Other State Gun Rights -vs- Private Property Rights

[Member 52301]

Private property is private property.

Cate

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Water is a compound of the elements Hydrogen and Oxygen.

@RX-79G and @VinnieBoomBah I can't wait for you to disagree with this statement! Please enlighten me!

That would be a logical fallacy, you're making a false equivalency that a statement about a chemical compound is equivalent to a statement about everything else, and so by disagreeing with one statement we disagree with every statement

 

[WillametteWill]

It doesn't matter what you don't have the right to do. If you want to pretend that a right cannot be violated by government, then there is no law that could be passed to violate that right.
The jail penalty for theft is a law that abridges liberty.
The death penalty for murder is a law that abridges life.
Perjury is a law that abridges free speech.

I'll just pick this one since it sums up many of your comments...see quote by @American123 below:

People who violate the rights of others, especially in a violent way, have forfeited their liberty. It is not the government taking their liberty, it is them as an individual with inalienable rights giving it up, because they had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until they forfeited it when they chose to violate those inalienable rights of others.

This is the fundamental and core principle that seems to be missed with some comments. My rights end when they infringe on those of others. This is why the government can step in when you steal from me, kill me or if you lie causing me harm. Without this concept the Constitution does not function, and we are back to anarchy.

As for private property, I think we agree that property owners can set their rules and if we don't like it, we can go, shop, visit elsewhere. The government doesn't own or control my land just because I pay a tax to them no more than they own my car because I pay them a tax (registration). We might not like this as gun owners, but it is necessary.

All laws and government policies must be consistent with these concepts (the Constitution). Early Americans had some other great concepts like, "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery," and, "He who gives his freedom for safety gets none of them." The government not allowing firearms in locations fall under this. Private parties (airlines, sporting venues, other crowded areas) fall under private property rights. It gets murky when the government funds or owns a venue leased / operated by a vendor. Not directly spelled out in the Constitution so that is what courts are for.

 

[mhayd93]

@RX-79G You seem to have quoted yourself!

 

[mhayd93]

The premise—as some have supported here—that because the government has restricted our rights before, they therefore are allowed to, is a fallacy that runs in direct opposition to the purpose of the Constitution.

When specifically looking at the Bill of Rights, it sets explicit boundaries as to what government cannot do. Furthermore, it gives no exceptions or conditions under which government can infringe upon those rights.

Just because the Bill of Rights has already been trampled on, with many infringements now deeply ingrained in our society, does not mean the government had/has the legal authority to do so. That would be like saying I have the authority to purposely run people over with a truck, so long as I have successfully done it before.

That type of mentality is what justifies and allows Tyranny, which the Declaration of Independence offers a solution for…

 

[American123]

The premise—as some have supported here—that because the government has restricted our rights before, they therefore are allowed to, is a fallacy that runs in direct opposition to the purpose of the Constitution.

When specifically looking at the Bill of Rights, it sets explicit boundaries as to what government cannot do. Furthermore, it gives no exceptions or conditions under which government can infringe upon those rights.

Just because the Bill of Rights has already been trampled on, with many infringements now deeply ingrained in our society, does not mean the government had/has the legal authority to do so. That would be like saying I have the authority to purposely run people over with a truck, so long as I have successfully done it before.

That type of mentality is what justifies and allows Tyranny, which the Declaration of Independence offers a solution for…

Somebody gets it.

 

[RX-79G]

This is the fundamental and core principle that seems to be missed with some comments. My rights end when they infringe on those of others. This is why the government can step in when you steal from me, kill me or if you lie causing me harm. Without this concept the Constitution does not function, and we are back to anarchy.

It may well be a core principle, it just isn't the law or written down anywhere.

 

[Hueco]

This is absolutely correct, and an absolute abomination. Even with my home completely paid off, I still don't really own it in the purest sense. If I fail to make a property tax payment on time, the county can put a lien on my home. If I continue to not pay my property taxes, then the county can call in that lien, my home is taken from me, and I get evicted from a home that I paid for. How is that lawful? This is why property taxes are a total scam and nothing but theft. All taxation is theft!

It's called "Allodial Title" and I believe only Nevada and Texas allow for it.

It's damn near unobtainable for the average man...but, a dude can dream.

 

[RX-79G]

Just because the Bill of Rights has already been trampled on, with many infringements now deeply ingrained in our society, does not mean the government had/has the legal authority to do so. That would be like saying I have the authority to purposely run people over with a truck, so long as I have successfully done it before.

Really, it is like saying that you live on an island and will always live on an island, but you have written a new rulebook for the island that says there is no such thing as a beach. The limitations on various rights were articulated and in use before, during and after the creation of the Constitution. The literal language of the BoR does not match reality, which suggests that the language is not literal - since the people that wrote it weren't idiots.

 

[sobo]

It's called "Allodial Title" and I believe only Nevada and Texas allow for it.

It's damn near unobtainable for the average man...but, a dude can dream.

Surprised that states like ID, MT, ND and SD don't have that as well (large-tract/ranching states).

 

[Martini_Up]

It may well be a core principle, it just isn't the law or written down anywhere.

While not law, it is written in the Declaration of Independence. It is contained in the wording, " AMONG THESE RIGHTS..." and then goes on to name just three of all the other implied rights. "AMONG", opening up the concept for more than the named 3.

Do you agree the Declaration of Independence is a powerful, guiding document part of our nations core principals even though it is not law?

 

[WillametteWill]

It may well be a core principle, it just isn't the law or written down anywhere.

This would be the critical thinking component of understanding how our government is supposed to work.

 

[mhayd93]

Really, it is like saying that you live on an island and will always live on an island, but you have written a new rulebook for the island that says there is no such thing as a beach. The limitations on various rights were articulated and in use before, during and after the creation of the Constitution. The literal language of the BoR does not match reality, which suggests that the language is not literal - since the people that wrote it weren't idiots.

While many of the framers were philosophers, the Constitution is not a philosophy; it is codified law. Again, you are saying that since government has already overstepped its boundaries, it is okay to do so and that is what actually matters.

Your logic literally could be used to justify not prosecuting criminals. "Murder existed before it was articulated that you may not murder people, therefore the language saying you shall not murder is not literal. Murder is therefore legal because it was already being done in spite of the codified law saying it can't be done."

I'm assuming you concede all attempts at gun control to be perfectly legal and acceptable then? Current reality is that many people wish to ban all firearms, and the language of the 2nd Amendment is not "literal" correct? Your interpretation of the Constitution is incredibly off-base.

 

[RX-79G]

While not law, it is written in the Declaration of Independence. It is contained in the wording, " AMONG THESE RIGHTS..." and then goes on to name just three of all the other implied rights. "AMONG", opening up the concept for more than the named 3.

Do you agree the Declaration of Independence is a powerful, guiding document part of our nations core principals even though it is not law?

The forfeiture thesis is not in the Declaration of Independence. I think you misunderstood which "core concept" is being discussed.

 

[RX-79G]

This would be the critical thinking component of understanding how our government is supposed to work.

Not really. Our government and law work by stuff being written down and then judges interpreting what is written down. Rights forfeiture is not written down as a concept, and certainly not offered as an extension of the BoR. In fact, most BoR rights are retained by felons, so the idea is clearly not even applied in a straightforward manner.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

While many of the framers were philosophers, the Constitution is not a philosophy; it is codified law. Again, you are saying that since government has already overstepped its boundaries, it is okay to do so and that is what actually matters.

Your logic literally could be used to justify not prosecuting criminals. "Murder existed before it was articulated that you may not murder people, therefore the language saying you shall not murder is not literal. Murder is therefore legal because it was already being done in spite of the codified law saying it can't be done."

I'm assuming you concede all attempts at gun control to be perfectly legal and acceptable then? Current reality is that many people wish to ban all firearms, and the language of the 2nd Amendment is not "literal" correct? Your interpretation of the Constitution is incredibly off-base.

Freely admit I may be wrong, and JMHO and IANAL and all that, but the way I read it what he is actually saying is closer to

"This is the way the .gov has overstepped its boundaries and this is the arena we must fight them in to push back on that overstep."

I get saying that "The Tree Of Liberty . . . " and all that might strike a cord, but realistically it stands no chance and would only hurt our cause. And again this is JMHO, but a much better path would be on figuring out why our message isn't resonating and refining that message to reach and include more voters.

 

[RX-79G]

While many of the framers were philosophers, the Constitution is not a philosophy; it is codified law. Again, you are saying that since government has already overstepped its boundaries, it is okay to do so and that is what actually matters.

Your logic literally could be used to justify not prosecuting criminals. "Murder existed before it was articulated that you may not murder people, therefore the language saying you shall not murder is not literal. Murder is therefore legal because it was already being done in spite of the codified law saying it can't be done."

I'm assuming you concede all attempts at gun control to be perfectly legal and acceptable then? Current reality is that many people wish to ban all firearms, and the language of the 2nd Amendment is not "literal" correct? Your interpretation of the Constitution is incredibly off-base.

No, I am not an extremist that thinks everything is in one polar way or another. Nor am I a philosopher that sees a bunch of written law and supposes there are more unwritten laws.

But the point you're missing is that murder existed before it was codified in law, but the law can change how it is defined. Which is why we have charges like felony murder and manslaughter rather than just "murder".

However, I was pointing out that reading the BoR as an absolutist is out of line with how the Founder's wrote and read it, since many of them were lawyers and knew about all the laws that wouldn't fit with an absolutist reading of those rights. The concept of rights forfeiture is, if anything, proof that you can't read the BoR as an absolutist. An absolute reading of those rights wouldn't allow for the unwritten forfeiture.

 

[wired]

What would happen if I closed up reusable shopping bags and tried to exit Costco (past the receipt checkers, while refusing to open them? Will they attempt to detain me? Are they allowed to look through my personal belongings without my permission?

Your membership would be terminated.