Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[bdickens]

Well, then it's settled! It's back to the days of Jim Crow! Because its my business and my by-god private property and I can do whatever I want and keep whoever I want out for whatever by-god reason I want and to heck with you and to heck with your rights! Too bad, cause its my by-god private property!

shaggydog and pt145ss actually understand a large part of what I'm getting at. I do, in fact, "...believe that the RKBA is an inherent, innate right." Our Founding Fathers certainly thought so.

I also undersand the concept of property rights. And, as has been pointed out, those rights are not absolute either.

Sometimes two sets of rights clash and that's where we as a society need to determine which party's tights trump whose. shaggydog and pt145ss argue that property rights trump RKBA. I disagree.

Imagine, if you will, that there is a poor, single mother. She lives in a bad part of town. Violent crime is all around her. She has no real marketable skills and has to work two jobs in order to provide for her family. She can't afford a car and has to ride the bus everywhere. She worries about her safey so she scrapes together $200 and buys a small, used pistol at a pawn shop for protection. Not wanting to be breaking the law, she takes a CHL class (more scrimping and saving) and sends in her application, shows proof that she is indigent and pays the reduced licence fee.

One of her jobs has a strict "no guns" policy. Fine. That's their right. Private property and all. But she has to ride the bus; it's not like she has anywhere to lock her gun up when she ges to work. What's she going to do? Break the policy and carry there anyway, risking getting fired? She has to leave the gun at home. Well, now that business owner has just reached out beyond the premesis of his private property and is infringing her right to legally carry a handgun and to defend herself as she commutes to and from work.

[boomerang]

You are allowed this privilege by some body of persons to whom you have given the authority to allow, or disallow, you said privilege.

I'm confused. Are we talking about freedom of religion or freedom of speech now?

What you fail to grasp is that since both of these “rights� are allowed privileges each can be modified at the whim of the body of persons you have charged with the administration of these privileges.

Some people say we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

Maybe that's just crazy talk.

[tallmike]

shaggydog and pt145ss actually understand a large part of what I'm getting at. I do, in fact, "...believe that the RKBA is an inherent, innate right." Our Founding Fathers certainly thought so.

If the founders thought that so clearly then Im not sure why they failed to make the second ammendment more clear cut. Instead we have an ammendment that is interpreted 2 completely different ways and no way is any more clear than the other way, unless you have a stake in it.

We have a stake in it. The bradys have a stake in it. We disagree with each other on the meaning because our stakes are different. Its not a perfect document that gives us an absolute right to arms, but I like our constitution and most of its ammenments anyway. I dont like some of the ammendments, but nobody can be completely happy with their government unless they are the monarch.

[tallmike]

Some people say we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

Maybe that's just crazy talk.

Yes, but among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. Not the right to carry my gun wherever I damn well please.

Dont forget the next line of the Declaration (which isnt part of our system of laws, btw):

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

This is the government we have chosen for ourselves so now we have to deal with it or change it. We shouldnt just ignore it because we dont agree with it.

[pt145ss]

About the closest thing I can come to an argument for Byron’s point view is as follows. I’m going to preface this argument by saying that I have not been able to logically get from point A to point Z so someone may have to help me with it.

Here it goes…most rights and privileges are ordained by man, however, some rights are ordained by another authority. Some call that authority God, some call it Allah, some simply call it a higher power. Call it what you will (I will call it God …although I am not a real religious person), but the fact remains that we, as humans, have a right that is not ordained by man, but ordained by something greater than man or government…that greater authority is God and that God granted us right of self preservation and self defense. I believe that no matter what political party you are with, no matter what side of 2a you are on and no matter what religion (or lack of) you are, if asked, one and all, will tell you that in the most dire of situations, you have a god given right (and depending on religion…a duty) to protect your self. The government already recognizes this right as something ordained by God. This is a similar declaration that was made for civil rights. It is ordained by God that no matter the color of skin, or ethnic background, as humans we all have a god given right to be treated the same. This same argument was used for manifest destiny…We as Americans were ordained by God to move westward at all cost even at the price of genocide to American Indians.

This is where I am stuck with the argument. I can not seem to get from the point that self defense is a God given right to a point where CHL is protected under the same protections as Race or Religion. Here is an illustration as to why I can not get to that point even from this argument. Suppose I am a patron at XYZ business and at some point a BG attacks me. I have a right, ordained by God, to defend myself. I pick up a pen and stab the BG in the throat killing him. Given it was justified self-defense, the fact that I was not armed with a pistol did not stop me from my god given right to self-defense. Not protecting CHL only keeps us availed from the best possible tool (other than the brain) for self-defense…it does not keep us from defending ourselves.

If someone can take the argument from self-defense being a God given right…and logically get to CHL being protected, then I will agree that RKBA trumps property rights.

[boomerang]

Some people say we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

Maybe that's just crazy talk.

Yes, but among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.

among: in the number or class of

"Will Smith acts in movies. Among these is The Pursuit of Happyness."

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

It sounds like you're saying if they don't have the consent of the governed, their powers are not just.

That leads us to the next line:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Now we're really getting into the crazy talk.

[tallmike]

Yes, but among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.

among: in the number or class of

"Will Smith acts in movies. Among these is The Pursuit of Happyness."

I cant believe I did that. My only defense is how tired I was and how much I liked that movie. =)

[45 4 life]

First, and foremost, is that you seem to believe that the RKBA is an inherent, innate right. This is not so. You are allowed this privilege by some body of persons to whom you have given the authority to allow, or disallow, you said privilege.

You seem to, however, have realized the concept of property ownership correctly in that you seem to see that “right� as one of allowed privilege. That is true.

What you fail to grasp is that since both of these “rights� are allowed privileges each can be modified at the whim of the body of persons you have charged with the administration of these privileges.

I am going to disagree with those of you who continue to say we are granted a privilege and that we are not exercising a right. It is my contention that the State of Texas recognizes our RIGHT to bear arms. They are as they should taking the steps to make sure law abiding citizens are those being allowed to exercise that right. The system may not be perfect, but it is the one we have for now. I see the process of getting the permit as not puchasing the license, or paying for the previlige, but qualifying to exercise my right.

[tallmike]

I dont need government permission to speak my mind, I dont have to "qualify" to exercise my 1st ammendment rights. I do have to qualify and be licensed to carry a gun, that tells me that it is not the same.

You can argue intent all day, but Ill deal with the reality as laid down by legislators and interpreted by the courts.

[KBCraig]

Well, then it's settled! It's back to the days of Jim Crow! Because its my business and my by-god private property and I can do whatever I want and keep whoever I want out for whatever by-god reason I want and to heck with you and to heck with your rights! Too bad, cause its my by-god private property!

You are greatly mischaracterizing Jim Crow.

Jim Crow laws were just that: laws that restricted what you could do with your private property. White business owners couldn't allow black customers to do what their white customers did, even if the the owners wished to do so. Black business owners couldn't move their business to the "white part" of town. Property owners couldn't sell their property to members of the "wrong" race.

I despise racists and racism, and the period of segregation was a smirch on our national character, but it was made worse by government, not better.

Yes, a business owner should be free to allow or disallow anyone he wishes, for whatever reason he wishes. Those who discriminate on the basis or race, religion, armed status, etc., should be shunned and convinced to change their ways through free market pressure.

[45 4 life]

I dont need government permission to speak my mind, I dont have to "qualify" to exercise my 1st ammendment rights. I do have to qualify and be licensed to carry a gun, that tells me that it is not the same.

You can argue intent all day, but Ill deal with the reality as laid down by legislators and interpreted by the courts.

I really think you are dealing with your interpertation of what has been laid down by legislators and the courts rather than reality.

I would be interested in learning how you would write the rules and regulations regarding the right to carry and how your plan would improve the conditions we curretly live under. Again I am not saying the current conditions are perfect, far from it. We do have the means to change what we have, but our numbers must grow, and the number of anti's must dwindle. I see Texas as well as most states in evolutin of sorts.

By the way, do not try to exercise your freedom of speech in the wrong area, you will find you need a permit.

[flb_78]

If it is private property, then how can I be arrested for Public Intoxication?

[flb_78]

If the founders thought that so clearly then Im not sure why they failed to make the second ammendment more clear cut.

How much more clear does it need to be, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

[bdickens]

Thank you all who have been so patient in indulging me on this thread. Here is how it all sarted:

Reading about all the confusion about where one can and can't carry and what is and isn't a proper 30.06 posting, I got to thinking, wouldn't it just be a lot simpler if one could just carry anywhere one is already allowed to be anyway? Wishing won't make that so; how could that come to pass? Treat this like a civil rights issue. So I took an extreme position.

The Declaraion of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...." Now, I know that the Declaration doesn't have the force of law. The Constitution, however, is writen fully in line with the sentiments found within the Declaration. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights enumerate protections of certain rights, property rights and the right to posess and carry firearms among them. However, those are not the only rights protected. The ninth amendment reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I argue that chief aming one's civil rights are the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mentioned in the Declaration. Self-defense is quite obviously an extension of this. Therefore, one's right to self-defense trumps all else including property rights. My line of argument leading up to and including my illustration of the single mother was designed to show how by baring concealed carry in their establishments, it is possible for businesses to be reaching out beyond the boundaries of their property in asserting their property rights. If you'll remember, our single mother would be forced by circumstances to travel through bad neighborhoods unprotected. In my layman's understanding of the law, I believe she has a pretty good case that her rights are being denied. I certainly know how I would vote if I was on the jury hearing her case.

The Supreme Court has just now heard ony its second Second Amendment case in over 200 years. Why is that? I think our side has been far too reticent in asserting out rights for far too long. Instead, we have fought a rearguard defensive action as we've watched our Second Amendment rights be steadily eroded. Shall-issue carry permits are an important step forward, but I think our side should go on the offense.

I would proposee a three-pronged attack against the forces of evil that would have us all disarmed and helpless:

1) Propaganda. Most of us instinctively recoil at this word and its negative associations. You who have been in the military probably know this better as psy-ops or psychological warfare. Winning the hearts and minds. Remember those "I'm the NRA and I vote" ads? Whatever happened to those? We need a big-budget national ad campaign designed to a) show that guns and gun ownership are a normal part of everyday life. b) show that gun owners are normal people "just like you and me" and c) expose the lies of the Brady Bunch and their ilk. There will undoubtably be a strong reaction against this, and the forces of evil will surely ratchet up their propaganda. But we shouldn't concern ourselves with that. So what if they get offended? Truth invites scrutiny, and we have the advantage of having the truth on our side. We can use real research and real statistics and real facts to back up our claims; we don't have to misinterpret data and manufacture things like the forces of evil do.

2) Legislative action. CHL is a good start. So is the new Castle Doctrine and the clarified Car Carry provision. Work actively to expand and improve on these laws.

3) Lawsuits. Use the left's own tactics against them. If we can't win in the arena of ideas, and if we can't get our way in the legislature, force it through the courts. The left wants to force us to allow someone to show photographs of a crucifix submerged in urine or a man with the handle of a bullwhip shoved up where the sun don't shine. So what if it makes us uncomfortable, because its protected under the Constitution. Fine, you want to play that way? Force them to allow us to carry firearms everywhere we go. So what if it makes them uncomfortable, because its protected under the Constitution. I think my hypothetical single mother would make a very sympathetic figure in front of a jury. Especially in Texas.

Again, thank you all for indulging me.

[bdickens]

Yes, a business owner should be free to allow or disallow anyone he wishes, for whatever reason he wishes. Those who discriminate on the basis or race, religion, armed status, etc., should be shunned and convinced to change their ways through free market pressure.

You know good and well that won't happen. It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and then a whole bunch of lawsuits based on it afterwards to force businesses to do the right thing and to force people to change their thinking .