The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 12, 2009, 10:35 AM   #101
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Of course there is Chuck Norris
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 11:31 AM   #102
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,360
Firearms and self-defense
Linked? YES!
Same? No.

People defended themselves for a LONG time before firearms became popular. Of course nowadays, a firearm is the most effective defense tool available to the public.

I'm saying we need to be careful about how we approach things, in order to defend our ideological flanks. When we assume everyone else will see the link between firearms and the right to self-defense, we leave ourselves open to idiots and clever-antis. I'd rather we didn't leave them that chance.
raimius is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 11:50 AM   #103
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
When we assume everyone else will see the link between firearms and the right to self-defense, we leave ourselves open to idiots and clever-antis.
I am not sure I see what you mean. Could you give me an example?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 12:28 PM   #104
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
People defended themselves for a LONG time before firearms became popular.
True, but in those days self defense was rarely successful. See: The crusades, the inquisition. (BTW- I assume you are talking about pre-1750 Europe, since firearms ownership is at a lower level now than it was in 1800's America.)
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 12:49 PM   #105
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,843
I also don't see a problem with linking firearms to self-defense. To my mind, that vein of thought leads to the suggestions of the charge of the 8 year olds, laptop-fu and the pencil of death as viable alternatives to firearms when someone like Cho arrives in your classroom.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 02:07 PM   #106
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
I should add, that the Heller decision had no problem with inextricably linking self-defense with guns.

Granted, Heller only dealt with guns within the home, yet the logic will prevail, I'm sure, to self-defense outside the home.

What seems to be at the core here, is that some seem to think that property rights (in general) trump self preservation rights. Sadly, that is misguided thinking. As in, how are you going to maintain any individual right, if you are dead? One simply cannot exercise any other right, if self preservation is not the dominant right.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 03:27 PM   #107
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Sadly, that is misguided thinking. As in, how are you going to maintain any individual right, if you are dead? One simply cannot exercise any other right, if self preservation is not the dominant right.
Perfectly put! Maslow (one of those academic types) says that survival is our primary need.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 06:43 PM   #108
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
While the Declaration is not organic law, within it are the declaration of natural rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

When you learn where and how Jefferson penned them in this manner, you will also learn why Life is the first right of natural persons.

So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 07:55 PM   #109
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?
The government does by due process of law if I commit a crime. IMO the property owner has no such authority.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 09:22 PM   #110
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
You two are right on target. I ask this:

Upon which section or clause of the COTUS are the property rights that are often espoused on here found?
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 09:48 PM   #111
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
"I am a college professor in Florida where they lock you up for a long time for carrying a weapon on any campus. Even our recent bill allowing permit holders to keep their weapons in cars does not apply to campuses--carrying/storing there is verboten".
It's the same in Louisiana. I hate it. I was working at a local highschool in BTR, LA when they alerted everyone that a student's mom called stating that he was heading back to school with a gun. I was angrier than a Beelzebub as I could not legally be armed while on campus (it's also posted) and i *think* one cannot be within 1,000 feet of a "campus", either.

I have mixed feelings. A lot of college students are horribly emotionally immature; not sure I'd feel comfortable with the partying with alcohol and firearms (despite what the laws may explicitly state). I also know that only the committed will choose to carry and only the trained, committed would actually use the thing - just like with the bulk of the public.

There would be some problems; suredly. But I think those issues can be avoided, albeit with WHOLESALE CULTURAL CHANGES WITHIN THIS NATION.
__________________
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." ~ William Pitt, 1783
Chui is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 11:01 PM   #112
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
A lot of college students are horribly emotionally immature; not sure I'd feel comfortable with the partying with alcohol and firearms
but non-college students are OK? Or is this another case of "no one but me is professional enough..."

I think we are all guilty of this from time to time. We assume that anyone who isn't like us is responsible.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 11:21 PM   #113
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
but non-college students are OK? Or is this another case of "no one but me is professional enough..."

I think we are all guilty of this from time to time. We assume that anyone who isn't like us is responsible.
I think this is a huge stumbling block in ever changing this policy, because everybody thinks "college student" and immediately sees the average 19-year-old hitting a beer bong at a frat party, or whatever.

Nevermind that there are 30-year-old veterans in college (some living on campus, particularly when you get to family housing), or former LEOs, or even perfectly responsible 21-year-olds (and, as you mentioned, drunken idiots who aren't in college but can carry).

Especially if we're talking about CCWs on campus, in which case you're generally talking 21+ (which weeds out most of the idiots...hell, most of the students).

Then you get back to the whole "north side/south side" argument, where for whatever reason I can be legally permitted to carry concealed on the north side of College Avenue, but for whatever reason the south side is off-limits...which makes sense, right?

And of course not all of that was aimed at you, Chui...you qualified your statement pretty thoroughly.

Quote:
The government does by due process of law if I commit a crime. IMO the property owner has no such authority.
This is why I don't think any law should ever recognize this "right" of propertyowners. It should never be illegal to carry on private property...the fundamental right a propertyowner has is to restrict who enters their property, and if somebody carries a firearm on their property against their wishes they're well within their rights to ask them to leave (and not return, and press charges if they do). Beyond that I see any terms a propertyowner sets on my entering their property as requests, and I don't see any reason they need to have the force of law behind them.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 11:40 PM   #114
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Beauty of the Constitution and law is that idiots are allowed the same rights. My objection is when I am deprived of my rights, because some stupid idiot does something absurd with his.
Socrates is offline  
Old January 13, 2009, 10:54 AM   #115
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
DIVEMEDIC: "but non-college students are OK? Or is this another case of "no one but me is professional enough..."

I think we are all guilty of this from time to time. We assume that anyone who isn't like us is (ir)responsible."
No, divemedic. That's not what I meant. We all know that there is a lot of stupidity walking around college campuses. Some of it is 17 years old and some of it is over 21 years old. The bulk is probably under 20. BUT... we have a nation of immature f-ups from 10 to 80 years old. CHANGE THIS HORRID FACET OF "THE NEW AMERICAN" CULTURE AND THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY DOESN'T IT? We KNOW that the vast majority are capable of being mature yet we've slipped to "the lowest common denominator" with respect to Character and Morals. Without Moral Self-Restraint one will be ruled by Rulers. I think I can govern myself. And so can you. All of you reading this.
__________________
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." ~ William Pitt, 1783
Chui is offline  
Old January 13, 2009, 11:08 AM   #116
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,843
To me, a college prof, the student carry issue is a complex and a special case. The core of the problem revolves not around the actual carry in my mind in the classroom but the peculiar situation of campus dorm life.

I've argued for carry, of course - but not by the MRI - that's a special case.

In the dorms, we have an exaggeration of behavior and risky decision making. Young students are led into stupid behaviors by irrational group activities that push risk taking and substance abuse. Security for property is very lax. In fact, in my other role - prof. supreme! ), I'm reviewing a set of articles on teenage risk taking and their diminished capacity in some arenas for common sense.

One might comment that we allow 18 years to carry guns in the service but that situation is fairly tightly monitored by more mature adults that acculturate the young ones. It's argued that the dorm situation is more risk inducing that situations in the past where young folks were apprenticed out to older folks in the work force. Now, they are relatively unsupervised and left on their own, group pressures lead to stupidity.

Now most of the carrier group would be over 21 and probably want to get off campus. No problem for me - my specific problem is that I'm not comfortable with carry guns in the stew of the dorms as currently controlled.

We get such stupid behavior every weekend.

So, I'm torn between the conflicting forces on student carry - perhaps a special look at students beyond the simple license might work but that is another can of worms. Sigh.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 13, 2009, 11:18 AM   #117
rsgraebert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 29, 2008
Location: Northern Ohio
Posts: 201
You can always compromise. A dormitory is no place for firearms - that's something I can state with all the experience of having lived in one. That said, most dorm denizens are under 21 and would not have a license in the first place. As a compromise, the college could still exercise private property rights and ban firearms in dormitories if they felt the need.

My issue is with my STATE removing the decision from the hands of the colleges. It's illegal in Ohio to carry on a campus and there's nothing a campus could do about it if they wanted to. Dorms, streets, buildings, classrooms - it's all de facto off limits. As stated above, there are plenty of us attending and teaching at universities who don't fit the beer bonging profile.
__________________
Sharp as a cue ball...but moving faster.
rsgraebert is offline  
Old January 13, 2009, 08:55 PM   #118
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
I'll also point out that all dorms are not created equal. During the week I stay in a dorm that is entirely 21 and up, and all single rooms (with sturdy exterior-grade doors for each room). Caters largely to international students, and non-traditional students (including many veterans). Ages range from 21 to some guys I've seen than must be upwards of 40+. Yes, sometimes I wonder why somebody who's 40 would be staying in a dorm...just as some might wonder why I'm here (at nearly 30). I'm guessing that, as in my case, there's a good reason.

Security of property is no more an issue really than it would be in an apartment. The level of stupid behavior is nothing compared to what I've seen in the "general pop" dorms. There's really no reason whatsoever that somebody couldn't keep a firearm in their room here, particularly if they agreed to secure it in some form of safe (at their own expense).

Even better, we're actually allowed to check in firearms down at the front desk. But not handguns. So you can bring in and store any rifle you want (including an AR-15, FAL, whatever...and people do), but heaven forbid you have a CCW and want to store a handgun there when you aren't carrying. Then again, you'd have no way to get from your car to the front desk anyway without breaking school policy and possibly the law as well anyway.

This is why blanket bans of any kind always seem somewhat ludicrous to me.

And that's before you get into the family housing issue, which is a whole 'nother level of absurd (as those are duplexes and even freestanding single-family houses no different than the ones across the street).
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old January 13, 2009, 09:11 PM   #119
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,657
In Michigan one can walk on Univ of Michigan or MI State's campus carrying concealed but you cannot enter the buildings with it. I like that. It's nice to walk thru the Quad or wherever to get to bookstores, restaurants, etc with "your best friend" in tow. Louisiana does not allow one to carry on campus or be within 1,000 feet of a campus. How they'd enforce the "within 1,000 feet" I don't know. There are a lot of restaurants within the 1,000 feet of LSU's campus on Highland Road. Crazy but true...
__________________
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." ~ William Pitt, 1783
Chui is offline  
Old January 14, 2009, 01:52 AM   #120
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,089
Quote:
So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?
Every person has a right to self-defense, to prevent injury or death to themselves, with the exception of the legally condemned man facing his execution.

Government can prohibit or curtail your self-defense rights when you are in custody (i.e. resisting, assault, no fighting rules or statutes for jails, etc).

There can be exceptions written in law that equate some forms of self-defense to a crime. Defending yourself against "attack" by a police officer may be called resisting arrest or battery on an officer. That doesn't make these statutes correct policy, however.

When it comes to private property, a property owner cannot suspend or deny your right to self-defense. The property owner may order you off his property for any reason[1] and/or enforce that order as provided by law.

However, that does not mean a property owner can't display a "no weapons allowed" sign or simply "No firearms" sign. Doing so does not remove your right to self-defense, but it does limit your choice of tools and equipment.

Your right of self-defense is not negated by prohibitions against carrying a firearm on the property. Arguing such is akin to claiming restraint of trade because you can't drive 100mph to work every day. You still have a right to self-defense and may defend yourself, even though it may be more difficult.[2]

When it comes to employers who prohibit guns in their businesses, they may do so as they see fit. Their authority does not include the interior of an employee's vehicle, however. If we extend their argument, then a company that bans tobacco products for a "smoke free environment" may fire an employee who's spouse keeps spare cigarettes in the car or the employee who smokes in his car when off the property. Such invasions of privacy and one's "pursuit of happiness" overstep the property or business owner's jurisdiction.

[1] - Property owners can order anyone off their property, though property open to the public (businesses) may not discriminate soley on certain characteristics like race, religion, ethnic background, etc.
[2] - While a business or property owner can prohibit legally carried firearms, they should recognize that they will legally shoulder a higher burdern of responsibility for the safety of visitors.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old January 14, 2009, 06:02 AM   #121
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
they should recognize that they will legally shoulder a higher burdern of responsibility for the safety of visitors.
Except they do not, claiming "third party intervention."

Quote:
then a company that bans tobacco products for a "smoke free environment" may fire an employee who's spouse keeps spare cigarettes in the car or the employee who smokes in his car when off the property.
It gets worse. There is a company in my area that fires people for smoking in their own homes, or anywhere else, for that matter. All of you private property advocates can explain to me how that can not be extended to a policy of firing gun owners, or even by requiring your employees to bring in an absentee ballot with a vote for a certain political candidate in order to keep your job.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 14, 2009, 10:43 AM   #122
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Your right of self-defense is not negated by prohibitions against carrying a firearm on the property.
I think it is if I can't carry. If you are saying I can still defend myself with my bare hands against a BG with a firearm and thus my right to self defense is not negated I say that is non sequitur. The exception of course is Chuck Norris.

Quote:
While a business or property owner can prohibit legally carried firearms, they should recognize that they will legally shoulder a higher burdern of responsibility for the safety of visitors.
The problem is that the law does not recognize that principle. IIRC, unless the company has prior knowledge of a known threat (meaning a specific person) then they will withstand a lawsuit and still prohibit you from carry. That is immoral. They have the authority to disarm you but are not responsible for your safety and claim that you "waive" the right to SD by enjoying entry on their property. Again, IMO immoral.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 14, 2009, 11:17 AM   #123
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
It gets worse. There is a company in my area that fires people for smoking in their own homes, or anywhere else, for that matter. All of you private property advocates can explain to me how that can not be extended to a policy of firing gun owners, or even by requiring your employees to bring in an absentee ballot with a vote for a certain political candidate in order to keep your job.
Well the last has been made explicitly illegal, no? As for firing gun owners, that's an enumerated Constitutional right, so I'd like to think that they'd have to show some way in which it affects their company to get away with that...well, that or act like they're firing for no reason at all, right-to-work and all.

The reason they can get away with firing smokers is because it has an actual monetary impact on their business, though their health insurance costs. I don't agree with the policy, but at the same time I can see how a reasonable person might. Well, a mostly reasonable person.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old January 14, 2009, 11:33 AM   #124
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillCA
Your right of self-defense is not negated by prohibitions against carrying a firearm on the property. Arguing such is akin to claiming restraint of trade because you can't drive 100mph to work every day. You still have a right to self-defense and may defend yourself, even though it may be more difficult.
That's the type of argument I was referencing earlier. If you wound up in a legal/political argument, and this came up, you'd probably be sunk. In arguing for our rights, and RKBA is one, we should use the most airtight arguments we can muster.
Now, as a secondary argument, the suitability of firearms for SD is a quite compelling reason for RKBA, in my opinion.
raimius is offline  
Old January 14, 2009, 11:58 PM   #125
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,089
Before some of you guys start thinking of me in conjuction with rope + tree let me remind you I was replying to Antipitas who asked:
Quote:
So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?
Your preeminent right is self-defense. Except within some very narrow circumstances, you always have that right.

Your right to self-defense is preeminent.
Not self-defense with a firearm.
Not self-defense with an edged weapon.
Not self-defense with chemical agents.

This distinction is important. While you retain the right to self-defense, it does not automatically equate to the right to always carry weapons. If you must defend yourself against a potentially lethal attack then the use of any tool(s) you can obtain is generally permissible. Historically, weapons are barred in courtrooms, voting places, jails & prisons, military reservations and secure government facilities. You still have your right to self-defense, simply with limited means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by divemedic
It gets worse. There is a company in my area that fires people for smoking in their own homes, or anywhere else, for that matter. All of you private property advocates can explain to me how that can not be extended to a policy of firing gun owners, or even by requiring your employees to bring in an absentee ballot with a vote for a certain political candidate in order to keep your job.
It is amazing some of the things some businesses required of their employees in the past and even today. Henry Ford once required his workers to live in his company Fordtown. Facial hair was prohibited, families were required to attend church weekly, no alcohol was allowed and certainly no firearms.

Today the 'evil sin' is smoking tobacco. Tomorrow it will be people who are not height/weight proprotionate (it's already started). After that, it will be people with a history of any recurring illness. However, forcing employees to vote for specific candidates has already been quashed. The right to possess firearms as a civil right should prevent employers from requiring people not own firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
The problem is that the law does not recognize that principle [a higher burden where arms are forbidden]. IIRC, unless the company has prior knowledge of a known threat (meaning a specific person) then they will withstand a lawsuit and still prohibit you from carry. That is immoral. They have the authority to disarm you but are not responsible for your safety and claim that you "waive" the right to SD by enjoying entry on their property. Again, IMO immoral.
I don't believe that is true. It certainly isn't true for businesses that do not have a "walk-in trade" - such as corporate offices. After several incidents of workplace violence, legal arguments brought up the prohibition of "weapons" in the workplace, including even small jack-knives in some cases and the subsequent lack of security in the offices, regardless of known threats.

The result was that businesses not "open to the public" can be held liable for workplace injuries if unauthorized persons can easily gain access to the buildings. This forced many businesses to spend thousands of dollars on access control. To wit:
- Installing card-key locks on all exterior doors
- Fencing and/or gating outdoor break/lunch areas and adding card-key access
- Issuing cards with photographs and/or colored badges.
- Requiring constant display of access card/badges
- Securing elevator and stairwell access on every floor.
- Prohibiting employees from "piggybacking" inside on another employee's card.
- Maintaining security in shipping/receiving dock areas.
- Prohibiting of propping doors open in non-secured areas, such as trash disposal.

I once had an employer who's employee handbook was written from some kind of lawyer-ese boilerplate and then modified for the company. One of the more poorly written rules was about weapons. It read "Employees are forbidden to possess drugs, firearms and other weapons in any facility during working hours." I asked specifically how that would work in a tele-commuting situation or if it applied to an employee staying in a hotel during a business trip. That started some fun discussions with the V.P. of HR claiming it applied regardless of location and several of us telling her to pound sand.

Certain businesses are "high risk". Liquor stores, check-cashing, 7-11 or convenience stores, certain restaurants, etc. Yet these businesses will prohibit cashier employees from being armed on the basis of corporate liability, danger to coworkers and the public for accidents and other claims. Yet, those same companies are NOT required to disclose to potential employees the number of violent crimes that have occurred nor how many times they've been robbed. That, to me, is patently wrong.

This is verbose, I'll get back on topic with campus firearms in the next post.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15788 seconds with 7 queries