Gun Show hypocrisy?

vranasaurus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
...I view the right of self-defense has one that should be as protected as race, etc.....
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
??? 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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. :D
 
there is not much difference in the way pro gunners think and the way anti gunners think....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

mapsjanhere said:
If gun carriers are a protected class, so are property owners.
Click to expand...

I think rights have to be balanced. What is at stake? Insurance mandates and civil liability or life?
 
mapsjanhere said:
...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, ...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
....Don't enumerated rights get priority over unenumerated rights? ...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I am not overly worried about people being able to carry in a gun show, it is up to the venue owner, the promoter, local law whether or not to allow concealed or open carry. I would certainly be in favor of rules that there is absolutely no drawing of loaded weapons in the sales area or halls.

In VA if the show is in an publicly owned venues they cannot restrict open or concealed carry. I have not looked into the details, at the Hampton show there is a table near the entrance where the police sit and apply flags to show that actions are locked open. I do not know if this applies only to guns for sale or not. All guns for sale have to have their actions open and be unloaded. But, I have seen at least one person open carrying on the floor, and I would assume others concealed carrying as well. I cannot swear the open carry gun I saw was loaded but it did not have the magazine pulled or the action locked open.

Any VA posters in the know on the specific regulations?
 
When someone at a gun show (or elsewhere) point a gun at you let em know. They will usually say "it is not loaded."

Remine em that most all shootings are with UNloaded guns.
 
I had an "unloaded" shotgun pointed less than 4 inches from the side of my head at a gun show.

Typically, all safe gun handling goes out the window at those places so I have no problem with a gun show prohibiting LOADED guns. Ammo or not for the anti type people, its common sense.
 
Typically, all safe gun handling goes out the window at those places so I have no problem with a gun show prohibiting LOADED guns. Ammo or not for the anti type people, its common sense.
Click to expand...

So the people can't be trusted with guns afterall?
 
Come on - that's too broad a stroke. There is the concept of differential risk situations.

Whether that applies here is the argument. Is the show a peculiar risk, attractive nuisance, etc.?

Not saying it is and I don't like carry restrictions but overly generalized arguments don't help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top