Businesses should not be allowed to bar CHL!

[anygunanywhere]

The second amendment is absolute as it states that it shall not be infringed.

To those who think that rights should be limited by legislation or by the courts I have a few questions:

Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been arrested and been innocent?

Once you need those rights you will be extremely sorry to see how much they have been neutered. You will also understand how helpless you are when your rights are ignored.

How many more global emergencies will it take until we have no more rights? Also, the last thing we need is for public businesses to continue providing free fire victim zones.

Anygunanywhere
Second Amendment Absolutist

[pt145ss]

The second amendment is absolute as it states that it shall not be infringed.

To those who think that rights should be limited by legislation or by the courts I have a few questions:

Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been arrested and been innocent?

Once you need those rights you will be extremely sorry to see how much they have been neutered. You will also understand how helpless you are when your rights are ignored.

How many more global emergencies will it take until we have no more rights? Also, the last thing we need is for public businesses to continue providing free fire victim zones.

Anygunanywhere
Second Amendment Absolutist

I agree, the less limitations/infringements on our rights, the better off we are. As it has been said, in this situation we have two rights in competition with each other. On one hand you have the RKBA and on the other hand you have Property rights. Both, IMHO, are equally important. So the question is…how do you reconcile the two rights with the least amount of infringement on either?

You call yourself a “Second Amendment Absolutist.� What does that mean? Does that mean that you find it alright to only uphold certain rights…those convenient to you? What about other rights? Let apply your absolutist view with other rights. I have the right to free speech and in your absolutist view, I should be able to come on to your property and say that the second amendment is a collective right and you do not have an individual right to KBA and there is nothing you can do about it. Should you be forced as a property owner to listen to my opinion, or should you have the right to tell me to leave? I'm only exercising my absolute right to free speech after all.

[anygunanywhere]

Since you asked, and not intending to drag this way off topic.

I do not buy this "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument on limiting speech, and this goes right along with my beliefs on my rights.

I can, in fact, yell fire in a crowded theater in several instances.

If there is a fire.

If I decide I want to do so and accept the consequences of my actions. There is no need to make yelling fire in a theater against the law, and therefore infringing legislatively on my free speech rights. If I do yell fire, and people die from the stampede, send me to prison. Murder is illegal.

Since murder is illegal there is no reason to infringe my 2A rights, ever. If I murder with my firearm, send me to the big house.

Rights are absolute. Mine exist up to where your rights begin.

Libel and slander must be proven. Speech, as a right, does not need to have li9mits placed on it.

The RKBA does not need limits. Natural law has taken care of that. Murder and harming someone is wrong and we all know it.

You invite me into your store to buy your goods or purchase your services my firearms are part of the deal and you have no right to deny my ability to defend myself in a public business that you have a public business license to operate.

Your home, your domicile, your castle, your nest, wherever you lay your head, is private.

Anygunanywhere

[pt145ss]

You invite me into your store to buy your goods or purchase your services my firearms are part of the deal and you have no right to deny my ability to defend myself in a public business that you have a public business license to operate.

Your home, your domicile, your castle, your nest, wherever you lay your head, is private.

Anygunanywhere

I’m not really sure what you mean by “public business.� If I own a sporting good store…the public does not own it…I own it and therefore it is a private business. Any patron that I allow in my sporting good store is by invitation…essentially I am inviting the public to come and negotiate payment for goods/services. Invitations can be revoked or denied for any reason.

What happens when my personal business and my home are in the same place?

As to your right to defend yourself…suppose you are at my sporting goods store (by invitation) and I do not allow CHL…you are unarmed as a result. If a BG walks in and attacks you for no reason and you pick up a baseball bat and whack the BG over the head. How has my not allowing CHL in my store stopped you from defending yourself? Does not allowing CHL, on and to it self, make it illegal to defend yourself? Are you going to go to jail because you defended yourself despite my not allowing CHL?

I can, in fact, yell fire in a crowded theater in several instances.

If there is a fire.

If I decide I want to do so and accept the consequences of my actions. There is no need to make yelling fire in a theater against the law, and therefore infringing legislatively on my free speech rights. If I do yell fire, and people die from the stampede, send me to prison. Murder is illegal.

Accept consequences for what? If yelling fire when there is not one, is protected under the 1st amendment…then you were well within your legal right to so and therefore can not be held criminally accountable for the deaths. Suppose there is no legislative statute prohibiting this act, but they hold you criminally accountable for murder, then Case law was just made and the act is prohibited that way. Let’s suppose no one dies, should you be held accountable for reckless endangerment? Or is it more like no harm no foul because the act is protected by the first amendment?

This is similar to self defense. If you defend yourself from attack and the BG dies as a result of your action, you can not be held accountable for that death because you have a right to self defense. Now apply this theory to yelling fire. If you yell fire and a death occurs as a result of you actions…how can you be held accountable if you were acting under the protection of the 1st amendment?

[aardwolf]

There's a moral and legal difference between prior restraint and holding people responsible for the direct results of their actions. For example, newspapers don't have to get approval from the government before they publish, but they can be held responsible for what they print.

[anygunanywhere]

Thank you, aardwolf. Prior restraint. That is how the 2A is treated differently than the rest.

First amendment - The government removes your vocal chords to prevent unauthorized speech. Prior restraint.

Second amendment - The government removes your firearms from your possession. Prior restraint.

If your business is in your home then you can prevent me from bringing my weapon into your home.

Pt145ss, I just hold business open to the public differently than you. I do not accept the definition that a business open to the public is "privater property". It is "property". It is not private. You do not actively control who enters the business. You might have a sign on the front that says you do so that you can toss someone out who offends you, but your idea as to what is offensive might be different than what the rest of us believe is offensive.

Anyone infringing on my 2A rights is as offensive as it gets, because that single action speaks volumes about what you think of me as a freedom loving individual. Anyone who seeks to remove someone's rights does not deserve to keep his.

That is the golden rule,is it not?

Anygunanywhere

[bdickens]

Thanks for bringing up prior restraint. That is more ammo for the Civil Rights angle to why CHLs should be allowed to carry everywhere.

[pt145ss]

Thank you, aardwolf. Prior restraint. That is how the 2A is treated differently than the rest.

First amendment - The government removes your vocal chords to prevent unauthorized speech. Prior restraint.

Second amendment - The government removes your firearms from your possession. Prior restraint.

If your business is in your home then you can prevent me from bringing my weapon into your home.

Pt145ss, I just hold business open to the public differently than you. I do not accept the definition that a business open to the public is "privater property". It is "property". It is not private. You do not actively control who enters the business. You might have a sign on the front that says you do so that you can toss someone out who offends you, but your idea as to what is offensive might be different than what the rest of us believe is offensive.

Anyone infringing on my 2A rights is as offensive as it gets, because that single action speaks volumes about what you think of me as a freedom loving individual. Anyone who seeks to remove someone's rights does not deserve to keep his.

That is the golden rule,is it not?

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).

Please note that the above definition has absolutely nothing to do with a business or home being on said property. In fact, a corporation is merely a "corporate person" who can owne private property and enjoys all the same rights as any other private property owner.

The 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments all make reference to the protection of private property (real or otherwise). To me, this says that property rights are fairly important.

The 2nd amendment is the only amendment to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment in its design is to ensure that the citizenry have the tools necessary to defend themselves from a tyrannical government if they over step and infringe on the other amendments. In other words, there might not be as big of an argument for the necessity for the 2nd if it were not for all the other amendments. For example, if we do not have rights like that in a communist state then the government can never overstep it bounds or step on our rights (as its bounds are limitless) and therefore there is no need for protection from the government and no need to be armed.

The government only has the right to infringe on property rights in a very limited fashion. Traditional principles of property rights includes:
1. control of the use of the property
2. the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
3. a right to transfer or sell the property
4. a right to exclude others from the property.

In short, if the government forces a land owner to allow CHL they in fact limit that land owner from their right to exclude others from that property. With current legislature, the land owner still has a right to include or exclude someone, and the CHL holder still has the right to exercise their 2nd amendment right. With current legislature there is a balance between the two rights (granted…some things should be clearer).

[aardwolf]

With current legislature, the land owner still has a right to include or exclude someone, and the CHL holder still has the right to exercise their 2nd amendment right. With current legislature there is a balance between the two rights (granted…some things should be clearer).

There's not a balance unless property owners can also ban guns carried by police, especially off duty.

[pt145ss]

With current legislature, the land owner still has a right to include or exclude someone, and the CHL holder still has the right to exercise their 2nd amendment right. With current legislature there is a balance between the two rights (granted…some things should be clearer).

There's not a balance unless property owners can also ban guns carried by police, especially off duty.

You are not suggesting that CHL and Peace Officers are one in the same are you? The mail person must have delivered my CHL badge to the wrong address cause i never got mine. When I was in the military, we were soldiers 24/7. I would suggest that peace officers are peace officers 24/7 as well....off duty or not. There are also special statutory provisions that deal with just that. The government can infringe on property owners rights due to health and safety...when those health a safety issues out weight the right of the property owner. For example when a peace officer is witness to child abuse occurring on private property, the peace officer via due process and probable cause can intervene on the private property without warrant because he witnessed a felony. As a property owner, I can refuse to allow law enforcement into my home and or place of business unless they have probable cause or a warrant.

Let me ask you guys this...how do you feel about a smoking ban similar to the one here in Austin, TX? From both a patron and from a business owner point of view.

[aardwolf]

As a property owner, I can refuse to allow law enforcement into my home and or place of business unless they have probable cause or a warrant.

Your home is a red herring. We were talking about businesses open to the public, like restaurants. You might want to read 30.05 again before you say a restaurant can prohibit police from carrying guns there on their lunch break. (Lunch break = no warrant, no probable cause, no exigent circumstances, etc.)

Let me ask you guys this...how do you feel about a smoking ban similar to the one here in Austin, TX? From both a patron and from a business owner point of view.

Does it apply to police?

[pt145ss]

Your home is a red herring. We were talking about businesses open to the public, like restaurants. You might want to read 30.05 again before you say a restaurant can prohibit police from carrying guns there on their lunch break. (Lunch break = no warrant, no probable cause, no exigent circumstances, etc.)

What we are talking about here is privately owned property…it matters not if that private property has a house or a business on it.

I’m not a lawyer, but what I believe 30.05 is saying is that I can not deny a peace officer entry (on duty or off) if entry is denied solely based on the fact that he is carrying a firearm. It does not say that I can not deny a peace officer entry for other reasons, for example...being a peace officer…or wearing a green shirt…or not wearing a sport coat when it is required. I do not even need to give a reason for asking anyone to leave my private property…business or not…peace officer or not… and if the person refuses to leave then the charge gets escalated.

Does it apply to police?

The question had nothing to do with police. If you answer the question, it might shed some light as to what you really think about a property owner’s right to choose how they use their property.

[carlson1]

The second amendment is absolute as it states that it shall not be infringed.

To those who think that rights should be limited by legislation or by the courts I have a few questions:

Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been arrested and been innocent?

Once you need those rights you will be extremely sorry to see how much they have been neutered. You will also understand how helpless you are when your rights are ignored.

How many more global emergencies will it take until we have no more rights? Also, the last thing we need is for public businesses to continue providing free fire victim zones.

Anygunanywhere
Second Amendment Absolutist

Well Said.

[pt145ss]

The second amendment is absolute as it states that it shall not be infringed.

To those who think that rights should be limited by legislation or by the courts I have a few questions:

Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been arrested and been innocent?

Once you need those rights you will be extremely sorry to see how much they have been neutered. You will also understand how helpless you are when your rights are ignored.

How many more global emergencies will it take until we have no more rights? Also, the last thing we need is for public businesses to continue providing free fire victim zones.

Anygunanywhere
Second Amendment Absolutist

Well Said.

If you agree that rights should not limited by legislation then why would you support the rights of property owners being limited by legislation. By forcing a property owner to submit to CHL holders you are in fact legislatively limiting their rights. Or are you only against legislatively limiting the rights that concern you?

[shaggydog]

That is 100%, completely, unequivocally untrue!