TexasCHLforum.com

aardwolf wrote:

thejtrain wrote: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.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but what I'm digging for are principles & beliefs (e.g., "How do you think it should be?"), not so much interpretations of what the law says now. THAT, and the can of worms that will open if we start really parsing each amendment & its applicability to 1) the feds, 2) the states, 3) municipalities, and 4) persons & corporations is probably something we shouldn't tear into just now.

JT

aardwolf wrote:

thejtrain wrote: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.

I think I need an example of how 1A might conflict with either 4a or 5a. Also...and this might be due to the fact that I do not understand the question completely, but I do not know how aardwolf response answers the question. The airlines can not exclude Muslims because that would be excluding someone based on a protected class.

This does illustrate one point though...if RKBA is absolute, as some have argued, how can the airlines ban carry on board a plane and is this a reasonable restriction?

I don't think its a reasonable restriction-- when was the last time a CHL holder hijacked an airplane? That smacks of "prior restraint" to me.

pt145ss wrote:

aardwolf wrote:

thejtrain wrote: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.

I think I need an example of how 1A might conflict with either 4a or 5a. Also...and this might be due to the fact that I do not understand the question completely, but I do not know how aardwolf response answers the question. The airlines can not exclude Muslims because that would be excluding someone based on a protected class.

I guess that's what I get for trying to use shorthand and make a quick and dirty point. What I was trying to illustrate is that the interplay between the private property rights protected by 4A/5A (and to be even more precise, the "peaceably assemble" clause of 1A) and the RKBA protected by 2A isn't the only set of interactions between rights we should be considering. For when one decides that private property rights are (or aren't) strong enough to withstand RKBA, there are, implicit in making that determination, implications on what other rights can supersede other rights in other situations. The example I was trying to compare it to was the "you have freedom of speech, but I don't have to allow you to say what you want in my house": that's the 1A vs. 4A/5A interplay I was trying to get at without getting specific.

pt145ss wrote:This does illustrate one point though...if RKBA is absolute, as some have argued, how can the airlines ban carry on board a plane and is this a reasonable restriction?

If I can anticipate the answer to this one, it would probably be argued one of two ways:
1) It's not the airlines that are banning carry on the planes, it's the government (which is yet another property-rights-infringement discussion, the government telling a private entity what it can or can't do with its property - but that's a can of worms we probably shouldn't open in this thread)
2) Since the inside of planes that are about to take off are not "open to the public" but only open to people who've paid for an invitation, and access to the inside can be very strictly controlled, they do not fit the "businesses open to the public" definition that others have suggested on this thread (the example used before was Augusta Golf Club, and I think it was made by Anygunanywhere, but I could be wrong).

JT

pt145ss wrote:This does illustrate one point though...if RKBA is absolute, as some have argued, how can the airlines ban carry on board a plane and is this a reasonable restriction?

The simple answer is that they can't. No one has been willing to fight it far enough yet, but it is a violation of the Second, IMHO. It is also a violation of the 4th to require you to submit to a government search prior to boarding.

Now, if I could only convince the rest of the people that these feel good measures that do nothing are wrong and should be stopped.

thejtrain wrote: 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?

This whole discussion hinges on pt145ss definition of private property and mine.

thejtrain wrote: 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.

I have several times in this thread.

thejtrain wrote: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;

Correct

thejtrain wrote: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

The gray areas that exist are created for lawyers to resolve and are a totally unnecessary abomination.

Anygunanywhere

A fairly interesting read.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/r ... operty.htm

But the right to own and enjoy property has always been an important part of the rights of the people. At the Philadelphia convention that drafted the Constitution, John Rutledge of South Carolina reminded the delegates that "property was certainly the principal object of Society." They did not really need much reminding, because the Framers all believed that respect for an individual's property rights lay at the heart of the social contract. Not only did they build institutional safeguards into the Constitution to protect those rights, but the nation soon added important provisions through the Bill of Rights to buttress that protection. Moreover, the Founders did not intend that these protections extend only to land or discernible assets, but to all the rights inherent in property — real or personal, tangible or intangible. They believed that property was "the guardian of every other right," for without the right to own and use and enjoy one's property free from arbitrary governmental interference, there could be no liberty of any sort.


http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/r ... operty.htm

And you should perhaps not skip over this part: "In the second half of the 20th century, the civil rights and environmental movements led to laws that have placed significant burdens on traditional concepts of property rights. Restaurant owners can no longer discriminate about whom they will serve...."

bdickens wrote:And you should perhaps not skip over this part: "In the second half of the 20th century, the civil rights and environmental movements led to laws that have placed significant burdens on traditional concepts of property rights. Restaurant owners can no longer discriminate about whom they will serve...."

Yes...based on a PROTECTED CLASS...which does not include CHL!!!!

Well, maybe if CHLs raised enough awareness they could be a "protected class" as well.

bdickens wrote:Well, maybe if CHLs raised enough awareness they could be a "protected class" as well.

Unfortunately you will never get a the government to classify a personal choice as a protected class. That would include CHL, as it is considered a choice today.

Our only method to protect anything related to our right to carry is getting the government to support and uphold the 2nd and it's rightful definition. That would in turn gain us major ground in our fight and give us some leverage to get unreasonable restrictions abolished.

Religion is a personal choice.

But freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution. CHL is not specifically defined under the 2nd. We have to remember that being allowed to carry concealed as a private citizen is a fairly new thing. It is arguable as to whether it is part of the 2nd or not. The question is does bearing arms include concealed?

bdickens wrote:Religion is a personal choice.

Your gun can be left in the car while you patronize a business...it's hard to leave your religion in the car, or your skin color, ethnic background, gender, age and etc. for that matter.