Legal right of gun carriers to shoot back?

[beavertonbuck]

The fix for this is a class-action lawsuit against the theater chain for their "no guns in here" policy, thus preventing anyone from executing armed defense. When the insurance companies have to pay out huge sums for their folly, and companies who promote victim-creation zones get their premiums raised, then this kind of insanity will disappear.

We also need legislators and judges who recognize that MY enumerated right to the means to self-defense trumps YOUR unenumerated right to say what happens on your real property.

Sorry but there is so much wrong with this. First no one is responsible but the shooter the shooting, not the person that sold him the gun, not the gun manufacturers, not the person that sold him his gear, and not the theater. The theater doesn't force you to go the movies there. You choose to go and in doing so to abide the rules they set on their property. If you don't like their rules then don't go.

Secondly the BOR is intended to state what our inalieable rights are and that the government cannot infringe upon those rights. Private parties are not held to that standard. If you come to my property and starting engaging in speech I don't like I can make you leave. You feel the need to unholster you gun when telling people about it I can tell you to stick in your car. That isn't a violation of your rights.

I don't agree with their policy and think it really stupid. I have also pointed out to friends that in theory the area was a anti's wet dream. The theater was a no gun zone and cops were there checking customers and performing crowd control, so in their world this should never have been happened. I however can't agree that government should force property owners to allow certain activities to occur on their property for which they disagree.

 

[fd15k]

Sorry but there is so much wrong with this. First no one is responsible but the shooter the shooting, not the person that sold him the gun, not the gun manufacturers, not the person that sold him his gear, and not the theater. The theater doesn't force you to go the movies there. You choose to go and in doing so to abide the rules they set on their property. If you don't like their rules then don't go.

There is one exception to that rule. If the theater assumed responsibility for the security at their establishment, but failed to deliver, they may be held responsible. That is basically a breach of contract.

 

[nick80]

I sure hope you could

 

[MikeSettles]

I'd love to see the argument in support of that. Nobody forces anybody into a private entertainment establishment which prohibits carry of firearms.

Ha! Conflicting rights First of all, your right of self-defense is a guarantee against the government, not against other private citizens. Second, private property rights are also enumerated, just look at the 5th Amendment.

Ha! Amendment 2 is only IN PART a guarantee against the government; it also guarantees that you may have the means to defend yourself wherever you might legally be.

Ha! Amendment 5 guarantees that (among other things) the government can't take your property without due process. It does NOT guarantee that you can tell people they can't be armed for self-defense while in your public establishment. The "right" to do "whatever" with your property (real or otherwise) is NOT an enumerated one.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Riddle me this: Does my right to own/operate a restaurant ("property rights") trump your right to stand out front holding a sign which claims that you don't like the service I provide ("freedom of speech")? Conflicting rights?

Riddle me this: Do I own my body, and the personal space immediately around me? If so, how can you tell me that I can't do whatever with my property while I occupy a small portion of your "real" property?

 

[MikeSettles]

There is one exception to that rule. If the theater assumed responsibility for the security at their establishment, but failed to deliver, they may be held responsible. That is basically a breach of contract.

fd: THIS is also my argument! The theater, preventing law-abiding citizens from effecting their right to self-defense becomes liable for the damage when a tragic event happens. If they would disarm you, then they must protect you.

I have been given to understand that many companies have a "no guns" policy because of a misguided insurance industry liability myth. IF events such as in Colorado resulted in the insurance industry having to pay out large sums, they would change their policy and rather than encourage "gun free zones", would promote lawfull self-defense.

My wife works for a large medical corporation: "Gun Free Zone" entirely. They have several unarmed security guards who roam around the Portland area, visiting 10-16 clinics. They have practiced lock-down drills in case of a threat, and 911 is on speed-dial. There have been death-threats against doctors from time to time. No one is allowed to be armed, so the place is a near-perfect target.

I have promised her that if something happens and she is harmed because they neither allow her to be armed, nor provide armed security, that I will sue the Sh*t out of her employer.

 

[MikeSettles]

Sorry but there is so much wrong with this. First no one is responsible but the shooter the shooting, not the person that sold him the gun, not the gun manufacturers, not the person that sold him his gear, and not the theater. The theater doesn't force you to go the movies there. You choose to go and in doing so to abide the rules they set on their property. If you don't like their rules then don't go.

Secondly the BOR is intended to state what our inalieable rights are and that the government cannot infringe upon those rights. Private parties are not held to that standard. If you come to my property and starting engaging in speech I don't like I can make you leave. You feel the need to unholster you gun when telling people about it I can tell you to stick in your car. That isn't a violation of your rights.

I don't agree with their policy and think it really stupid. I have also pointed out to friends that in theory the area was a anti's wet dream. The theater was a no gun zone and cops were there checking customers and performing crowd control, so in their world this should never have been happened. I however can't agree that government should force property owners to allow certain activities to occur on their property for which they disagree.

I agree: The shooter did it, no one else. BUT if the corporation was complicit in your harm by PREVENTING you from defending yourself (or by not providing the requisite security), then THEY become liable at some level.

 

[RJW]

Mikesettles if they are standing outside on the public sidewalk then they get to stay and protest. If they are standing in the restaurants parking lot or in the restaurant its self the police will ask them to leave and if they refuse, they will be trespassed.

As to your wife, I have worked for 18 years in a gun free medical zone. Sue all you want, you will be throwing your money away. If she or you don't like the policy, she can quit.

The shooter did it, no one else. BUT if the corporation was complicit in your harm by PREVENTING you from defending yourself (or by not providing the requisite security), then THEY become liable at some level.

That is an assumption on your part. You can try but good luck. You can sue the shooter for wrongful death. you did not have to go the the movies.

 

[MikeSettles]

So how is it that a theme park which provides entertainment via mechanical rides can be liable when the rides malfunction and people are harmed, but a corporation which denies you a fundamental right while on their property is NOT liable if you are harmed because of their policy?

True, you don't have to work at a given employer; but quit and try to find similar employment where corporate policy allows employees and patients to be armed. It's not realistic.

You don't have a "right" to go on a ride in a theme park, you don't have a "right" to go to a movie, but you DO have a fundamental right to be armed in order to provide for your own self-defense.

Once again: How does an unenumerated right to property trump a Fundamental Enumerated Right to self-defense?

 

[Father of four]

Deleted

 

[Father of four]

How about you have a right written in The Constitution, but them some states pass and enforce laws to take that right away. Our right is made into a privilege.

The Capitol of the Unites States of America does not recognize the 2nd Amendment right of its own citizens. Weird...

 

[Father of four]

For those interested, here is a stsrt...Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban | Fox News

 

[fd15k]

Ha! Amendment 2 is only IN PART a guarantee against the government; it also guarantees that you may have the means to defend yourself wherever you might legally be.

No, not in part. Entire Bill of Rights is a set of rules or restrictions that the government has to respect when dealing with citizens. 2A only ensures that government can't take away your means of self-defense.

Ha! Amendment 5 guarantees that (among other things) the government can't take your property without due process. It does NOT guarantee that you can tell people they can't be armed for self-defense while in your public establishment. The "right" to do "whatever" with your property (real or otherwise) is NOT an enumerated one.

See, you are failing your own argument here. You are saying that 5A only affects the government (which I agree with), while 2A is not (which I disagree with).

Riddle me this: Does my right to own/operate a restaurant ("property rights") trump your right to stand out front holding a sign which claims that you don't like the service I provide ("freedom of speech")? Conflicting rights?

There is no conflict here as long as the person with the sign stays out of the restaurant's property. It might be a little bit tricky here since often property boundary extends to the portion of the public sidewalk (easements), I am not sure what the law says then. But let's assume that a protestor stands on some other property, public or private - I can see no conflicting rights then.

Riddle me this: Do I own my body, and the personal space immediately around me? If so, how can you tell me that I can't do whatever with my property while I occupy a small portion of your "real" property?

The answer to this is in the Police Powers of the state, I believe. It is through the police powers government defends one's private property rights. Being on somebody's property without their permission is trespassing, and government is allowed to penalize one for that.

 

[fd15k]

fd: THIS is also my argument! The theater, preventing law-abiding citizens from effecting their right to self-defense becomes liable for the damage when a tragic event happens. If they would disarm you, then they must protect you.

They only must protect you if that is part of the contract, or conditions of use. Very often such establishments have clauses like "not responsible for property damage" and similar stuff. In that case, if you go there, you're on your own. Always read the footprint

 

[fd15k]

How about you have a right written in The Constitution, but them some states pass and enforce laws to take that right away. Our right is made into a privilege.

The Capitol of the Unites States of America does not recognize the 2nd Amendment right of its own citizens. Weird...

Your rights are not unlimited. Certain regulations are permissible as have been upheld by the courts.

 

[Kevatc]

The fix for this is a class-action lawsuit against the theater chain for their "no guns in here" policy, thus preventing anyone from executing armed defense. When the insurance companies have to pay out huge sums for their folly, and companies who promote victim-creation zones get their premiums raised, then this kind of insanity will disappear.

We also need legislators and judges who recognize that MY enumerated right to the means to self-defense trumps YOUR unenumerated right to say what happens on your real property.

Not saying you are wrong but let me play the devil's advocate: Say the theater chain does allow CC in the near future. Say a gang banger starts sprayin' and prayin' and innocents get killed before a CCer can do something about it. Would the theater chain liable again for allowing guns on it's property to begin with?

 

[fd15k]

Not saying you are wrong but let me play the devil's advocate: Say the theater chain does allow CC in the near future. Say a gang banger starts sprayin' and prayin' and innocents get killed before a CCer can do something about it. Would the theater chain liable again for allowing guns on it's property to begin with?

And to make it even better, how about a legal CCer going postal in a theater ?

 

[Kevatc]

Ha! Amendment 2 is only IN PART a guarantee against the government; it also guarantees that you may have the means to defend yourself wherever you might legally be.

Ha! Amendment 5 guarantees that (among other things) the government can't take your property without due process. It does NOT guarantee that you can tell people they can't be armed for self-defense while in your public establishment. The "right" to do "whatever" with your property (real or otherwise) is NOT an enumerated one.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Riddle me this: Does my right to own/operate a restaurant ("property rights") trump your right to stand out front holding a sign which claims that you don't like the service I provide ("freedom of speech")? Conflicting rights?

Riddle me this: Do I own my body, and the personal space immediately around me? If so, how can you tell me that I can't do whatever with my property while I occupy a small portion of your "real" property?

Riddle me this: why don't you hire an attorney and take this to the SCOTUS?

 

[Father of four]

Your rights are not unlimited. Certain regulations are permissible as have been upheld by the courts.

Just because the courts or the powers that be rule something Constitutional when We the People believe it is not does not make it Constitutional, nor the regulations that are passed by the government without the citizens approval.

 

[Father of four]

Your rights are not unlimited. Certain regulations are permissible as have been upheld by the courts.

Regulations take away a right.

 

[fd15k]

Just because the courts or the powers that be rule something Constitutional when We the People believe it is not, nor the regulations that are passed by the government without the citizens approval.

See, I believe drinking urine can extend life. Am I a doctor to believe that ? Perhaps a medical researcher ? No, I heard it from some old lady. Restrictions are rarely a product of somebody's will to be @ssholes. More often they are an attempt to resolve conflicting rights (as mentioned above). Now what you see as your right to self-defense, somebody else may see as a threat to their right of life. Who is more correct ? That's why we let courts to handle those questions, as those guys have been schooled and spent their entire lives to address such very issues.

And government never does anything without approval from the citizens. Those scumbags are elected (approved) by the citizens. They are also not impeached (reapproved) when they do something supposedly unworthy. So I'm not sure where is the problem in this puzzle...