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