Weapons on Campuses--Some New Thoughts

[divemedic]

Apparently, you favor government micromanagement of anything and everything that gets any government funding.

Actually, I don't. I just feel that it is hypocritical to complain when the government interferes in your business when you just got done taking the government's money.

You see, in order to accept government money, you have to support the government taking that money from someone else. This tells me that you are only opposed to the government interfering in YOUR affairs, while having no objection to the government interfering in MY affairs.

 

[Webleymkv]

You see, in order to accept government money, you have to support the government taking that money from someone else. This tells me that you are only opposed to the government interfering in YOUR affairs, while having no objection to the government interfering in MY affairs.

In post #34, I said the following

As a side note, I have my own opinions on on allotment of government money to such institutions, but that's really a separate issue that isn't within the realm of this particular discussion nor is it firearms related.

In post #40, I said this

As I said, I have my own opinions about allotment of government funds to colleges but that's another issue.

Apparently, you didn't quite understand my meaning in those two statements so I'll be blunt about it (Mods, I apologize for the possible thread veer).

I don't like nor do I support the allotment of tax money to supposedly private colleges as their private status is what allows them to charge correspondingly high tuition. I also oppose government bailouts of private companies like Chrysler and GM. So no, I don't feel as though I'm being hypocritical. As far as state colleges go, the way I see it the campus is the government's property and if they don't want guns on it then that is part of their property rights. The nice thing about government colleges is that unlike most other government institutions, if I don't like their policies I have the option to go somewhere else. I do not, however, view violation of the government's property rights as being any more serious than violation of anyone elses. I cannot have someone arrested for bringing something I object to onto my property, all I can do is tell them to take their objectionable object and leave. If they refuse to do so, then I may have them arrested for trespassing but that's another circumstance.

 

[Bruxley]

Originally posted by Bruxley
Quote:
Few colleges and fewer Universities are private. The great majority of Universities are State Universities whether they have the word State in their titles or not. Further, State or private they are PUBLIC settings.

Universities and colleges are not sacrosanct places. they have no properties that make them inherently unique from office buildings, malls, apartment complexes, or amusement parks and few would argue those places should require special treatment when the right to carry (bear arms) is discussed. Colleges and Universities are only set apart because it has the premise of doing so has been accepted, no other reason. And please let's not pull the 'but the CHILDREN' plea, it is hollow in a virtually all adult environment.

And just like malls, apartment complexes, and amusement parks, they do have the right to prohibit firearms on their own property.

Point of clarification, I was addressing the assertion that 'above and beyond' training be required to carry on campus, not wether or not campuses do or don't have the right to restrict firearms.

For the record however I belive they do not. That is arguable based on if they are in fact private property. But even if they are, I would challenge the premise that private property that is open to the public gives the owner the discretion of wether or not CODIFIED rights can be restricted.

State laws must be challenged and I believe that if challenge in the SCOTUS in it's current incarnation that the challenge would succeed. Scalia's own words in the Opinion of the Court in Heller v. DC could show a right to bear such arms in a public setting for self defense as he has expressed in that decision that 'bearing' arms in the event of confrontation is in fact a right. Walking onto a university or college campus as a public place is not a contractual agreement to waive that right.

It could be argued that since it has been established by Heller v. DC as a right, just as freedom of speach and of the press are rights, the the right to bear arms can no more be waived by de facto of entering a campus then the right to protest, pass out flyers expressing unpopular ideas, or distribution of newspapers can. Can a College or University use the fact that it is private property to seach your Dorm room and seize your property restricting your 4th Amendment right against such action? Can they tell you you can't say certain things or read certain publications? Clearly not. Then why accept that the defense of your own life be second to the predilictions of a board or faculty to gun bans?

(from p.19 of the Opinion of the Court)

Quote:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

emphasis mine

I see the decision specifically stating that the second amendment, just like the 1st and 4th are CODIFIED rights. It would be a strain to try and say a College or University campus is not a public setting.

 

[Webleymkv]

For the record however I belive they do not. That is arguable based on if they are in fact private property. But even if they are, I would challenge the premise that private property that is open to the public gives the owner the discretion of wether or not CODIFIED rights can be restricted.

While the owner of a private property cannot take legal action against you for violating policies that are in conflict with COTUS, he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit. The proprieter of most businesses is well within his rights to expel you from his business if you exercise your 1st Amendment rights in a vulgar or offensive fashion that he takes issue with. I see no reason why the same would not apply to the 2nd amendment. Like I said, I am totally against a college having you arrested for carrying a gun on campus, but I think that it is within their rights, whether we agree with it or not, to expel you from their campus if you choose to violate their no-firearms policy.

 

[Bruxley]

While the owner of a private property cannot take legal action against you for violating policies that are in conflict with COTUS, he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit.

I realize we agree fundamentally and hope you don't find me as challenging you as if we do not. But asking someone to leave is a far stretch from making law against such a right. I would have issue with someone bearing their firearm in a threatening fashion such as pointing it at people or simply waiving it around wildly. But to have it concealed.....with a permit to do so elsewhere.....no, not a constitutional law. And a general policy against it is no different then policies against distribution of pro-choice literature or against a specific newspaper being on campus. How about a no praying on campus policy or a policy that your on-campus housing be subject to search for any reason that campus security or faculty finds fit.

Don't like it, well don't come on campus, or to the bus stops or depots or supermarkets or Parks or......etc., etc.

Tolerating a LAW against a RIGHT out of coercion due to loss of employment or housing would have people up in...well...arms if it were the right to free speech, press, religion, against unreasonable search or seizure or warrentless wiretapping or mail being opened and read before delivery to on-campus housing.

The point is that a premise has been made that College or Universities are somehow different them other public places. They are not just a group of schoolhouse buildings that are left empty when school is out. They are always open, public spaces, with shops and public streets, and public events, shows, theaters, museums, libraries, etc. They are as public as any place.

What place is more public then a College or University campus after all.

Easier question, if a law directly conflicts with a civil right, is it valid? If a public policy does is it valid.

A bit of quick research without an in-depth digging reveals that the wide majority of Universities are in fact public. Further I found no law against carrying on private University campus . Virginia Tech is a State, not private, University.

State property open to the general public would find it very hard to assert private property rights to infringe upon Constitutional rights if that right were anything other then the right to bear arms.

 

[divemedic]

he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit.

Really? And here I thought that the "no coloreds" signs were illegal.

Property rights are mostly codified rights, and they can easily be legislatively modified (with a few minor exceptions) Just like the Civil rights act bans discrimination against race, religion, etc., a law can be passed allowing concealed carry, and prohibiting a business that is open to the public from barring people on that basis. There is nothing in the COTUS preventing such a law.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Private colleges stagger under all kinds of regulation. I was on the Animal Research committee - you should see what kinds of approvals are need and legally mandated for a chicken or a rat to keep them safe and happy.

We are mandated to provide certain facilities for you to take a dump in or else the state comes a calling.

The way sports teams are funded and opportunities for gender equality are controlled.

How crime is reported is mandated by the government.

So when the private property folks say - It's private - they basically have blinders on.

Only when it comes to denying the right of self-defense do these folks have a hissy. How many of you didn't send your kid to college because there were state laws about the crapper or the rat cage? Did you stand on principle then?

 

[Al Norris]

After reading this thread through, a couple of times, does everyone understand what the OP is really proposing?

lwestatbus: What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

However, I'm actually all for it - As long as it is State sponsored and fully State funded. Under the current anti-gun atmosphere within academia, I just don't see it happening.

I think I'm about to write something... No. I know I'm about to write something some, if not many of you, won't like. The older and more informed I become, the less tolerant I am of civil rights violations.

No person should have to jump through hoops, in order to exercise to his/her civil right to carry for self defense. Open carry must be legal if the State is going to regulate concealed carry. Why? The right we are talking about is the basic fundamental right to exist. If we are not allowed the necessary and proper tools to insure that right, then the right is indeed infringed.

Guns are in fact, the great equalizer. I think it's safe to say that. But guns alone are not the answer. Training is the counterpart to guns. "That every man be trained in the use of arms," is how one founder put it. I also believe that if such is made mandatory, then the State needs to pay for it.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact. That's the kind of "common sense" gun laws I would like to see.

 

[the_pragmaticist]

I read through the responses and I didn't see any (sorry if I missed) addressing the REAL reason I think everyone should be able to carry on campus. I don't fear much for the lone shooters who take out places like Virginia Tech. They're few and far apart. While an armed student could possibly stop a thing like that, it's a spaghetti plate of hypothetical guesses. While those incidents are tragic, they are thankfully too rare to be statistically significant in terms of personal protection and your actual chances of being involved.

No sir, what I worry about is walking down a half-lit campus street with no recourse to muggings (or rapes, should you be of the fairer sex) other than sprinting to a blue-lit phone and hoping the police get there before it's over. The commonplace muggings, assaults, and rapes on campuses need to be addressed. Think like a criminal: Where do you seek a victim, at the shopping mall parking lot or the campus parking lot? Lots of classes run until 8-9 PM, and predictably unarmed students disperse into the dark every night of the week. If I were looking for $5 for my next crack rock, I'd be sitting in one of those school parking lots with a baseball bat and a plan.

These every day crimes don't involve people being used as backstops the way the OP described the situation. It's you and bubba, all alone - may the best armed win.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

Well, I was asleep at the wheel again Al Anyway, you know how I am about the militia anyway so I won't rehash that.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

You are completely correct! Any rule or law that forces you to choose between safety and being legal or employed is immoral. I agrued this in the T&T forum and one guy there said I was dishonest! He said I waived my right to self defense in order to enjoy the benefit of employment or whatever. Sounded like the Brady's. Nobody "waives" their right to SD and if they are forced to it is wrong!

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact.

And may not after the fact! Many companies might be protected by legal precedent from lawsuit which does you no good if you are dead. Ultimately as we all know self-defense is OUR responsibility.

No sir, what I worry about is walking down a half-lit campus street with no recourse to muggings

In my county the NRA and some of us stopped an initiative that would have banned the carrying of legal firearms in county buildings. One of the commissioners I called to complain about this proposed ordinance asked why I needed a gun in the library (one of the places they wanted to prohibit CCW) I told him I needed a gun there for the same reason I needed it in a dark alley or a rest stop on the Interstate at 2:00AM. To protect myself from harm.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Isn't there something unconstitutional about this? I don't even technically live on campus and my right to own a gun is (I feel) being violated.

Last I read up on the issue, it's legal. They simply have to have some reason for doing it, they can't do it explicitly because they just don't like guns...but "safety of other residents" counts. At least in my state, this could very well vary elsewhere. I wish I could cite this at the moment, but it was quite some time ago that I read it...so weight it appropriately.

In general property owners' rights will trump second amendment rights, and in most cases I'd even argue that this is appropriate.

(or rapes, should you be of the fairer sex)

Members of the not-so-fair sex have been raped on my campus. Forcibly. In nice, safe, gun-free dorms.



Up here even older, nontraditional students living in graduate/family housing, which are functionally no different than apartments, simply owned by the "school," are forbidden from keeping handguns or any loaded long guns in their units. There's also a fun "hunting" clause regarding long guns, so while vague I'm pretty sure a whole plethora of weapons that are otherwise legal off-campus are illegal for them.

I say owned by the "school" because of course this is a public university, so these are theoretically state buildings (this is what they invoke for banning firearms and carry indoors elsewhere).

The question I have is whether this even is legal. I seem to remember coming across a ruling (Tinker, perhaps? been a while, and I don't have time to look now) regarding situations in which an employer also acts as an agent of the state (in this case, a public school district). Thus they must have Constitutionally valid reasons for infringing rights that private employers would otherwise be free to, because they act as the state as well. I wonder if such a standard could ever be applied to situations in which the state acts as landlord (since it's essentially the state renting these housing units to families).

At that point I see no way the ban in place at my university would pass Constitutional muster. It already failed in D.C., right?

Of course, it would probably be a long legal battle to assert this, and with the average resident spending at most 4-6 years in such a situation the school will always have the upper hand...apathy is on their side.

Or it's possible that this is simply Constitutional to begin with.

 

[Bruxley]

This issue has at it's crux the premise that campuses are private property and therefore have the right to assert their property rights over an individual's civil rights and the premise that laws against carrying on campuses are not unconstitutional based on those property rights.

Let's take away the private verses State ownership issue for a moment and just assume that they are all private as that is where the ownership rights causes the snag.

Even if the streets and businesses areas and infrastructure and grounds are privately owned they operate open wide to the public. Not just open to the public as a mall or amusement park or grocery store are, but wide open in that the streets are always accessible, shops used by the residences of the city as well as those on campus, and are as public as any other place can be.

MARSH v. STATE OF ALA., 326 U.S. 501 (1946)

In this case we are asked to decide whether a State, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, can impose criminal punishment on a person who undertakes to distribute religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town contrary to the wishes of the town's management. The town, a suburb of Mobile, Alabama, known as Chickasaw, is owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Except for that it has all the characteristics of any other American town. The property consists of residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a 'business block' on which business places are situated. A deputy of the Mobile County Sheriff, paid by the company, serves as the town's policeman. Merchants and service establishments have rented the stores and business places on the business block and [326 U.S. 501, 503] the United States uses one of the places as a post office from which six carriers deliver mail to the people of Chickasaw and the adjacent area. The town and the surrounding neighborhood, which can not be distinguished from the Gulf property by anyone not familiar with the property lines, are thickly settled, and according to all indications the residents use the business block as their regular shopping center. To do so, they now, as they have for many years, make use of a company-owned paved street and sidewalk located alongside the store fronts in order to enter and leave the stores and the post office. Intersecting company-owned roads at each end of the business block lead into a four-lane public highway which runs parallel to the business block at a distance of thirty feet. There is nothing to stop highway traffic from coming onto the business block and upon arrival a traveler may make free use of the facilities available there. In short the town and its shopping district are accessible to and freely used by the public in general and there is nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation.

A campus has the same charachteristics. If fact, a company town and a campus are very much the same kind of establishment.

We do not agree that the corporation's property interests settle the question. 2 The State urges in effect that [326 U.S. 501, 506] the corporation's right to control the inhabitants of Chickasaw is coextensive with the right of a homeowner to regulate the conduct of his guests. We can not accept that contention. Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free. As we [326 U.S. 501, 508] have heretofore stated, the town of Chickasaw does not function differently from any other town. The 'business block' serves as the community shopping center and is freely accessible and open to the people in the area and those passing through. The managers appointed by the corporation cannot curtail the liberty of press and religion of these people consistently with the purposes of the Constitutional guarantees, and a state statute, as the one here involved, which enforces such action by criminally punishing those who attempt to distribute religious literature clearly violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

As it has been established that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments are pre-existing rights [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876)]they hold equal standing in indeliblity. In the case above it was the 1st and 14th Amendments and the distribution of religious materials being restricted, on todays campuses it is the 2nd Amendment and the right of law abiding, even permit holding, citizens to BEAR arms in case of confrontation that is being overtly infringed and States have, and enforce, laws that are unconstitutional to enable this.

Regardless of ownership, campuses are so wide open to the public they cannot constitutionally restrict law abiding citizens to responsibly carry while on campus. Surly the status of adult student doesn't make forfeit that students civil rights.

 

[Webleymkv]

This issue has at it's crux the premise that campuses are private property and therefore have the right to assert their property rights over an individual's civil rights and the premise that laws against carrying on campuses are not unconstitutional based on those property rights.

Here is where I think we're misunderstanding each other. I do not support government enforced laws banning carry on campus. What I'm saying is that the individual campuses may institute their own individual policies with consequences that don't have legal ramifications. I view it no differently than many companies' no-weapons policies for their employees. With the exception of a few very sensitive jobs, you cannot be arrested for carrying at work, but you can be fired if your employer takes issue with it. If you refuse to leave company premises after you've been fired, then your employer may have you arrested, but for trespassing rather than for carrying. I do indeed feel that laws against carrying on campus are unconstitutional but I don't feel that school policy against it can be unconstitutional because school policy is not law and violation of such policy doesn't necessarily carry legal ramifications.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My philosophical view is that companies have no right to control behavior that is not directly related to the job. Whether there are legal precedents for this or that - I'm not a lawyer. I speak from my viewpoint. You cannot be fired for behavioral actions not relevant to the job.

A company should only evaluate you on the job. If what you do doesn't interfer with the job - they should not be able to have policies against your actions.

For example - it is quite reasonable to say you can't carry a gun around the MRI. That's dangerous. I might even go so far as to say that open carry might be forbidden as it might detract from dealing with some customers. But concealed carry wouldn't.

Thus, if you wore a large Christian or Jewish or Islamic symbol around your chest outside your clothes - then that might be problematic - I saw an argument about this on the tube. But the company could not ban you from wearing a discrete cross, etc. under your shirt.

If a guy wanted to wear ladies underwear - not the companies' business or if a woman was wearing boxers (seen it done - - but that's for my memoirs), not the company's business.

There would have to be an evidential case made based on empirical data that licensed concealed carry is dangerous for the company to ban it under penalty of job loss. If not, then it is not their business and I am quite OK with legislation that prevents companies from engaging in control of the right for self-defense.

The property right is a specious argument in this instance. I would remind you again, that property rights types on the Internet do not have the same motivation as companies. The latter ONLY carries about the bucks. You are not defending champions of liberty, here.

 

[Bruxley]

The more I think about this, the more I realize that we may be mixing up two separate issues. I am adamantly opposed to government mandated "gun free zones" on college campuses. I am, however, equally opposed to the government telling colleges that they must allow their students and faculty to carry on campus. If an individual college wants to pass a school policy banning guns on school grounds, that's their business and someone who disagrees with that policy is free to pursue their education or employment elsewhere. However, sweeping legal reprecussions for carrying on campus I do not support. Basically, I don't think that it's any of the government's business and that it should be left up to the individual institutions with penalties similar to those for violating other school policy (suspension, expulsion, etc.).

I was addressing this kind of point of view. As stated above, campus are too public to assume dominion of all that enter. The faculty may decide that it is or isn't acceptable terms of the job offer but employer prerogative extends no further then the employees in such a public setting. The administration of the school has not legitimate authority to assert a policy the subdues civil rights to all who enter the campus as it is too public.

As an employer myself I have not made known a gun policy as asserting an 'allowed' or 'disallowed' position. Obvious reasons to not proclaim a 'guns allowed' need not be stated. When asked about the policy I have responded that if it is legal and unseen how could I have a problem with it. That has always been enough said about the matter.

The premise that campuses bear some special standing seems to be hard to shake off for some. They have no such standing. Some are doing their reasoning off of an invalid premise which is yielding them invalid conclusions and evoking an acceptance of unjust policies/laws. I made a quite clear case that they are too public. They cannot usurp civil rights by policy or force of law.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just as an aside - years ago, my father's employer told him that he had to register in a specific political party to keep his job during the Depression.

Is that legit? What aspects of behavior not relevant to the job, can an employer control?

 

[Webleymkv]

Bruxley, it is generally legally accepted that a business may post a "no firearms" sign in their window (as an example, the closest Jared jewelery store has one). Ignoring such a sign even carries legal reprecussions in certain states (though I do disagree with it here, it's not the government's responsibility to enforce inane company policies). Are these businesses somehow less public than a college campus?

The premise that campuses bear some special standing seems to be hard to shake off for some. They have no such standing. Some are doing their reasoning off of an invalid premise which is yielding them invalid conclusions and evoking an acceptance of unjust policies/laws. I made a quite clear case that they are too public. They cannot usurp civil rights by policy or force of law.

You're correct, a campus has no special standing that a Wal-Mart or McDonalds (both of whom can ban firearms on their premises if they wish) does not. They are also incapable of usurping my civil rights as I have to allow them to do so by stepping onto their campus.

 

[rampage841512]

After reading this thread through, a couple of times, does everyone understand what the OP is really proposing?

lwestatbus: What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

However, I'm actually all for it - As long as it is State sponsored and fully State funded. Under the current anti-gun atmosphere within academia, I just don't see it happening.

I think I'm about to write something... No. I know I'm about to write something some, if not many of you, won't like. The older and more informed I become, the less tolerant I am of civil rights violations.

No person should have to jump through hoops, in order to exercise to his/her civil right to carry for self defense. Open carry must be legal if the State is going to regulate concealed carry. Why? The right we are talking about is the basic fundamental right to exist. If we are not allowed the necessary and proper tools to insure that right, then the right is indeed infringed.

Guns are in fact, the great equalizer. I think it's safe to say that. But guns alone are not the answer. Training is the counterpart to guns. "That every man be trained in the use of arms," is how one founder put it. I also believe that if such is made mandatory, then the State needs to pay for it.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact. That's the kind of "common sense" gun laws I would like to see.

*Standing ovation*

 

[divemedic]

both of whom can ban firearms on their premises if they wish

Fallacy. No one can ban firearms anywhere, with the possible exception of inside a prison. Which is why I disregard any such silliness.

A business can request that no one be armed, but those bent on victimizing others will not heed, therefore I will not go defenseless. The most a business can do is ask me to leave if they discover that I have a weapon, and the only way that will happen is if I am forced to draw that weapon in response to unlawful threats to my safety.

 

[Bruxley]

Are these businesses somehow less public than a college campus?

Most definitely. A retail, or any other business, is open to the public, but isn't a 'public place'. In other words a singular purpose exists, to do the business they are in, that's it. They are not open for use by the general public. They are not for 'use by the general public' they are there specifically, and singularly to sell their wares or services.

Campuses are more like small towns then shops. There are a wide variety of public uses going on and although certain building may be closed, a campus is perpetually open to the general public even between semesters when no classes are held.

Here is the analogy that the SCOTUS used in the Marsh case cited above:

Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793 , 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation. 3 And, though the issue is not directly analogous to the on before us we do want to point out by way of illustration that such regulation may not result in an operation of these facilities, even by privately owned companies, which unconstitutionally interferes with and discriminates against interstate commerce. Port Richmond & Bergen Point Ferry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, supra, 234 U.S. at page 326, 34 S.Ct. at page 823, and cases cited, 234 U.S. at pages 328, 329, 34 S. Ct. at pages 824, 825; cf. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Brothers, 303 U.S. 177, 625 , 58 S.Ct. 510. Had the corporation here owned the segment of the four-lane highway which runs parallel to the 'business block' and operated the same under a State franchise, doubtless no one would have seriously contended that the corporation's property interest in the highway gave it power to obstruct through traffic or to discriminate against interstate commerce. See [326 U.S. 501, 507] County Commissioners v. Chandler, 96 U.S. 205 , 208; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., supra, 199 U.S. at page 294, 26 S.Ct. at page 94; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 21 How. 112, 125. And even had there been no express franchise but mere acquiescence by the State in the corporation's use of its property as a segment of the four-lane highway, operation of all the highway, including the segment owned by the corporation, would still have been performance of a public function and discrimination would certainly have been illegal. 4


We do not think it makes any significant constitutional difference as to the relationship between the rights of the owner and those of the public that here the State, instead of permitting the corporation to operate a highway, permitted it to use its property as a town, operate a 'business block' in the town and a street and sidewalk on that business block.

In short, when they became open for general public use they distinguished themselves from a private home owner or place of business.