Open Carry: Why????

[Krw17]

If you are in/on someone elses property (company vehicle in my case, company owned store in your case) they have their own rights, property rights to be specific. IMO they have the right to dictate what you can and can't do on their property (short of depriving you of life of stealing from you) and that includes whether you can carry a gun).

This is not completely true as I see it. Individuals can ask you to leave their store or deny you employment because you look like a dirty bum, but not because you look Jewish or because of the color of your skin. Private businesses have been forced by the federal government to install ADA accommodations. Now I suppose they aren't "forced", since they could just choose to be out of business but I think we could agree that they are compelled to. I would contend that your constitutional rights should always be protected even when on private property. On the flip side of that I do believe in property rights. I guess the battle is which trumps which because it feels like that is evaluated on a case by case basis.

I do always ponder the free speech right though. A theatre clearly has the right to throw you out because you are being loud and talking during the movie, however you aren't being arrested just being denied service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

That argument usually falls apart for the simple fact that you have no right to be on someone else's property.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

*sigh*

Why does anyone need to justify the "why" when it already is by some (apparently forgotten) piece of sheepskin called the Constitution. Why do I need to justify my rights to anyone else? Does anyone feel the need to justify their right to free speech if they talk out in the open? Why is the second amendment any different? Why must we argue about every little thing that we feel slightly different on?

I like turtles... Why? For reasons only I understand that are better than your reasons for not liking turtles.

I don't like turtles... I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own turtles, I just don't think anybody needs a turtle.

Do you see how frivolous this entire thread is?

It's like those who don't support OC apparently think that if passed they will be FORCED to OC themselves? Why do you care if you support gun rights? How does it affect your concealed carry of a handgun? Oh wait, it doesn't.

end

*sigh*

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

This is not completely true as I see it. Individuals can ask you to leave their store or deny you employment because you look like a dirty bum, but not because you look Jewish or because of the color of your skin. Private businesses have been forced by the federal government to install ADA accommodations. Now I suppose they aren't "forced", since they could just choose to be out of business but I think we could agree that they are compelled to. I would contend that your constitutional rights should always be protected even when on private property. On the flip side of that I do believe in property rights. I guess the battle is which trumps which because it feels like that is evaluated on a case by case basis.

I do always ponder the free speech right though. A theatre clearly has the right to throw you out because you are being loud and talking during the movie, however you aren't being arrested just being denied service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I owned my property or business I should be able to boot your ass for any reason I choose. Discrimination laws don't reduce discrimination.

 

[Krw17]

That argument usually falls apart for the simple fact that you have no right to be on someone else's property.

My response was based on a place of business, you are right I don't really have an inherent right to be there but the government has shown a propensity to set laws based on the the fact that I might be. You can't say you don't want to rent your house to me because I'm a Mexican, you can't decide not to sell me a movie ticket because I'm black. Private businesses and now some city ordinances require private homes to be built to comply with ADA laws. All examples of compelling private property owners to accommodate someone they perhaps didn't want to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Krw17]

If I owned my property or business I should be able to boot your ass for any reason I choose. Discrimination laws don't reduce discrimination.

I completely agree with you there. I was only saying that already seems to be a precedent for protecting certain rights whether you are in private property or not. It's weird how our legislators can pick and choose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

So let's fight to get rid of gov overreach, not increase it.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

So let's fight to get rid of gov overreach, not increase it.

^ this

 

[Krw17]

So let's fight to get rid of gov overreach, not increase it.

Certain laws have to cross property boundaries. If I visit your store you can't kill me or at least I'm not for legalizing that. The question is who is picking and choosing which laws take precedence. Let's not leave it up to he lobbyists. The bill of rights should apply anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Krw17]

^ this

You guys seem to be all for the constitution until it runs afoul of property rights. The constitution has to remain the supreme law of the land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

You guys seem to be all for the constitution until it runs afoul of property rights. The constitution has to remain the supreme law of the land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where in heck did you get that out of this:

So let's fight to get rid of gov overreach, not increase it.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I'm for killing annoying guests on my property. That would solve so many problems during the holidays and Super Bowl parties.

Drunk (on my alcohol) Uncle Billy Bob's crazy wife talking annoyingly loud about super gay topics while I'm watching a game - BAM!

 

[Younggun]

The constitution is to place limits on the federal gov.

NOTHING in the Bill of Rights says you have a right to be on my property, and you don't.

If you have no right to be on my property, how can you have the right to carry on my property.

I'm not violating your 2A rights, I'm not disarming you, I'm saying you can't enter my property unless you meet certain criteria. That is perfectly constitutional.


(I used myself as an example, I generally don't have a problem with someone carrying on my property)

 

[winchster]

Certain laws have to cross property boundaries. If I visit your store you can't kill me or at least I'm not for legalizing that. The question is who is picking and choosing which laws take precedence. Let's not leave it up to he lobbyists. The bill of rights should apply anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The bill of rights does apply everywhere. Me telling you that you can't cuss my customers when you work for me or carry a gun into my property is not a violation of any of your rights. The BOR protects you from the government, not me.

 

[Krw17]

The constitution is to place limits on the federal gov.

NOTHING in the Bill of Rights says you have a right to be on my property, and you don't.

If you have no right to be on my property, how can you have the right to carry on my property.

I'm not violating your 2A rights, I'm not disarming you, I'm saying you can't enter my property unless you meet certain criteria. That is perfectly constitutional.


(I used myself as an example, I generally don't have a problem with someone carrying on my property)

Ok, I'm following you. And Winchester below. Thanks.

There are state laws and such that are still prudent on your property. If I'm visiting you, you can't steal my truck and say I have no protection under the law because I had parked it your driveway. I know we would like for that to be the case especially if the situation had been that you had warned me several times not to do it! I'm still struggling with the fact that certain protections must still exist even when I'm on your private property.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

But I can tell you not to bring your vehicle on my property, or ask you to remove it from my property and have it towed if you refuse to comply


As I said earlier in this thread, I support all rights, even those that may not seem to benefit me.

In the case of property rights, I support the right of a property owner to no allow guns. It has nothing to do with where I want to carry, it has to do with the greater implications of trampled property rights. Letting the gov continue to expand its grip on private property will be bad for everyone. I want the gov to leave private property alone, even if it means some people will exercise their right to not allow me on their property with a gun, or because I have a beard, or because my beard is red, or because I wear work boots, or because I'm white.

I believe it's their right to make that decision.

 

[karlac]

The constitution is to place limits on the federal gov.

NOTHING in the Bill of Rights says you have a right to be on my property, and you don't.

If you have no right to be on my property, how can you have the right to carry on my property.

Wonder how those who were here before we got here felt about that?

For good or evil, these natural law/inalienable right concepts historically have a self serving component to them, depending on who gets to apply/interpret.

To the victor go the spoils...

 

[winchster]

Ok, I'm following you. And Winchester below. Thanks.

There are state laws and such that are still prudent on your property. If I'm visiting you, you can't steal my truck and say I have no protection under the law because I had parked it your driveway. I know we would like for that to be the case especially if the situation had been that you had warned me several times not to do it! I'm still struggling with the fact that certain protections must still exist even when I'm on your private property.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But I can "steal" it. Legally. I can have it towed if you're trespassing.

We are discussing two separate issues though. In your other example you mentioned murder, murder is against the law. I have no right to it unless I'm defending which makes it not murder.

In the truck example, as well as the employer example, I have rights because I am on my property, you are there by invitation not right.

I have no right to carry in your home. I have a right to a choice if presented with the options of entering unarmed or being barred from entry while carrying.

 

[Younggun]

Wonder how those who were here before we got here felt about that?

For good or evil, these natural law/inalienable right concepts historically have a self serving component to them, depending on who gets to apply/interpret.

To the victor go the spoils...

Assuming you mean Native Americans. Yes, we completely trampled their rights.

As far as property rights go, I don't believe they had a concept of land ownership until we showed up and started drawing out boundary lines. Not an expert on the subject by any means.

Rights being self serving? Well of course. Having a foundation of basic rights does serve me, as well as everyone else. It may not always work in my favor, but in the big picture it does. As it does for everyone.

What we did to the native Americans was wrong on just about every level, but I didn't do it to them any more than I owned a slave. I feel no guilt.

 

[winchster]

Wonder how those who were here before we got here felt about that?

For good or evil, these natural law/inalienable right concepts historically have a self serving component to them, depending on who gets to apply/interpret.

To the victor go the spoils...

The difference is simple: If your goal is conquest or visit, the concept changes. There is no doubt we robbed the original owners, however, we weren't exercising rights, we weren't visiting. Our goal was conquest, and we won.
This discussion is entirely different.