[Jim Noble]

if you are in somebody's business, their rules trump your rights

The Constitution does not incorporate private businesses into the State. Your rights enumerated in the Constitution are enforceable against the state only, unless legislation specifically gives you (or the state) a cause of action against a business.

Neither circumstance applies here.

[sauropod]

Neither circumstance applies here.

Oh, really?

Airports can be run by private corporations, yet your rights are certainly trumped there.

[sauropod]

Let me add further.

When you sit on an airplane, in flight, you are in a transport vehicle owned by a private corporation, yet regulated by the State.

Think you have any property rights there?

[tpaine]

Noble claims:

The Constitution does not incorporate private businesses into the State.
Your rights enumerated in the Constitution are enforceable against the state only, unless legislation specifically gives you (or the state) a cause of action against a business.
Neither circumstance applies here.


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


Hammer & the court case cited above differ:

"-- Individual constitutional and legal rights do not end when we drive onto a business parking lot. Simply put, business property rights do not trump the Constitution or the law.


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


sauropod:

This is actually an important article.

I've heard lots of incidences where cases were made that took the point of view if you are in somebody's business, their rules trump your rights
(Yes, I know the article said business parking lot, not "business" but I think the principle applies.
Don't property rights convey with the person, not with the property?).

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


See last fridays DC decision on how our individual right to own & carry arms 'trumps' majority rule efforts to restrict that right.


Rearming - The D.C. gun ban gets overruled
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800480/posts

[El Gato]

unless legislation specifically gives you (or the state) a cause of action against a business.

Neither circumstance applies here.

This article is arguing in favor of just such legislation.

It addresses the collision of rights, the property rights of the business and those of the individual. If the business prohibits arms in vehicles on their property, they effectively prohibit them in the vehicles on the way to and from work, as well as being armed at necessary stops along the way.

What could be more reasonable as a resolution of those conflicts than to mandate that weapons must be left locked in vehicles, unless the business allows other wise? People have rights, just as businesses do. (And most of the businesses in question are not the individual property of an individuals, those tend to better take the needs of their employees into consideration. They also tend to provide their own security, not depending on armed or unarmed licensed security guards