I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts on this matter and hold nothing personal against you. I don't know you. You don't know me. I'm not assailing your character, patriotism, etc. Let's have a healthy exchange of ideas, shake hands and come out swinging.
JustaShooter wrote:While I agree with your views regarding public property and facilities, I strongly disagree with the above.
Help me with that. Why, if the government owned the property, as much as government can own anything, should they NOT be able to ban people from RKBA on their property? The interwebs, not to mention snail mail (BMV tags) make physical locations increasingly irrelevant, right? (acknowledging things like hospitals as an exception)
JustaShooter wrote:Property rights are the very foundation of all other rights, and a property owner's rights to that property are (or should be) absolute.
NO disagreement from me. Property rights being the foundation of all rights, I have ownership of my body. I also have the ability to defend myself, hence RKBA. Not only do I have self-defense rights, but they are unalienable, by way of my humanity.
2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable
is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy.
This is the meaning of "unalienable."
One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable.
This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."
JustaShooter wrote:Since you have no right to enter the property of another,...
I'm with you here. You don't have a neon sign above your door that says "OPEN", right? You don't have billboards on the highway telling me where to turn to find your showroom, tavern, mini-mall, coffee shop, etc? You might even have signs that say "NO TRESSPASSING" or "NO SOLICITATION". Yup. If I don't have a legal reason to be there, I can't just walk into the local ink factory. I'm unauthorized. Authorized Personnel Only. Yup.
JustaShooter wrote:...any restrictions on that ability placed there by the property owner or his agent in no way strip away any of your rights.
Disagree. Ohio's Constitution:
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
The 2nd Amendment in the BOR:
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.
There's nothing in here about "Congress shall make no law..." or this being directly related to government, it is a simple declaration that people have RKBA and that shall not be infringed. You're proposing supra rights for commercial property, as we share the same property rights.
JustaShooter wrote:You don't like the restrictions, you are free to go elsewhere.
In business, "Sales is King", so why would a retailer invite people and potential sales to a location only to have the door say "We don't serve your kind here"
? Aside from the foolishness of profit being destroyed, you're not even banishing me. You'd allow me to buy a concert ticket, you'd hand me a coupon when I entered your mall and ask if I needed help to make my experience better. You're attempting to banish an inanimate object, but would welcome me with open arms, or conduct voluntary transactions with me online/snail mail/telephone. You're not Sweet Cakes by Melissa having a moral objection to the transaction. This illustrates the weakness of your position. (Again, nothing personal.)
JustaShooter wrote:I also disagree with your claim that exercising your RKBA imposes no safety threat. The number of people who have negligent discharges shows the fallacy of that argument. I *personally* believe the risk is minimal and is outweighed by the positive aspects of RKBA, but that is *my* choice for my person and my property.
This goes back to the Responsibility to exercise Rights without imposing on other people's rights. That's the beauty of Negative Rights -- they're self regulating! Negligent discharges are properly met with consequences and repercussions. My point is that my RKBA imposes no duty on you to increase security (quite the opposite)
. RKBA does you no harm. On the other hand, your banishment of my hidden sidearm does hinder my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The conflict is very one sided in my view.
The issue is that the government grants a liability waiver to those removing my sidearm, be it government or commercial property owners. Why should they not have a greater duty to protect my life, having improperly banished my sidearm?
JustaShooter wrote:Just as your right to free speech ends at my property line, so does your right to keep and bear arms. And as with free speech, I may grant you the privilege - but it is mine to grant or not when on my property.
Respectfully disagree. Yes, I have a duty to exercise my Rights responsibly, lest I impose on the Rights of others. But you can't accept my presence and banish my RKBA and/or my free speech. I can't walk into your showroom and begin shouting baseball statistics or something odious. I can't hand out coupons for Burger King in the McDonald's lobby. So, if you want to say that I'm not an absolutist on the basis of responsibility, ok. Either way, a commercial property owner has no ability to strip me of my rights when I'm doing nothing wrong, and even when I am, there's due process and such.
JustaShooter wrote:Frankly, I find your willingness to use the force of government to take away property owner's rights abhorrent and I'd have never expected that from you of all people.
That is my point, I'm not taking away a property owner's Rights. I'm upholding property owners rights to self-defense. Furthermore, the proper role of government is to use force in upholding Rights:
2. The people create
their governments primarily to serve one supreme purpose: to "secure" the safety and enjoyment of their God-given, unalienable rights. To make and keep them secure is government's primary function and chief reason for existence, according to the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
(I recognize that civil government is corrupt and am being idealistic, granted)
I fail to see how a commercial property
owner can separate the person from the inanimate object, assuming some type of irresponsible exercise of Negative Rights that impede the owners ability to conduct commerce. People have a right to said object, specifically enumerated by multiple constitutions. There's a certain amount of behavior and decorum that goes into being in public, as with your First Amendment example (obscene T-shirts, hat symbols, etc).
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on government commercial property rights and how they differ from private commercial property rights, over and above the private commercial property owner's rights superseding personal ownership of one's body and RKBA.
“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