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.