[treedawg]

What are you thoughts regarding CCW and private property rights?

As a staunch defender of the Second here are my thoughts on the subject. I think your rights under the Second cease to exist when you enter private property and the owner isn't like minded. This holds true in so called semi public establishment as well. If somebody is paying taxes on it then "I" consider it to be private property. This includes stores, restaurants, gas stations etc.

Some will argue that they have a right to protect them self and family at all times and I strongly agree. If that is of utmost importance to you and by all rights it should be, then you shouldn't patronize places that refuse to recognise your right to carry. Why would you want to support them in the first place?

I know many and possibly most might not agree, but private property rights trump gun rights in my opinion. If and when we cease to respect private property rights the other rights will be no more than coincidental at best.

On the same line of thinking, I think smoking in semi public places should be decided by the proprietor of such place. If he welcomes smoking and you don't then take you business elsewhere. After all it's his business and he pays taxes, utilities and most likely a mortgage or lease. The success or failure of this business is of utmost importance to said individual and I trust he will choose wisely. He will make this choice based on many factors including his current customer base and perceived future customer base.

BTW: I don't smoke :lol:

TD

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The rights don't "cease to exist."

The issue here is whether you are willing to trample somebody else's rights. I am not willing to trample somebody else's private property rights, in general. While I believe strongly in the first amendment, that does not mean that Wal-mart has to let me set up a rally in their parking lot or hold prayer group meetings there.

That is the whole issue with gun control: Others willing to trample my rights. I think what you are saying is: do not patronize somebody who wants to trample your rights.

I have a somewhat libertarian sympathy on this issue of rights, which is, leave me alone, and I leave you alone. Here is how I typically present it to gun control advocates with whom I am speaking face to face. We can have a difference of opinion on gun control, but it is more than a difference of opinion when my thought is that you should be free not to carry a gun, but you think I should be put in prison for choosing to carry a gun. That is not a mere difference of opinion. Why shouldn't I take it personally, you want me in prison! I don't support laws that would put you in prison for refusing to carry a gun.

It helps them to put a face on what they are doing and realize it is not just about their own "feelings" about what somebody else is doing.

Footnote: Why do leftist ideas, carried out to their extreme, always end with soldiers and killing fields?

Sorry, can't help it. I just finished reading "First They Killed My Father."

 

[treedawg]

The phrase "cease to exist" might have been a little harsh but in reality that's what happens when you enter private property where the owner is not like minded.

This question was not specifically directed to admin of the board. It's just a issue I feel we all need to address or be aware of.

I hear many people that carry say screw this store or that restaurant that strictly prohibits CCW. I'm going to shop and or eat there and I'm going to continue to carry. These same people consider their home their castle and God help you if you disrespect them or their wishes while on their property.

TD

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I guess I have just always viewed rights as something to keep the government from violating.

Wow, I just noticed I passed 800 posts! :shock:

 

[jrm]

I pretty much agree with Malum Prohibitum, but I'll elaborate with a few comments of my own.

I don't believe that rights come and go, existing and ceasing to exist. I look at it as competing rights and interests, and that when two people's rights are in direct conflict with one another, one person's rights must be (to resolve the dispute or conflict) superior to the other person's rights. But, the times those rights are in direct conflict may not be as often as it first appears.

When it comes to rights to self-defense, 2A, and CCW vs. private property, this analysis applies. I may have a right to self-defense, whatever it is I get these days from 2A, and my GFL. When I am on someone else's property, and he doesn't like my carrying, does he have to right to force me to disarm? Not really (discounting government actors and limits on the GFL). He has the right to eject me from his property if I choose not to disarm, but he can't make me disarm.

In this regard, there really isn't a conflict between private property rights and rights to carry. The owner of the property has the right of ejectment, regardless of whether I am carrying or not. I also have the right to leave (or not to patronize). So, my right to carry is not subject to the private property owner's permission. What really is subject to the private property owner's permission is my right to be on the property in the first place.