Constitutional vs property rights - Page 6

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 Psycho41 This is really sort of ludicrous. As already stated by others the, BOR lays out restrictions on the government with respect ...

Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 337
Like Tree511Likes

Thread: Constitutional vs property rights

  1. #76
    Ex Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho41 View Post
    This is really sort of ludicrous. As already stated by others the, BOR lays out restrictions on the government with respect to the citizens. Dictating what a private person should be required to allow others to do on their property would be the complete opposite of what the BOR was intended for - the government would then be responsible for activities that are not within its responsibilities.

    Now, there is a distinction between a private property and a private property open the the public (such as a business). But, any differences better be very specific and very rational.

    While the OP is proposing people be forced to allow an armed person onto their property, what about the other rights? One person already brought up the scenario of someone shouting bible verses in a business establishment. Maybe that person should also be allowed to write on the businesses walls because, you know, free speech. What about the 4th amendment: should airports and stadiums be restricted from having a security checkpoint?
    .
    You know, your post clarified things a bit for me. Thanks.

    To the OP and anyone else: So, if a business objected to someone carrying in their business, why would it be any better or 'more right?' to do so if they were forced to by law?

  2. #77
    Ex Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,084
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    Protected classes are a direct violation of not only the federal constitution but many of the state constitutions as well. Such a concept is an affront to liberty minded people and an insult to the Founders who designed our system. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that recognizes protected classes from the standpoint of even scintilla of special consideration, set asides, preferential treatment, quotas, or anything resembling this. The Founders must be turning in their graves with all of the efforts our nation has made to propagate such nonsense.
    Meh, I think they took that whole "all men are created equal" thing pretty seriously and wouldnt object to the laws we've implemented to try to enable civic entities (and those entities licensed by them) to do so.

  3. #78
    Ex Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    A gun store owner in Florida was successful in banning Muslims from purchasing guns in his store.

    There may be certain case laws out there on certain topics, but that does not mean my opinion can not differ from them.
    I hadnt heard of that. Do you have a link?

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #79
    Ex Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,084
    Quote Originally Posted by TeflonDon View Post
    So I do not understand how a federal or state law would Trump constitutionally protected religious rights.
    You are aware, right, that there were many religious reasons put forth to prevent the overturn of Jim Crow laws in the South? Many scriptures used to reinforce their religious beliefs that blacks were not to be mixed in any way, with whites?

    Somehow, their religious beliefs were superseded by the civil and Constitutional Rights of black Americans.

    There is a balance that must be struck.
    baren and G-man* like this.

  6. #80
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    Then why is okay for the government to force businesses to accept civil rights protected classes on their private property? Does the SCOTUS have to rule from the bench, like in recent newly found protected class, that Gun Owners should also be a protected class under the ever expanding Civil right act? God only knows how Gun Owners are discriminated against publicly.

  7. #81
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    So the Civil Rights law is unconstitutional?

  8. #82
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    If private property is open to the public is dictated by the government who they must allow on their private property (civil act law), why doesn't the majority of business owners protest the violation of their private property rights?
    It seems that business owners are willing to allow the government to trample on their private property rights to remain in business to chase the almighty dollar. They are willing to compromised their private property rights since the civil right bill was passed. Now if a business was members only, then I don't think the government could trample on business owners private property rights. Compromising one’s rights for profit seems to be the factor rather than a general private property rights over the 2A debate.
    .

  9. #83
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    Unless their are a "protected class" right?

  10. #84
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    I agree ... Now, if Texas would follow suit. The Misses and I could enjoy visiting more businesses:)

  11. #85
    Senior Member Array baren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    510
    Hmm ... you mention a law passed by congress and supported by the politically tainted SCOTUS rulings rather than in the Constitution, correct?

  12. #86
    Distinguished Member Array CAS_Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,621
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Has nothing to do with guns tho. IMO, unless my religion or opinions or firearm or any other thing offend you however (because I made them known), I see no need to worry about it.
    What it had to do with guns is to reinforce that, on my property, you have neither 1A nor 2A rights. When on your neighbor's property, you are not free to openly exercise your "Rights" without permission.

  13. #87
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I hadnt heard of that. Do you have a link?
    Florida 'Muslim-free' gun shop owner wins discrimination suit - Washington Times
    We get the government we deserve.

  14. #88
    Ex Member Array TeflonDon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Just to refine this perspective for me...the govt should not have had the right to make laws serving blacks, which it had to do, and use force to do so, in the past?
    A company should be able to serve who they want to serve, and the public and those affected or offended by it should be able to express this by taking their business elsewhere.
    Last edited by TeflonDon; December 28th, 2016 at 08:21 AM.

  15. #89
    Ex Member Array TeflonDon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    The Constitution does not define or favor, nor protect your personal religious beliefs.
    What it is there to do is make sure that there is no oppression, infringement, or favoritism concerning beliefs or civil rights.

    Its a very simple concept. The government can make no law against or for the exercise of your religious beliefs, but can make laws that do not allow your beliefs to infringe on another's rights
    To that I reply that forcing a religious based business to preform a service that goes against their religion is making a law that infringes on their rights. It's a contradiction for you to say that a Christian company has to bake a gay, demonic, atheist, or what ever cake so that their customer's rights aren't infringed on, but then go on to say that you should have the right to infringe on the rights of others who are on your property.

  16. #90
    Ex Member Array TeflonDon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,119
    Quote Originally Posted by baren View Post
    If private property is open to the public is dictated by the government who they must allow on their private property (civil act law), why doesn't the majority of business owners protest the violation of their private property rights?
    It seems that business owners are willing to allow the government to trample on their private property rights to remain in business to chase the almighty dollar. They are willing to compromised their private property rights since the civil right bill was passed. Now if a business was members only, then I don't think the government could trample on business owners private property rights. Compromising one’s rights for profit seems to be the factor rather than a general private property rights over the 2A debate.
    .
    Exactly! IMHO, the government should keep their nose out of it. Businesses want to make money. If a business excludes people or does something that the general public finds morally wrong or offensive, the market will solve the problem on it's own.
    UrsusMedius and baren like this.

Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 ... 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
  •