Property Rights vs. Liberty Rights, Who SHOULD win?

[Jim Duncan]

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.

When you open your private enterprise for business, it is a private enterprise regardless of who walks in.

 

[Kedric]

Their property, their store, they have the right to refuse service to whomever they want. I don't see that as compromising MY rights.

It might anger me, I may think it is ridiculous and short sighted on their part to do so, but they have rights the same as I do. They protect their property the way they think best, and I will do the same. But they certainly won't get any of my business, support, or money. They made a choice and they have to live with any and all consequences of that choice, as do we all.

 

[JimmyR]

To have this discussion, we have to define rights. Typically, we define rights as certain liberties which the Government cannot strip us of, and has agreed not to in the US Constitution.

Thusly, we have no rights in regard to the business owner, since the Bill of Rights and Constitution only serve to limit the power of government, not the individual. Individual disagreements are based on Laws, not rights.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Their house; their right to choose who they want in it....

 

[rockhopper46038]

Direct your attention to ATM's post.

 

[mrs.printcraft]

Thank you all for responding! I hope you will continue to respond. In thinking about what we refer to as "rights," JimmyR is correct, we have to define them. This, of course, is the deeper point to my query. I think its a question we all have a "knee-jerk" response to because of how we have been socialized to view the 2nd Amend.

The post by Netsecurity shapes up the point better than I framed the question. Many people who are simply exercising their right to carry are met with an intrusive inquiry from the government regarding those rights.

For those of you who feel a business can post such a policy, what is the difference then between posting a no guns sign and a whites only sign? Should a business owner be taken seriously by the police with such "trespass" complaints? Does the fact that (1) gun carry in 1791 was hardly limited; or (2) gun control laws began their ascent based upon discrimination against blacks?

 

[edporch]

In a FREE society, a business reserves the right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY REASON.

And on the flipside, every individual has the right to refuse to do business with ANY business for ANY REASON.

 

[the1kidd03]

When you conduct a business that is "open to the public" then you should be responsible for providing a safe environment for them. Simply throwing people out that give you problems does NOT make it a "safe private business" or "NOT open to the public" when you're still allowing any old joe to walk in the doors. It's STILL "open to the public" and most know nothing about those walking in UNTIL they do something stupid. Therefore, ethically the business is in the wrong to ask you to leave your "means to protect yourself" in your car as long as they are not providing ADEQUATE means to protect you (ie armed security, door screenings, access control, etc).

Now, I don't condone or like door screenings and certainly don't want this to become justification for TSA to be thrown in everywhere, BUT you can't simply tell someone to leave their ability to protect themselves at home and then not protect them.

Ultimately, this is a business saying "our bank account is more important to us than PUBLIC safety and YOUR safety." How? Because they've deemed that your ability to protect yourself (a gun) will cost them more (by way of lawsuit) than simply letting the bad guy get away with their crime. Essentially putting a price on your life and the lives of every one of their customers (depending on the BG's intentions).

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm entitled the use of your property on my terms. Hell, I even get to dictate how YOU use your own property. I can't have you using your property as a weapon against me.

 

[the1kidd03]

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.

I would contest (VIA my above post) that this is not even adequate protection. What's to say that a member isn't a criminal or has criminal intent? I understand your reasoning and largely agree with it though.

I think an appropriate answer to the situation is; that if a business owner wishes remove the ability of their customers to protect themselves then it is then THEIR responsibility to protect them adequately. Simply requiring membership isn't necessarily adequate depending on what's involved with acquiring that membership and keeping it.

 

[CX1]

For those of you who feel a business can post such a policy, what is the difference then between posting a no guns sign and a whites only sign?

Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
One can choose to carry a gun or choose not to carry one.
One cannot choose their race.


On a slight tangent:
I wonder how gun owners would feel about a property owner taking a yet untried middle ground.
Say a property owner decided that in general that firearms are prohibited but if a person can prove attendance of an approved certified firearms safety course then they would be allowed to CC while on the property.

 

[iChokePeople]

On a slight tangent:
I wonder how gun owners would feel about a property owner taking a yet untried middle ground.
Say a property owner decided that in general that firearms are prohibited but if a person can prove attendance of an approved certified firearms safety course then they would be allowed to CC while on the property.

OCers will be mad because someone's telling them they have to CC. CCers don't care about silly (non-binding) signs and policies.

 

[the1kidd03]

OCers will be mad because someone's telling them they have to CC. CCers don't care about silly (non-binding) signs and policies.

LOL

I OC 99%, but CC when I MUST patronize a "gun free zone." Otherwise, I conduct my business elsewhere.

 

[printcraft]

In a FREE society, a business reserves the right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY REASON.

And on the flipside, every individual has the right to refuse to do business with ANY business for ANY REASON.

This is MY thinking as well, but, I've been wrong before.....

 

[hornadylnl]

Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
One can choose to carry a gun or choose not to carry one.
One cannot choose their race.


On a slight tangent:
I wonder how gun owners would feel about a property owner taking a yet untried middle ground.
Say a property owner decided that in general that firearms are prohibited but if a person can prove attendance of an approved certified firearms safety course then they would be allowed to CC while on the property.

I'm sure you'll have businesses chomping at the bit to hire door guards to check creds.

 

[eldirector]

I'd rather business owners take the tried and true middle ground:
Don't do anything illegal here, and we are happy to exchange our products/services for your money.


Like many have already mentioned, I also do not have any issue with businesses having whatever policies they want. They are WELCOME to reduce their customer base, if it allows them to still profit from the remaining folks. We should ALL be so lucky as to have TOO MANY customers and make SO MUCH money that we have turn some away!

 

[mrs.printcraft]

This is MY thinking as well, but, I've been wrong before.....

I know, I know.... I have heard it before. You already know my answer to that, but for everyone else, discrimination is discrimination. No matter what label we wish to attach to it to justify it.

It seems as if we as a people - are conditioned to accept discrimination when it is directed on the surface - at a "thing" as opposed to when it is directed at a "person". The problem with this application of understanding is that when you have gun violence (e.g., Colorado) which of course, you will in a free society... the action which inevitably follows is more discrimination against the very thing which is not responsible for the problem.

Wouldn't the better course be to establish why these business policies are discriminatory and educate the public regarding why their right to carry is so important and can save their life or the life of someone else? You decide. Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

 

[CX1]

I'm sure you'll have businesses chomping at the bit to hire door guards to check creds.

I was thinking something similar to the person who checks your Sam's Club card at the door. Have the appropriate firearm certification and you go right in, no certificate and you get a wand type weapon check. If wand beeps you either produce the object in question for temporary storage or leave. It would not necessitate a large amount of additional staff.

 

[danimal]

Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
One can choose to carry a gun or choose not to carry one.
One cannot choose their race.

Why would it matter? The property doesn't belong to you. Unless you own it, what authority do you have to say who is welcome and who isn't?

(the rest is not directed at you specifically CX1, just general questions about property rights)

If I put a sign in my front yard that said no blacks allowed, why would it be any different than a business doing so?

Is it private property when a business owns land/building or not? How about privately owned businesses vs. publicly traded? Does it matter?

Just because there is not a "Chevy sucks, park that crap on the street" sign in my front lawn, does that mean you are allowed park your impala in my driveway? What happens when I tell you to move it? Even if I "invited" you to the house for the kids' birthday party?

Change out the car for a gun, do I have the right to tell you to leave my personal residence if you are carrying a gun even if I invited you over in the first place? Replace personal residence with private business, does my property rights still hold true? If not, then why?

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"... was it hippies or poor people businesses were trying to keep away? Did you ever have a problem with one of these signs in the past?

Only government/public property and services should there be no discrimination on providing services and employment/hiring. Otherwise it's my property, my rules, leave if you don't like it.

DISCLAIMER: I do not own a business, nor does anything above reflect my values or choices I'd make if I did, nor how I conduct myself with my private property. Anything said is specific for questioning and framing of the discussion of property rights.

 

[CX1]

If I put a sign in my front yard that said no blacks allowed, why would it be any different than a business doing so?

Basically because it is the law. Business property owners have a somewhat different set of rules they must abide by in order to be allowed to conduct business from their property compared to the owner of non-commercial property.

If you want to bar a certain race from your residence then other then for legally allowed exceptions you could. A business is not allowed to do that.

Is it private property when a business owns land/building or not? How about privately owned businesses vs. publicly traded? Does it matter?

Corporations are people, Mitt said so. Therefore the owner being an individual or a corporation would not matter as far as what the owner is legally allowed to do on business property in regards to discrimination of a protected class (race, gender, disability etc)

Just because there is not a "Chevy sucks, park that crap on the street" sign in my front lawn, does that mean you are allowed park your impala in my driveway? What happens when I tell you to move it? Even if I "invited" you to the house for the kids' birthday party?

You would be perfectly legal in requiring that the car be removed. It does not matter if you invited the person or not.

However since car brand preference is not a protected class even a business could force you to leave the property unless you have a binding contract interest in the property (ie an account holder for example).
So say you drive your ford to the Toyota dealership they could require you to park your hunk of junk somewhere off of their property.

Change out the car for a gun, do I have the right to tell you to leave my personal residence if you are carrying a gun even if I invited you over in the first place? Replace personal residence with private business, does my property rights still hold true? If not, then why?

Yes to both cases the gun owner may be asked and then required to leave. Gun ownership is not a protected class.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service"... was it hippies or poor people businesses were trying to keep away? Did you ever have a problem with one of these signs in the past?

I have no problems with those signs. For one the lack of shirt or shoes is not a legally protected class.
Secondly I find dirty feet disgusting and do not want to look at them when in a store. The same holds true for many of the folks who think its fine to go around with their big flabby belly hanging out. I look terrible without a shirt on so I don't subject the general public to it.

Only government/public property and services should there be no discrimination on providing services and employment/hiring. Otherwise it's my property, my rules, leave if you don't like it.

Again your residence property rights and your business property rights are not the same.