a precursor to the Revolution. The actual Revolution had it's start at Lexington and Concord.
If memory serves me correctly, there was a bit of shooting there.
CA....
That's less than $350/week.
No one makes less than $350/week.
L
No one makes less than $350/week.
Huh????
On the same thread he both agreed with me that private property owners had a Constitutionally protected right to ban people with guns from their property, and disagreed with me that private property owners had the Constitutionally proptected right to keep people with guns from their property.
Here are his exact words:
1. Our US Constitution makes it clear that the peoples owning & carrying of arms is not to be infringed. - By anyone.
2. 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.
That's about right.
Here's a direct question...
Do property owners have the right to keep you off their property because you have a gun on you?
So, if the Georgia lawmakers and a national lobyist group are "trying once again" to pass a law allowing the citizens of the State to leave guns in their vehicles while they work, then OBVIOUSLY, the current "public policy" allows for the employer NOT to allow employees to have guns in their vehicle, in the company's parking lot, while they work.
Not at anything above a McJob.
Their dime, their dance floor.
L
The average salary in Howard County Mo was 19000 in 2000.
Reynolds County
Zip code: 63629
Median resident age: 35.4 years
Median household income: $19,659 (year 2000)
Median house value: $39,400 (year 2000)
You can't buy an empty lot for that anywhere in my County.
L
You wish luis. We've been fighting about individual rights & states 'rights' since day one.
Since the Constitution does not delegate the power to set business regulations to the Federal government, then the power to enact statutes regarding parking lot regulations for privately owned companies falls on the States because the Constitution does not forbid the States from doing so -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is your basic fallacy; -- you ignore "-- nor prohibited by it to the States --".
Our 2nd prohibits infringements on peoples rights to own & carry arms.
In a State lacking specific statutes prohibiting private business owners from making their parking lots a gun-free zone, then the power to set those restrictions are left to the people, in this case, the property owners.
Nope, "gun free zones" are clear infringements on our RKBA's, regardless of who initiates them. -- In fact, ALL of our lawmakers are bound to support & defend our RTBA's, along with all the rest of the "Law of the Land".
GA lawmakers are trying to do their duty, and stop these private infringements.
The Constitution is a grant of powers from the people to the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, not on people, so the Second Amendment is not a restriction on the actions of property owners on their own property.
Garbage in, garbage out. -- The Constitution is a grant of powers from the people to both Federal & State governments, and the Bill of Rights is a limitation on all such governments, and all of the people in the USA are pledged to honor the Republic and "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance therof." -- That's the Law of the Land.
You'll soon see that tpaine stands for the violation of all property rights in defense of his right to carry a gun on private property against the owner's wishes...under any and all circumstances.
Sheer, unsupported bull.
I believe that the violation of property rights by citizens and the enlistement of the power of government to do so is every bit as wrong as the violation of Second Amendment rights by the government.
Rights can conflict, and when they do, you look down and see who owns the property you're standing on, and that individual wins.
Hilarious conclusion. Conflicting rights are decided by "who owns the property you're standing on, and that individual wins" . Gotta love that bold authoritarian view that ignores individual rights.
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.