Some thoughts on fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs next session

[Younggun]

I think it can be narrowed to one specific question.

"Does one have the intrinsic right to enter the private property of another"




Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mreed911]

Well. The discussion deals more than property rights

1. Right of self defense. The individuals right to defend oneself
2. Right to control property

One is specifically mentioned in the constitution.

One is a derived right that is not specifically mentioned but is inferred.

The discussion revolves around the clash of these rights and which one takes presidence

Does not control over my own property comprise "liberty?"

 

[Younggun]

I protect my private property by locking the door and only letting a very limited number of people in. I do not have an open door policy like say a business open to the public does.

So if you have a garage sale, and a bunch of Neo nazi skim heads come along, you have no right to have them removed. Seems they would be protected by the 1A and you have invited the public on to your property via your sale.

Now let's say it's Walmart. And anti Christian group decides to carry signs through the store as they shop. 1A protects them and Walmart can do nothing because they are "open to the public".

I just can't see the logic you are attempting to use making sense when applied to other areas.

I am also a proponent of controlling actions instead of implements. If someone acts like an ass then act upon their actions and not what they have tucked in their waist band.

This subject has to do with more than just guns, it goes the the very core of what rights an owner has over his or her property. The action being controlled in this case would be entry on to the property, and the question is "does the owner of the property have the right to regulate that entry as he or she sees fit"

With regard to the whole simple sign. I dare you to start a business with tax backed loans or even your own money and post a sign that stated no droopy pants black people allowed and see how that goes over.

I'd hope such a business practice wouldn't get far. Terribly immoral. But that has nothing to do with it.

You are trying to use current law to justify your belief, but do you also belief the AWB was constitutional? Was it an infringement? How about 30.06/07 signage? It is law but you seem to believe it is an infringement. So if laws are fallible as they pertain to rights, how can law be used as an example of what rights one does or does not have?

If the 2A were wiped out through legal legislative action, would you believe the right no longer existed or that it had been infringed?

Hope you have some cash for legal fees left over. Heck for that matter I dare you to go ask a droopy pants black guy to leave cause he is black and has droopy pants. Good luck with that.

I'm hoping someday these things can be corrected. It's a terrible things when you must pay a fine for exercising your property rights.

I'd much rather go down the road of protecting the 2nd as the civil right it is and place the same limits on folks violating it as we do on folks violating gay rights or black rights or Muslim rights.

I am 100% behind protecting the 2A and removing the current infringements on it. And I agree we should be able to carry on all government buildings, just as gays and Muslims can enter them. However, this has nothing to do with private property which none of these groups actually have any right to enter, be it gay, Muslim, gun owner, or gay Muslim gun owner. You simply don't have the right to be there.

Instead I've suggested a compromise where a business owner may ask a gun owner, or anyone for that matter, whom he identifies as behaving in a manner not to his liking to simply leave.

I love how we always bitch about our representatives on Washington compromising our 2A rights away, but compromising another right away is ok.

A property owner does not infringe on your rights by not allowing you to enter. You have no right to enter so you have no right to enter in any manner you please. A property owner has every right to set stipulations on those who enter and you have the right to choose whether or not you wish to meet those stipulations. Your rights have not been infringed upon in this case. If a business owner chooses to compromise it should be by choice and because he believes it is in the best interest of his business. Then he has the ability to choose to limit entry and possibly lose business, or compromise in order to be more profitable. The choice is his right as the property/business owner.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

In your opinion. See that is why I fall back on the law because everyone differs on where and how they decide what is or isn't a right. Here we actually have courts that decide what is a right by law and it surely differs from your opinion. So we can have a discussion where nothing can be defined because everyone can, and will, define things differently or we can have a discussion with agreed on definitions by basing thing as defined by our laws and courts. I think it's obvious what is the most productive.

And if you don't think it's off topic you are not being very honest. It's a topic that is important to you but certainly not what the OP was about. Mind you I've gone off topic more than a few times but just cause you want to continue a hijack doesn't mean it isn't a hijack or that I have to go there.

So if SCOTUS rules that the 2A only applies to military personnel and sweeping firearms bans are passed across the nation, will you "fall back on the law" and simply accept the the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists. It was written out of existence just like that?

Or are you simply falling back on the law in this thread because it happens to work in your favor? If you are not emotional you can follow logic to the answer. Disregard your own agenda and get a clear view of the field.



As far as a hijack goes, the entire premise of this thread comes down to the rights of the property owner and whether or not they exist. If you can't answer the question of whether or not the property owners rights are being violated then no other questions on this thread can be answered.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mreed911]

Doesn't the right to bear arms exist to protect me and my property?

 

[SC-Texas]

What are the basic rights?

Y'all haven't even identified the framework of the basic argument here.

So let's set the framework.

I can tell you that the exercise by none person of his rights often infringes upon the exercise of the other persons rights.

But let's define what constitutes the basic bundle of rights that each of us has.

Hint. Property rights ain't in it directly.

Life.
Liberty
Pursuit of happiness.

Then we get into the bill of rights

Only then can we start discussing what rights we have and when each of those rights infringes or becomes of more importance than another right.

We also have to identify to whom the rights flow and when.

From consevapedia.

To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation against tyranny). (Second Amendment)
To own and carry at home and in public weapons (firearms and knives, etc.) for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free against tyranny from enemies both foreign and domestic. (Second Amendment)
To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.)
To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor.
To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country.
To worship -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. (First Amendment)
To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. (First Amendment)
To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. (First Amendment)
To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy). (Fourth Amendment)
To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest.
To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.
To be tried by a jury of one's peers and face one's accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime.
To be tried by a jury of one's peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment.
To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

 

[SC-Texas]

The fascinating thing is that property rights are not specifically mentioned in the 3rd. It simply say that you can't be forced to quarter troops in your house.

Now here is the clincher for all the property right absolutists.


Unless in time of war, they pass a law saying they can take your stuff.


www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[SC-Texas]

THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[bones_708]

I think it can be narrowed to one specific question.

"Does one have the intrinsic right to enter the private property of another"




Sent from my HAL 9000

Yeah that was the question not how to change the current laws about 30.06 and 30.07. Hijack threads and tilt at windmills!

 

[SC-Texas]

I think there are some misconceptions about property rights.

The reality is that we have eminent domain laws that allow one private company to get the government to use its eminent domain power to take a citizens property for a private project.

That is the use of ones property rights to negatively affect another's property rights.


www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[bones_708]

I get what you're saying. The reason it wasn't a hijack is because the discussion revolves around the very idea of whether or not a person has the right to determine the conditions for entering their property. YG and I believe they do. Several others want to follow suit with the states that force a business to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to. I am against that philosophy across the board, be it 30.06 or cake for a gay wedding.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Unless you think there is even the slightest chance of legislating or even judicial change then it's BS navel gazing.

 

[SC-Texas]

But, in order to discuss property rights, we need to identify what other rights we each have.




www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[SC-Texas]

Unless you think there is even the slightest chance of legislating or even judicial change then it's BS navel gazing.

I believe there will be legislation advanced to change the sign requirements to gun buster signs.

If this happens, then we need to implement a decriminalized trespass regime in exchange for relaxed signage.


www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[SC-Texas]

But I'm enjoying the absolutist property rights discussion.


www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[bones_708]

Well. The discussion deals more than property rights

1. Right of self defense. The individuals right to defend oneself
2. Right to control property

One is specifically mentioned in the constitution.

One is a derived right that is not specifically mentioned but is inferred.

The discussion revolves around the clash of these rights and which one takes presidence

Does not prevent someone from defending themselves just how they do so and they are not forced to be there so not a real moral or legal issue.
And the constitutional right has never been held legally or by majority belief to impart even kind of sort of the right you claim.
There really is no clash of rights here. That's all made up BS.
Signage is a way of clearly, and more specifically a way of stating a businesses intent, clear enough that verbal notice is not necessary. Who says it's not necessary? The State. And it's not like it's a unique situation. There are other case in which verbal notice is not necessary. I guess people don't remember than there were some who would advocate arrest if a CHL carried past a gun buster sign. Because then it was just a Criminal Trespass charge and some argued a gun buster notice was sufficient. 30.06 protected gun owners as much as businesses who wanted to exclude guns.

 

[bones_708]

So if SCOTUS rules that the 2A only applies to military personnel and sweeping firearms bans are passed across the nation, will you "fall back on the law" and simply accept the the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists. It was written out of existence just like that?

Or are you simply falling back on the law in this thread because it happens to work in your favor? If you are not emotional you can follow logic to the answer. Disregard your own agenda and get a clear view of the field.



As far as a hijack goes, the entire premise of this thread comes down to the rights of the property owner and whether or not they exist. If you can't answer the question of whether or not the property owners rights are being violated then no other questions on this thread can be answered.


Sent from my HAL 9000

And if a cow jumped over a moon would I then think the moon was green cheese? I actually said why I would fall back on the law. You come up with a maybe situation and re ask the question while ignoring the answers I already gave.

And no that isn't what the argument is. You can be 10000% right, which funny enough at least in this case I agree with though I think your attempt to make it universal is , well, simple and ignores way to much to be in any way meaningful. You could get everyone reading to agree with out and it would have absolutely no effect on the validity and legality of posting a business. And, at least at this stage, absolutely no political effect or any practical implications about the proliferation of signs. So what point, what effect, are you going to have or show besides patting yourself on the back over how deeply you can navel gaze?

 

[bones_708]

But, in order to discuss property rights, we need to identify what other rights we each have.




www.TexasGunTrust.com

No you can discus rights independent of each other.

 

[SC-Texas]

Actually, you cannot in this context because we are talking about the conflict of rights amongst individuals


www.TexasGunTrust.com

 

[bones_708]

I believe there will be legislation advanced to change the sign requirements to gun buster signs.

If this happens, then we need to implement a decriminalized trespass regime in exchange for relaxed signage.


www.TexasGunTrust.com

No offence but do you have any real basis for that belief. From my discussions there is no real chance of that. The vast majority seems in favor of the signs. Mind you LTC's are well under 10% of the population.

With a gun buster it would be a real battle to get a trespass conviction because it just isn't specific enough. So people who would keep out gun owners are happy because if the rules are followed you can't argue what is meant so prosecutions are possible with some direct confrontation. None of this "I'll make them throw me out" bs by people who know exactly what the businesses desires are. Gun owners should be happy because it makes absolutely clear the intent of the business owners and limits the possibility you could be harassed or arrested over an unclear sign.

You want signage to disappear I think the biggest change would be working with the people who carry and make horrible impressions. They are likely the single biggest correctable factor is increased signage.

 

[bones_708]

Actually, you cannot in this context because we are talking about the conflict of rights amongst individuals


www.TexasGunTrust.com

Why cant you? First I think the stance on these rights are misstated at the very least, misapplied, absolutest, and totally without context. That being said there really isn't a conflict of right. It's a conflict of beliefs and wants. People way over do the Rights thing. They get it into there head it means whatever lets them do what they want. They can know that it's never meant what they believe and there is no legal or historical basis but they keep spouting it like repetition is validation.