The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 8, 2010, 05:57 PM   #51
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
does any else find this hypocrital-
Not at all.
markj is offline  
Old March 8, 2010, 06:10 PM   #52
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Glenn,

How can your right to self defense trump someones property rights when you are not required to go onto said property?

If you don't like the owners policies don't patronize their business.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 8, 2010, 08:27 PM   #53
Palmetto-Pride
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,923
Well I am glad we are all in agreement...lol

I guess we can beat a dead horse all day long, but what I have learned from this thread is that there is not much difference in the way pro gunners think and the way anti gunners think....
__________________
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

-Margaret Thatcher-
Palmetto-Pride is offline  
Old March 8, 2010, 09:42 PM   #54
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,793
I'm not required to go to stores to buy food or clothing? I could live in the woods. We long ago decided that businesses did not have the absolute right to refuse patronage based on what was called protected classes.

The store owner benefits from the protections that all taxpayers provide. Fire, police, etc. Thus, he or she has no right to deny patronage unless he or she gives up the services provided by the state.

I regard the right of self-defense as another instance of a right that makes one protected against the vagaries of a business that is open to the public and expects tax payer based services.

Once you decide you are open to the public, you give up rights. The mall owner must provide toilets. Isn't it the right of the store owner not to have a toilet?

Private property is not inviolate, you cannpt poop on your lawn as it is detrimental to society. Not allowing people to defend themselves and taking services from the tax payers voids that belief that a business is an inviolate castle.
__________________
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 March 8, 2010, 10:04 PM   #55
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Do all stores deny you these rights?

Many store owners don't allow the public use of their restrooms. If I didn't like it I would shop somewhere that I could use the facilities. Malls and toilets is a horrible example anyway. I think a mall should be free to have no toilets, if the developer was that dumb. They would go out of business rather quickly as customers found the shopping experience unpleasant.

The store is not denying you patronage. They have requested that you not bring a certain implement into their establishment. Saying guns aren't welcome is different than saying gun owners aren't welcome.

Are you telling me that you can only get the things you need at stores that don't allow you to carry? I have yet to see a Walmart with a no carry sign and you can get just about everything you need there.

I don't shop at stores that have policies or service that I don't like. If you feel a policy against guns in a business is the wrong answer then take your business elsewhere.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 8, 2010, 10:08 PM   #56
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
And I don't see gun owners or more specifically gun owners that carry as a protected class.

A business can't discriminate against pro life christians but they can ask that they not bring their 3'x3' picture of an aborted fetus and parade it around the business.

Asking that you not bring certain items into a business and out right denying someone patronage are completely different things.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 8, 2010, 11:41 PM   #57
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,793
We will just disagree. I view the right of self-defense has one that should be as protected as race, etc. Carry does not disrupt the store operations as nuts preaching any politics in the store, so that is a false comparison.

As far as stores not having basic health standards to meet, that is property rights gone beserk.

The argument that there are other stores is specious. Denial of patronage has a long history of controlling where folks could live and was an instrument of discrimination. Antigunners specifically argued for this privliege in the gun case in order to make carry so difficult as to be useless.

Thus, the little property rights king in his castle is not appealing to me. For such absolutism, buy an island and don't ask tax payers to provide services.
__________________
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 March 8, 2010, 11:51 PM   #58
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
I am not saying that my bloviation is legal I just am saying that my safety is more important than some silly sign. If I have to use my sidearm I will take the weight. Otherwise, it will be a unobtrusive weight on my hip. Perhaps I am prejudiced by my job but the only places I am not armed are federal buildings and Airports. YMMV
Wagonman is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 10:18 AM   #59
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
You could argue that the right of self defense is so important that it trumps property rights. I disagree unless there is no choice but to go onto said property. If there are other places reasonably available to you that provide the same products and services then go to those places.

Using the protected class argument just doesn't make any sense. A protected class is a group of people protected against discirmination or harrasment.

Race, gender, ethnicity, veterans status, and disabilities are all examples of protected classes. Where exactly do guns fit into that?

A no guns sign is completely different than a whites only sign. One seeks to exclude a tool and the other seeks to exclude a whole race of people.

An argument touting the importance of the right of self defense over property rights is logical but the protected class argument just doesn't make any sense.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 10:49 AM   #60
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,793
The protected class argument has two points:

1. A characteristic of a citizen was used to trump those who claimed their property rights were sufficient to support their racism. Thus property rights are not supreme when society views an absolutist position as detrimental to society and fundamentally evil

2. Exercising the right of self-defense is inherent property of being a human being. Being of a protected class is also inherent in you. Your rights to function in society were not open to property owners (who opened for business and expect tax payer paid for services) to use as discriminatory decision points. Thus, this inherent property of self-defense (like your race, etc.) should not be open to discrimination. I see no reason to allow discrimination based on race and allow it because you are a human being with the right of self-defense (except in the techy case, I mentioned earlier).

Protected classes are a social construct - we still argue as to what that protection encompasses. Clearly some societies deny those rights still. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive. Is not freedom of travel something to be granted to all? I regard self-defense as inherent and not a grounds for discrimination when you open yourself to the public for business.

You don't have to have a business. You can be a wage-slave or a hunter-gatherer.

Who says you have right to a business, expect tax payer supplies services and then want to deny rights to people?
__________________
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 March 9, 2010, 11:09 AM   #61
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by vranasaurus
Malls and toilets is a horrible example anyway. I think a mall should be free to have no toilets, if the developer was that dumb. They would go out of business rather quickly as customers found the shopping experience unpleasant.
You know that many local codes and ordinances REQUIRE that certain facilities have public bathrooms? More invasion of property right. Glenn make a good point (one he has made many times before) property rights like gun rights are NOT absolute and are subject to regulation.

Why should self defense trump property rights? Maybe the answer concerns what is at stake? Business or life. Also, as to choice, there is theoretical choice in the academic sense and real choice in the pragmatic sense. They are different.
__________________
"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 March 9, 2010, 11:56 AM   #62
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
...I view the right of self-defense has one that should be as protected as race, etc.....
Perhaps it should be, but the thing is that right now it is not.

All the various restrictions on the use of private property by business, e. g., prohibition against racial discrimination, public health requirements, etc., flow from specific statutes or building codes or zoning ordinance or business license requirements. But I'm not aware of any law making "people lawfully carrying a gun" a protected class.

Perhaps somewhere there's a place with a law that a business can't exclude people from the property because they are carrying a gun (some states do require that employers allow employees to have guns locked in their cars), but I don't know of any. In fact, many state laws expressly permit a business to post against carrying firearms on the premises, although some require that the signs be in a specific form or have "magic words."

In these sorts of threads on various forums I've read a variety of good reason why a business should not be able to keep people from legally carrying guns on the premises. But unless and until those reasons get translated into laws requiring that a business let in folks lawfully carrying guns, the business doesn't have to.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 12:11 PM   #63
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,793
Yep, that's why we need legislation to take carry beyond the powers of the shop keeper and employer to control - except for the techy case.

None of our 'rights' that we think exist in abstract are instantiated without legislation.

Thus, thus the efforts to construct such laws.

They are usually opposed by antigunners and business interests. The latter really don't care about anything but the bottom line buck. They use property rights as a cover for their venial interests.

I understand that carry is not protected. It should be, but in TX - business interests and the almighty buck trashed it. Gun rights spouting legislators and business people forgot about that 'right' for their own perceived financial risk.
__________________
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 March 9, 2010, 12:30 PM   #64
m.p.driver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 552
Got a friend into shooting several years ago.The first gun show he went to with us he asked if anyone had ever fired off a round.I told him that in almost 25 years i had never heard of such an incidence.Half hour later we heard a bang at the front of the hall.When we eventually worked our way back to the front tables i asked a vendor what had happened.A joker had walked in with a Tec-22 ,someone had asked if it was for sale and he said yes as he pulled a mag out of his pocket.Said it was his pocket Uzi as he slapped the magazine home,with the bolt going forward and firing off a round.The ricochet off the floor hit a woman in the calf whose husband then commence to assault the gun owner.
After having the muzzles of rifle,shotguns,and pistols pointed at my head,seeing firearms dropped on concrete.Seeing individuals that i wouldn't trust with a pointed stick mauling firearms,i feel safer knowing hopefully that they're not loaded.
m.p.driver is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 12:41 PM   #65
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
??? Race = carrying ??? If i had a carry permit (currently don't), i could lock my pistol in the trunk to go into a "no firearms allowed" venue, but I cannot change my race. Can i be a "protected class" by choice, perhaps simply to annoy some property owner/lessee? Maybe it is because i grew up in southern Mississippi where there is still some segregation (its voluntary nature can be argued) by race, but i just cannot equate a voluntary choice to be different with someone's race or ethnicity. I just don't get that???

I think our rights come with the responsibility to exercise them in conjunction with a respect for the rights, even the conflicting rights, of others. Just because i have a right to speak my mind freely, i shouldn't do so in your home at 3 AM, unless you invited me to do so.
orangello is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 02:53 PM   #66
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,793
I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly.

However, no one was talking about your home.

It was a business open to the public that gets services from tax payers. It invites people in.

Also, religion is protected. But that is a choice. How about that?

Change your religion.

It's voluntary, isn't it? I supposed it is voluntary to give up your right to protect yourself. Just as it is possible to give up your ability to worship Deity X in order to go to a store run by a property owner who says: NO Worshippers of Deity X can come into my store!

I regard the private property arguments as more a psychological and emotional appeal maintaining your terrority as alpha dude as compared to a rational view of the issue.

Agree with me or not. We have done this so many times before.

I can't say anymore on this. Enjoy your castle and cooperating with antigun rhetoric. I felt sorry for the gun show manager who had the choice of going out of business. That's why I want him or her to have legislative protection.
__________________
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 March 9, 2010, 03:30 PM   #67
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,372
Glenn, your argument doesn't work out. If gun carriers are a protected class, so are property owners. If no one can restrict your right to carry, then no one can restrict the right of the property owner to tell you to get lost. If you accept restrictions to property rights based on "public use", you also have to accept restrictions on your right to carry. Otherwise you'd get a "ranking" of rights, with dire consequences. You could have churches having to perform gay marriages, or, if you turn the ranking around, churches be allowed to exclude blacks.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 03:32 PM   #68
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
Quote:
I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. However, no one was talking about your home.
My apologies on misunderstanding this point and for my exagerated response.

It was a business open to the public that gets services from tax payers. It invites people in.
My home does receive services from the taxpayers (fire, police, water, sewer). It is not open to the public though, good point, but what if i operate a small business from my basement that allows face-to-face transactions? (massage parlor perhaps)

Also, religion is protected. But that is a choice. How about that?
That is arguable, but not by me (am superstitious agnostic raised as baptist).

sorry for the gun show manager who had the choice of going out of business. That's why I want him or her to have legislative protection.
I fully agree with pity for the gunshow manager having to decide between ethics and practicality.

I would hope there would be a solution that didn't involve another governmental attempt to legislate common sense, common courtesy, or morality. I would further hope that common courtesy would help folks to temporarily subjugate their right to self defense in deference to the gunshow manager's private property rights and need for insurance/liability coverage, regardless of which right is ultimately superior in a legal hierarchy.

I would hazard a guess that this problem will ultimately be solved by governmental restrictions on gun shows curbing gun shows to the point of extinction. sadly so.
orangello is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 04:31 PM   #69
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,793
Rights and their implementation are a social construct and thus can be ranked. Ranking them doesn't imply that we must accept some other set. Restrictions of one right doesn't imply that others must be necessarily XY or Z. Freedom of religion doesn't trump a state prohibiting religious human sacrifice (even if voluntarily entered into by someone who is probably delusional).

If a modern Abraham decided to sacrifice his son, like Issac -according to his view of the will of the Lord, I expect the state to step in.

I set up what is my opinion of what right trumps what other right.

I think self-defense trumps property rights of folks who are open for business as I think discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or ethnic group is not acceptable based on a property rights argument.

Exercising a basic right of humanity should be protected in the business circumstance I laid out. You have a business open to the public.

You don't have to agree with me. But property rights for me, don't trump others on a prior basis.

The state did control whom could be married, BTW - read the proposed constitutional amendment back when for prohibiting whites from marrying blacks.

PS - have to do some work now. I've said it all. If I don't answer your telling logic - nothing personal. Got to make a living.
__________________
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 March 9, 2010, 05:38 PM   #70
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
there is not much difference in the way pro gunners think and the way anti gunners think....
I see it as a bunch of law abiding guys that will not break the law cause if they do and get caught well you may lose the privilage of concealed carry and gun ownership.

Every gun show I have went to there were armed guys around so I didnt feel un safe in that environment.
markj is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 07:34 PM   #71
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Maybe one issue we haven't touched on is what does the gun show give us in return for our guns. Do they check everyone who comes in? Do they provide armed security for those who are inside. Those are generally my two conditions for the fair exchange. I used to work in a building where everyone was searched and armed guards patrolled. Therefore, since someone else was closely guarding me (Marines actually) I did not feel abused by not carrying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mapsjanhere
If gun carriers are a protected class, so are property owners.
I think rights have to be balanced. What is at stake? Insurance mandates and civil liability or life?
__________________
"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 March 9, 2010, 07:50 PM   #72
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapsjanhere
...If gun carriers are a protected class, so are property owners. If no one can restrict your right to carry, then no one can restrict the right of the property owner to tell you to get lost. ...you'd get a "ranking" of rights, ...
Rights are indeed commonly ranked. The civil rights laws represent a ranking of rights, as do a variety of land use and zoning laws, business licensing laws, etc. What right trumps what right, and to what extent, becomes a political and policy issue, subject to scrutiny by the courts. And the courts have, over the years, developed standards for deciding if the regulation or limitation of a constitutionally protected right has gone too far.

Personally, I think that a law requiring a business to let in lawfully armed customers would survive a court challenge. At least one federal court of appeals has upheld a state law requiring employers to let employees keep a gun locked in their cars parked on company property. But so far a law keeping businesses from tossing out legally armed customers hasn't been politically viable.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 07:57 PM   #73
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
fiddletown, Don't enumerated rights get priority over unenumerated rights?
__________________
"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 March 9, 2010, 08:33 PM   #74
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
....Don't enumerated rights get priority over unenumerated rights? ...
Yes*, but they are not inviolate. So it wouldn't be an impermissible abridgment of your right of free speech to arrest you for disturbing the peace when you stand on your front porch and exhort your neighbors to vote Republican -- using a bullhorn -- at 3:00 am.

Of course that raises some interesting questions in the case of the 2nd Amendment. Remember that the Constitution doesn't regulate private conduct. So while government may not infringe the right to keep and bear arms (subject, of course to existing constitutional law permitting limited regulation of constitutionally protected rights), a private entity is free to "infringe" your right to have a gun on its private property (absent some other prohibition in statute or case law on such conduct).

_____________________________________

*The standard of scrutiny thus far applied to rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights has been strict scrutiny. That's a three prong test --

[1] The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

[2] The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

[3] The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

We'll see what standard winds up being applied in the case of the 2nd Amendment.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 9, 2010, 08:34 PM   #75
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 512
Quote:
Maybe one issue we haven't touched on is what does the gun show give us in return for our guns. Do they check everyone who comes in? Do they provide armed security for those who are inside. Those are generally my two conditions for the fair exchange. I used to work in a building where everyone was searched and armed guards patrolled. Therefore, since someone else was closely guarding me (Marines actually) I did not feel abused by not carrying.
I don't think the problem is so much inside the venue, but out in the parking lot. Lot of folks carrying valuable (unloaded) guns and big wads of cash. Seems like that is where you would be vulnerable. Some shows I've been to aren't in the best part of town and outside security is non-existent.

A clearing barrel at the entrance for loading/unloading a carry gun, which would then have to be kept stowed and unloaded on one's person with the ammunition separate seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
JN01 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 09:15 AM.


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 0.14958 seconds with 7 queries