Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[thejtrain]

Pt145ss, why are you continuing to step up to the plate and bat for the side that insists on reasonable restrictions that do not keep us safe? Do you enjoy walking up on posted businesses?

I don't think he's really batting for the side you're talking about. What I've seen take shape on this thread is a discussion of what happens when two recognized rights that are guaranteed & protected by the Constitution end up butting heads with each other. The "side" that you're referring to is the side that would infringe BOTH of those rights without a second thought (and historically has), so it's unfair to say that pt145ss is in that camp just because he's trying to get us all to rigorously and intellectually work through the implications of the different outcomes of the butting of heads of these two rights (bdickens has done the same for the most part, but from a different angle).

Under my definition of what constitutes private property, there does not need to be any legislation since under my definition a person operating a public business can not infringe on my RKBA. The public business owner would need legislation to infringe on my RKBA.In the truest sense of freedom, why would a business owner want to restrict my RKBA?
...
I understand your side of the debate here and I will continue to stand on the side that holds an uninfringed RKBA as the ideal. It can not work any other way, especially if the msiconception that firearm free killing zones are an inherent right just because someone owns property.

This is really helpful and is contributing to the discussion - we're delving deeply into definitions and first principles and really getting down to brass tacks.

Good luck with that.

As a counter-example, this, not so helpful.

I'm still absolutely undecided as to my position on this issue, and it seems like every time someone makes a reasoned, intelligent argument for one side or the other I find myself thinking, "yeah, that makes a lot of sense, maybe THAT's the right position to take" only to sway the other way the next time I hear another reasoned, intelligent argument. It rarely happens to me on any issue I put a considerable amount of thought into, but it's happened on this very thread at least four times already (just like it did a couple of months ago on a couple of gun-owner blogs that I read regularly). I'm starting to come to the point where I think this is one of those cases where the situation just cannot be decided by a zero-sum all-or-nothing one-side-wins-and-the-other-side-loses kind of solution. It seems like there's going to have to be some kind of compromise here (as much as I'm sure we all hate that word as it's currently used in the political sphere).

JT

[anygunanywhere]

Public Property is defined as property that is owned or controlled by a state or community. All other property is private property (real or otherwise).

The definition needs to be corrected.

Ok...what is the correct definition?

Pt145ss, I provided that earlier in this thread, and it is my definition, not one pulled out of a dictionary.

This is the way I "think".

My home, my domicile is private.

According to Anygunanywherethink, a business, open to the public, not controlling who enters, is public not private.

Augusta National Golf Club is a private entity. I could not join if I wanted to.

I am not debating this on someone else's definition of a word.

Someone else's definition of reasonable restriction and common sense gun laws is what infringes on my RKBA.

No business owner need be afraid of my packing my pistol, so why would they want to keep me from doing so?

Should I be afraid of walking into their public business?

Anygunanywhere

[pt145ss]

Pt145ss, I provided that earlier in this thread, and it is my definition, not one pulled out of a dictionary.

This is the way I "think".

My home, my domicile is private.

According to Anygunanywherethink, a business, open to the public, not controlling who enters, is public not private.

Augusta National Golf Club is a private entity. I could not join if I wanted to.

I am not debating this on someone else's definition of a word.

Someone else's definition of reasonable restriction and common sense gun laws is what infringes on my RKBA.

No business owner need be afraid of my packing my pistol, so why would they want to keep me from doing so?

Should I be afraid of walking into their public business?

Anygunanywhere

That is where you and I differ, just because I have a business and I allow the public to come in, it does not mean that my business is not private. I allow the public in by invitation, granted it is a standing invitation but it is not an irrevocable invitation. I can revoke that invitation at anytime time for reason. As a result, I believe my business still falls under the definition of private property.

The private property definition says: private property n. land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use.

So let’s look at the definition. First and the most obvious is that I own the property, not the government. The second part, dedicated for public use, I think what they are referring to is land that is donated for public use. For example, I own twenty acres, but I take 5 of those acres and say to the local municipality that they can use that property to build a park for the kids. I technically still own the property but I have passed control over to someone else for a very specific and public purpose. This is not the same as owning business. In a business I am still maintaining complete control over the property and I alone make the decisions as to what occurs on that property.

[anygunanywhere]

I understand, like totally!

I am done here. I will wander off into my private little world with my own definition of private and watch the unicorns dance across the fields where everyone has an uninfringed RKBA, where ther are no gun free killing zones or reasonable restrictions.

Anygunanywhere

[pt145ss]

dedicated - devoted to a cause or ideal or purpose; "a dedicated dancer"; "dedicated teachers"; "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal"

dedicated - solemnly dedicated to or set apart for a high purpose; "a life consecrated to science"; "the consecrated chapel"; "a chapel dedicated to the dead of World War II"

private property n. land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use.

Above are some definitions of dedicated. I ask this, what is my personal business ultimately dedicated to? A business that is privately owned or even a business that is owned by a conglomerate of stock holders, is dedicated to generating revenue and profit the owner or stock holders. Is this dedication a public dedication? My revenue and profits do not benefit the general public directly in any way. And therefore can not be construed as a dedication to public use.

[aardwolf]

Section 1.07 of the Texas Penal Code says

"Public place" means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.

[thejtrain]

What if we arbitrarily say, for the purposes of this discussion/thought experiment, that there are three categories that property can fit into. I realize that by doing that we might be opening the door to the devolution of those categories into a myriad of confusing definitions, but hey, let's give it a shot.

Here's my suggestion:
Public: property owned by the government and/or dedicated to use by the public (parks, roads/sidewalks, government buildings, etc.)
Private/Public: property owned by a non-government entity with an "open-door" standing invitation for the public to enter (Wal-Mart, Joe's Main St. Diner, etc.)
Private: property owned by a non-government entity with a "closed-door" non-standing invitation for only individuals selected by the property owner to enter (residence, Augusta Golf Club, etc.)

With those three categories in place, what differences are there in the property rights that the owners of property belonging to each category have? I'll post my thoughts to that in a little bit, just wanted to get this suggestion posted quickly.

I am done here. I will wander off into my private little world with my own definition of private and watch the unicorns dance across the fields where everyone has an uninfringed RKBA, where ther are no gun free killing zones or reasonable restrictions.

Come on, man - no one wants anyone else to pick up their ball and go home, we're all (ok, the ones who are left) just interested in some interesting discussion on a very interesting topic.

JT

[bdickens]

All this property rights talk is distracting from the point I tried to lead up to: that CHL is an exercise of one's Constitutionally protected, God-given rights. Do we really want to fight for someone else's rights, or for our rights? I want to fight for my own. Quite frankly, I don't really give a [censored to comply with ten-year-old daughter rule] about your rights when mine, and my life, are at stake.

I would like to see our country have a free and unfettered RKBA. In my post on Sun Apr 06, 2008 I outlined a template for how I think that could be brought about. It surprises me that I reccieved no comment on that.

[anygunanywhere]

I am done here. I will wander off into my private little world with my own definition of private and watch the unicorns dance across the fields where everyone has an uninfringed RKBA, where ther are no gun free killing zones or reasonable restrictions.

Come on, man - no one wants anyone else to pick up their ball and go home, we're all (ok, the ones who are left) just interested in some interesting discussion on a very interesting topic.

JT

Okay, JT. One more post.

I am confused.

There are some who say they have the right to prohibit the RKBA on their "private property" that is open to the general public at large.

I would be willing to wager that some of those same people will howl when they can not pack into Taco Cabana to buy bad Tex-Mex. Maybe not PT145ss, but I am not searching all of the silly 30.076 postings on this board.

You can't have it both ways, at least in my world. That is where my confusion comes from, from trying to reconcile the contradiction in the world that seeks to muddy up the water. Grey areas.

Grey areas do not exist. They are created by those who can not accept the fact that there is a right and wrong. There can not be one right that interferes with another right.

In my world, private property rights and RKBA do not interfere.

My definition does not allow the interference. My RKBA is absolute. So is my first amendment right. I can say anything I darn well please, anywhere I wish.

I just have to be prepared to face the consequences of my action.

In my world I am also a protected segment of society because all members of a society are the same. Is not that what the supreme law of our land says?

All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

If you want to ban RKBA on your property, then by all means do so. But I want you to stand tall and be proud of your actions and sing it loud. Don't be shy.

If you think and believe that this is your right and your decision, then by golly stand at your front door and pat down everyone entering your place and make sure that you do not allow anyone to enter that is packing heat. Don't be like all of the passive 30.06 posters. What is the logic in that?

If you do ban RKBA and something hapens to an innocent as a result of your actions and beliefs I hope you kiss your "private property" goodbye. You infringed on a right and you need to feel the consequences of your action.

Let everyone know for certain of your intentions. Let there be no doubt.

You do not respect me and my rights but you want me to respect yours?

Sorry. No can do.

When you do suffer the consequences of your actions do not expect assistance or pity from me. I am too busy protecting my rights and feeding my unicorns.

I think better already. Notice I did not say feel better. Feelings do not apply to rights. Thoughts do.

Anygunanywhere

[pt145ss]

Okay, JT. One more post.

I am confused.

There are some who say they have the right to prohibit the RKBA on their "private property" that is open to the general public at large.

I would be willing to wager that some of those same people will howl when they can not pack into Taco Cabana to buy bad Tex-Mex. Maybe not PT145ss, but I am not searching all of the silly 30.076 postings on this board.

I would complain about it. I would not argue that they do not have a right to do so…but rather because any business that does post has obviously not made an educated and logical decision.

Grey areas do not exist. They are created by those who can not accept the fact that there is a right and wrong. There can not be one right that interferes with another right.

They absolutely exist…if they did not, we would not have the debate right now and there would not be a need for lawyers.

In my world, private property rights and RKBA do not interfere.

Is this the same world where unicorns dance across the fields?

My definition does not allow the interference. My RKBA is absolute. So is my first amendment right. I can say anything I darn well please, anywhere I wish.

As long as it is not slanderous or liable and not on my property.

I just have to be prepared to face the consequences of my action.

You are right…especially if it occurs on my property.

In my world I am also a protected segment of society because all members of a society are the same. Is not that what the supreme law of our land says?

No…what it says is that certain classes are protected and CHL is not one of them.

All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

This particular preamble says nothing of you being able to carry on my property against my will. Also, I do not think we want to get into the whole…because god said so argument…we saw how that went. In-fact, this document only makes one reference to arms and that was in regards to the monarchy forcing brethren to bear arm against each other.

If you want to ban RKBA on your property, then by all means do so. But I want you to stand tall and be proud of your actions and sing it loud. Don't be shy.

I do not wish to ban CHL on my property. I just want the choice to be mine and mine alone. And I have not been shy about it.

If you think and believe that this is your right and your decision, then by golly stand at your front door and pat down everyone entering your place and make sure that you do not allow anyone to enter that is packing heat. Don't be like all of the passive 30.06 posters. What is the logic in that?

That is what metal detectors are for.

If you do ban RKBA and something hapens to an innocent as a result of your actions and beliefs I hope you kiss your "private property" goodbye. You infringed on a right and you need to feel the consequences of your action.

Whoa…a point we almost agree on. I do think the owner should take responsibility for it. I don’t agree that I have infringed on your right to anything as I have not said that you can not carry anywhere.

Let everyone know for certain of your intentions. Let there be no doubt.

I do…

You do not respect me and my rights but you want me to respect yours?

I respect your rights…and yes I expect to respect mine.

When you do suffer the consequences of your actions do not expect assistance or pity from me. I am too busy protecting my rights and feeding my unicorns.

Are the skies purple in your world too?

[pt145ss]

All this property rights talk is distracting from the point I tried to lead up to: that CHL is an exercise of one's Constitutionally protected, God-given rights. Do we really want to fight for someone else's rights, or for our rights? I want to fight for my own. Quite frankly, I don't really give a [censored to comply with ten-year-old daughter rule] about your rights when mine, and my life, are at stake.

I would like to see our country have a free and unfettered RKBA. In my post on Sun Apr 06, 2008 I outlined a template for how I think that could be brought about. It surprises me that I reccieved no comment on that.

I'm all for your plan as long as it does not affect my rights as a property owner to choose what happens on my property.

[pt145ss]

Ok…let’s pretend that I buy in on your theory that it is a god given right to self defense and because of that I have the right to the best tools to do that job.

I have some questions:

Because there are foreign powers that have the ability to do me great bodily harm and/or cause death via a nuclear attack. Given that I have the god given right to self defense and by proxy have the right to the best tools out there. Then I should be able to build a nuclear silo and have the biggest nuclear warhead I can buy so that I can defend my self from such an attack.

Is that correct?

Remember...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed…period…end of story…correct?

[thejtrain]

All this property rights talk is distracting from the point I tried to lead up to: that CHL is an exercise of one's Constitutionally protected, God-given rights. Do we really want to fight for someone else's rights, or for our rights? I want to fight for my own. Quite frankly, I don't really give a [censored to comply with ten-year-old daughter rule] about your rights when mine, and my life, are at stake.

But that's the thing - when we're talking about:
a) a nation where we're assured equal protection under the law, and
b) a Constitution that guarantees both Right X and Right Y,
then when we engage in a discussion about the interplay between Right X and Right Y, there is no "my right" and "your rights", because in one circumstance or another, they all "our rights", and they all 1) belong to all of us and 2) constrain all of us (or should anyway, protected class nonsense notwithstanding). It sounds like you've made up your mind that in this very specific case, you'd prefer for our laws to favor Right X over Right Y. But what we'd all like to make sure of is that in passing legislation/court rulings/Constitutional amendments to that effect, we're not overlooking and/or ignoring a situation where Right Y correctly should be favored over Right X instead, or what that might mean for the interplay between Right X and Right Z. Example: if 2A is strong enough to override 4A/5A, then can 1A also override 4A/5A? Those are the kinds of things that we're (or at least I am) looking to consider in answering this dilemma. Again, I do not have all the answers, nor is my position on it firmly fixed in the slightest (not yet anyway). But the conversation/sounding board is what will get me there (I hope).

I would like to see our country have a free and unfettered RKBA. In my post on Sun Apr 06, 2008 I outlined a template for how I think that could be brought about. It surprises me that I reccieved no comment on that.

Your three points were:

1) Propaganda.
2) Legislative action.
3) Lawsuits.

I doubt you'll find any disagreement from anyone on #1. #3 is an interesting tack, and I certainly wouldn't mind more discussion on that in another thread. #2 is the one that I think this thread is aiming at. We're all throwing thoughts and principles and theories around in an effort to come to some individual understanding (since outright consensus will be nigh-impossible) on what is appropriate for #2, having weighed and considered all of the potentialities behind what might be proposed (or as many of them as is practical). So don't worry too much about not getting comment that addressed that directly - I think we've been hitting #2 hard the whole thread, and #3 might be better suited for another thread.

JT

[aardwolf]

Example: if 2A is strong enough to override 4A/5A, then can 1A also override 4A/5A?

It already does. Airlines aren't allowed to ban Muslims for example.

[thejtrain]

I would be willing to wager that some of those same people will howl when they can not pack into Taco Cabana to buy bad Tex-Mex. Maybe not PT145ss, but I am not searching all of the silly 30.076 postings on this board.

Hopefully the folks who are honestly engaging in this discussion are honest enough with themselves to realize that they can't "have their cake & eat it too". I personally wouldn't argue for a restriction on someone else that I would rail against when applied to me.

There are some who say they have the right to prohibit the RKBA on their "private property" that is open to the general public at large.

Grey areas do not exist. They are created by those who can not accept the fact that there is a right and wrong. There can not be one right that interferes with another right.

In my world, private property rights and RKBA do not interfere.

I'd love to get your take on the three categories of property I proposed in the post you quoted from. What do you think of those three, and how should the interplay of property rights & RKBA work in each, in your opinion? Let me try to draw that out, with a quote from your post:

My RKBA is absolute.
...
If you want to ban RKBA on your property, then by all means do so.
...
If you think and believe that this is your right and your decision, then by golly stand at your front door and pat down everyone entering your place and make sure that you do not allow anyone to enter that is packing heat.

I'm confused over how you mean your RKBA is absolute, but then tell pt145ss that he can ban RKBA on his property and keep anyone (including, presumably, yourself) from entering his property while armed? If your right is absolute, why can he do that? If there's a distinction in your mind between a private residence and a business, then we should probably clear that up and state it explicitly. If so, then what I'm hearing you say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that in a private residence, property rights are superior over RKBA, therefore no interference between the two rights; in a public area (sidewalk, etc.) RKBA are superior over property rights, therefore no interference between the two rights; what some are calling a "gray area" is where a building owned and controlled by a private party but open to the public stands in the continuum between the two others. Opinions can vary as to which end it should skew, and that's why we're here - to throw out ideas as to where we all think/believe it should land, not necessarily in an effort to persuade others (though that might be a side effect) but mostly to come to a greater understanding of our own convictions through having them challenged by others.

JT