Property Rights vs. Liberty Rights, Who SHOULD win?

[mrs.printcraft]

In reflecting upon the latest round of gun violence in public places and the statements from fellow LTCH holders concerning how they approach a "business policy" concerning whether firearms are permitted in their establishment, a question came to mind.

Should any commercial establishments' "business policy" have a veto power over an individual's 2nd Amendment rights?

My short answer is no. Simply because IMHO, the right IS a fundamental right. First, the 2nd Amendment text, debates, and historical practice of the framers and founders support such a conclusion. Second, and more importantly, the RTBA's IS what liberty flows from. Not the other way around. What do you think?

 

[downzero]

Yep. Refuse service. I won't be back. Enjoy your bankrupt business.

 

[netsecurity]

Yep. Refuse service. I won't be back. Enjoy your bankrupt business.

Yep, they can refuse service for any reason, it is their choice to lose customers permanently. The real issue is if they can press charges, and the answer should always be only for tress passing if the carrier will not leave. Unfortunately, in many states, just walking into a store with a no guns sign is a prosecutable crime, that usually results in revocation of the carry permit, and this is so far from honoring the 2A that it should not be allowed in any state, because shopping becomes like walking a legal minefield, therefore the burden on the carrier is too onerous.

 

[longbarrel]

Yep. Refuse service. I won't be back. Enjoy your bankrupt business.

Get right, would ya?

 

[Jim Duncan]

How is the right of Private Property at odds with Liberty?

It is the very heart of Liberty.

If a Private Property owner chooses to not have those carrying firearms on his property that is his choice. If you carry firearms on the property anyhow and are asked to leave you are free to do so. If you refuse the request of the private property owner, you are trespassing and can be removed by force of law..

What is the issue?

What's next? Forcing private property owners to prohibit smoking on their private property?

Next thing you know, they will be telling the private property owner that he cannot serve large soft drinks, have salt on the table, or serve those of the Jewish faith..

 

[downzero]

Get right, would ya?

Drill sergeant told me to "get right" every day for ten weeks. I still haven't forgotten, but I have been unsure as to when or if I ever 'got right.' My mistake, I guess.

 

[ATM]

...Should any commercial establishments' "business policy" have a veto power over an individual's 2nd Amendment rights?...

The only thing they have the power to do is make me leave their property. That's it. None of my rights are affected unless I willingly choose to waive them for some reason.

If they held some power over my rights, they could disarm me, gag me, detain me, etc. as soon as I set foot on their property.

If asked to leave for any or no reason at all, I take all of my intact rights with me when I leave. I never had any right to be on their property to begin with, only a public invitation which may be rescinded at any time.

 

[Eli Wolfe]

Businesses that cater to the public should not be allowed to discriminate against law abiding customers. If they wish to discriminate, they need to form a club and have at it.

 

[mike8170]

Duh. There business, do what they want.

 

[Jim Duncan]

Businesses that cater to the public should not be allowed to discriminate against law abiding customers. If they wish to discriminate, they need to form a club and have at it.

Do businesses cater to the public or solicit their business?

 

[Beau]

The public has rights. I feel that when a business opens their doors to the public they should not be able to demand you give up those rights just because you enter their open to the public business.

Should a business be able to demand that you not talk while in their store? How about a sign that states No Christians? I know, they should be able to stop you and search through your belongings also.

 

[88GT]

The public has rights. I feel that when a business opens their doors to the public they should not be able to demand you give up those rights just because you enter their open to the public business.

Should a business be able to demand that you not talk while in their store? How about a sign that states No Christians? I know, they should be able to stop you and search through your belongings also.

The public doesn't have rights. And I will direct you to ATM's response for the rest of it. You voluntarily abdicate your claim to the exercise of certain behaviors upon acceptance of the invitation to step onto someone else's property. That said property is a business or private residence is absolutely 100% irrelevant.

Current bogus federal regulations mandating protection of whiners and crybabies to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's sad that this even had to end up a poll.

 

[88GT]

It's sad that this even had to end up a poll.

On a positive note, the answers are greater than 3 to 1 for liberty.

 

[Jim Duncan]

The public has rights. I feel that when a business opens their doors to the public they should not be able to demand you give up those rights just because you enter their open to the public business.

Should a business be able to demand that you not talk while in their store? How about a sign that states No Christians? I know, they should be able to stop you and search through your belongings also.

Rights are the collect of the public?

Really?

Regarding the sentences in your second paragraph:
1)If it is a private enterprise, yes.
2)If it is a private enterprise, yes.
3)Though not a question, if a private property ower chooses to do so and you refuse, you should be free to go. If you refuse to go, the private property owner's rights have been trespassed upon.

 

[Eli Wolfe]

Only if they want to stay in business.

Do businesses cater to the public or solicit their business?

 

[Beau]

The public doesn't have rights. And I will direct you to ATM's response for the rest of it. You voluntarily abdicate your claim to the exercise of certain behaviors upon acceptance of the invitation to step onto someone else's property. That said property is a business or private residence is absolutely 100% irrelevant.

Current bogus federal regulations mandating protection of whiners and crybabies to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.

I understand the side your taking, I just disagree. I don't think a business should be allowed to deny a person entry for carrying a firearm.

 

[Jim Duncan]

Only if they want to stay in business.

There is a difference between catering and solicitng... particularly as it relates to the rule of law and property rights.

 

[Jim Duncan]

I understand the side your taking, I just disagree. I don't think a business should be allowed to deny a person entry for carrying a firearm.

What if it were your private enterprise?

 

[Beau]

What if it were your private enterprise?

As I said, people have rights. If I opened my doors to the public then the public is what I get. If I wanted to set certain rules I would make entry private like Sam's Club where people sign an agreement to abide by their rules.