Fat Old Guy
Member
I wouldn't touch your lariat. I don't swing that way.
Carrying where "No Guns" signs are posted.
- Thread starter blujax01
- Start date
I wouldn't touch your lariat. I don't swing that way.
cshoff
Member
Where is it written that you have a right to breathe? Where is it written that you have a right to eat or drink? Where is it written that you have a right to use the internet?
The truth is, the MAJORITY of our rights are not "written" anywhere, and they were never intended to be. Our founders believed that rights of free men, such as the right to own property and to rule over that property, were "self evident" and "natural" - in other words, they believed all men were endowed with these rights by virtue of their being. Subsequently, they drafted the 9th and 10th Amendments to our Bill of Rights to forever codify those beliefs:
Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As to "property rights" themselves, here are a few things our founders had to say about the subject:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." Samuel Adams
"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." John Adams
"No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent." John Jay
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights." James Madison
"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." Thomas Jefferson
"All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety."
George Mason
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" Thomas Jefferson
jlrhiner
US Veteran
Well done.
Your right, those things are not written anywhere. It is assumed. Along with all those assumptions come exaggerations, misconceptions and outright mistakes. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your rights end where mine begin. No one has a superior standing because of class, wealth or religion. Those that set back and thumb their suspenders and talk about their property rights really don't know of what they speak. Owning property does not give you a superior standing in the eyes of the law. Even defense of said property is only now being reinforced by Castle Doctrine laws.
If you really want a demonstration of property rights, miss a couple of property tax payments, then you'll see the real owner of your property exercise their rights.
Your right, those things are not written anywhere. It is assumed. Along with all those assumptions come exaggerations, misconceptions and outright mistakes. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your rights end where mine begin. No one has a superior standing because of class, wealth or religion. Those that set back and thumb their suspenders and talk about their property rights really don't know of what they speak. Owning property does not give you a superior standing in the eyes of the law. Even defense of said property is only now being reinforced by Castle Doctrine laws.
If you really want a demonstration of property rights, miss a couple of property tax payments, then you'll see the real owner of your property exercise their rights.
How'd this argument get to this point. You give up a little when you put an Yes, We're Open sign on the door. Now we're talking about citizen arrest, or if we can shoot someone, because someone entered your business you didn't like. Ask them to leave and stop being stupid. You want people to not carry put metal detectors at all the entrances. Or board up the door.
cshoff
Member
Nobody said that owning property gives the owner "superior standing". But a property owner DOES enjoy rights on his property that he can't be compelled to share with others, and there is no personal right that can supersede that "authority" on said property. I've said it before, and it rings just as true now; you don't have a 1st or 2nd Amendment right on my property unless I say you do. That doesn't mean you would ever give up your right to self defense if I invited you on my private property, but it DOES mean that as a condition of that invite, I can mandate that you may NOT be armed.
Even so, the Constitution prohibits that same government from seizing, entering, or searching that property without cause (due process and a warrant). So while property taxes are mandatory in some locales/states, that fact is not sufficient to compel you to forfeit your Constitutionally protected rights.
jlrhiner
US Veteran
Yes, you can do those things. And at that point, it becomes a decision on my part whether to comply or not. If you assume the responsibility for my protection, I might consider it. The same with the first amendment. What inducement do I have to give up that right? Will you also require me to renounce my religion? You see, it can't be just the gun thing. It has to be all of them. We believe them all to individual rights, so if you can remove my first and second amendment rights, how about three and four?
cshoff
Member
A private property owner can't "remove" any of those rights, however, he/she CAN deny you access or admittance to the property based on whether or not you agree to voluntarily forfeit those rights. So your "decision to comply" is actually your decision as to whether or not you wish to enter said private property. Face it, we "give up" certain rights by entering private property nearly every day. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is reality.
Fat Old Guy
Member
The First Amendment has no impact on what restrictions non-government entities put on other non-government entities.
If you wish to enter my house, I may require you to start every sentence with "Waka-waka" or I may require you to convert to Pastafarianism. My house, my rules and the only thing that you can do about it is to choose not to enter. However, the First Amendment protects you from the government requiring you to say "Waka-waka" or worship the flying spaghetti monster.
Last edited:
jlrhiner
US Veteran
Do you now see my point? I have to give them up, you can't take them from me. You, as a property owner, do not have that right. You can't make someone give up their rights. (you probably know that in Missouri, you can't willingly give up your rights). In the case of an employer, I accept a job from him I forfeit some of my rights. I get paid for that.
The Martian up a few posts prior thinks his property rights give him the right to use force to detain a trespasser. What do you think about that?
Fat Old Guy
Member
I'm not a Martian, I'm from Jasoom. Please, get it straight.
The law supports my ability to use force to detain a trespasser. Pretty simple concept.
The only right that you have in my house is the right to enter if invited to do so. Everything else is a privilege.
This discussion has is not about private property but private property with public access.
In your home, you can do anything you want within the law. If you want to bar certain people, fine. If you want to block all exits in your home, fine.
Can't do that at a business. You cannot bar certain people. You cannot block fire exits. And you cannot make people speak a certain language. All you can do is ask them to leave.
But you better have a good reason.
If I enter your business carrying concealed, neither you or anyone else knows. No big deal.
If I enter your private property without permission then I get what's coming to me. But this also is a non issue. I have no reason to enter private property.
If you were my friend and invited me, you wouldn't put such restrictions on me because you would likely be carrying yourself.
And frankly, I don't care about someone's property rights when it comes to protecting myself. My welfare is worth more than someone's property. That's how it should be. And that is how it was meant to be.
In your home, you can do anything you want within the law. If you want to bar certain people, fine. If you want to block all exits in your home, fine.
Can't do that at a business. You cannot bar certain people. You cannot block fire exits. And you cannot make people speak a certain language. All you can do is ask them to leave.
But you better have a good reason.
If I enter your business carrying concealed, neither you or anyone else knows. No big deal.
If I enter your private property without permission then I get what's coming to me. But this also is a non issue. I have no reason to enter private property.
If you were my friend and invited me, you wouldn't put such restrictions on me because you would likely be carrying yourself.
And frankly, I don't care about someone's property rights when it comes to protecting myself. My welfare is worth more than someone's property. That's how it should be. And that is how it was meant to be.
cshoff
Member
It's semantics. I can tell you, "you may enter my property, but only on my terms". You can either say, "okay" or "no thanks". In the end, if you say "okay", it's irrelevant whether you "gave up your rights willingly" or if I "compelled" you to give them up - the result is the same - you were stripped (albeit temporarily) of your rights.
In Missouri, a citizen, acting on his own accord, may "use physical force to effect arrest or prevent escape only when and to the extent such is immediately necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed a crime and who in fact has committed such crime." (RSMO 563.051.2).
So under the LETTER of the law, it would be lawful for a property owner to make such a detainment, HOWEVER, I believe if you search case law, you will have a hard time finding rulings that support the idea that it is acceptable for a citizen to use physical force to detain another person for a mere infraction or misdemeanor trespassing crime.
Last edited:
Yes, but in some places your property MUST have signs CLEARLY posted. If not then YOU have just confronted someone with a gun that entered your property unknowingly.
And if he decides to produce a firearm to protect himself, now what are you going to do?
Like I said, I have no reason to enter private property. But if for some reason I did and was confronted by an armed man, I would seek cover and produce my own gun.
Someone that tries to "detain" me by using force will be met with equal or greater force.
Where I come from, we approach people in a respectful manner until given a reason not to. Detaining someone only escalates the problem. If they come back, call 911.
Fat Old Guy
Member
So your contention is that willfully breaking the law is okay.
cshoff
Member
Assuming he has a valid CCW permit, even if a sign was posted, he would not be "breaking the law" in Missouri. Of course, other states have different laws in that regard.
What law?
This coming from someone that wants to "detain" someone on his property by use of force.
Only federal and state law keeps me from carrying anywhere I want.
And don't be a hypocrite. We ALL break the law in some way whether it be exceeding the speed limit or failing to signal a lane change to lying on our taxes. In some small/big way, we all cheat a little.
I have the right to protect myself anywhere. Even if I'm not carrying a gun.
"Sorry honey. I was on Fat Old Guys property and he wouldn't let me protect myself so I got stabbed"
How would you like to tell your wife something like that?
Fat Old Guy
Member
Here it falls under "defiant trespass" which is a crime. However, usually the manager just asks you to leave. Be that as it may, even if the manager doesn't spot your gat, undetected crimes are still crimes.
Fat Old Guy
Member
The law that says that you may not enter private property unless you respect the conditions set for entering said property.
The law says that I can do exactly that.
So now we're comparing criminals/trouble makers to the average concealed carrier?
It isn't a crime here. Why do you assume your state laws apply to me?
Are you sure your not with the Brady Bunch?
Fat Old Guy
Member
Sure it is. From the Revised Code of Washington:
So if a store owner posts a sign saying, "No Guns" or words to that effect and you enter with your gun, you are complying with the conditions for access to said store. Consquently, you would have no defense to a charge of Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree.
The difference between your state and other states is that the other states specifically mention firearms and signs in their laws.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
My favorite story from my cop days. Two naked little people and a parrot
- Latest: Biff_Biffington
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
