Replies

Thus we see: --- 'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that employees be disarmed while going to or from work] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'

"-- They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. --"

Lex:
--- 'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that land owners allow armed people on their property] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'

No one in our constitutional community wants to force land owners to allow 'armed people' on their property. -- We want our right to carry arms in our vehicles to be respected by landowning employers/shopkeepers who we do business & work with.

You do. -- Even against the will of that business or employer's wishes of association, --

No one in our constitutional community wants to force land owners to stop associating with whomever they wish.

-- under penalty of governmental sanctions.

Our gov't has the duty to enforce the Constitution against infringements of our right to carry arms.

Sounds like force to me.

Sounds like gun grabbing to me.

And a court decision upholding that right is not a "decree".

Don't play semantics.

You're the one playing semantics, pretending that infringements on our right to carry are based on 'property rights of association'.

Court decisions are court declarations are decrees of the Court are the dictates of the Government are the Government intruding into what should be a private contract between two people.

Contracts between two people that contravene constitutional rights are not enforcable. -- Re-read the article.

Any way you slice it, one side or the other in any court decision has to abide by a ~~Governmentally~~ [constitutionally] imposed ruling against what they see as their own interests. The other side has the coercive power of that decision backing their interests.

Quite true. You don't agree with the way our rule of constituional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.