To me the argument, that we try to force business owners, to agree with, or comply with our assertion, that we should be allowed us to carry on their property, is fascism.
Everyone has the right to self defense, carrying a gun is optional. Since it is optional, we can't force anyone else to allow us to do so in their business.
Our rights extend only as far as the door of someone else's business/property.
My wife doesn't like snakes, if she owned a business, she could exclude anyone carrying a snake, and would not be in violation of anyone's civil rights, because carrying a snake is optional. There is no prohibition against carrying snakes, so it is a right until it is prohibited. If a business owner doesn't want to hire people with tattoos and piercings, the same thing applies, those things are optional, while still constitutionally protected.
The only things that can't be excluded, are those things which are not optional, a person's ethnicity, disabilities, gender, etc..
A business owner can exclude,or have removed, people based on their clothing, their behavior, or a myriad of other things that they feel is inappropriate for their business, as long as the exclusion, is based on choices. The business owners can post signage detailing the things allowed, and not allowed in their business. The people, who violate any of those policies, and refuse to leave, can be charged with criminal trespass.
We have already seen too many examples of government overreach when it comes to forcing business owners to do things that go against their principles, or religious beliefs, even though the issues involved are optional.
I have three choices when I encounter a business that is posted 30.06, I can disarm, and go in, I can refuse to go in, and take my business elsewhere, or I can violate the law, and their wishes and carry anyway. Option two is my go to response.
For those who want to try to force businesses to do their bidding, they have the option of starting their own business, and the have full access to the goods and services, they feel they have been denied. Asking government to remove someone's property rights, is not the route we want to take. JMHO
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Fix 30.06 & 30.07 Sign Requirements”
- Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:15 am
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: Fix 30.06 & 30.07 Sign Requirements
- Replies: 68
- Views: 30925
- Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:24 pm
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: Fix 30.06 & 30.07 Sign Requirements
- Replies: 68
- Views: 30925
Re: Fix 30.06 & 30.07 Sign Requirements
rotor wrote:This is of course the question. I don't have the answer but in my mind I believe the right to self defense far outweighs a property owners right to decide who can or can not enter private property. After all, we live by the term Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. If you can not protect your life you have nothing. Property rights are important but not above the right to life, therefore the ability to defend ones self. So, in my mind if a property owner takes away my right to self defense he/she should provide for my defense.Soccerdad1995 wrote:I think we need to strike a balance between property rights and individual rights. The real question we are all debating is about where we draw that line.
There are those who assert that property rights should be absolute. That I should be able to tell visitors that they can only come onto my property if they are willing to give up certain of their rights. Taken to its' extreme, this position would allow me to compel a handyman to submit to a strip search (to ensure that he does not steal anything) as a condition of entry into my home. If he agrees (by walking past a sign giving notice, or otherwise), presumably I could use agents of the state to compel the search under threat of arrest. Another example would be forcing visitors to give up their RKBA as a condition of entry to my property, again under the threat of arrest. I'm sure we could all come up with other examples besides these from the fourth and second amendments.
Personally, I think we should try for a balance between these competing rights instead on treating the rights of one party as absolute to the detriment of the rights of another party. I advocate that a property owner should have the absolute right to limit entry to their property to only those people they choose. I further believe that a property owner should be able to later change their mind and order any previously invited visitor to leave, for any reason whatsoever. If anyone eithers enters after being told not to, or stays after being told to leave, then the property owner should be able to seek the assistance of LEO to help enforce their wishes. I think this strikes a balance that is very much in favor of the rights of property owners.
Where I disagree with current law is that I do not believe a property owner should be able to preemptively restrict the rights of people they have invited onto their property, under threat of arrest, when the exercise of those rights does not directly harm the property owner, or anyone else, and isn't even evident to anyone other than the visitor themselves. This applies to more than just the RKBA. I also should not be able to have you arrested because you have previously exercised your first amendment rights by speaking in favor of something I oppose. If I discover this, maybe because you are wearing an "I'm with her" button, then I should be able to tell you to leave, but you should only be subject to arrest if you refuse to actually leave.
The problem with this argument, is that you are/were not compelled by law to enter the private property in question. Even if it a condition of employment, the argument could be made, that you could get another job. Therefore you always have the option of walking away.
Even agent's of the state are forbidden to enter private property without either the consent of the property owner, or after obtaining a warrant.
A person should have the option to decide what behavior, is tolerated on their property. That includes the carrying of firearms. The problem with the argument of having the right to life outweighing the rights of the property owner, comes down to the fact that, by not entering the property, your life is in no danger, so the property owner is under no obligation to protect you, if you choose to enter and follow the rules, by disarming.
The only place that I go where I really have no choice, is when I visit someone in a hospital. There is not another posted business, that I have run across, that I didn't have another option to take my money.