You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Whose rights are right?
- Thread starter Mycle
- Start date
Bull.allenomics said:Property rights are being totally ignored.
The government has regulated the actions of business and business property for far longer than most of us have been alive. What about this makes it any different than any other business regulation? Hmmm?
As a Libertarian, I subscribe to the concept that our rights end at the body and property of other individuals. Unless we are to conclude that people do not really own their own property, we must concede that they have the right to do with their property what they wish and impose any rules they wish for those who would use or enter that property.
There has been a lot of hogwash going around that if a business is open to the public then it is no longer private property. That's a load of stinking feces. Take for instance a store. We'll call it a little Mom and Pop dime store kind of place. Cozy, quaint, and retail. To say that this business is not private property because Mom and Pop are selling items to the public is tantamount to saying that other individuals have a RIGHT to these items that Mom and Pop are selling. I say no. Until that merchandise is bought and paid for...it is still Mom and Pop's to do with as they will. As the merchandise and property are theirs, the property is private. And Mom and Pop have the right to set whatever rules they want for the property.
But a better fundamental argument is that the Bill of Rights was meant to apply to the Federal Government only. It was meant to restrain the Federal Government from trying to infringe upon our rights. Later, the Federal Government decried that the Bill of Rights also restrains State and Local governments from infringing upon our rights. (whether that was the intention of the founding fathers is subject to another debate) But the Bill of Rights was NEVER meant to apply to individuals. So we as individuals have no Constitutional right to keep and bear arms on OTHER PEOPLE'S Property.
There has been a lot of hogwash going around that if a business is open to the public then it is no longer private property. That's a load of stinking feces. Take for instance a store. We'll call it a little Mom and Pop dime store kind of place. Cozy, quaint, and retail. To say that this business is not private property because Mom and Pop are selling items to the public is tantamount to saying that other individuals have a RIGHT to these items that Mom and Pop are selling. I say no. Until that merchandise is bought and paid for...it is still Mom and Pop's to do with as they will. As the merchandise and property are theirs, the property is private. And Mom and Pop have the right to set whatever rules they want for the property.
But a better fundamental argument is that the Bill of Rights was meant to apply to the Federal Government only. It was meant to restrain the Federal Government from trying to infringe upon our rights. Later, the Federal Government decried that the Bill of Rights also restrains State and Local governments from infringing upon our rights. (whether that was the intention of the founding fathers is subject to another debate) But the Bill of Rights was NEVER meant to apply to individuals. So we as individuals have no Constitutional right to keep and bear arms on OTHER PEOPLE'S Property.
You honestly believe that the law should have no say in what you can do to someone, what rules you can impose on a person once they enter or use your property? Because they park out in front of your property in the public parking you provide?Unless we are to conclude that people do not really own their own property, we must concede that they have the right to do with their property what they wish and impose any rules they wish for those who would use or enter that property.
to the OP
your vehicle is your property not the companys, they can ban you from CCW at work but not from leaving your gun in your car otherwise you can't CCW to and from work which restricts your legal right to protect yourself.
Danzing
I guess by your logic if a mom and pop store puts a sigh that says No women allowed or (Blacks, Libertarians,Homosexuals,Men,Conservatives,etc. etc.) that would be ok with you?
your vehicle is your property not the companys, they can ban you from CCW at work but not from leaving your gun in your car otherwise you can't CCW to and from work which restricts your legal right to protect yourself.
Danzing
I guess by your logic if a mom and pop store puts a sigh that says No women allowed or (Blacks, Libertarians,Homosexuals,Men,Conservatives,etc. etc.) that would be ok with you?
My company does. It doesn't have anything to do with legality--there's no way they can prosecute you (or have you prosecuted) for having a gun in your locked car in the parking lot. But they can terminate offenders and they have proved it several times.your vehicle is your property not the companys, they can ban you from CCW at work but not from leaving your gun in your car otherwise you can't CCW to and from work which restricts your legal right to protect yourself.
The company also should be liable for my safety while banning weapons the company I work for required I answer the door for night iquiries midnight to 7 am. No provision for my security other than 911 and a poorly focused video camera. I squawked about companies liability in the event I would be injured and guess what now inquiries are by appointment only and at specified buisness hours. Wonder why that changed ?
I thought of the liability argument after reading posts here.
It only required a one time mention of liability at a staff meeting . Coincidence???
I thought of the liability argument after reading posts here.
It only required a one time mention of liability at a staff meeting . Coincidence???
This law is not about the second amendment, this is about whether or not the state can take the property rights of a business to prohibit behavior under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court should make their decision not on their own personal morals, but using the law and the constitution, guided by stare decisis.
There is a large body case law on this. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.
The "paradigmatic" taking is a direct government appropriation of private property. In addition to outright appropriation of property, the government may effect a taking through a regulation if it is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation, this is known as regulatory taking. see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, (2005).
In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.
This law does not deprive owners of all economically beneficial uses of their property, but does result in an unwelcome physical invasion onto a business owner's property by individuals transporting and storing firearms in their vehicles. It is apparent the invasion onto Plaintiffs' property is unwelcome because Plaintiffs have corporate policies preventing this. see Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419(1982)
The Supreme Court first carved out the category of per se physical takings. In Loretto, the Court distinguished temporary physical "invasions" from permanent physical "occupations." The Court made clear that not every limitation on the right to exclude is deserving of per se treatment, notwithstanding the importance of the right to exclude in the bundle of property rights. The court ruled that an invasion is temporary, while an occupation is permanent.
A physical occupation, as defined by the Court, is a permanent and exclusive occupation by the government that destroys the owner's right to possession, use, and disposal of the property. see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
The laws we are talking about here do not force any permanent "physical structure" on an owner's property. Instead, they force an unwanted physical invasion by third parties engaging in an unwanted activity. The invasion itself is not "permanent" because the individuals engaging in the unwanted activity (guns in cars) do not remain on the property at all times, as would an actual physical structure. Nor does this law cause a "permanent" invasion by the government vis a vis a particular parcel of property, such as the public bike paths at issue in public easement cases. In those cases, even if no person ever chose to ride his bike across a public path, there is nevertheless governmental intrusion because that particular parcel of land is stripped of its right to exclude.
If no individuals choose to engage in the activity of transporting firearms in vehicles, landowners will not suffer unwanted invasions. It is therefore hard to classify the invasion caused by this law as "permanent" for purposes of a takings analysis.
See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 1980) (analyzing California constitutional provision permitting individuals to exercise free speech rights on private property against the wishes of the private property owner under a balancing test); Cienega Gardens, 331 F.3d at 1337-38 (applying Penn Central test to regulation that forced landlords to allow a "physical invasion" of their buildings by certain unwanted tenants); Boise Cascade, 296 F.3d at 1357 (holding that government official's periodic intrusion onto private property for purpose of conducting owl surveys over a period of five months was not a per se taking and must be analyzed under Penn Central test).
There is a large body case law on this. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.
The "paradigmatic" taking is a direct government appropriation of private property. In addition to outright appropriation of property, the government may effect a taking through a regulation if it is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation, this is known as regulatory taking. see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, (2005).
In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.
This law does not deprive owners of all economically beneficial uses of their property, but does result in an unwelcome physical invasion onto a business owner's property by individuals transporting and storing firearms in their vehicles. It is apparent the invasion onto Plaintiffs' property is unwelcome because Plaintiffs have corporate policies preventing this. see Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419(1982)
The Supreme Court first carved out the category of per se physical takings. In Loretto, the Court distinguished temporary physical "invasions" from permanent physical "occupations." The Court made clear that not every limitation on the right to exclude is deserving of per se treatment, notwithstanding the importance of the right to exclude in the bundle of property rights. The court ruled that an invasion is temporary, while an occupation is permanent.
A physical occupation, as defined by the Court, is a permanent and exclusive occupation by the government that destroys the owner's right to possession, use, and disposal of the property. see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
The laws we are talking about here do not force any permanent "physical structure" on an owner's property. Instead, they force an unwanted physical invasion by third parties engaging in an unwanted activity. The invasion itself is not "permanent" because the individuals engaging in the unwanted activity (guns in cars) do not remain on the property at all times, as would an actual physical structure. Nor does this law cause a "permanent" invasion by the government vis a vis a particular parcel of property, such as the public bike paths at issue in public easement cases. In those cases, even if no person ever chose to ride his bike across a public path, there is nevertheless governmental intrusion because that particular parcel of land is stripped of its right to exclude.
If no individuals choose to engage in the activity of transporting firearms in vehicles, landowners will not suffer unwanted invasions. It is therefore hard to classify the invasion caused by this law as "permanent" for purposes of a takings analysis.
See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 1980) (analyzing California constitutional provision permitting individuals to exercise free speech rights on private property against the wishes of the private property owner under a balancing test); Cienega Gardens, 331 F.3d at 1337-38 (applying Penn Central test to regulation that forced landlords to allow a "physical invasion" of their buildings by certain unwanted tenants); Boise Cascade, 296 F.3d at 1357 (holding that government official's periodic intrusion onto private property for purpose of conducting owl surveys over a period of five months was not a per se taking and must be analyzed under Penn Central test).
"I can paint my house whatever color I want."
Are you sure? I am aware of many instances, including Kalifornia, where people have been persecuted because of the color of their homes. It started becoming an issue with the heavy influx of Latinos, many from cultures where bright or 'unconventinal' colors are popular. Personally I don't care if my neighbor paints his house black, purple, fluorescent lime green or candystripe but there are lots of towns where you can not.
Are you sure? I am aware of many instances, including Kalifornia, where people have been persecuted because of the color of their homes. It started becoming an issue with the heavy influx of Latinos, many from cultures where bright or 'unconventinal' colors are popular. Personally I don't care if my neighbor paints his house black, purple, fluorescent lime green or candystripe but there are lots of towns where you can not.
In a recent interview the young man stated that, “Disney was interfering with his God given right to bear arms”. I guess my pastor has been selling the congregation short all these years because he never mentioned this God given right.
I think this is a colloquialism used by some to refer to a "natural" or "fundamental" right to protect ones' self.
The way to do that is by whatever means it takes to get someone from a disadvantaged defensive state to an equal or more advantageous one. e.g., a 250 lb male attacking a 110 lb little old lady has the advantage. Harsh language will not even the contest and very likely, trying to run will not help. These days a gun makes a great equalizer.
So, I'm sure most people would agree that 'God' has given us natural and fundamental rights, most importantly the one to survive.
King Ghidora
Moderator
I didn't read the whole thread but I did want to comment on the post by Kathy. She said:
In fact the US very much limited the rights of lower classes in the early days of this country. In many states you had to be a landowner to have rights. You also couldn't be black or a woman and have rights. We did of course break through those limitations eventually but there are those who would drag us back into that situation. In fact racism has always been a big reason for gun control. Look at DC and tell me part of the reason they had gun control wasn't racist.
I'm no bleeding heart liberal by any means. I think those liberals are the ones taking away our rights in fact. I believe we should all have rights. It's always the libs that want to take away our money and our free speech and our gun rights and our property rights etc. etc. etc.. That's why I'm not a liberal.
We are slowly drifting toward a situation in which we agree with the royalty and nobility of a bygone era: the lower classes should never be allowed to exercise any human rights that their betters don't want them to have.
In fact the US very much limited the rights of lower classes in the early days of this country. In many states you had to be a landowner to have rights. You also couldn't be black or a woman and have rights. We did of course break through those limitations eventually but there are those who would drag us back into that situation. In fact racism has always been a big reason for gun control. Look at DC and tell me part of the reason they had gun control wasn't racist.
I'm no bleeding heart liberal by any means. I think those liberals are the ones taking away our rights in fact. I believe we should all have rights. It's always the libs that want to take away our money and our free speech and our gun rights and our property rights etc. etc. etc.. That's why I'm not a liberal.
In a recent interview the young man stated that, “Disney was interfering with his God given right to bear arms”. I guess my pastor has been selling the congregation short all these years because he never mentioned this God given right.
What he is talking about is the theory upon which our entire country was founded, the "natural rights" theory. This theory was largely inspired by John Locke's second Treatise on Government, which is the reason behind the introduction to the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Published in 1689, Locke's Treatises were popular in the colonies, and formed the underlying philosophy behind our Constitution.
MeekAndMild
New member
NPR interview with Heller's attorney?
Edited to add that this was a separate thread, merged by the mods.
Did anyone catch today's NPR interview with Heller's attorney? If so I wanted to ask what was your take about his discussion of his impression about property rights of business owners who prohibit people from taking guns to work. He used the analogy that this was similar to them prohibiting people from bringing copies of a newspaper to work. Very puzzling to me.
For those who didn't listen to "All Things Considered" today this LINK leads to a follow-on article. The interview is linked to the page and marked "listen now".
Edited to add that this was a separate thread, merged by the mods.
Did anyone catch today's NPR interview with Heller's attorney? If so I wanted to ask what was your take about his discussion of his impression about property rights of business owners who prohibit people from taking guns to work. He used the analogy that this was similar to them prohibiting people from bringing copies of a newspaper to work. Very puzzling to me.
For those who didn't listen to "All Things Considered" today this LINK leads to a follow-on article. The interview is linked to the page and marked "listen now".
Last edited:
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I wish it had been a bit longer but it was, as usual, a very fairly presented and non-emotionally skewed presentation by NPR.
What's puzzling about it?
It isn't as if anyone's arguing that an employee has a right to use his employer's front lawn as a range during lunch. Why should an employee's right to bear arms be infringed at work? What other rights that have no direct bearing on work performance or work environment do employers routinely infringe?
I wonder what kind of caselaw there is on the matter of companies restricting employees from bringing printed materials or other media to work.
It isn't as if anyone's arguing that an employee has a right to use his employer's front lawn as a range during lunch. Why should an employee's right to bear arms be infringed at work? What other rights that have no direct bearing on work performance or work environment do employers routinely infringe?
I wonder what kind of caselaw there is on the matter of companies restricting employees from bringing printed materials or other media to work.
JohnKSa,
In short, yes. That is exactly what I mean.
Understand this: My marriage is interracial. My two children are biracial. The fact that there are other people in this world that would hate them or discriminate against them makes me sick.
But my own feelings do not change two facts: One, that some people are stupid or ignorant and prejudiced, and Two, that those people should have absolute control over their lives and their property. The fact that I do not agree with them does NOT give me the right to force my views upon them, either personally or legally. And it does not give me the right to seize power over their property.
As neither myself nor my children have a RIGHT to their property, they are not denying us our rights by not selling to us or allowing us on that property. Our rights end at their property line. Once we cross that line we are guests, invited or uninvited. And even if we have been invited, as the owners of that property, they have the right to rescind that invitation as they see fit.
In short, yes. That is exactly what I mean.
Understand this: My marriage is interracial. My two children are biracial. The fact that there are other people in this world that would hate them or discriminate against them makes me sick.
But my own feelings do not change two facts: One, that some people are stupid or ignorant and prejudiced, and Two, that those people should have absolute control over their lives and their property. The fact that I do not agree with them does NOT give me the right to force my views upon them, either personally or legally. And it does not give me the right to seize power over their property.
As neither myself nor my children have a RIGHT to their property, they are not denying us our rights by not selling to us or allowing us on that property. Our rights end at their property line. Once we cross that line we are guests, invited or uninvited. And even if we have been invited, as the owners of that property, they have the right to rescind that invitation as they see fit.
MeekAndMild
New member
I'd like to see it too, which is part of the reason I posted the question and link. I'd be willing to bet that there will be cases about people wearing in-your-face tee shirts, people doing active political campaigning, people handing out religious tracts, people plugged into music headphones while working at dangerous assembly line stations, and a lot of other related activities.I wonder what kind of caselaw there is on the matter of companies restricting employees from bringing printed materials or other media to work.
But how many cases do you think there will be about people bringing newspapers in their lunchboxes or leaving them in their cars or privately reading during their coffee breaks? At what point does the employee's personal space end and the employer's private property begin?
I think that you've hit upon one of the reasons I like listening to All Things Considered. They present opinion in a nonhysterical, nonconfrontive manner, providing a steady moral compass (always pointing to the west coast) to test ideas. On the other hand, some of their regular news readers have a really grating tone which becomes irritating after a while.as usual, a very fairly presented and non-emotionally skewed
I can't see why an employer or business should have less rights
than an individual... If you don't want me to bring a weapon into your house... I should respect that right. How is that different than a business or employer... now I do draw the line at parking lots... but not inside a building or on your person.
I realise it's not this easy, but I don't have to do business with them or work for them.
than an individual... If you don't want me to bring a weapon into your house... I should respect that right. How is that different than a business or employer... now I do draw the line at parking lots... but not inside a building or on your person.
I realise it's not this easy, but I don't have to do business with them or work for them.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I am a bit torn on this issue.
On one hand, as a business owner, I feel I should have the right to control what happens inside my business.
If your business is an office setting or similar where access is only granted to employees and supervised/screened visitors, then I completely believe in the right to deny employees and visitors from carrying.
On the other hand, I think that any business that opens itself up to public access should have to allow any legal activity (such as concealed carry) that does not interfere with the operation of said business. That only applies to customers though...but I also worry about the ability of my employees to defend themselves in a situation where they are regularly exposed to the general population.
In the real world, I just cannot allow my employees to be packing though. It is just too big of a liability. Because of that, I feel obligated to provide some sort of protection. When I am working I will be armed and when I am not working there will be plain clothed security that is armed.
On one hand, as a business owner, I feel I should have the right to control what happens inside my business.
If your business is an office setting or similar where access is only granted to employees and supervised/screened visitors, then I completely believe in the right to deny employees and visitors from carrying.
On the other hand, I think that any business that opens itself up to public access should have to allow any legal activity (such as concealed carry) that does not interfere with the operation of said business. That only applies to customers though...but I also worry about the ability of my employees to defend themselves in a situation where they are regularly exposed to the general population.
In the real world, I just cannot allow my employees to be packing though. It is just too big of a liability. Because of that, I feel obligated to provide some sort of protection. When I am working I will be armed and when I am not working there will be plain clothed security that is armed.