Does a sign prempt your right to carry?

[CO_Kid]

When did your rights become more valuable than my rights?

When we are on my property.

Now I'm obviously speaking within reason. I can't obviously deprive someone the right to live, or confiscate everything they brought with them just because.

But on my property, you don't have the right to say what you want, do what you want, or bring what you want into/onto my property. If you do, and it offends me, you will leave.

 

[CO_Kid]

Let me expound on a few thoughts.

Under the property owner issue, if he (or she, I'm trying to be sensitive here), can suspend my rights under the 2nd Amendment, can they also suspend my 1st,3rd,4th etc? And and if so, how did a property owner obtain that power? Food for thought.

Sure can.

Comes under the old English common laws that landowners were the ones in power. While you technically have the right to your free speech, and all the rest of your rights, I have the right to make you leave my property if I don't like what you're saying/doing. Thus the property owner's rights to have you removed from their property trumps your right to free speech, carry a gun, etc on their property.

If y'all can't tell by now, I'm very big on property owners rights on their own property.

 

[OKFC05]

In Oklahoma, we have had the experience of having the Federal District Court rule on the conflict between the 2nd Amendmen and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution--which is really the issue we are discussing.

What has come out of it is that the 4th Amendment rights of the property owner cannot be dismissed by the 2nd Amendment, nor are the 4th Amendment property rights absolute on things like parking lots which are open to use of the general public and not access controlled.

Thus, in Oklahoma, you can be denied access to a controlled area such as an arena or other building, and put through metal detectors.
Illegal entry is simple trespassing.
However, people MAY leave their firearms in their vehicle in the uncontrolled parking lot outside such controlled areas without penaly.

These laws have been reviewed in Fedral Court and did hold up, unlike Oklahomas first attempt at them.

It is worth mentioning that Federal property in OK can make any rules they wish consistent with Federal law, without regard to OK law.

 

[CO_Kid]

On your property I agree, but this is a weird case where by denying carry on your property (and we're talking business property that is open to the public, I wouldn't carry on your farm or in your house if you didn't want) can deny me the ability to exercise my rights while not on your property.

Of course I can choose to not go there and in my case were it a single place I walk to eat I'd choose another place, but that's tougher if it's a college where you go to school or some other more necessary place like the only grocery in the area, etc.

It's also complicated by the modern reality that we have deemed public businesses as only quasi-private. I'm not defending that decision, again it has good and bad sides, but we have determined that no business can refuse service on basis of race, creed, religion etc. We've decided those things are important enough to breach property rights for public businesses. Of course on your own private non-business property you can do as you choose.

IMO if we accept that infringement for something we believe is the right thing, even though non-discrimination isn't spelled out Constitutionally, it seems reasonable that Constitutional rights should also be so treated within reason. Free speech isn't prohibited explicitly on property but falls under trespass and I'm fine with this doing the same.

Even with all that, if it weren't for the impact no-carry decisions have off the property in question I'd still probably support it being a business/property owner decision, but the logistics of carry mean they can have an impact beyond their property rights.

Like I said, I'm torn both ways. I see lots of gray and no wrong answers. All of us are wanting to protect our basic rights and I support anyone trying to do that even if we disagree on the balance.

I completely understand.

And for the record, while I disapprove of anyone denying service in a business on the basis of race, religion, etc (I firmly believe it is wrong to do so), I completely disagree with the laws prohibiting such. To me, property owner's rights on their property is paramount to anyone else on their property. And if Big Al's butcher doesn't want to serve to (insert race/creed/color of skin here) because he's a bigot, then he should be able to not serve them. Doesn't matter how I feel about it because it's not my property.

Here in Colorado, we recently passed laws that added the gay community to those who cannot be refused service. Except that this law, IMO, goes way too far.

I can walk into a local gym, and walk right into the women's locker room, and go shower in their shower. All I have to do is say that I'm gay, or that I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

So here we have a law, in the name of "tolerance" (which it's anything but to anyone who isn't part of the agenda) that could literally force some businesses out of business. Some pervert could go into the women's locker room at a gym every day, and make the people in there so uncomfortable that they stop going to the business, all because he "identifies more with being a woman than with being a man". And there isn't a thing the business owner can do about it.

Now, If I were a business owner, in my business, anyone is welcome. Regardless of skin color, religion, sexual preference, especially gun people. But if you have predjudices and don't want to allow a certain group into your business, I firmly believe you should be allowed to deny them service at the expense of losing business.

 

[usm1rifle]

As has been mentioned, in MN the property owner has the right to post "no guns". The repercussions are - should they find out you are carrying - they can ask you to leave. If you don't comply they can call the cops and you are faced with a $25 petty misdemeanor for trespass.

A person so inclined may ignore the sign and keep it concealed rather than leave him/herself unarmed. Personally I take a mental note and avoid the business in the future.

Schools, Federal buildings, courthouses, etc are another matter and it would be best to oblige rather than get the significantly stiffer penalty (felony? can't remember and too lazy to look up as I don't wish to test it anyway).

This guy is right, MN has a very minor penalty for carrying past a correctly posted anti sign AND refusing to leave after they ask you to. Ignoring them and being convicted and paying a maximum $25 fine cannot effect your right to renewal.

The answer is be discrete and try not to patronize anti businesses. Get yourself some "No Guns = NO $$$" cards and leave them with these businesses.

 

[mkk41]

The bottom line is...... Concealed carry means concealed. If they don't know you're carrying, they can't/won't say anything.

But then ya got the 'open carry clowns' as I call 'em , who just have to go to such places wearing a gun on their hip , a chip on their shoulder , a recorder in their pocket , and kick up a ruckus.

 

[jlrhiner]

Help me out here. Where in English common law does it state property owners have this power?

And what case law grants these property rights under the 4th Amendment?

You can require someone to leave your property for any reason you deem fit. No where do you have the right to require someone to believe in your religion, you cant compel any one to be searched, you can't even absolve yourself of liability even if someone trespasses. (in Missouri, you can't sign away your rights, willingly or otherwise). The power being talked about here (denying some one the ability to carry concealed on business property) is granted by statute in each State.

Or am I wrong?

 

[usm1rifle]

I do not know archaic English law but in MN the law defining shall issue CCW had the provision for business owners to prohibit carry.

 

[David LaPell]

Here where I live there are only two places that I know where there are even signs posted where they say no firearms allowed, other than the government and county buildings and that is the local mall and the Toys R Us store. The one at the mall is comical because there is only one sign, its at the far end of the building inside the security office and is posted nowhere else. Toys R Us is located in the far corner at the front and if you are not looking for it you won't even see it. I can tell you that after asking a couple of the patrol officers I have been told the most they can do here is make you leave the store, nothing else. If you don't leave, then of course you can be arrested. A county or government building seems to be different where if you get caught then you are going to jail. Seems a bit of a double standard but there you have it.

 

[Ohgoodgrief]

Hey! Another 18th MP Bde guy! Howdy! 504th MP Bn RVN '66-'67 here.

 

[nipster]

Where does it say that?

I could see if it was my property, I would want you to play by my rules. Dont like it, go elsewhere.

Personally I would want armed citizens in my place in case someone tried to do something stupid, but at the same time, I would respect someone who has the opposite opinion.

 

[nipster]

On your property I agree, but this is a weird case where by denying carry on your property (and we're talking business property that is open to the public, I wouldn't carry on your farm or in your house if you didn't want) can deny me the ability to exercise my rights while not on your property.

Of course I can choose to not go there and in my case were it a single place I walk to eat I'd choose another place, but that's tougher if it's a college where you go to school or some other more necessary place like the only grocery in the area, etc.

It's also complicated by the modern reality that we have deemed public businesses as only quasi-private. I'm not defending that decision, again it has good and bad sides, but we have determined that no business can refuse service on basis of race, creed, religion etc. We've decided those things are important enough to breach property rights for public businesses. Of course on your own private non-business property you can do as you choose.

IMO if we accept that infringement for something we believe is the right thing, even though non-discrimination isn't spelled out Constitutionally, it seems reasonable that Constitutional rights should also be so treated within reason. Free speech isn't prohibited explicitly on property but falls under trespass and I'm fine with this doing the same.

Even with all that, if it weren't for the impact no-carry decisions have off the property in question I'd still probably support it being a business/property owner decision, but the logistics of carry mean they can have an impact beyond their property rights.

Like I said, I'm torn both ways. I see lots of gray and no wrong answers. All of us are wanting to protect our basic rights and I support anyone trying to do that even if we disagree on the balance.

The first ammendment starts off with "Congress shall make now law..."

This applies to the rest of the document

 

[nipster]

Let me expound on a few thoughts.

Under the property owner issue, if he (or she, I'm trying to be sensitive here), can suspend my rights under the 2nd Amendment, can they also suspend my 1st,3rd,4th etc? And and if so, how did a property owner obtain that power? Food for thought.

Absolutely. Except for the slavery one I would imagine. First ammendment rights never have applied to private property. That's why you have no first ammendment rights at your job.

 

[jlrhiner]

Absolutely. Except for the slavery one I would imagine. First ammendment rights never have applied to private property. That's why you have no first ammendment rights at your job.

But didn't I waive that right, (along with unreasonable searches eg drug tests, lunch box and vehicle searches) as a condition of my employment?

 

[nipster]

But didn't I waive that right, (along with unreasonable searches eg drug tests, lunch box and vehicle searches) as a condition of my employment?

You dont have to waive any right. You give up a lot of rights by becoming an employee. If you dont like it, or try to bring up your rights, you will find yourself out of a job... try it sometime.

Let us know how it works out...

 

[Hapworth]

You dont have to waive any right. You give up a lot of rights by becoming an employee.

This is generally the case. Some legal variations can be found state to state (and even company to company, as far as policy goes); in one state in which I worked, if the company provided a locker for your personal use and you had your own lock, it was legally off limits as a place your employer could search.

But by and large there is no presumption of privacy in the workplace (your desk, your computer, your voicemail, etc.).

 

[TexasArmed]

Sure can.

Comes under the old English common laws that landowners were the ones in power. While you technically have the right to your free speech, and all the rest of your rights, I have the right to make you leave my property if I don't like what you're saying/doing. Thus the property owner's rights to have you removed from their property trumps your right to free speech, carry a gun, etc on their property.

If y'all can't tell by now, I'm very big on property owners rights on their own property.

Texas is strong on property rights, just last night near where I live, man shot at two property thieves, hit one, with squirrel shot as they were making off with his property, and the homeowner was not arrested. However if you own an apartment complex, you cannot restrict someone from owning a gun in their home, nor can you restrict their right to carry concealed if they have a permit. In fact they can carry to and from their vehicle without a permit unless they are a felon. You do not have the right to refuse to rent to them because they own a gun.

 

[nipster]

Help me out here. Where in English common law does it state property owners have this power?

English common law, while the basis of most of our laws and judicial processes as they exist now are not valid in the united states in and of themselves

 

[jlrhiner]

You dont have to waive any right. You give up a lot of rights by becoming an employee. If you dont like it, or try to bring up your rights, you will find yourself out of a job... try it sometime.

Let us know how it works out...

Your arguing the same point. As an employee, there is a considerable loss of rights, rights you willingly give up when you accept the job. You get paid for that.

When a business posts a "NO CCW" sign, that authority is usually granted by statute.

Now, my original question, where in the US Constitution does it say a property owners rights are superior to all other rights?

 

[nipster]

Your arguing the same point. As an employee, there is a considerable loss of rights, rights you willingly give up when you accept the job. You get paid for that.

When a business posts a "NO CCW" sign, that authority is usually granted by statute.

Not true at all. In some states, the sign carries the power of law, in others, it does not have the power of law, but by not following it, and then not leaving, you face charges for trespass or in some cases armed trespass, which is a felony

Now, my original question, where in the US Constitution does it say a property owners rights are superior to all other rights?

It doesnt have to. The constitution exists only to keep your rights from being infringed by the government. This is a given.