Guns to work?

[Garand Illusion]

Just correcting a few things here ... I'm going to stop posting on this as well unless there is something new ...

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.

If it runs completely contrary to what the framers believed, can you give some document where the framers argue the property rights should trump law? They certainly had no problems passing laws themselves that trumped private property.

You keep bringing up this strawman argument that you are defending the framers of the constitution. And yet you have yet to provide a single point of reference that the framers would have found such a law objectionabole. Except you would like to believe that framers of this country would support you. Right or wrong, they wouldn't.

And if they would have ... they didn't make it clear enough to sway current courts. I'm not a big expert on history, it's true, but I can see what the courts currently allow.

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.

Yup. To exclude certain things. Things that you don't HAVE to allow because of laws. The Florida law will expand on the things that you cannot exclude. At least in a car in your parking lot.

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.

It's funny that you keep using that term "strawman." That first little piggy could have built a 50,000 square foot mansion from your arguments. ;-)

Courts have ruled that no employers have a duty to allow patrons or employees to carry weapons on their property ... I'm sure this is true. But then, why would they not rule in that manner to this point? There was no law restricting employers from not allowing weapons on their property, so of course they could exclude it.

That will be corrected in Florida if this law passes. No court has yet ruled that such a law as this is illegal BECAUSE it violates private property laws. Oklahoma has such a law that went before the courts, and it was overruled for OSHA reasons, not for private property reasons..

Did I mention that laws trump private property? See preivous posts for other reasons why.

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.

At the end of the day my argument does boil down to that being the REASON why this law wouldn't violate property rights, it's true. But because there is no precedent that lawmakers can't pass laws restricting private property, the argument that this law violates property rights is the 600 pound strawman in the room (I starting to like that term!).

And since laws affecting what property owners can do on property open to the public/or to employees are 100% legal and never found unconstitutional, then the real argument here is whether it is a good law or not.

I think it is. You think it is not.

So be it. Hopefully we can still agree on other matters of rights, such as gun rights and freedom of speech and of assembly and religion and etc.

 

[STAGE 2]

If it runs completely contrary to what the framers believed, can you give some document where the framers argue the property rights should trump law? They certainly had no problems passing laws themselves that trumped private property.

Really? Cause looking at the 3rd, 4th and 9th amendments, it seems pretty clear to me that property rights were pretty high up on the framers list. I also can't find any law that they passed which trumped property rights. So it seems your argument fails in this regard.

Yup. To exclude certain things. Things that you don't HAVE to allow because of laws. The Florida law will expand on the things that you cannot exclude. At least in a car in your parking lot.

Thats incorrect. There is no law listing the things that private property owners can exclude from their property. The right to exclude is an inherent property right.

It's funny that you keep using that term "strawman." That first little piggy could have built a 50,000 square foot mansion from your arguments. ;-)

Then I suggest you refresh yourself on logic as I have not presented any such argument.

Courts have ruled that no employers have a duty to allow patrons or employees to carry weapons on their property ... I'm sure this is true. But then, why would they not rule in that manner to this point? There was no law restricting employers from not allowing weapons on their property, so of course they could exclude it.

I have no earthly idea what you are trying to say. If you are arguing that because employers have no duty to allow people to carry weapons then this law could be challenged in court, thats not how things work. Because this law has yet to pass, any justiciable controvery is not ripe. As such a court won't hear it.

That will be corrected in Florida if this law passes. No court has yet ruled that such a law as this is illegal BECAUSE it violates private property laws. Oklahoma has such a law that went before the courts, and it was overruled for OSHA reasons, not for private property reasons.

And? Because the law was overruled for reason A doesn't mean that reason B isn't valid as well. This is yet another fallacy.

Did I mention that laws trump private property?

Yes, but you have yet to offer any substantive or legal reasons why.

At the end of the day my argument does boil down to that being the REASON why this law wouldn't violate property rights, it's true. But because there is no precedent that lawmakers can't pass laws restricting private property, the argument that this law violates property rights is the 600 pound strawman in the room (I starting to like that term!).

There you go again. Because the government can pass laws regulating private property DOES NOT mean that there are no limits to this regulation.

And since laws affecting what property owners can do on property open to the public/or to employees are 100% legal and never found unconstitutional, then the real argument here is whether it is a good law or not.

Sorry. That doesn't fly either. You make the same assumption here, but you have now also ignored one of the main aspects of our government, namely that it is a limited one.

In order to act, the government must be able to point to something that gives it the authority to act. It does not have a blanket authority to piss on property rights as you have suggested.

 

[grymster2007]

Everyone who voted and/or discussed this issue is brave indeed and has my respect. Even the misguided majority! The turn out has been pretty fair, but I find it curious the number of members, conspicuous through the absence of their participation, who certainly have an opinion, but apparently not the salt to state it!

Taunt! Taunt!

 

[Garand Illusion]

Just to push Grym's poll BTT, and hopefully get some more people who have voted on this poll to vote on the new poll ... here is a poll targeted specifically to the Florida Gun's in parking lots bill:

More Targeted Poll

This other thread is strictly for voting, and not debate, as there is plenty of that here and on the other thread related thread.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Just wanted to put this BTT so it wouldn't get lost.

 

[Danzig]

Stage 2, I just wanted to take a moment to let you know that for a change I agree with you. Generally I find your views to be unconscionably statist. It is refreshing to see you choose the side if liberty!

I will never give up my guns voluntarily..but I recognize the right of a property owner to dictate to me and everyone else what we are allowed to do or have on their property.

In Liberty,

Danzig

 

[10-96]

Great thread- causes me much ponderance. I hesitate to weigh in here as I'm not from FL. But, I see this trouble here in TX comming to a head sooner or later.

It amazes me that there is still so much cause for deliberation and interpretation of statute and law this far into our nations history. That just reinforces my opinion to myself that the Constitution is, and must remain a live and fluid thing.

In my part of Tx, a recurring debate keeps arising over whether or not the city will ever pass by vote the right to restrict smoking in public places. Maybe I should go back and re-read this post a time or two again. I'm divided here. I don't smoke, but I like to think that if I did- I could choose to smoke whereever I like. ALSO- if I were a business owner I think it ought to be my decision to run my business (within safety and reason) any which way I do so desire without government interference. That's the big kicker for me-"Government Interference". Awful set of words there- doesn't roll off the toungue well and it isn't easy on the ears or my sense of freedom. Restaurants already have so much government involvement there is hardly any room left for the sesame seeds to go on the buns. What is the allure for someone to open and run their own business if city, county, state, federal government dictates every single aspect of it- including what percentage of the parking lot is to be landscaped greenery to percentage of asphault (as is the case here)?

I know there is a long shot between smoking and allowing firearms to be brought onto premises. But, the state has opined that it trusts it's residents well enough that it has passed a conceal carry law- right? Yeah, I remember reading about that. What recourse does the state have to enforce No Smoking signs should someone choose to light up where they aren't suposed to? Schools can say "No smoking anywhere on property"- right? But, that's not very often a private business. "Bring a cigarette, but not a gun... we'll change all that next week, just rest assured that someone will be by shortly to legislate your life into total utopia." Yeah, I'm lost in my thoughts and I'm rambling, but like so many times before- I would have to rely on a coin toss. Sure, I want to feel safe and carry my sidearm where ever I choose, but I would also like to think that I could run my business however it suits me without big brother being further up in my jammies. Because the majority of the people said "We vote to have CCW", then I guess I have to say "Let them onto the parking lots before they all take up smoking."

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage 2, I just wanted to take a moment to let you know that for a change I agree with you. Generally I find your views to be unconscionably statist. It is refreshing to see you choose the side if liberty!

I think there is a huge difference between choosing a political candidate and adhering to the constitution. One is full of opinions, nuances, and feelings. The other is more or less black and white. I'm willing to bet that most of our disagreements are with the former and not the latter.

 

[divemedic]

i don't think it is fair to say that a person who supportsd this law is against liberty. This is one of those cases where we are trying to balance one person's liberty against another. This is not as much of a black and white issue as what you think.

 

[Crimp]

This subject confuses me because I don't know who is really the property owner of a store, parking lot, etc.

As is common, Joe Blow LEASES a storefront and parking area from ABC Corp. and starts retailing widgets to the public. Then he hangs a "no guns" sign on his front door. What are the implications? Can he legally ban guns from ABC's property if ABC is pro-gun or neutral?

On the other hand, if ABC has a no-gun POLICY, Can Mr. Blow hang a sign that says, "Concealed Carry Weapons are Allowed in My Store."

 

[STAGE 2]

As is common, Joe Blow LEASES a storefront and parking area from ABC Corp. and starts retailing widgets to the public. Then he hangs a "no guns" sign on his front door. What are the implications? Can he legally ban guns from ABC's property if ABC is pro-gun or neutral?

On the other hand, if ABC has a no-gun POLICY, Can Mr. Blow hang a sign that says, "Concealed Carry Weapons are Allowed in My Store."

As with most things in life "it depends". The lease agreement is going to likely be controlling in this case. If it says no guns, then the lessee will be in breach if he allows them. If its silent, then its likely to be left up to the judgment of the lessee regardless of the opinion of the actual property owner.

As far as the concealed carry situation, if folks are carrying concealed then they guy behind the counter isn't going to know. Thus, practically speaking its a non-issue. However if he did hang such a sign, and there was a no guns policy in the lease, its likely that he would be found to have breached the lease.

 

[Redworm]

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?

I don't know. That would depend on the policies of the locality, I guess. If I lived in a town that gave the people that option, then yeah, I'd say it'd be ok for a black firefighter to refuse to help put out a fire of a store owner that doesn't allow blacks.

That being said I highly doubt many firefighters, cops or paramedics, regardless of race, would do such a thing. But if the town decided that its servants didn't have to work for bigots, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that. Honestly, such a thing never occurred to me. I guess they are paying for it as much as the next guy but that doesn't stop the city from sending in a different cop/firefighter/EMT that doesn't have a problem with the property owner.

That's a good question...

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.

Well see to me there's a difference when it's a restaurant or other such business. Of course health standards should be regulated, it can have a direct and immediate effect on the customers. But I don't see how that would extend to my business, which is not open to the public in any way. Clients do not come onto the property, there is no storefront, the only people there are people who choose to work there and agree to the conditions of working there.

Granted I'd draw a line, I wouldn't say it's ok to have live wires in puddles of water around every employees work area but again, there's a direct and immediate danger with a very high risk of injury. That's not the same as saying they're not allowed to bring guns to work.


Huh...honestly, I don't know. I don't have the legal background to say for sure. That being said I don't have many employees that carry. In two different states the only restriction I feel comfortable putting on them is for the landscape company. Assuming they have a valid license they can carry to the main base of operations but not onto client property if the client doesn't want them to. I haven't been directly involved in the company for a few years but I don't think we've ever had a client make that request.