Right to Carry on Private Property?

[MinuteManMike]

Only if they lightend up on the no gun zones. Like schools, parks, goverment buildings. I think if they go to through the trouble to background check, testing, classes or whatever. Then we should be trusted anywhere. (airports and court rooms only exceptions)

But I think the whole idea of a license is complete bull anyway and so does the 2nd Admendment

I think if they allow the no gun zones then the zones should be required to provide security and checkpoints also private or public. just my

I have to disagree. Airports and courtrooms should not be exceptions. I don't think police stations or even the Indiana State House should be an exception.

I agree the 2nd amendment should be followed and almost every gun law in the entire country is pure BS.

But I do think private property should be able to completely ban guns from their premises, even their parking lots to prevent their employees from keeping a gun in their car. I'm very big on private property rights.

I even think that prohibiting convicted felons from carrying is wrong under the 2nd.

Yes, I know I'm an extremist on the issue. Like Uncle Ted Nugent, I'll wear that label proudly.

 

[dburkhead]

I even think that prohibiting convicted felons from carrying is wrong under the 2nd.

But it's allowed under the 5th. "Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." (And "due process" means the system of charges, ability to answer those charges in court, appeals, etc. in an attempt to ensure that the individual has a fair hearing). IOW, with "due process of law" one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property. And "liberty" certainly includes the ability to exercise various rights, including the RKBA.

So yes, forbidding an individual, as a sentence of a court, is Constitutional. Whether such a sentence is appropriate or excessive for a particular crime would fall under the Eighth.

 

[indyjoe]

But I do think private property should be able to completely ban guns from their premises, even their parking lots to prevent their employees from keeping a gun in their car. I\'m very big on private property rights.

Which allows any person you are visiting dictate if you can protect yourself all the way there or away. That also takes away my property rights, as my vehicle is consider my property and unable to be searched without a warrant or just cause. If you allow me to come on your property, you are allowing me to bring a small property onto yours. Think of it like an embassy in a foreign country. You do not have rights to limit what I have in my embassy, nor search it.

 

[Scutter01]

Which allows any person you are visiting dictate if you can protect yourself all the way there or away. That also takes away my property rights, as my vehicle is consider my property and unable to be searched without a warrant or just cause. If you allow me to come on your property, you are allowing me to bring a small property onto yours. Think of it like an embassy in a foreign country. You do not have rights to limit what I have in my embassy, nor search it.

I was trying to find a way to say exactly that. The "embassy" concept never even occurred to me. Nice one.

 

[Soundslikejosh]

+1 Indyjoe. What I put in my vehicle on company property is not company business.

 

[dburkhead]

Indyjoe. Repped

 

[Bill of Rights]

I was trying to find a way to say exactly that. The "embassy" concept never even occurred to me. Nice one.

Ditto here. Rep added.

Blessings,
B

 

[MinuteManMike]

Which allows any person you are visiting dictate if you can protect yourself all the way there or away.

If you don't like how a property owner conducts their lives or business, don't go there. It's not a terribly complicated matter.

That also takes away my property rights, as my vehicle is consider my property and unable to be searched without a warrant or just cause. If you allow me to come on your property, you are allowing me to bring a small property onto yours. Think of it like an embassy in a foreign country. You do not have rights to limit what I have in my embassy, nor search it.

My banning guns on MY property does NOTHING to anyone else's rights. They want to come onto my property, they obey my rules. You're making up "embassy rights" where there are none.

Should I determine that your entry onto my property is conditional to a complete vehicle search, that's my right. And again, you don't have to come onto my property. No one's pointing a gun at your head to do so.

If you want folks to respect YOUR property rights, you have to respect theirs. It's just that simple.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you don't like how a property owner conducts their lives or business, don't go there. It's not a terribly complicated matter.



My banning guns on MY property does NOTHING to anyone else's rights. They want to come onto my property, they obey my rules. You're making up "embassy rights" where there are none.

Should I determine that your entry onto my property is conditional to a complete vehicle search, that's my right. And again, you don't have to come onto my property. No one's pointing a gun at your head to do so.

If you want folks to respect YOUR property rights, you have to respect theirs. It's just that simple.

There are two problems with your thinking:

1) You have the right to control your property, but you do not have the right to make those people who enter your property defenseless on their way to and from your property.

2) If you deprive people of the ability to exercise their right to defend themselves, you assume unto yourself the responsibility for ensuring their safety.

In addition to the above points, you make reference to your property rights, while ignoring those of the person whose property (though not "real property, i.e. land) is allowed onto yours. By this reasoning, you could also tell them they could not enter your property if they had a Bible in their car or, if you are a Republican, say that they could not enter with any Democratic campaign material (or vice versa) in their car.

The 2A does not say that only Congress may not infringe on the RKBA, and "those powers not granted to the federal gov't nor denied by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people." The 1A specifically directs that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the rights of free speech, press, assembly, religion, and petition. The 2A denies the fedgov that power, denies it to the states, denies it to the people. "...the right...shall not be infringed." No one is named, so it must be interpreted that that power belongs to no one at all.

Lastly, our named and specified "unalienable rights" are noted as being "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (D of I) and "life, liberty, and property" in the Constitution. In both cases, "life" precedes "liberty", thus the right to protect one's life precedes and overrides the rights of property.

IANAL, IDSIAHIELN, and TINLA.

Blessings,
B

 

[Pami]

Just a small note to remind everyone this is a thread that questions whether you would support required testing to get a LTCH.

Just sayin'.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Which allows any person you are visiting dictate if you can protect yourself all the way there or away. That also takes away my property rights, as my vehicle is consider my property and unable to be searched without a warrant or just cause. If you allow me to come on your property, you are allowing me to bring a small property onto yours. Think of it like an embassy in a foreign country. You do not have rights to limit what I have in my embassy, nor search it.

An embassy is ALLOWED at the discretion of the host country. It is NOT A RIGHT. Russia has NO RIGHT to have an embassy in this country nor to bring ANY THING we say no to in to that embassy. We just pretty much allow those things in the interest of reciprocity.

You let Russia start searching our diplomats and watch what happens to theirs here.

If you don't like the rules and conditions set forth by the host country then you have to ask yourself how bad you want an embassy in that country.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just a small note to remind everyone this is a thread that questions whether you would support required testing to get a LTCH.

Just sayin'.

Good point, Pami. Is there a point at which we can split off the discussion of property rights?

An embassy is ALLOWED at the discretion of the host country. It is NOT A RIGHT. Russia has NO RIGHT to have an embassy in this country nor to bring ANY THING we say no to in to that embassy. We just pretty much allow those things in the interest of reciprocity.

You let Russia start searching our diplomats and watch what happens to theirs here.

If you don't like the rules and conditions set forth by the host country then you have to ask yourself how bad you want an embassy in that country.

True, having an embassy is at the discretion of the host country, but once permitted entry and placement of that embassy is determined, the agreed-upon rules of international diplomacy come into play, and the foreign countries that have diplomats here (and we in their countries) can enter with a diplomatic pouch. As long as the pouch remains in the custody of the courier, it is inviolable, not subject to search at all, even in our country, on our land or seas. It matters not that they are "on our property"; that bag is their property and is respected as such.

The Constitution is represented in the above example by the "rules of international diplomacy" and one of those rules is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed-by anyone.

The point was made earlier that if a driver of a vehicle brings his car onto someone else's parking lot and wants his property rights respected, he must respect those of the lot owner. Why then, does that not work in reverse? Property is not solely composed of land and buildings. Seems to me that what I have in my property, locked away safely, not disturbing nor harming anything on your property, is my business and only my business and outside the land owner's purview to regulate. If he wants to say I cannot openly carry a visible firearm but has no issue with me still being able to be armed for my own defense, (say, because of the sight of people OCing has had a negative effect on his business by decreasing his customer flow and/or sales), I should still have the right to place said item in a safe location: my vehicle or a property-owner-provided safe storage to which I keep the key. I DO have the right to choose to go elsewhere, unless the building in question is a gov't building and the service I need is available only from that building. They have a monopoly and their purpose is to serve the people, not to mention the fact that the building is owned by the people, and restricting what the owner of a property may carry while on that property is something that was addressed in the Heller case.

The simple fact is that guns have been so demonized by the media that their stereotypes seem to have even affected those of us who by all rights should know better. There is no justification for restricting guns from those who do not use them to do harm, any more than there is justification for preventing people from wearing clothing which is loose enough to conceal anything. (careful, not all of those people are of the opposite gender and those who are are not all exceptionally attractive-I'm reminded of IndyNinja's old avatar. )

Blessings,
B

 

[Jack Ryan]

...True, having an embassy is at the discretion of the host country, but once permitted entry and placement of that embassy is determined, the agreed-upon rules of international diplomacy come into play...

and running with your representation, none of that has happened. You have been denied entry with your weapon. Your second amendment rights to not give free use of my property or any one else's. Your use of my property or any one else's is dependant upon my agreeing to allow it or other terms NEGOTIATED BETWEEN US, they are not relevant to the 2nd amendment at all.

BTW this does not denie you the ability to exercise your rights on the way to my place or any where else. That decision is up to you and made by you if you will carry on the way to my property or not. For all I know you may live in Florida. I can not give you permission to carry through every district and state from here to Florida, nor can I denie it to you. Nor do I denie it to you when I say you may or may not bring a weapon on to my ten acres.

The arguement is ridiculous.

 

[indyjoe]

and running with your representation, none of that has happened. You have been denied entry with your weapon. Your second amendment rights to not give free use of my property or any one else\'s. Your use of my property or any one else\'s is dependant upon my agreeing to allow it or other terms NEGOTIATED BETWEEN US, they are not relevant to the 2nd amendment at all.

Sure it is. I have been allowed access to my place of work. I have been denied entry to the building with a firearm. It is not illegal for me to do so, but penalty if caught would most likely be termination of my job. However, myself and my vehicle have been granted legal access to the lot. This means that the employer should have NO RIGHT to control nor search my vehicle while on their property. Nor should they have the right to deny myself entry to the parking area, because of something they do not know exists in the vehicle nor can prove exists without an illegal search. If they can, they have the power to limit my 2nd Amendment rights from my next closest safe haven (most likely my home) where I can become armed.

BTW this does not denie you the ability to exercise your rights on the way to my place or any where else. That decision is up to you and made by you if you will carry on the way to my property or not. For all I know you may live in Florida. I can not give you permission to carry through every district and state from here to Florida, nor can I denie it to you. Nor do I denie it to you when I say you may or may not bring a weapon on to my ten acres.

It does exactly that. If I must visit your property and cannot be armed, how does your limiting my rights of securing my weapon in my vehicle on your property not make be unarmed and defenseless on my journey to and from your property? Ignoring the red herring of jurisdictional carry laws that you threw out and assuming I have the rights to carry all the way from my place to yours, not allowing me to secure my weapon in my vehicle on your property effectively makes be defenseless. This is fine if it is not some place I have to go. However, it is a problem if it is some place I must do (work, etc.)

 

[Bill of Rights]

and running with your representation, none of that has happened. You have been denied entry with your weapon. Your second amendment rights to not give free use of my property or any one else's. Your use of my property or any one else's is dependant upon my agreeing to allow it or other terms NEGOTIATED BETWEEN US, they are not relevant to the 2nd amendment at all.

BTW this does not denie you the ability to exercise your rights on the way to my place or any where else. That decision is up to you and made by you if you will carry on the way to my property or not. For all I know you may live in Florida. I can not give you permission to carry through every district and state from here to Florida, nor can I denie it to you. Nor do I denie it to you when I say you may or may not bring a weapon on to my ten acres.

The arguement is ridiculous.

Sure it is. I have been allowed access to my place of work. I have been denied entry to the building with a firearm. It is not illegal for me to do so, but penalty if caught would most likely be termination of my job. However, myself and my vehicle have been granted legal access to the lot. This means that the employer should have NO RIGHT to control nor search my vehicle while on their property. Nor should they have the right to deny myself entry to the parking area, because of something they do not know exists in the vehicle nor can prove exists without an illegal search. If they can, they have the power to limit my 2nd Amendment rights from my next closest safe haven (most likely my home) where I can become armed. It does exactly that. If I must visit your property and cannot be armed, how does your limiting my rights of securing my weapon in my vehicle on your property not make be unarmed and defenseless on my journey to and from your property? Ignoring the red herring of jurisdictional carry laws that you threw out and assuming I have the rights to carry all the way from my place to yours, not allowing me to secure my weapon in my vehicle on your property effectively makes be defenseless. This is fine if it is not some place I have to go. However, it is a problem if it is some place I must do (work, etc.)

Exactly that, Joe. (though I would add that "work" is not somewhere you have to go-the argument is that you can find another job) Since you addressed this from the employee perspective, I'll go the customer route:

Jack, if you have a business that has a parking lot, you presumably wish for people to use that lot, whether they be employees, customers, vendors, etc. When they do so, they have lawful access and permission to enter your lot, your property. To say that they cannot do so with a firearm in their vehicle is unenforcable without, as Joe said, an illegal search. Further, if you wish to prevent them from doing that, how do they protect themselves enroute to and from your property without keeping the gun in the car while there? This doesn't address interstate carry laws-for the sake of this example, let's address me, an Indiana resident with a LTCH. I may lawfully carry or have in my vehicle any handgun I can lawfully possess. If I drive to "Jack Ryan's Store" to purchase a loaf of bread, a dozen eggs, and a quart of milk (what can I say? I like French toast with my bacon! ), you presumably want the business of customers who bring money. I park in your lot and find that you have on your door a sign that says "no guns allowed". Granted, most of the time, I'd comply and take my business elsewhere after letting you know you lost my business, but let's say for the moment that I just don't want the hassle of driving elsewhere AND that I choose to comply with your sign as well. If I cannot keep it in my car AND I cannot carry it in, how, then, can I complete my business, pay you for your products, and go home to eat my French toast (and bacon)?
It would seem that you're saying I should leave my gun at home and travel unarmed because I know you don't allow guns in your store (or because I don't know whether or not you have a sign, but you might.) For the sake of the example, let's also discount the possibility of street parking, which is not available everywhere.

This is not a question of carry laws but of your (hypothetical, not you personally) policies.

I will stress that I do not mean this to sound contentious, I just don't understand how it is that one person's property rights can somehow be considered more valid than someone else's.

Blessings,
B

 

[singlestacksig]

A business owner should, and does, have the right to ban guns from their property. but it should end there.. Here in Indiana it is not a crime to go into a store that has a no guns sign.. If they find out you have it, and you do not leave then it is trespass..

On the other hand Businesses that benifit from the government , with land tax abaitments for example, should not be allowed to ban such things from being stored in cars..
it is a trade off.. If you want full control over your property you should pay full tax..
If you want a tax break then the government / people can limit what you can do with your property..

 

[indyjoe]

Exactly that, Joe. (though I would add that work is not somewhere you have to go-the argument is that you can find another job)

In the existing and coming economy, that is becoming less true.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In the existing and coming economy, that is becoming less true.

Good point.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Sure it is. I have been allowed access to my place of work. I have been denied entry to the building with a firearm. It is not illegal for me to do so, but penalty if caught would most likely be termination of my job. However, myself and my vehicle have been granted legal access to the lot. This means that the employer should have NO RIGHT to control nor search my vehicle while on their property. Nor should they have the right to deny myself entry to the parking area, because of something they do not know exists in the vehicle nor can prove exists without an illegal search. If they can, they have the power to limit my 2nd Amendment rights from my next closest safe haven (most likely my home) where I can become armed.

First off it's an employment issue, not a gun issue. They can denie you entry to the building for wearing short pants if they want to. They can let you work there a year wearing what ever you want and then come out Friday and say no more short pants starting Monday and denie access to the building, the job and the parking lot to any one wearing short pant.

Next, if they don't know you have a gun in your car, and if you keep your mouth shut, you have no problem do you?

Indiana is an employment at will state. They can fire you for what ever reason they want or for no reason. It's a big thing republicans are proud of. You have no constitutional right to the job. No constitutional right to a parking space, nor right to be on some one else's property, period. There fore it is impossible to have a right to carry a firearm under any of those circumstances if they are willing to do with out your services in order to prevent your doing it armed.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Jack, if you have a business that has a parking lot, you presumably wish for people to use that lot, whether they be employees, customers, vendors, etc.

Your entire post is based on a presumtion as it's building block. Presumtions are not law. I am not in control of other people's presumptions nor is any one else. Presumptions acted upon have been the basis for many disputes from neighborhood dicrepencies to national wars.

It's best only to ACT upon what a person knows is fact rather than what they desire to presume.

When no specific rules, desires, or other expected behaiviours are made available to users making use of a public parking lot in a manor a normal person would expect to then it is fair to make presumptions this lot may be made use of in a common and respectful manor as people would expect to make use of another person's property in the situation. This will hold up in a court of law.

When a land/lot owner has specific desires or requirements for use of a parking lot that devieate from the norm they should be expected to make users and possible users aware of these deviations from the norm such as No Semi's, No Trucks, No Horses, No Firearms or No Loaded Firearms.

As a private property owner they have every right to expect users to honor their decisions.

The only exceptions would be law specificly addressing such situations as employers providing parking or stores providing off street parking and these issues may be addressed in that manor. Lacking such, you have no constitutional right to make use of another person's private property in any manner you chose despite their objections.

When you are an invited guest on some one else's property, behave as one and you'll have no problem. Act like a belligerant crusader on a mission and you will have problems. There will be few instances where you will find support in the law.