Carrying while on your own property?

[bowhunter_1978]

Bowhunter- can you explain what the "and bear" part of "keep and bear arms" means, if carrying arms is not a right, but owning arms is?

Michiana-The tone you use while saying "IF THAT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES" makes your point of view and your feelings about open carry and those who exercise that right abundantly clear.

Rep added to JSGolfman for all his posts on this thread.

I am not saying that the right to bear arms, is in fact not a right on your own property, the bearing of those arms outside of your property is a privilege, just as you can drive a car on your property without a driver's license, but it is a privilege to be able to drive the same car on public roads.

 

[cce1302]

I am not saying that the right to bear arms, is in fact not a right on your own property, the bearing of those arms outside of your property is a privilege, just as you can drive a car on your property without a driver's license, but it is a privilege to be able to drive the same car on public roads.

Sorry, I didn't find anything in the 2nd Amendment about whose property I might be on while keeping and/or bearing my arms. Can you point me to it?

 

[bowhunter_1978]

Sorry, I didn't find anything in the 2nd Amendment about whose property I might be on while keeping and/or bearing my arms. Can you point me to it?

So are you saying that because I have the right to protest, and you do something that I want to protest about that I have the right to come to your house and protest on your front lawn? We can have this discussion all day long.....

 

[Michiana]

What is so hard about understanding the concept that others besides you have rights?

Sorry, I didn't find anything in the 2nd Amendment about whose property I might be on while keeping and/or bearing my arms. Can you point me to it?

Suppose you have a party and invite a group of people to your house. You have nice light carpeting and your wife goes out and has it professionally cleaned so everything looks nice. She put a sign on the front door asking people to please remove their shoes as the carpeting has just been cleaned.

Buba shows up and says screw this, I wear my shoes at home so I have no intention of taking them off here and walks across your living room carpeting with dirty shoes leaving a trail of muddy footprints behind him. According to your way of thinking he is within his rights to do so as there is no law that restricts him from wearing shoes whenever he feels like, wherever he feels like. Sure you can sue him in civil court for ruining your carpet but shouldn't the right thing for Buba to do was respect your wife's wishers in her own home? It is called common decency and it is not praticed enough today.


What about your neighbor who walks his two dogs every day and stops so they can crap on your front lawn and doesn't bother to clean it up because it is a natural thing for a animal to go to the bathroom? We can go on and on with this arguement but it all comes down to showing people some respect and not forcing your rights onto people so it takes their rights away in the process.

We all know people in Indiana have a right to open carry in non restricted areas, the question is only legally restricted or also restricted due to property owners requesting that firearms not be brought onto their private property? I say both areas need to be honored; you can't ask people to honor your rights when you disregard theirs in the process.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I am not saying that the right to bear arms, is in fact not a right on your own property, the bearing of those arms outside of your property is a privilege,

No it is NOT.

There is no mention of "your own property", for or against in the constitution.

There is no provision to void this right for non property owners. In fact at the time the second amendment was enacted the non property owners out numbered the number of people who actually owned property.

Owning or not owning property has nothing to do with your second amendment rights. Owning property is only relevant to your right to make use of it.

 

[cce1302]

When my guns start leaving turds on your yard, or muddy streaks on your carpet, then you can use that argument.

 

[bowhunter_1978]

No it is NOT.

There is no mention of "your own property", for or against in the constitution.

There is no provision to void this right for non property owners. In fact at the time the second amendment was enacted the non property owners out numbered the number of people who actually owned property.

Owning or not owning property has nothing to do with your second amendment rights. Owning property is only relevant to your right to make use of it.

I don't agree with all of it but it is a privilege, in the fact that if you commit certain acts, you can no longer buy, let alone carry a firearm, just as if my son does something wrong he is not allowed to watch TV, now I believe in the constitution, but I agree with the fact that certain people are not allowed to LEGALLY have a firearm. It is a matter of semantics.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Actually, it's a bit of a subtle distinction there. It's not that their right to carry a firearm ends, but that they don't have a right to be on your property. Since they don't have a right to be on your property, you can set whatever conditions you wish to that.

Now, in places where a person does have a right (an actual bona-fide right) to be, that's a different story.

Why is a concept so simple SO HARD for some people to comprehend?

 

[bowhunter_1978]

When my guns start leaving turds on your yard, or muddy streaks on your carpet, then you can use that argument.

I find that when there are no valid arguments to be made, the smart a** comments like this start flying, I am not trying to make you mad, just stating my point of view.

 

[Michiana]

thanks

Owning property is only relevant to your right to make use of it.

Exactly, like No Firearms Allowed; No Hunting Allowed, No Dumping Allowed, etc. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[RealtorWhoCarries]

Respect??Wow, what a concept. Good for you. I see much more respect from gun owners, hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts than from any of the nut job factions. I believe we should continue to lead by blameless example. Best we can. My dad, before he passed was part of the first Brown County deer hunt and they sent him to a school in Columbus Ohio and trained him how to handle the grilling that he would get fromthe liberal media. He did an outstanding job as he was just a normal "guy". However, i found his training tapes and it was amazing at how he was tripped up over and over again. he trained and he delivered, thanks dad for showing us it is best to take the high road......."When they allow us to".

 

[Joe Williams]

Can someone tell me what RIGHT a person has to tell me what I may, or may not, allow on my property?

Does carrying a gun somehow give someone who is OC'ing the RIGHT to force their politics and point of view on a property owner who has asserted their RIGHT to control their property in a manner they see fit?

For the record, I think OC'ing is a fine thing to do. But it's not a ticket to disrespect other people's rights, to force a point of view on them they do not welcome, or to go where you aren't wanted. Doing so is just poor manners, IMHO. If someone has a sign up that says no guns, they don't want your business, they've made it clear and known, and it is just ill-mannered to force a confrontation. Worse is that doing so isn't being a good ambasador for other gun carriers.

 

[cce1302]

I find that when there are no valid arguments to be made, the smart a** comments like this start flying, I am not trying to make you mad, just stating my point of view.

That reply was not to you, it was to michiana, who said that if I had the right to carry a gun, his dogs had the right to crap on my yard.

 

[bowhunter_1978]

That reply was not to you, it was to michiana, who said that if I had the right to carry a gun, his dogs had the right to crap on my yard.

Oh ok

 

[Jack Ryan]

It is a matter of semantics.

To some people it is but then most of them could argue over what the meaning of "is" is.

The simple fact is the 2nd amendment is very clear in it's acknowledgement of basic human rights and the writers were very clear and purposely deliberate in their use of language acknowledging those rights.

It is not a matter of semantics. It IS a matter of the difference between a right and a priveledge. Free citizens have rights by birth granted them by God and subjects have priveledges granted them at the whim of government officials or applied for, requested, and paid for.

Free citizens don't ask, apply, or pay for their rights. They exercise them and go to war with those who would denie or restrict them.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I am 100% for protecting and respecting everyone's rights. However, no one has a right to not be offended. No one has a right to not be insulted. No one has a right to not be afraid (whether unfounded or not).

We have a country of pansies who think cotton candy is a right any more. It's part of why they don't have any respect for real rights or the rights of any one else. They think every thing is a right. When every thing is a right, NOTHING is REALLY a right.

I wouldn't go out of my way to try to offend or frighten someone, but if the simple act of wearing a firearm offends/frightens someone where do I stop at my offense? Should I never OC? What if I print? Should I just not leave the house?

It stops at my property line. Guns don't come with a right of way to tresspass any more than a golf club or a newspaper. Ownership of my property gives me the right to refuse the use of it to any one I frigging well please and for any reason I please regardless of the reason, including carrying a fire arm.

 

[bowhunter_1978]

To some people it is but then most of them could argue over what the meaning of "is" is.

The simple fact is the 2nd amendment is very clear in it's acknowledgement of basic human rights and the writers were very clear and purposely deliberate in their use of language acknowledging those rights.

It is not a matter of semantics. It IS a matter of the difference between a right and a priveledge. Free citizens have rights by birth granted them by God and subjects have priveledges granted them at the whim of government officials or applied for, requested, and paid for.

Free citizens don't ask, apply, or pay for their rights. They exercise them and go to war with those who would denie or restrict them.

Then are you saying that this isn't a free country? Because I'll bet most people here applied and paid for their LTCH, including me. But bet your buttons I would still go to war for it, I think we are all on the same page here, there are just differences of opinion.

 

[Michiana]

Originally Posted by cce1302
That reply was not to you, it was to michiana, who said that if I had the right to carry a gun, his dogs had the right to crap on my yard.

Oh ok

A smart a** comment is a smart a**comment no matter who is is directed to. I am learning to consider the source.

 

[Michiana]

BIG +1 for Joe

Can someone tell me what RIGHT a person has to tell me what I may, or may not, allow on my property?

Does carrying a gun somehow give someone who is OC'ing the RIGHT to force their politics and point of view on a property owner who has asserted their RIGHT to control their property in a manner they see fit?

For the record, I think OC'ing is a fine thing to do. But it's not a ticket to disrespect other people's rights, to force a point of view on them they do not welcome, or to go where you aren't wanted. Doing so is just poor manners, IMHO. If someone has a sign up that says no guns, they don't want your business, they've made it clear and known, and it is just ill-mannered to force a confrontation. Worse is that doing so isn't being a good ambasador for other gun carriers.

Well said!

 

[haldir]

When my guns start leaving turds on your yard, or muddy streaks on your carpet, then you can use that argument.

Surely you aren't taking the position that you can come on to my property armed with a sidearm when I have specifically told you that you can not?