Other State Gun Rights -vs- Private Property Rights

[CamoDeafie]

Ive had several anti gun friends remind me that all our rights can be regulated, as if that means no laws have ever been ruled unconstitutional.
There is only one constitutional law that very clearly specifies it "shall not be infringed" and yet it has the most infringements of them all.
If a any place is open to the public at large, there should be a way to lawfully carry a gun for personal protection. When there are no lawful options, its an infringement.

"Lawful options" are still infringement. Literally any law regarding guns is an infringement.

Indeed. Many subscribe to the Hobbesian notion that the Almighty (Federal) State is the arbitrer of rights and privelieges, not Nature, not Creator/God, but by human governments. And it is through this notion, that "The Greater Good" becomes "The State/Society".

The Greater Good of Society/State has been used as justification and rationale for a great many terrible things.


The Constitution was modeled for the Individual Good. The smallest component of society possible, the Individual, is supposed to weild the greatest power against Government overreach.

Edit. Abridged Bill of Rights

Right to speak against Gov

Right to defend against Gov (see Dec of Ind)

Right to deny quartering of Gov troops

Right to be secure from Govt searches (without warrants)

Right to stay silent against Govt questioning

Right to trial by peers against govt

Right to jury trials for suits against govt

Right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishments/excess bail against Govt

Right to not be denied any other Rights not enumerated by Govt (now, why hasnt a suit on 9th Amen grounds been brought against Govt?)

Right for Individual States &people to affirm other rights not enumerated by the Govt.





It is this notion that gives the Right of Arms to Individuals; not to State/Government.

 

[RX-79G]

For every argument about a private property taking away your safety by banning guns, there is the argument about the safety of a dense crowd in a stadium and what happens when someone fires a gun. Or what happens when you fire a gun in a plane, etc. It isn't that one of those is more important than the other, but that they are equally valid concerns where the right to protection doesn't necessarily win.

We should all be very glad that, no matter who owns the building, tenants are treated with ownership-like rights to be able to set their own rules, be free from trespassing or searches by the owner. I don't see how the government ultimately owning your apartment is any different than the government owning the stadium.

So I consider it a win for rights in general that private property owners/renters can control their property. As voters, you could certainly lobby the local government that owns the stadium to make carrying a gun part of the contract it has with the renter - but even in Florida, is that going to happen? And are you actually afraid for your personal safety in a crowd of 10,000 that would make it worthwhile to use a gun in that situation? Where's your backstop? Are you going to be responsible for injuries due to your gunshot causing a stampede?

 

[Koda]

For every argument about a private property taking away your safety by banning guns, there is the argument about the safety of a dense crowd in a stadium and what happens when someone fires a gun. Or what happens when you fire a gun in a plane, etc. It isn't that one of those is more important than the other, but that they are equally valid concerns where the right to protection doesn't necessarily win.

The biggest risk I (we) have is the walk or commute to and from the place. At least on an airplane they provide a way to check in your gun.
As far as events, stadiums... Your right this one is complicated. Gun check ins probably isnt practical here but i wish it was an option.


For federal and most other public buildings I dont see the need for prohibition. Ive had to return to the car to disarm in public just to tour the visitor center its a rediculous prohibition that does nothing to stop crime.

 

[American123]

The problem with making exceptions with rights for when they can be infringed upon, is it allows for the precedent to be maintained that it is "ok" to infringe upon rights if enough people, or at least people in power, go along with it. If it is a right, it doesn't matter if the whole nation wants to do away with it, it's still a right, if it's a privilege bestowed by the masses or the government and can be taken away, it's not a right.

 

[Koda]

The problem with making exceptions with rights for when they can be infringed upon, is it allows for the precedent to be maintained that it is "ok" to infringe upon rights if enough people, or at least people in power, go along with it. If it is a right, it doesn't matter if the whole nation wants to do away with it, it's still a right, if it's a privilege bestowed by the masses or the government and can be taken away, it's not a right.

This is why I mentioned earlier there should be lawful options. For example, i dont mind concealed carry if it was a requirement over open carry in federal buildings or stadium events etc.

 

[RX-79G]

The problem with making exceptions with rights for when they can be infringed upon, is it allows for the precedent to be maintained that it is "ok" to infringe upon rights if enough people, or at least people in power, go along with it. If it is a right, it doesn't matter if the whole nation wants to do away with it, it's still a right, if it's a privilege bestowed by the masses or the government and can be taken away, it's not a right.

What's the exception? You can exercise all your rights on your property or cooperating peoples' property til the cows come home. Just like you can let your 10 year old drive 500 miles an hour in an unlicensed car on private land.

But a nation can't exist without the necessity to have restrictions on the free expression of rights. People get wound up about where they can carry a gun, but would readily admit there are reasonable restrictions on where you can shoot a gun. We have free speech, but can be jailed for lying in certain places. Your sexy time is your business, until you do it in a public place. All of this hinges on a mutual understanding of what "public" is and why we have that concept.

 

[American123]

What's the exception? You can exercise all your rights on your property or cooperating peoples' property til the cows come home. Just like you can let your 10 year old drive 500 miles an hour in an unlicensed car on private land.

But a nation can't exist without the necessity to have restrictions on the free expression of rights. People get wound up about where they can carry a gun, but would readily admit there are reasonable restrictions on where you can shoot a gun. We have free speech, but can be jailed for lying in certain places. Your sexy time is your business, until you do it in a public place. All of this hinges on a mutual understanding of what "public" is and why we have that concept.

Equating restrictions on carrying a gun to where shooting a gun is acceptable is not a good example in my opinion. It would be unreasonable to shoot a gun lots of places as a general practice, but during emergencies it is considered "acceptable" all the time for law enforcement and the public.

 

[Koda]

Equating restrictions on carrying a gun to where shooting a gun is acceptable is not a good example in my opinion. It would be unreasonable to shoot a gun lots of places as a general practice, but during emergencies it is considered "acceptable" all the time for law enforcement and the public.

So does this exception on where you can shoot a gun create a precidence on allowing more infringements?
Should anyone be allowed to carry a gun on a plane?

 

[RX-79G]

Equating restrictions on carrying a gun to where shooting a gun is acceptable is not a good example in my opinion. It would be unreasonable to shoot a gun lots of places as a general practice, but during emergencies it is considered "acceptable" all the time for law enforcement and the public.

It isn't universally acceptable for the police to fire a gun in public - which is why bystanders can sue and cops have lost jobs and been prosecuted for hitting something other than the assailant. But we train and control what police do to allow them to do things that are necessary. Including pointing guns at people.

But there are tons of other examples. The restrictions on carry usually revolve around the repercussions of having a shooting in a stadium, bar, courtroom, etc. And what is allowed or not is a public negotiation that goes on through your elected representatives.

 

[Knebel]

Should violent felons be able to possess guns?

Yes, in theory if they have done their time and paid their dues to society. The punishment is confinment in a prison, and after that is done they should have all the rights as everybody else. If they cant be trusted with a gun then they should remain in rehabilitation til they can.

I have a friend with a non violent one. Hes a good guy but did some stupid thing years back that was an automatic felony (running from the cops in a motorvehicle). It was one block he drove home after he was stopped. Anyway, the guy can't own a gun or touch one or anything. Thats not right in my eyes, he paid his fines, done his 'time' so... ????

 

[American123]

So does this exception on where you can shoot a gun create a precidence on allowing more infringements?
Should anyone be allowed to carry a gun on a plane?

Short answer is: yes. Longer answer is: Plane is private property, if we apply the same logic that allows people to restrict others on their private property, that would also apply to planes. Where it gets complicated is when public money is funneled to private enterprise allowing private enterprise to benefit at the expense of the tax payer while still restricting rights as a private enterprise.

 

[American123]

It isn't universally acceptable for the police to fire a gun in public - which is why bystanders can sue and cops have lost jobs and been prosecuted for hitting something other than the assailant. But we train and control what police do to allow them to do things that are necessary. Including pointing guns at people.

But there are tons of other examples. The restrictions on carry usually revolve around the repercussions of having a shooting in a stadium, bar, courtroom, etc. And what is allowed or not is a public negotiation that goes on through your elected representatives.

Firing a gun in public and hitting someone that was not an intended target are two entirely different individual items that are being conflated in your response.

 

[RX-79G]

Short answer is: yes. Longer answer is: Plane is private property, if we apply the same logic that allows people to restrict others on their private property, that would also apply to planes. Where it gets complicated is when public money is funneled to private enterprise allowing private enterprise to benefit at the expense of the tax payer while still restricting rights as a private enterprise.

What about if a plane full of fuel with 300 people drops out of sky over a city because of gunshots inside it?

 

[RX-79G]

Firing a gun in public and hitting someone that was not an intended target are two entirely different individual items that are being conflated in your response.

Why? Do you think firing a gun in a public place is banned primarily for some reason other than the danger to bystanders?

 

[American123]

Why? Do you think firing a gun in a public place is banned primarily for some reason other than the danger to bystanders?

We are talking about rights here. The right to keep and bear arms specifically, bearing arms doesn't give one the right to shoot people "willy nilly" or even accidentally. The banning of firearms in a specific location is an infringement on that right if the public has a "right" to be there. If the public doesn't have a "right" to be there then it isn't an issue, and as I have previously stated, if the government didn't steal taxes from the citizenry and funnel them to select private enterprises, it would be less of an issue, but when private enterprise gets tax dollar support and then also plays the "this is private property, you can't carry here" - that's a problem.

 

[RX-79G]

We are talking about rights here. The right to keep and bear arms specifically, bearing arms doesn't give one the right to shoot people "willy nilly" or even accidentally. The banning of firearms in a specific location is an infringement on that right if the public has a "right" to be there. If the public doesn't have a "right" to be there then it isn't an issue, and as I have previously stated, if the government didn't steal taxes from the citizenry and funnel them to select private enterprises, it would be less of an issue, but when private enterprise gets tax dollar support and then also plays the "this is private property, you can't carry here" - that's a problem.

This is not a response to my question about shooting in public places.

 

[RicInOR]

What about if a plane full of fuel with 300 people drops out of sky over a city because of gunshots inside it?

Your argument is the ad absurdum variety.

Can you yell FIRE! in a crowded theater?
That is always one of the Free Speech questions. Well, if I am putting on a play about the Chicago Fire ( The Cow Fantasy )
then of course I will.

 

[American123]

This is not a response to my question about shooting in public places.

It is, because if something is a right, a ban can't exist. If it is not a right, then it can be banned.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Your argument is the ad absurdum variety.

Can you yell FIRE! in a crowded theater?
That is always one of the Free Speech questions. Well, if I am putting on a play about the Chicago Fire ( The Cow Fantasy )
then of course I will.

This is a pretty good article on the subject, but for those that don't bother reading links, it's not 'shouting fire' that is prohibited, it's

"The question in every case," he said, "is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Also interesting that the "fire in a theater' issue was a very real and life threatening concern for people in the early 1900's so that phrase resonated differently for them than it does for us.

Is It Illegal to Falsely Shout 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater?

In 1919, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. sort of made it seem like it was against the law to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, so we understand if you’re confused.

www.mentalfloss.com

 

[RX-79G]

Your argument is the ad absurdum variety.

Can you yell FIRE! in a crowded theater?
That is always one of the Free Speech questions. Well, if I am putting on a play about the Chicago Fire ( The Cow Fantasy )
then of course I will.

You can choose to not shoot on a plane, but there really isnt any safe way to choose to shoot on a plane. Which is why people are generally not allowed to make the choice, since the outcome could be so disastrous.

There are lots of places in the modern world where the severity of negative outcomes require more than simply promising not to smoke in the oxygen tent or wash your hands in the infectious disease facility. Planes are not something to trifle with.