Beware the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)

checksandbalances.com ^ | 5/28/03 | Checks and Blances

[jdege]

bewaree the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)

Written on: 5/28/03

It is interesting to see the Governor's Chief of Staff Charlie Weaver, a former Anoka County Prosecutor come out and telegraph the movement by Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) on the Conceal & Carry legislation he recently signed into law. As the public has learned more about the change there has been a natural backlash. The Special Session creates an opportunity to address the problems with the law, which goes into effect today.

While it is reasonable for a person or a business to protect their property, when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards. In an attempt to smooth the edges of the most liberal gun legislation ever passed in the United States the Administration sees the need for an adjustment. Perhaps this is just an attempt to prevent the courts from finding the legislation unconstitutional, but it shows how ramroding legislation through the process is a poor way to govern.

The fact that this issue needs to be revisited shows how its initial passage was a rash act and signing it so rapidly was equally so. It was a purely partisan attempt to steamroll the Majority in the Senate and even though the Governor received a flawed bill and he signed it.

This creates an opportunity for the Senate Majority to embarrass both the Governor and Members of the House and the Minority Members of the Senate. When the bill was forced onto the agenda in the Senate there was little the DFL Majority could do to prevent the bill from passage. They held back on a stack of amendments at the Secretary's desk knowing full well the item had momentum.

The floor discussion by the Senate authors will now be available for full debate and now Sen. Mike McGinn (R-38, Eagan) will be able to correct his inadvertent pressing of the wrong button during final passage as his office stated. This debate may provide good fodder.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Individual rights to self protection ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS outweigh irrational fears. What part of that is counter to the libertarian (little "l") philosophy?

[dljordan]

I'm a strong 2A guy but it seems that this particular question is about the business owners property rights. He OWNS of leases the property and thus has a say in what is allowed to happen on his property. Your right to carry doesn't override his property rights.

[Squantos]

HUA !

[harpseal]

We do not have such signs here in CT as it is generally presumed no one legally carries all the time. If we had such signs I would not patronize such establishments as if they do not wish me to come there armed they obviously do not wish me to come there.

I usually wear a shirt and shoes to most places I go thusly. I also wear pants. Now since, I do not submit to random searches of my pants there is no way anyone will know if I am carrying a sidearm unless and until it is needed to stop a deadly force assault on someone. As such then I will presume their complaints about my carrying will be over whelmed by the relief that they are still consuming oxygen.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yes, it does. There are no constitutionally guaranteed rights to property usage (other than you must be compensated for seizure by the state) but there IS a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

If the store owner is stupid enough (especially convenience store owners) to attempt to ban firearms from that store, then that owner ought to be REQUIRED to put up large signs, in promentent places, proudly proclaiming that all inside are UNARMED.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. I am speaking of property that is freely accessed by the public, of course and not a man's home.

[ModernDayCato]

Of course, you NEVER carry in bars or establishments that serve liquor or post offices or schools, right?

:-}

[RRWCC]

Hummm again I feel I must jump in. There is a belief by many that our Constitution grants the people their rights. It does NOT. It is the document that grants the Federal Government it’s rights. We the people hold all of the rights EXCEPT those that we willingly give to the federal government.

“… that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Than to SECURE these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving …” - The Declaration of Independence


“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people.” - The Constitution of The United States of America - Amendment 9

“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.” .” - The Constitution of The United States of America - Amendment 10

Our rights are granted by our Creator and unless we have specifically enumerated authority in the Constitution, the Federal Government DOES NOT HAVE IT!

For example, it the second amendment were not there, would we still have the right to keep and bear arms? Of course! We did not grant the government authority to legislate in that area.

What about the first amendment? Freedom of the press. If it were not written would we still have freedom of the press? Certainly!

The founders thought these particular rights were so fundamental that they specifically called them out. Just because property rights aren’t mentioned does not mean that they don’t exist. Throughout both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and other writings of the founders, absolute authority over your property was indisputable.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You are preaching to the choir, brother. BTW, the Bill of Rights is not a Bill of Rights at all. It is a list of things that the government is absolutely prohibited from doing.

[harpseal]

Off the record at times I may ghave forgotten that i ws carrying a sidearm when I was out to dinner. I do not get drunk. I may have a beer or a glass of wine with dinner but I do not get drunk. Unless and until my life or the life of someone I know is innocent is in danger I do not bring forth a sidearm. Therefor the question will not come up. Most circumstances I will simply call the police if I think something untoward is happening. they can sort out who is who. I once saw two people fighting and it was getting nasty(in CT city). i knew neither. When the police arrived they dealt with it and thanked me. I was not involved knew no one and did not have to decide who was the agressor. It turns out I probably would have guessed wrong.

[harpseal]

Off the record at times I may ghave forgotten that i ws carrying a sidearm when I was out to dinner. I do not get drunk. I may have a beer or a glass of wine with dinner but I do not get drunk. Unless and until my life or the life of someone I know is innocent is in danger I do not bring forth a sidearm. Therefor the question will not come up. Most circumstances I will simply call the police if I think something untoward is happening. they can sort out who is who. I once saw two people fighting and it was getting nasty(in CT city). i knew neither. When the police arrived they dealt with it and thanked me. I was not involved knew no one and did not have to decide who was the agressor. It turns out I probably would have guessed wrong.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. There were many who opposed the BOR because they believed that by putting them in the Constitution, the government would actually use it as a basis to limit the rights of the citizens.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The owner's rules cannot require that you give up your rights. Otherwise, he can have a rule dissallowing blacks.

[Travis McGee]

Who had one of those great "No Guns Allowed Here! Please Don't Hurt Us!" signs to post?

[jdege]

Off the record at times I may ghave forgotten that i ws carrying a sidearm when I was out to dinner.

The Minnesota law doesn't ban carry at places that sell or serve alcohol - it just forbids carry when your blood alcohol level is above .04.

So you don't have to take off your gun everytime you go into a restaurant. You can even have a single glass of wine, though I wouldn't recommend it.

[ModernDayCato]

Ah, but in Connecticut it is illegal to carry in places that serve alcohol, schools or Post Offices (Federal law), so you have been breaking the law.

[PatrioticAmerican]

" In an attempt to smooth the edges of the most liberal gun legislation ever passed in the United States "

Ah, jeez. These liberals will never get this right. I thought Colorado had the "...most liberal gun legislation ever passed in the United States."

Ya think these dolts would confer with each other before saying crap like that.

[Joe Brower]

[supercat]

Out of curiosity (not that I'd necessarily advocate such a thing) would it be legal in MN (or TX, or other CC states) for a business to post a sign indicating that no firearms were to be carried in the premesis without prior written permission? Regardless of the extent to which such business actually gave anyone permission to carry, such a sign might avoid being quite so strong a robber magnet as a simple "no guns" sign, especially for businesses frequented by certain regulars.

[Travis McGee]

Thanks!