No Gun Sign - Taken Down at Hospital

Status
Not open for further replies.
This may be the first time I've ever clicked into a thread on this site when the last poster was Glenn, and his post didn't end in "closed". :)

As a property owner (just theoretically in your context, I don't own a business) I pay taxes too. Property taxes, sales taxes, workers comp, unemployment, etc. etc. I have a right to expect some basic level of protection from the police/local LE. If I feel the need to protect myself or my business/employees/customers I can arm myself, my employees or even hire off duty police as armed guards.

I still have the right, as it is my property, to prohibit weapons if I so choose. If you choose to not to patronize my business because you feel unprotected, then we have reached a working agreement and the free market reigns supreme. It may or may not be the best business decision, but it's my right to make it.
 
What we basically have is the rubbing together of two important rights -- property rights and the right to self defense. We can argue forever, without hope of resolution, over the question of whether one or the other has, in some cosmic sense, a natural priority.

In a political world, when two rights conflict, it will be up to legislatures to decide priority. Some States have enacted laws prohibiting employers from enforcing "no guns" policy with respect to guns locked in cars parked by employees on company property. A few State, I believe, prohibit a landlord from including a "no guns" clause in a residential lease. But other States have, at least in some respects, given the nod to property rights.

If you live in a State in which you don't like the law, you have an opportunity to work through your local RKBA organizations to try to change it.
 
Luckily, the state I live in has a compromise with which I can live: With exceptions, posted properties only matter if 1) the owner or his agent notices the weapon, and 2) I refuse to leave if asked to do so.

At which point, the first infraction results in a fine.

As a matter of principle, though, I normally go with the "take my business elsewhere" approach advocated by peetzakilla and WyMark. I don't always do this, though, as sometimes it's impractical. (And since it's a matter of conflicting principles, I don't feel hypocritical about making it a judgement call.)

"Sorry honey, I won't go Christmas shopping with you, because the only shopping center in town is posted." Doesn't really cut it.

Ironically, there was a shooting by an unlawful carrier at one of the nearby malls shortly after Christmas. Unlawful as in under age, and felon... Good thing the mall was posted...
 
When one says it is one's right to do X, Y or Z - as Fiddletown mentioned - there is no cosmic law of physics that determines your view of rights is correct. It is merely your opinion that is in enforce by the societal contract within which you live.

Thus, legislation is need to enforce my correct view of rights over your incorrect view of rights.

Again, you do not have absolute control over your property. You have the control granted to you by the societal contract where you reside. Absolute control of property is not unalienable and universal as a natural right in most places. However, the right to defend yourself would be considered as such by most (except in certain states and by certain senators! :D).

Closed because I have the right - Hahaha - just kidding! :p
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
...Absolute control of property is not unalienable and universal as a natural right in most places. However, the right to defend yourself would be considered as such by most...
Click to expand...
The devil is, and a thing that continues to befuddle and infuriate me, that there is not universal acknowledgement and acceptance of the right of self defense.

See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various liberal, moral objections to the notion that one may be justified to defend himself.

Feminist Betty Frienden is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in liberal circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was thier Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

While these positions appear to us to be nonsense, they have some following. Note, for example that self defense is not considered in many countries to be a good reason to own a gun. Indeed in Great Britain, the natural right of self defense has been significantly curtailed by law. For an excellent study of the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002).

(However, the Roman Catholic Church takes a much more sensible view of things. Under its doctrine, one's life is a gift from God and one has a moral obligation to preserve it even if doing so means taking the life of an attacker. Unfortunately, as outlined by Kleck and Kates, this rational perspective is not universally accepted either.)
 
That self-defense is not accepted as a universal right stems from the belief that the right to life trumps all others. Thus, killing to protect yourself (and others) is not moral as you commit the evil act yourself that the BG is attempting.

The counterpoint is that the BG by attempting to end your life has lessened the value of his or her life to that below yours and thus their right to life is forfeit. But some won't accept the reducing of a value of life and thus you should sacrifice yourself to avoid taking a life. That's behind some of the religious views. Also, in the background of such is the idea that there will be an afterlife judgement, so even if you lose your life and the BG seemingly prevails - later - you get divine just desserts for your actions.

Interesting discussion but to me, it clearly points out that the property right folks are just acting on territoriality from some biological drive as making their castle paramount as compared to life.

Simply saying your right to control property is paramount because it is - is not an argument with rationality but simply emotional. The barking dog in the yard. Empirically, if you were a purist - you would not open a business as the state forces you to have a toilet and have the health inspector check your meat. Why not have the free market lead to patrons shopping elsewhere after your poison them? It's your property right not to refrigerate!!

I conclude the property right argument by those who open businesses to the public is inconsistent and mostly emotional.

PS - I have no use for the argument that you can't defend yourself, be a passive victim and a businessman/woman or employer is King Crappola of their Castle when it comes to depriving people of fundamental rights. Live on an island and defend yourself from pirates, matey!
 
This is not a question of self defense as a universal right. I don't see signs that say "Defending Oneself not Allowed on These Premises".
It's a matter of a device.

You can enter my business. You may not enter with a firearm. If you are attacked at my business, feel free to defend yourself. If the fact that you will not have a firearm available to defend yourself if you should be attacked makes you nervous, feel free to stay off my property.

Excluding a fundamental right is a straw man argument. Self defense is fundamental. Firearms are a modern tool.

The second amendment, and most others, have no application to private property.

The 2A isn't self defense. It's about modern tools.

I do not allow bullhorns on my property. I do not allow press cameras or satellite trucks.

No one is screaming about my violating their fundamental free speech rights. Yet, I can completely control those rights. I can say "No talking of any kind on this property!". Perfectly within my rights.

But I say, no guns, it's somehow abrogates a fundamental right? No. You can still defend yourself. Just not with a gun. If you don't like it (and I don't like it), go somewhere else (which is what I do).
 
I'm afraid the doctrine of banning modern tools hasn't surfaced in the long literature of self-defense. Interesting take though. How about banning modern martial artists - all those with black belts or a two week seminar in Krav Maga are banned.

The bullhorn if used is disruptive, the concealed handgun is not unless it is used to defend life.

Loud talking is disruptive also. The concealed handgun is not.

You can control disruption on your property.

BTW, some debate the 2nd Amend. is about muskets being ok.

The go elsewhere argument is a straw man used also in the civil rights debate. Blacks could go elsewhere but that fundamentally altered where they could live. Get another job - yep, during the Depression. Easy to do.

In certain areas, the store is a public convenience - without it, you cannot eat or get medicine. Go elsewhere is an easy thing to say.

Please move your toilets off your property or poison folks with your food. You property rights folks seem to avoid those constraints or lead marches for NO TOILETS in MY CASTLE. GO ELSEWHERE.

It's just monkey territoriality - have the honesty to admit it.
 
Are you saying I couldn't ban martial artists if I wanted? Why not?

This argument is just going in circles now. One side says guns are the same as being black, the other side says no their not. We go through a few posts and it's back to the same argument.

I have more rights to my property than whether or not you are disruptive. I can ban purple hair, short skirts, crosses, the Bible, the Koran.... Tickle-Me-Elmo if I want.

I can ban entire languages.

Does doing it make me a horses ass? Yes, it does. That doesn't mean I don't have the right.

It's not monkey territoriality either. It is protection of a most fundamental right. If I can't control my property, not absolutely but to a VERY high degree, all my other rights fall apart.
 
You are correct that we are at a stalemate.

If I can't control my property, not absolutely but to a VERY high degree, all my other rights fall apart.
Click to expand...

If I cannot protect my life and that of the others for which I have responsibility, not absolutely, but with reasonable efficacy, all my other rights fall apart.

- There is stands. I regard the decision between the two as emotional in part - except that I am correct - sorry. :D
 
With regard to the 2A being about modern tools as opposed to self-defense, what's that quote?

Something about, "An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

PK, please address the toilets and food inspection issues, with regard to absolute (or near-absolute) property rights in public businesses, too.
 
PK, I was thinking about this quite a bit...

Frankly, I don't have a problem with you, as a business owner, posting "No Guns."

I have a problem with the government, at any level, giving your signs the force of law with regard to firearms crimes.

Pretty much anywhere I've lived, if you as the business owner ask me to leave, for whatever reason, and I refuse to do so - I am liable for trespassing charges.

Depending on the manner of my refusal, that could result in a warning, or a fine, or a misdemeanor charge, or - at the extreme end of my possible manners of refusal - even a felony charge.

Why should the gun (unless it is employed in the course of the refusal) have any bearing?

Why should the government say that, because I had a gun, an encounter that would normally result in a warning or fine is now a potential felony and is cause for loss of permit?

Justify that one.
 
I have a problem with the government, at any level, giving your signs the force of law with regard to firearms crimes.

Pretty much anywhere I've lived, if you as the business owner ask me to leave, for whatever reason, and I refuse to do so - I am liable for trespassing charges.

Depending on the manner of my refusal, that could result in a warning, or a fine, or a misdemeanor charge, or - at the extreme end of my possible manners of refusal - even a felony charge.

Why should the gun (unless it is employed in the course of the refusal) have any bearing?

Why should the government say that, because I had a gun, an encounter that would normally result in a warning or fine is now a potential felony and is cause for loss of permit?

Justify that one.
Click to expand...

The best example that I can use to explain the logic is by comparing the firearm to a dog.
There are leash laws for a reason, because dogs present an inherant danger that must be recognized to exist. They cannot be absolutely controlled until it's too late and the damage is done. Even if it's simply going to the bathroom while it's on someone else's property, the dog owner can't control that. But the dog owner would have the property owner believe that he can, that he can control the dog from biting, from barking, from bringing fleas into a house, or knocking over a vase and breaking it.
The guest wants to claim that because the dog is on a leash that none of this can possibly happen, that the dog is not a threat to the life, limb, property or family of the property owner simply because it's on a leash, and that he knows and trusts the dog's behavior.
Well common sense and experience has proven that leashes aren't 100% effective in preventing accidents.
That leash can break and dog owners can be negligent in handling the leash. Just because the dog is on a leash doesn't mean that the dog owner can allow the dog to go within the "safety zone" of persons while on the property. That's the zone within the dog's bite, within it's range of property that can be damaged like the vase, or injured like children in the household, or the carpeting when the dog goes to the bathroom.
The leashed dog creates a special class of circumstances of threat levels to the owner and inhabitants of the property. So just because someone has the dog on the leash and is obeying the leash law doesn't mean that the dog has a right to be there.
And folks who don't want to acknowledge that's the dog presents a potential risk to everything within it's range, even when it's on a leash, are being willfully negligent.
So it's more than simple trespassing, it's willfully presenting a clear and potentially present danger to the property, life, limb and safety of others and their family. And it interferes with their human right to enjoy their life, liberty and happiness while occupying the safety of their own private property.
A person doesn't have a right to infect another person's home with fleas.
The only exceptions are for seeing eye dogs, a.k.a. - the police and law enforcement under due process of law. They are like the seeing eye dogs that have a right to come into your home just like law enforcement can when they are armed and on the job. And even they are limited by law about when they can come in to your home.
Who would want it any other way?
Now just think of the gun as if it were a dog.
A person can either simply trespass on their own all by themselves, or if they bring in their dog with them and even if it's on a leash, it's an additional willful misconduct. Just like drinking and driving which promotes car accidents. Why charge folks with being impaired when it's just an accident like any other accident, right? The answer is it's not just like any other accident because drinking & driving is willful misconduct. Even if an accident doesn't occur.
Above all, gun owners should be able to be trusted to not engage in willful misconduct.:)
 
Last edited:
Ok, 4 points:

1) Toilets. First, all business owners aren't required to have public restrooms. Second, I don't think any of them should be. Is it a wise thing to do? Yes, it is. Why should it be required? The free market would solve the bathroom problem in short order. Why is it the governments concern that you can tinkle at the restaurant?

2) Food safety. This is a massive public health concern that goes far beyond the borders of your property. You could make hundreds of people sick who never set foot on your property. That's why the government can control it. Notice it's only in regards to a larger public health issue.

3) The penalty. I agree that it should be simple trespass. The fact that you're carrying a firearm that I don't allow is no different than if I ask you to leave because you're using nasty language in front of the kids.

4) I don't think the dog analogy is accurate in so far as the danger presented. Dogs act on their own initiative and can not always be controlled. Guns do not do unexpected things and can be 100% controlled. However, dogs are the same as guns (or almost anything else) in that if the property owner says "No XYZ" then the answer is no and go somewhere else of you don't like it.
 
1) In San Antonio, you are required to maintain clean restrooms in restaurants. Thus, the NRA (that's a pun) should lead a charge to restore their fundamental right to have no bathroom on their property.

2) Food safety is controlled as a public health issue that affects many. Unfortunately gun ownership is defined many times as a public issue in that literature, by some government agenices and the antigun organizations that try to use the public health metaphor as a reason to control guns. Guns affect many.

Certainly guns cause harm to the public health and thus the government can override your right to defend yourself as many are harmed by such.

Why should a property owner expect the state to use its force to remove my fundamental right to protect myself - if exercising that right in no way impacts the store owner? It is your property but you use the state's force to do this. Use your own force to remove the CHL fanatics.
 
Some things, like the bathroom requirement, are so obvious that no one will fight them. Does that mean it SHOULD be a requirement? Why? What business is it of the government if one restaurant has a bathroom and another does not? If the people care, and they will, the one without will lose business and either build a bathroom or go under.

I don't care what the antis say about guns being a public health issue. They're not.

Actually, I am legally authorized to use my own force to remove a trespasser, no matter why I ask them to leave, save the few protected classes.

If I ban firearms on my property and someone brings one on and refuses to leave, you would like me to use force to remove them? I now have a trespasser who refuses to leave my property and is armed. Obviously, a reasonable person would prefer to avoid confrontation and would leave. Might boycott me or whatever but would leave. Unreasonable person with a gun and you want me to force them off my property?

This isn't about believing that guns SHOULD be banned. I don't believe that and have said so (and boycotted businesses) in the past.

It's about overly intrusive government getting all up in my business about stuff that they should frankly have NO policy, NO control over.

If you don't like that my restaurant doesn't have a bathroom, go to one that does. If it bothers enough people, and it will, I go out of business.

If you don't like that I say "No Guns", then go somewhere else. Go somewhere else. If there is no where else, pizza is not a fundamental human right. Live without it. Get all your buddies together (off my property), carry your guns and picket. Make me lose business. Perfectly within your rights.

My business is NOT required to exist. I can close tomorrow and you'd HAVE TO go without or go somewhere else. My policies, stupid as they might be, are mine to make and if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
 
By extension (always risky) - Peetza - is that the government should have little control over business and allow the free market do decide. That is a strict point of view but sometimes ideology can lead to a suicide pact.

A libertarian friend of mine said - I'm a libertarian of sorts but I don't want another Love Canal in my neighborhood - with the only solution being the free market.

I pointed out that businesses have used discriminatory practices to instantiate racial and religious prejudice. That hurt folks. I view discrimination against gun folks to be similar and trumping property.

We will disagree.
 
Like I said, food safety and things like love canal are obvious exceptions to government interference.
There has to be some government. You can't have anarchy. I said before that property control is not an absolute right. There are NO absolute rights.

But, there's a long way between regulations preventing entire towns from being poisoned versus telling a property owner they can't exclude certain objects from they property.

Oh, and Love Canal was largely caused/allowed by direct government action. So their attempts/claims to save us from ourselves should be viewed with skepticism at the very least.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top