Property Rights and RKBA

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Property Rights and RKBA

Postby bignflnut » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:11 am

Shame on area Republicans in the Ohio House -- with the notable exception of Summit County's Anthony DeVitis -- for voting as a bloc to support this bill, which passed the House on a largely party line vote July 6.

By eliminating meaningful penalties for routine violations, HB 233 would effectively yank the right of private property owners to prohibit those with concealed-handgun licenses from carrying concealed weapons onto their premises.

SNIP

Gun rights should not eclipse property rights.


Silly Rabbit, Guns don't have Rights. Nor does property.
However, let's discuss property rights. Here we have two sets: Property Rights of a property owner vs the self-ownership property rights of the individual.

For some people, being temporarily deprived of a firearm creates great anxiety. But for those with a strong aversion to guns, working at a company that allows weapons in cars has the same effect. In a free society, both sets of employees can solve the problem with a simple expedient: exercising their liberty to find a company whose policies suit their preferences.


Who can argue with that ideal? Who, pray tell, is the business owner asking to uphold said Rights over and above the RKBA rights of non-commercial property owners? The government,no?

What's the penalty for bringing food and drink into an establishment that permits no outside food and drink (the movie theater, or some restaurant). One is asked to trash the contraband or leave, yes? If not, trespassing charges may be appropriate. Same as the belligerent or obnoxiously loud customer, they can always be refused service based on behaviors or acts (and even then, there is often some deleterious effect on commerce that is demonstrated), not inanimate objects.

But for the government to make a law that possession of an inanimate object on commercial property is a crime, well, that diminishes the Rights of the individual, prioritizing the policies of the business owner and backing them with the force of law. While I agree that commercial property owners have rights, and that they should be upheld by the government, what other company policy carries the force of law? Isn't it the other way around, that the law constrains or forms the policies of the business (no business is going to make company policy that conflicts with law and expect the gov to uphold the policy based on property rights)?

As a thought exercise, can other rights be restrained at the door of a commercial property? Can a property owner remove you for your AARP membership card, your MAGA hat, your church membership, the camera on your phone, your previously stated thoughts on your website? What about your voting record, or the campaign sign you put in your yard the last election? Don't property owners need SOME reason to remove you? Would they ask people with service dogs to leave? Is their irrational fear of inanimate objects enough?

Back to the original Ohio article:
The Ohio Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes the bill as making it "significantly more difficult for our members to provide a safe work environment" and infringing on business owners' rights.


No. False.

Safe work environments aren't soft targets. Is the Statehouse a safe work environment because it's a gun free zone? Ha! Tons of guns at the statehouse, that's what secures that safe work environment. Anti-gun pansies are deceiving themselves and anyone that will buy the lie that being "gun free" makes you safe. Property owners have a limited ability to set policies, but those policies should not be enforced by government if they infringe on the inseparable Rights of self-ownership. Company policies don't carry the force of law, and it's inappropriate to suggest that they should.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6309
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Property Rights and RKBA

Postby JustaShooter » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:02 pm

You've just put forth the most compelling argument I've seen supporting decriminalization of no-guns signage. Well done.

However:
bignflnut wrote:As a thought exercise, can other rights be restrained at the door of a commercial property?

The answer to this question is yes. It is done regularly, if not commonly. A business can restrain you from exercising your right to free speech on their property. A business can require you to submit to a search as a condition to enter the property. I'm sure there are others, but those came immediately to mind.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4529
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Property Rights and RKBA

Postby bignflnut » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:45 pm

JustaShooter wrote:You've just put forth the most compelling argument I've seen supporting decriminalization of no-guns signage. Well done.

However:
bignflnut wrote:As a thought exercise, can other rights be restrained at the door of a commercial property?

The answer to this question is yes. It is done regularly, if not commonly. A business can restrain you from exercising your right to free speech on their property. A business can require you to submit to a search as a condition to enter the property. I'm sure there are others, but those came immediately to mind.


Yes. Again, these are acts. Not possession of inanimate objects.
For instance, wearing a Trump/Pence shirt is free speech, but wearing a playboy centerfold on the front of one's t shirt may be cause for ejection, right? However in almost all instances, some property owner/manager would need to confront the patron and then it's on the patron.

Sure, if you want to do the metal detectors at the door thing like stadiums and arenas, then guess who is enforcing the policy, not the government. The problem arises when the government is called in to enforce some silly store policy, based on simple possession of an inanimate object, which in and of itself is not detrimental to commerce and has, therefore, no basis for which to outweigh an individual's right to self-defense.

Concealed carry is supposed to be that, concealed. As in, not open. So, if companies / property owners want to frisk all the clients, there's no law against it, is there? They retain that right, properly so. And, you've just driven off anyone who wanted to be armed in your venue.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6309
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet


Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests