Constitutional vs property rights - Page 13

Constitutional vs property rights

This is a discussion on Constitutional vs property rights within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 9MMare Someone wrote that Utah does. And I think someone wrote of another state as well. To be honest...what does it say ...

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 337
Like Tree511Likes

Thread: Constitutional vs property rights

  1. #181
    VIP Member Array G-man*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    17,156
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Someone wrote that Utah does. And I think someone wrote of another state as well.

    To be honest...what does it say of our respect for the 2A, a Constitutional right, if we choose (are allowed to choose)..prevent...someone else's ability to exercise that right? Yeah, they can go somewhere else but that's not my question.
    I think property rights vs residential rights are a key here.

    For instance, a property owned and operated for the purposes of providing a daycare.

    I don't know about anyone else, but if I had a child in daycare, I just do not trust everyone's ability or responsibleness to be around my child with a firearm, so I am perfectly fine with the prohibition therein.
    " Blessed is that man, who when facing death, thinks only of his front sight.”
    -Jeff Cooper

    “ Looking around doesn’t cost you anything; and it’s a healthy habit”
    -Joe Foss

  2. #182
    VIP Member Array G-man*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    17,156
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Hmmm. That seems rather flimsy and convenient to me. What substantially makes that difference significant?

    I'm a landlord btw, and dont bring it up at all and it seems almost all my tenants have had firearms. Including the young military couple, who gave each other a .50 short barrel S&W handgun for a wedding gift. And put stickers to that effect on the back and front doors of the bungalow *sigh*. That sucker sure was fun to shoot tho! (And expensive as Hell at about $1.50 per cartridge.) And the stickers are still up. Nobody else has objected and I dont feel like scraping them off.
    Flimsy?
    Its the difference in a legal right to property because you are paying for it as your home, and the use of it as a visitor strictly for the purposes of being a patron.

    Do you really think that a renter/tenant and a shopper have the same rights to the properties they enter?
    " Blessed is that man, who when facing death, thinks only of his front sight.”
    -Jeff Cooper

    “ Looking around doesn’t cost you anything; and it’s a healthy habit”
    -Joe Foss

  3. #183
    Ex Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,084
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Flimsy?
    Its the difference in a legal right to property because you are paying for it as your home, and the use of it as a visitor strictly for the purposes of being a patron.

    Do you really think that a renter/tenant and a shopper have the same rights to the properties they enter?
    I guess it depends on how flexible you believe people's 2A rights are. Our lives are at stake either way. I can get killed just as easily (more really) in someone's public business than my domicile on my own or another's property.

    And I'm not sure how 'use of the premises' makes a difference either. Both, according to the property owner, have a right to be there according to the purpose set forth by the property owner. Neither purpose revolves around firearms (unless a gun store, etc) so that wouldnt factor in IMO.

    Edited

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #184
    Ex Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,084
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I think property rights vs residential rights are a key here.

    For instance, a property owned and operated for the purposes of providing a daycare.

    I don't know about anyone else, but if I had a child in daycare, I just do not trust everyone's ability or responsibleness to be around my child with a firearm, so I am perfectly fine with the prohibition therein.
    OK. So people dropping off/picking up their kids could not enter if they were carrying?

    I dont agree but that's fine.

  6. #185
    VIP Member Array G-man*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    17,156
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I guess it depends on how flexible people's 2A rights are. Our lives are at stake either way. I can get killed just as easily (more really) in someone's public business than my domicile on my own or another's property.
    Its not a question of flexibility, but rather physical domain.

    The legal possession, or the one in control of said property has the ultimate say so about what happens on that property. They pay the light bill, insurance and everything else.

    The bottom line is the law weighs heavily with great emphasis on the concept that a property owner has rights to control said property. If not, then all the concepts held dearly, including individual rights are null and void.

    Just look at the differences in a homeowner vs a tenant.
    As a homeowner, if I get 50 noise ordinance violations by playing my music too loud, the local law is all I have to deal with. I can't be kicked out of my home, it's my property.

    A tenant on the other hand, can be evicted, because they have no legal entitlement beyond the contract limitations.

    While I do believe tenants should be afforded the same 2nd Amed rights because they are paying for a dwelling in which is their home/castle.

    However, the rules a landlord may impart regarding no firearms policy would be next to impossible to enforce unless the tenant OC'ed, or could not keep their mouth shut.
    And if caught, would only suffer a sanction by the landlord, not a legal citation.
    sethrus and Rock and Glock like this.
    " Blessed is that man, who when facing death, thinks only of his front sight.”
    -Jeff Cooper

    “ Looking around doesn’t cost you anything; and it’s a healthy habit”
    -Joe Foss

  7. #186
    VIP Member Array G-man*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    17,156
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    OK. So people dropping off/picking up their kids could not enter if they were carrying?

    I dont agree but that's fine.
    If that be the rules......yes.
    " Blessed is that man, who when facing death, thinks only of his front sight.”
    -Jeff Cooper

    “ Looking around doesn’t cost you anything; and it’s a healthy habit”
    -Joe Foss

  8. #187
    Ex Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,084
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    If that be the rules......yes.
    ok
    ...
    Rock and Glock likes this.

  9. #188
    Ex Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,084
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Its not a question of flexibility, but rather physical domain.

    The legal possession, or the one in control of said property has the ultimate say so about what happens on that property. They pay the light bill, insurance and everything else.

    The bottom line is the law weighs heavily with great emphasis on the concept that a property owner has rights to control said property. If not, then all the concepts held dearly, including individual rights are null and void.

    Just look at the differences in a homeowner vs a tenant.
    As a homeowner, if I get 50 noise ordinance violations by playing my music too loud, the local law is all I have to deal with. I can't be kicked out of my home, it's my property.

    A tenant on the other hand, can be evicted, because they have no legal entitlement beyond the contract limitations.

    While I do believe tenants should be afforded the same 2nd Amed rights because they are paying for a dwelling in which is their home/castle.

    However, the rules a landlord may impart regarding no firearms policy would be next to impossible to enforce unless the tenant OC'ed, or could not keep their mouth shut.
    And if caught, would only suffer a sanction by the landlord, not a legal citation.
    I'm sorry I know you are trying to be clear but I do not see the distinctions at all. And I gave one reason why....the use of the property (rental or business) has nothing to do with firearms so then why is it ok for the renter to own firearms but the shopper not (carry)? It's just a matter of degree and we know very well that many would say the renter has no right to keep firearms either.

    And you are also saying the same thing many of us say regarding carrying past "no guns" signs (where they are backed by law)...it's nearly impossible to enforce if people cc properly and if you left, there would be no legal sanction, so just suffer sanction of loss of business' services.

    I guess to me, the really significant 'physical domain' is my person...and my personal safety. As I've written, I do place that above someone else's property rights. (Not that I would disregard other peoples' property rights in all cases.)
    baren likes this.

  10. #189
    Member Array sethrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    US
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    OK. So people dropping off/picking up their kids could not enter if they were carrying?

    I dont agree but that's fine.
    Again, depends on the state. Guns forbidden in schools here, but people (carry permit) dropping off/picking up are specifically exempt.

    Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

  11. #190
    VIP Member Array G-man*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    17,156
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I'm sorry I know you are trying to be clear but I do not see the distinctions at all. And I gave one reason why....the use of the property (rental or business) has nothing to do with firearms so then why is it ok for the renter to own firearms but the shopper not (carry)? It's just a matter of degree and we know very well that many would say the renter has no right to keep firearms either.

    And you are also saying the same thing many of us say regarding carrying past "no guns" signs (where they are backed by law)...it's nearly impossible to enforce if people cc properly and if you left, there would be no legal sanction, so just suffer sanction of loss of business' services.

    I guess to me, the really significant 'physical domain' is my person...and my personal safety. As I've written, I do place that above someone else's property rights. (Not that I would disregard other peoples' property rights in all cases.)
    If I read what you are asking correctly, the disconnect here is your home, whether legally owned under purchase, and your home, if rented for the purposes of being your home, vs, property that you visit that is owned by someone else who is conducting a business.

    The difference is placed on two things; the idea and premises that your home is your castle, dwelling, sanctuary, with an expectation to all privacy and privilege thereof.

    The other is based soley on the concept that private property in which is used for conducting business, in which the patron(visitor), has no legal input on the rules that the owner has placed on its criteria of use.
    As long as that criteria does not place an undue hardship, or demand on the visitor, that leaves them without recourse, the controlling party of that property can set limitations.
    However, the controlling party(owner) is not bound by those limitations themselves.

    Just as you have a right to say if people visiting your home take off their shoes, you yourself can wear shoes.

    If, you allow someone to stay at your house for a certain amount of time, and start receiving mail, and have their possessions established in your home for a period of time, in some cases and state law, they have established curtilage, and now have to be evicted thru a court process.
    Until then , they have established a legal right to do what they wish, in your house.

    These laws can vary from state to states, but you get the general idea.
    " Blessed is that man, who when facing death, thinks only of his front sight.”
    -Jeff Cooper

    “ Looking around doesn’t cost you anything; and it’s a healthy habit”
    -Joe Foss

  12. #191
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,606
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I'm sorry I know you are trying to be clear but I do not see the distinctions at all. And I gave one reason why....the use of the property (rental or business) has nothing to do with firearms so then why is it ok for the renter to own firearms but the shopper not (carry)? It's just a matter of degree and we know very well that many would say the renter has no right to keep firearms either.

    And you are also saying the same thing many of us say regarding carrying past "no guns" signs (where they are backed by law)...it's nearly impossible to enforce if people cc properly and if you left, there would be no legal sanction, so just suffer sanction of loss of business' services.

    I guess to me, the really significant 'physical domain' is my person...and my personal safety. As I've written, I do place that above someone else's property rights. (Not that I would disregard other peoples' property rights in all cases.)
    Because there are different classes in property law. Other than the owner and their agents you have:

    "Invitee", such as a customer in a store. A "Licensee" such as a person who enters a business in order to sell them something. A "Social guest" as in a friend of the shop owner who is hanging out (Bubba hanging out at the gun shop) but not there to conduct any business. And, "Trespasser" who is there without the permission of the owner or their representative.

    To be an Invitee, Licensee, or Social Guest one must have the consent of the owner or their agent. The agent is someone with apparent legal authority over the property (manager on duty in a store for example).

    When you sign a residential lease you (in all states I am aware of) gain legal authority over a specified piece of property (your apartment). That is what allows you to make the rules for your apartment like taking shoes off upon entry, not wearing New England Patriots hats, not carrying arms, whatever. You get to establish the conditions upon which others must abide to have you consent to their presence. If they are there without your consent they are trespassing.

    When you walk into a store you do not sign a lease, and therefore have no legal authority over the property and must abide by the owners or agents rules to have their consent to be present. If you do not you are trespassing.
    G-man* likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #192
    Member Array Ronin_Jedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by flaco40 View Post
    I was on another forum where a pretty lively discussion occurred about the rights of property owners to deny access to ccw holders... it got me thinking about how the trespass laws are used against people who have not only a constitutional right but also a government issued permit to carry.
    I know the natural response is to just refuse to do business with them and I agree with this but I wonder if we could take it a step further. .. by getting the licensing agencies to require as a requirement of doing business that the business respect the rights of their customer?
    In other words you are asking that we become communist / dictatorial?

    No, I'm not trolling but a serious question. By its very nature under a system recognizing individual rights, the owner of any property has the right to dictate who as access to their property taking into consideration hygiene, general safety, etc.

    So even if I disagree with a property owners view, I would never ask the government to require of them acceptance of my right to carry. It's their operating business, not mine.

    Now I MIGHT discuss such policy with the owner, maybe showing them some videos/news articles where civilian carriers "saved the day", but I wouldn't go beyond that.

    If I expect them to respect MY RIGHT TO CARRY, I have to respect them opinion re:their business. Trying to FORCE others to accept is just ludicous. IMHO

    Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
    G-man* and AzQkr like this.

  14. #193
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    I agree. Business owners cite the 2A should trump their property rights.
    My 2 cents.
    Is not the government doing so through the Civil Rights law? Trying to FORCE others to accept is just ludicrous, but it is already happening. Business owners evidently have no problem having the government infringing on their private-public access property rights. Property rights has been around a lot longer than the Civil Rights act from the '60s, IMHO.
    So, why stop any American from exercising another individual Right that has been around just as long as property rights, 2A?
    It seems a bit hypocritical to accept some private-public access property infringements, like CR Act, and not others? I know it is the law, but is seem the holler-then-thou business owners freely accept the government to dictate to them, and thus compromise their guarded Right. They, business owners, don't seem to have problem forcing other Americans to compromise their 2A right and safety.
    As far as the mentality of gun owner can find another place to shop that might accept them, sounds too familiar to the language used in our society prior to the Civil Rights Act. Prior to the ‘60s the mentality was African-Americans can go “someplace else” to shop, eat and lodge and spend their money, but not my in my business … I have property right, darn it! Today’s language, business property vs 2A rights sounds way too familiar from the past language.

    I guess if you live in Delight, AR (278 pop) for which every retail store, restaurant, motel might prohibit legal firearms. A CC gun owner and his family just have to suck it up and drive additional 30+ miles one-way to either Prescott, Hope or Arkadelphia … maybe for a dinner ... if these cities actually accept law-abiding citizens that carry? If not then Hot Springs, Little Rock (85 mi) or Texarkana Why should an American and his or her family be ostracized for exercising their constitutional right discreetly?

    I hope that someday Texas will at least repeal force of law 30.06 and 30.07 signs. I was surprised that Campus carry and Open Carry passed last year.

  15. #194
    Member Array aldodds3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubblehead751 View Post
    The sign is enough for me. I don't understand the reasoning for posting the signs but I respect them if I see them.
    Not me. I continue to carry discreetly regardless of their signs, which have no for ce of law in NH.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #195
    Ex Member Array TeflonDon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by baren View Post
    I agree. Business owners cite the 2A should trump their property rights.
    My 2 cents.
    Is not the government doing so through the Civil Rights law? Trying to FORCE others to accept is just ludicrous, but it is already happening. Business owners evidently have no problem having the government infringing on their private-public access property rights. Property rights has been around a lot longer than the Civil Rights act from the '60s, IMHO.
    So, why stop any American from exercising another individual Right that has been around just as long as property rights, 2A?
    It seems a bit hypocritical to accept some private-public access property infringements, like CR Act, and not others? I know it is the law, but is seem the holler-then-thou business owners freely accept the government to dictate to them, and thus compromise their guarded Right. They, business owners, don't seem to have problem forcing other Americans to compromise their 2A right and safety.
    As far as the mentality of gun owner can find another place to shop that might accept them, sounds too familiar to the language used in our society prior to the Civil Rights Act. Prior to the ‘60s the mentality was African-Americans can go “someplace else” to shop, eat and lodge and spend their money, but not my in my business … I have property right, darn it! Today’s language, business property vs 2A rights sounds way too familiar from the past language.

    I guess if you live in Delight, AR (278 pop) for which every retail store, restaurant, motel might prohibit legal firearms. A CC gun owner and his family just have to suck it up and drive additional 30+ miles one-way to either Prescott, Hope or Arkadelphia … maybe for a dinner ... if these cities actually accept law-abiding citizens that carry? If not then Hot Springs, Little Rock (85 mi) or Texarkana Why should an American and his or her family be ostracized for exercising their constitutional right discreetly?

    I hope that someday Texas will at least repeal force of law 30.06 and 30.07 signs. I was surprised that Campus carry and Open Carry passed last year.
    Two wrongs don't make a right.... If you think that the government forcing business owners to service people they don't want to service to is ludicrous, then why would you double down on it by wanting to force them to not have a say so in what weapons are allowed on their property?

    Businesses have no choice in the matter when it comes to Civil Rights. That case has been opened and closed. There's nothing for them to fight. I think it's wrong, and business should have a say so in the matter, but the reality is that they do not.

    One example is the gun owner who did not want to sell to Muslims, but has to if they want to say in business and keep a roof over their heads. They aren't doing it by choice...

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •