Guns to work?

[grymster2007]

Grymmy has been trying to sell the brady campaign snake oil that there is something inherently evil about a law forcing companies to allowed guns to be left locked in cars, while laws such as easements, ADA, union organization, etc. are still supported and legal.

Really! “brady campaign snake oil”? The brady bunch is about restricting rights. “Grymmy” is about preserving rights. Just so happens that he’s interested in preserving all fundamental rights while most here are really only interested in their own gun rights! Not really surprising, considering this is a gun forum, and I am actually encouraged that nearly 40% of the people voting in this poll can make the connection.

I’m not a big Ron Paul fan, but did find this on Paul’s website: ” Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society.”

Think about it. There’s a lot of truth to that.

Disallow an employee from leaving a gun locked in his own vehicle, and you have disarmed him for pretty much the whole day; the drive in, the drive home, his lunch hour, his evening if he goes straight out from work, etc.

Simple: Go to work ELSEWHERE! Shop ELSEWHERE! But avoid legislating anything, most especially anything that detracts from fundamental rights.

“The "but it's a company's private property!" whine was severely beaten down in the thread linked to above”

If you really expect others to believe that, I’ll suggest your handle contains one too many “a”s.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Owner of the property makes the rules. Employees should follow those rules or look for other employment.


You can't be of religion X or race Y to work for me. How about that rule?

You can't be a woman and work for me. How about that rule?

Why should my tax money to go send police or fire to a property that won't allow folks to defend themselves? If your property is your castle and you deny the body politic a basic right on your property, then pee on your own fires and fight the bad guys yourself.

The property rights crowd has their head up the stone age on this issue.

 

[Yellowfin]

Quite honestly I'd rather work for and with people who are carrying 10 to 1 over someone who doesn't. They pass a background check, exercise responsibility to their family and community and country, and generally have moral soundness with ideals similar to mine in several important aspects. That simply cannot be said for certain at all of someone who does not, and these days less and less often is it the case.

 

[Redworm]

You can't be of religion X or race Y to work for me. How about that rule?

You can't be a woman and work for me. How about that rule?

I actually agree with allowing employers to make those calls, however I believe that if they do they have to make the demographics of their hiring records public information and allow people to choose whether or not to patronize a bigot. I'd be willing to bet the only people out there stupid enough to discriminate based on race, religion or gender would find themselves without any customers and in bankruptcy pretty quickly if such information was published in the local paper.

Why should my tax money to go send police or fire to a property that won't allow folks to defend themselves? If your property is your castle and you deny the body politic a basic right on your property, then pee on your own fires and fight the bad guys yourself.

The property rights crowd has their head up the stone age on this issue.

But in the case of fire and police it comes down to basic safety.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Really! “brady campaign snake oil”? The brady bunch is about restricting rights. “Grymmy” is about preserving rights. Just so happens that he’s interested in preserving all fundamental rights while most here are really only interested in their own gun rights! Not really surprising, considering this is a gun forum, and I am actually encouraged that nearly 40% of the people voting in this poll can make the connection.

I’m not a big Ron Paul fan, but did find this on Paul’s website: ” Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society.”

Think about it. There’s a lot of truth to that.

I'm still having fun here ... hope you are too.

Ron Paul's website is not the constitution. While his ideas may have merit, that concept is not currently supported in law. "Private property rights" are not mentioned in the constitution (except about not taking it without constitution or quartering troops without permission), and all levels of government pass laws on private property as they see fit. IF you would like such private property rights, then start a movement to get a constitutional amendment that grants them.

The bottom line is ... there are a lot of laws controlling what you can/can't do on private property used for a business and what you can/can't allow on it. With these massive precedents, why not use them in favor of gun owners?

Property owners, particularly those who use their property for a business accessed by the public (either employees or general public) have very few rights.

I support this Florida law, I hope it passes, and I have no doubt it will pass constitutional review. The only organizations opposing it are not doing so for "property rights" reasons, but because they are anti-gun and any law expanding the rights of gun owners is bad in their eyes.

The Oklahama law that is similar cannot currently be enforced, but ironically it is because the court's found that OSHA rules over private property trump a new gun law. I believe the ruling is still in appeal.

So even in Okalahoma the court's could care less about property rights, only on who's infringement on that "right" is most predominant; OSHA or State Law.

 

[STAGE 2]

Ok. Then the business should be civilly liable, just the same as if the business did not have any fire extinguishers, and had a policy prohibiting an employee from having one of his own. If a fire starts, even one which the employer had no way of preventing, the employer is still liable for any damages or injuries to the employee.

A business is liable for any negligent acts. The independent act of a third party i.e. some nutjob going in and shooting up the place is not the negligence of the business. Thus they aren't and shouldn't be liable.

If we are going to respect property rights then the property owner reserves to set his own rules.

No one here would suggest that TFL must hold to the same guidelines that govern free speech. After all its a private forum. The same applies to other private entities.

Lets not let our bias for guns trample other rights.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I actually agree with allowing employers to make those calls, however I believe that if they do they have to make the demographics of their hiring records public information and allow people to choose whether or not to patronize a bigot

Would you allow police, fire and/or EMT personnel of the group banned by the property owner not to respond to an incident at said property owner's place of business?

Again - the property mantra becomes an absolutist slogan similar to those who think the Heller case is bad because it didn't make the case that they should be able to own atomic cannons.

When you open your property for business, you are accepting regulation by the state. Restaurants have to meet health standard - NO, THEY SHOULDN'T THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT RESTAURANTS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SERVE POOP ON YOUR WAFFLES AS FREE ENTERPRISE AND THE MARKET WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT!!

If you open for business, it ain't your castle anymore.

 

[grymster2007]

I'm still having fun here ... hope you are too.

Fun? I think I’m on the verge of winning you over to the shining path of freedom and justice here! What could be more fun?

The bottom line is ... there are a lot of laws controlling what you can/can't do on private property used for a business and what you can/can't allow on it. With these massive precedents, why not use them in favor of gun owners?

The fact that there are many laws restricting the use of private property does not make them right. There are numerous laws restricting the ownership and use of firearms and that fact does not justify adding to the heap.

One denied access to private property because he/she is carrying a gun has had absolutely no rights infringed upon, whereas the property owner forced to allow the gun carrier on their property has had his/her rights violated. No question about either of these truths. Imposing on the rights of some while making no infringement on another’s rights is contrary to the very premises that this country were founded on. Do you think the framers of the constitution would endorse or even merely condone such a notion? I think not.

Your gun is your property much the same as any real property you may own. Legislating further restrictions on either is a really poor idea.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Fun? I think I’m on the verge of winning you over to the shining path of freedom and justice here! What could be more fun?

It's been a struggle for me. But my faith perseveres ...

One denied access to private property because he/she is carrying a gun has had absolutely no rights infringed upon, whereas the property owner forced to allow the gun carrier on their property has had his/her rights violated. No question about either of these truths. Imposing on the rights of some while making no infringement on another’s rights is contrary to the very premises that this country were founded on. Do you think the framers of the constitution would endorse or even merely condone such a notion? I think not.

My bottom line is different than yours.

Again ... I see a constitutional right to bear arms, already heavily infringed upon ... but that we are fighting.

I see no such constitutional protections for private property. I think constitutional era Americans would understand the need to impose rules on private property for the public good. There is no enumerated "right" to own property, though of course concepts of property ownership far preceed the constitution and have constantly been changed and affected by law.

And in my bottom line ... this breaks down to a pro-gun vs. anti-gun debate. There is a good argument that allowing me to put a large part of my private property on your real property (my car on your parking lot) does NOT give you the right to search it or impose limitations on what I can have in it. I just have no problem with a law that protects my rights to property even though I'm parking my vehicle on your land.

And unless we do come up with some new legal theories about private property (such as outlawing property taxes -- how is it that the government can force me to pay money or they'll take my property away from me and sell it?) I just have no problem with a law such as this.

And I'm afraid that's not going to change. Sorry.

I do respect your views and all of the rest of the people who confuse private property with a sovereign nation ... I just disagree that it's an infringement on a private property owner who opens his property as a car park. It affects him not at all that there are weapons locked up in those cars, it is a reasonable consideration he must make for people who feel the need to protect themselves, and it falls easily within a slough of legal precedents, none of which are contrary to the contsitution (as are some gun restrictions).

I just think it's reasonable. Even if there were a consititional right to own real property, I think it would fall within the "strict scrutiny" ideal that this law imposes no undue burden on property owners while helping to protect and support a legal right of gun owners.

 

[divemedic]

some nutjob going in and shooting up the place is not the negligence of the business.

But failing to provide security and denying me the right to provide my own security IS negligence.

 

[STAGE 2]

Would you allow police, fire and/or EMT personnel of the group banned by the property owner not to respond to an incident at said property owner's place of business?

Again - the property mantra becomes an absolutist slogan similar to those who think the Heller case is bad because it didn't make the case that they should be able to own atomic cannons.

When you open your property for business, you are accepting regulation by the state. Restaurants have to meet health standard - NO, THEY SHOULDN'T THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT RESTAURANTS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SERVE POOP ON YOUR WAFFLES AS FREE ENTERPRISE AND THE MARKET WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT!!

But you just proved the point of the pro property folks. When the business is opened, they are accepting regulations and they are accepting the help of fire, emt, and POLICE.

It is the police who are responsible for the protection of people in public, not the business. The law does NOT make businesses insurers of people's safety. They only make them liable for injuries caused by their own negligence.

 

[STAGE 2]

I see no such constitutional protections for private property. I think constitutional era Americans would understand the need to impose rules on private property for the public good. There is no enumerated "right" to own property, though of course concepts of property ownership far preceed the constitution and have constantly been changed and affected by law.

Wow. Just wow. Where do I start.

You do realize that the phrase "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" found in the DOI was originally "Life liberty and property". This was also found in the declaration of colonial rights passed by the first continental congress. As such, its pretty much beyond argument that property ownership is an inalienable right. So yes, people do have the right to own property.

And this of course makes sense when looking at the constitution, since we cannot be deprived of our property without due process of law. If we had no property rights, there would be no need for due process.

And in my bottom line ... this breaks down to a pro-gun vs. anti-gun debate. There is a good argument that allowing me to put a large part of my private property on your real property (my car on your parking lot) does NOT give you the right to search it or impose limitations on what I can have in it. I just have no problem with a law that protects my rights to property even though I'm parking my vehicle on your land.

Nope it doesn't. No matter how many times you say this, it doesn't. You right to freely speak has no bearing on this board. TFL can violate the hell of your speech and you have no recourse. The same applies to private property. Your 2nd amendment right ends at my door because the constitution ends at my door.

As far as your parking lot example, as long as I notify you prior to you parking there, I sure can search your car if I want to. As part of your employment I can also mandate what you have in your car if its on my property.

And unless we do come up with some new legal theories about private property (such as outlawing property taxes -- how is it that the government can force me to pay money or they'll take my property away from me and sell it?) I just have no problem with a law such as this.

I don't know what "legal theories" you think you need, but for everything I've just spoken about, they aqre already there.

I have to say that I'ts kind of disconcerting that you have no problems with throwing away one of the oldest most important rights.

 

[STAGE 2]

But failing to provide security and denying me the right to provide my own security IS negligence.

No its not. Again, because you think it is doesn't mean its negligence. What constitutes a negligent act has already been established by the courts. You will not find a single case in which a business was found negligent because they didn't allow someone to carry and that person was injured by the intentional acts of a 3rd party.

Bottom line, prohibiting people to carry does not constitute negligence because the store is not breaching a duty. A business must take reasonable measures against forseeable dangers to its patrons. 99% of the time a random gunman is never a forseeable danger. If the store is in a very high crime area and a violent crime is forseeable, the business still does not have a duty to physically defend its patrons. Businesses are businesses are not the police.

To suggest otherwise would be to impose a duty to physically protect people and there is simply no basis in law for that.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Property ownership is a right, but not an enumerated right in the constitution. But going back to the early days of the US there have always been laws about property ownership. That's just a fact.

Nope it doesn't. No matter how many times you say this, it doesn't. You right to freely speak has no bearing on this board. TFL can violate the hell of your speech and you have no recourse. The same applies to private property. Your 2nd amendment right ends at my door because the constitution ends at my door.

I'll say it again ... this IS a battle between pro-gun and anti-gun forces. If you're fighting for the mythical "property rights" that have been denied property owners in every other area of law, you'll find your allies are the Brady Campaign, VPC, etc. Your enemies will be NRA, GOA, etc.

As far as your parking lot example, as long as I notify you prior to you parking there, I sure can search your car if I want to. As part of your employment I can also mandate what you have in your car if its on my property.

No. You cannot search my car, even if you put up a notice. You can put up a notice and if I forbid you from searching my car you can either not allow me on your property or ir I'm alredy parked there order me off your property. And if I don't leave at that point I would be trespassing.

But how would you enforce your "right" to search my car?

Send out your private security guards to take my keys? I'll refuse to give them up and if they lay a hand on me I'll have them arrested for assault and battery and then sue you.

Break into my car? I'll charge you with damaging my private property (because guess what -- even parked on your real property it's still my private property and I lose no rights to it).

Call the police? They will need probable cause to get a warrant, which means probable cause that I'm committing a crime. They will tell me to get off your property or possibly write me up for tresspassing if they agree I've violated your rules for being there. But they won't search my car.

If I'm your employee ... pretty much the same. You can fire me for refusing a search of my vehicle if it's part of my employment, but you can't have me arrested or force a search.

You see the whole point here? Even on your real property my private property is still mine and you have no rights or control over it.

I don't know what "legal theories" you think you need, but for everything I've just spoken about, they aqre already there.

I really do hate repeating the same arguments ... but there is NO LEGAL THEORY that says that laws passed can't affect what you can/can't do on private property. There are layers to private property ownership (i.e. in Colorado you almost never get mineral rights when you buy property, and if you have a river flowing through your property not one drop of that water belongs to you and you can't stop boaters and the like from travelling on it).

Please cite case law that disputes the above. There is none.

 

[STAGE 2]

Property ownership is a right, but not an enumerated right in the constitution. But going back to the early days of the US there have always been laws about property ownership. That's just a fact.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Whether it is enumerated in the constitution is completely irrelevant. Property rights have been around long before our nation, and they have been deemed fundamental by most if not all the framers at one time or another.

I'll say it again ... this IS a battle between pro-gun and anti-gun forces. If you're fighting for the mythical "property rights" that have been denied property owners in every other area of law, you'll find your allies are the Brady Campaign, VPC, etc. Your enemies will be NRA, GOA, etc.

There isn't anything mythical about property rights. Your reasoning that "your are either with us or against us" is one huge fallacy. Just looking at this poll, there is a sizeable number of gunowners who agree with me. That would seem to disprove your assertion.

No. You cannot search my car, even if you put up a notice. You can put up a notice and if I forbid you from searching my car you can either not allow me on your property or ir I'm alredy parked there order me off your property. And if I don't leave at that point I would be trespassing.

Sure I can. If you work for me I can put it in the employment contract. If you are paying to park in my lot, I can print it on the back of the ticket. Granted these instances are more contratual in nature, but I can do them because I own the property

If this is just a regular store with none of the above instances, then no I can't search without your consent. However this isn't the situation that we have been talking about.

If I'm your employee ... pretty much the same. You can fire me for refusing a search of my vehicle if it's part of my employment, but you can't have me arrested or force a search.

You see the whole point here? Even on your real property my private property is still mine and you have no rights or control over it.

Yes I do have control over it. I control whether it is there or its not. That is the entire issue here, whether guns/weapons should be allowed on private property. As the property owner I reserve the right to now allow guns, knives, balloons, and bananas onto my property.

It may still be your property, but I control whether its there or not.

I really do hate repeating the same arguments ... but there is NO LEGAL THEORY that says that laws passed can't affect what you can/can't do on private property. There are layers to private property ownership (i.e. in Colorado you almost never get mineral rights when you buy property, and if you have a river flowing through your property not one drop of that water belongs to you and you can't stop boaters and the like from travelling on it).

Please cite case law that disputes the above. There is none.

I don't need to because its a strawman. The laws for waterways and mineral rights are completely inapplicable to property rights in this situation.

Bottom line, a business reserves the right to exclude weapons if it wants to. They have this right becase they have control over their private property. In fact, you have already illustrated this point when you said that if you refuse to leave when asked, you will be charged with tresspassing. Its really that simple.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Sure I can. If you work for me I can put it in the employment contract. If you are paying to park in my lot, I can print it on the back of the ticket. Granted these instances are more contratual in nature, but I can do them because I own the property

If this is just a regular store with none of the above instances, then no I can't search without your consent. However this isn't the situation that we have been talking about.

So you think that any of the above gives you a right to forcefully search my car if I refuse to allow it? LOL! You need to review the law a little bit. YOu can demand to search my car, and I can refuse. And if I do, there's nothing you can do but kick me off your property or fire me. But you AIN'T searching my car unless I allow it. If you think you can ... please tell me how you would do that in a manner that I couldn't take legal action against you?

Yes I do have control over it. I control whether it is there or its not. That is the entire issue here, whether guns/weapons should be allowed on private property. As the property owner I reserve the right to now allow guns, knives, balloons, and bananas onto my property.

It may still be your property, but I control whether its there or not.

True enough ... you can currently control whether or not I can park my car there or bring in a banana. And you can kick me out if I break your rules.

But there are many things you can't control if I bring them there or not. I've already listed some, but to recap I can bring the following things onto your business property, as an employee or customer, and you can't do a thing about it:

• Medical Equipment (oxygen tanks, etc.)
• Wheel Chairs
• Union Organizaing documentation
• Adequate clothing (can't make employees undress unless it's part of their job)

If you own a large apartment complex, you can't even control whether or not people moving in have kids, their religion or race, etc.

And if we get this law passed, added to that list for Florida property owners will be "guns left in cars" if you have a parking lot. See how that works? The law trumps your property rights. It has in the past, it will in the future.

Better be careful ... or we'll also pass laws forcing you to allow balloons and bananas!

And the amendment following #9 is #10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can interpret 9 & 10 any way you want. But no matter what you claim or say ... laws have always trumped property rights and will until there is some kind of court ruling or legislation that they can't.

There are dozens of examples of that above, not one of which are in dispute. And it's always understood that by owning property you merely own rights to that land; you are still a part of the country (i.e. you can't buy a 100 acres and start your own sovereign nation and not allow the police on if they have a warrant -- and if you fail to pay taxes, you'll have that land taken away).

The Florida law in question, and others, will be part of the laws of that land and WILL trump property owners rights whether you like it or not. And I am in favor of them, because they burden property owners not at all and protect my ability to defend myself/exercise my rights. And there has never been an issue with passing laws that prohibit property owners rights but protect public safety.

The numbers on this poll have been consistently 60% in favor of gun owners rights. Which considering how many absolutists/libertarians we have here is pretty impressive -- 1/2 again as many people support the gun owner vs. the property owner.

I hope somebody brings up something new in a future post. So far all I've seen are repeats of "but if you own property that makes you like a God and above the laws of the land." LOL. And not one single logical refutation to the fact that LAWS PASSED BY SOCIETY DO AND ALWAYS HAVE TRUMPED PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS.

As it was before the constitution, as it is now.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Interesting thread. I wonder how things would change if somebody ever wins a hundred million dollar suit against Disney for not protecting an unarmed worker?

 

[model70fan]

I never thought that since I own land and business that I am a god or above the law. I agree with gun owners rights as well as property owners rights. We as a business allow anybody legal to carry to carry, we do ourselves. BUT, as a business owner I will not support my rights being trampled, just as being a gun owner I will not support having my rights trampled. I agree with both sides but we all have the choice to work where we want and to carry where we want (legally or illegally and risk the consequences), I support my rights as a legal CCW holder, but I also support the rights of a PRIVATELY owned business to run their business the way they see fit, every legislation against business is bad for business, just as every legislation against gun ownership is bad (confusing eh'). This sort of argument is bad for us all because the basis of it puts pro-gunners with one point of view against other pro-gunners, when we allow splits like this to happen amongst us it is bad for all of us becasue it is doing exactly what anti's want, divide us.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I live in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and it's residents are allowed to carry a gun in their glovebox, CCW permit or not. Kentucky also prohibits employers from banning its employees from keeping a handgun in their glovebox while on their property.

You can guess how I feel about gun owner rights on this one. But of course I'd never exercise my state rights over the will of my employer

Is Kentucky a great state or what?

 

[STAGE 2]

So you think that any of the above gives you a right to forcefully search my car if I refuse to allow it? LOL! You need to review the law a little bit. YOu can demand to search my car, and I can refuse. And if I do, there's nothing you can do but kick me off your property or fire me. But you AIN'T searching my car unless I allow it. If you think you can ... please tell me how you would do that in a manner that I couldn't take legal action against you?

There are a couple of very limited circumstances in which your car can be searched, but they are way beyond the scope of this discussion.

True enough ... you can currently control whether or not I can park my car there or bring in a banana. And you can kick me out if I break your rules.

But there are many things you can't control if I bring them there or not. I've already listed some, but to recap I can bring the following things onto your business property, as an employee or customer, and you can't do a thing about it:
Medical Equipment (oxygen tanks, etc.)
Wheel Chairs
Union Organizaing documentation
Adequate clothing (can't make employees undress unless it's part of their job)

And all those things have something in common. They are either related to the nature of the business or are used by the patron/employee to physically function. Add to that none of these things are inherently dangerous.

Firearms are not related to the nature of a business and are not required for a person to physically function. Furthermore, they present a liability that none of these other items do. Forcing the business to allow them onto their property will force the business to assume the liability.

The comparison isn't even close to relevant.

If you own a large apartment complex, you can't even control whether or not people moving in have kids, their religion or race, etc.

No, but you can control whether pets are on the property, what types of items the people can bring in, whether they can repaint the walls and pretty much anything else that they wish.

Again, another irrelevant comparison.

And if we get this law passed, added to that list for Florida property owners will be "guns left in cars" if you have a parking lot. See how that works? The law trumps your property rights. It has in the past, it will in the future.

I see what you're saying, but I'm having a hard time wading through the fallacies. I could easily say, "The law trumps your gun rights. It has in the past, it will in the future." to justify an AW ban. Sure you have a 2A right, but it doesn't specify which arms.

This is no different that what you are doing. You have a personal preference for firearms and believe that this right trumps others. Thats not how it works.

You can interpret 9 & 10 any way you want. But no matter what you claim or say ... laws have always trumped property rights and will until there is some kind of court ruling or legislation that they can't.

What a load. There isn't any interpretation required. Just because something isn't enumerated doesn't mean that its not a right. You said otherwise and thats simply incorrect.

There are dozens of examples of that above, not one of which are in dispute. And it's always understood that by owning property you merely own rights to that land; you are still a part of the country (i.e. you can't buy a 100 acres and start your own sovereign nation and not allow the police on if they have a warrant -- and if you fail to pay taxes, you'll have that land taken away).

Your arguments are all over the place. NO ONE has made the argument that private property means that you have no obligations to anyone else or that you can leave the union. Massive strawman there.

Owning property DOES give you the right to restrict who and what is on your land. Its always has because that is the essence of private property.

The Florida law in question, and others, will be part of the laws of that land and WILL trump property owners rights whether you like it or not. And I am in favor of them, because they burden property owners not at all and protect my ability to defend myself/exercise my rights. And there has never been an issue with passing laws that prohibit property owners rights but protect public safety.

Well then you are massively misinformed. Allowing people to carry on private property DOES burden the property owner because it present the property owners with massive liability concerns.

The numbers on this poll have been consistently 60% in favor of gun owners rights. Which considering how many absolutists/libertarians we have here is pretty impressive -- 1/2 again as many people support the gun owner vs. the property owner.

Again, you dodge the issue. You stated that people with my viewpoint are going to be buddy buddy with the brady bunch etc. The poll clearly shows this isn't the case. Furthermore, I think its pretty telling that ON A GUN BOARD there are that many people who don't support the measure. That should tell you its not a black and white issue as you suggest.

I hope somebody brings up something new in a future post. So far all I've seen are repeats of "but if you own property that makes you like a God and above the laws of the land." LOL. And not one single logical refutation to the fact that LAWS PASSED BY SOCIETY DO AND ALWAYS HAVE TRUMPED PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS.

As it was before the constitution, as it is now.

Then you don't know your history. This type of law runs completely contrary to what the framers believed. Of course you have made it very clear that you really don't care about what the framers or the constitution say.

And again you present us with another strawman. Owning property doesn't make you god. It simply give you rights with respect to that piece of land. Included in these rights is the right to exclude certian things.

Futher, your assertion that law always trumps property rights is both nonsensical and incorrect. Every law passed is going to trump some right. Thats simply the nature of laws. However as I pointed out before, the right of property owners to exclude weapons has been upheld in court time and again. Courts have ruled that employers have no duty to allow patrons or employees to carry weapons on their property. These are instances where rights have trumped the law.


At the end of the day your argument boils down to "because there are some restrictions on property rights, that makes any further restrictions ok".

Thats probably the WORST justification I've ever heard for anything.