Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
The idea has come up a few times here on TFL that the constitution does not "provide" for private property rights, so I thought we could use a thread to discuss the issue.
First, I say that the constitution doesn't "provide" any rights. It acknowledges many of them, and properly... "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".... but it does not "provide" those rights and does not, in fact, even acknowledge them all.
Second, the constitution does provide for private property rights under the fourth amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
The meaning therein is crystal clear in my reading. You can not be "secure in...persons, houses, papers..." if you have no right to own private property.
Third, those private property rights having been acknowledged, it is common sense that there would be "categories", or certain exclusions, exceptions or alterations to those rights, depending on the chosen use thereof.
A persons home should be almost completely under their control. Exceptions should be virtually none, subject to the age of majority, until the person violates the only truly "inviolable" personal rights of life and liberty. A person could, for example, require everyone entering their home who is over the age of 18 to have sex with them. Now, they may not have any visitors, but they could make that requirement. Equally, a person could say "No one allowed who is under 85 years old." or who is Caucasian, or black, or female, or male.... or any other stipulation. Additionally, a person should be able to do virtually anything WITH their private property. The prevalence today of entire towns wherein a person cannot even choose the color of their own front door are clear violations of constitutional principles.
A private property owner can require that you do not carry firearms on their property.
Now, for the more controversial part. Several categories I would like to discuss.
A property that is open, truly open, to the public falls under completely different rules. "Pure" public property, such as the town square, are prohibited from excluding races, classes and ages of individuals, among many other qualifications, as we all know.
I would submit that a property that is open to the general public, such as under a business front, should fall under these same requirements. If you open a business then that business is, indeed, open. You can not exclude black people or white people or woman or men or old or young.... or those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights, such as carrying a firearm, so long as their INTENT is not to disrupt your business. Note that carrying a firearm would virtually never qualify under this "intent" clause, except for the fairly obvious exception of violent intent. I mean that more to the effect that someone could not carry signs in your store about how crappy your pizza is, etc....
These public places can not violate your "public" rights, including the right to carry a firearm.
I would submit that the rights of the owner of a business to control their employees general behavior does not qualify under the general "open" category of the business property. The employees are not there as customers. They are under the direct control of the business owner, and voluntarily so, and are therefor subject to whatever rules (restricted by the inviolable rights) that the owner should desire.
Employers have the right to control their employees, to a very great extent, including restricting the carrying of firearms while on company time.
I would submit that religious, or any other private, organizations are not "public" and therefore qualify under the same rules as private property ownership, with the caveat that the rules are made rather than by a single homeowner or family but by the entire membership of the organization. Virtually all "membership" type organizations would fall under this category. The KKK can exclude black membership. A church can prohibit homosexual members. The Black Panthers can exclude white members. Moreso than just "membership", these organizations can prohibit the very presence of any person or person(s) at any time and for any reason and can create whatever "qualification" on the presence of any individuals at any time. Point being, general constitutional protections of "public" property do not apply. Once again, the only prerequisites are the "inviolable" rights of life and liberty. These organizations can require that EVERYONE entering their property be armed or that NO ONE entering their property be armed.
Note: When absolutes are used above, I generally mean what "should be", not necessarily the current status under judicial decisions.
What say you?
First, I say that the constitution doesn't "provide" any rights. It acknowledges many of them, and properly... "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".... but it does not "provide" those rights and does not, in fact, even acknowledge them all.
Second, the constitution does provide for private property rights under the fourth amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
The meaning therein is crystal clear in my reading. You can not be "secure in...persons, houses, papers..." if you have no right to own private property.
Third, those private property rights having been acknowledged, it is common sense that there would be "categories", or certain exclusions, exceptions or alterations to those rights, depending on the chosen use thereof.
A persons home should be almost completely under their control. Exceptions should be virtually none, subject to the age of majority, until the person violates the only truly "inviolable" personal rights of life and liberty. A person could, for example, require everyone entering their home who is over the age of 18 to have sex with them. Now, they may not have any visitors, but they could make that requirement. Equally, a person could say "No one allowed who is under 85 years old." or who is Caucasian, or black, or female, or male.... or any other stipulation. Additionally, a person should be able to do virtually anything WITH their private property. The prevalence today of entire towns wherein a person cannot even choose the color of their own front door are clear violations of constitutional principles.
A private property owner can require that you do not carry firearms on their property.
Now, for the more controversial part. Several categories I would like to discuss.
A property that is open, truly open, to the public falls under completely different rules. "Pure" public property, such as the town square, are prohibited from excluding races, classes and ages of individuals, among many other qualifications, as we all know.
I would submit that a property that is open to the general public, such as under a business front, should fall under these same requirements. If you open a business then that business is, indeed, open. You can not exclude black people or white people or woman or men or old or young.... or those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights, such as carrying a firearm, so long as their INTENT is not to disrupt your business. Note that carrying a firearm would virtually never qualify under this "intent" clause, except for the fairly obvious exception of violent intent. I mean that more to the effect that someone could not carry signs in your store about how crappy your pizza is, etc....
These public places can not violate your "public" rights, including the right to carry a firearm.
I would submit that the rights of the owner of a business to control their employees general behavior does not qualify under the general "open" category of the business property. The employees are not there as customers. They are under the direct control of the business owner, and voluntarily so, and are therefor subject to whatever rules (restricted by the inviolable rights) that the owner should desire.
Employers have the right to control their employees, to a very great extent, including restricting the carrying of firearms while on company time.
I would submit that religious, or any other private, organizations are not "public" and therefore qualify under the same rules as private property ownership, with the caveat that the rules are made rather than by a single homeowner or family but by the entire membership of the organization. Virtually all "membership" type organizations would fall under this category. The KKK can exclude black membership. A church can prohibit homosexual members. The Black Panthers can exclude white members. Moreso than just "membership", these organizations can prohibit the very presence of any person or person(s) at any time and for any reason and can create whatever "qualification" on the presence of any individuals at any time. Point being, general constitutional protections of "public" property do not apply. Once again, the only prerequisites are the "inviolable" rights of life and liberty. These organizations can require that EVERYONE entering their property be armed or that NO ONE entering their property be armed.
Note: When absolutes are used above, I generally mean what "should be", not necessarily the current status under judicial decisions.
What say you?
Last edited: