Rethinking 30.06 and private property rights

[Dash Riprock]

Being purely objective I think the OP has a valid point however my personal ethics couldn't rationalize that behavior. On my property I make the rules and demand they be respected, I extend the same consideration to others.

But my point is that if "your property" is a business that is open to the public, you already don't make the rules. So why can't one of those rules be something like "CHL holders cannot be prohibited from exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a commercial business"? That seems far more constitutionally defensible to me than "you have to pay for this woman's abortion because she works for you".

 

[Younggun]

Should we all get on food stamps too? I mean, if the left is doing it we might as well get some money back too.


Same concept, and wrong for the same reason.


Also, by forcing businesses to do what you want, you are saying everything the left has done is OK and removing any arguments you might have used for change. You are also opening the door for even more gov because now both sides are saying it OK for the gov to force people to do whatever it wants regardless of rights.



Would you add more players to your football team if it meant some gov agents were gonna go house to house telling citizens they would have to play football of face fines and jail time?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

No one ever said doing the right thing is easy.

 

[zincwarrior]

The ability to limit firearms on your property has been a time honored right since before the US even existed.

 

[zincwarrior]

I see your point OP. It seems like a double standard.

But think about this:
In what light to you think of these gays forcing private businesses to comply with their wishes? Favorable or unfavorable?
Do you think by extorting those business owners to provide them services it helps their cause to the straight community? I don't.
I think they are activist fascist, radicals and it makes me dislike their lifestyle that much more.

If gun owners started using the same tactics against business to force them to let us carry it would backfire unbelievably bad and be a black eye on all of us.

A person advocating this join the people they eminently hate. I'm sure the Bible and Shakespeare have a few points about that.

 

[vmax]

You cannot justify a wrong by pointing out other wrong.

Forcing a business to host a gay wedding is wrong. That the government does it does not justify further eroding property property owner rights....

this X 1000

 

[breakingcontact]

Its highly illustrative of which "rights" our government is really interested in us having.

Excellent topic.

 

[stdreb27]

I think we should eliminate the 30.06 sign laws from the books. And let the property owner enforce their own desires on the open to the public property.

 

[CrazedJava]

If a private business wants to ban firearms I will respect their rights, though I disagree with them. Not sure how many more shootings we need to have before it is proven Gun Free Zones are just Target Rich Environments but some people are determined to be misguided.

However, the 30.06 law is crap. Once again, additional legislation was enacted for something that already existed. You could have told people no guns, asked them to leave, and if they refused it becomes trespassing and they can be removed by force of law anyway. 30.06 signs are just another burden on lawful gun owners and do nothing to stop those that would do harm. Do you really think someone who intends to rob a store gives two craps about that sign?

I'm not for forcing my views on another or violating their rights in the assumption that mine are greater. I would like to see this bullshit law repealed though.

 

[Younggun]

Repeal 30.06 and then you have a wide open variety of signs that could be placed in any number of locations making it tougher for gun owners.


Should we also do away with no trespassing signs and painted posts?

 

[breakingcontact]

Repeal 30.06 and then you have a wide open variety of signs that could be placed in any number of locations making it tougher for gun owners.


Should we also do away with no trespassing signs and painted posts?

From the left, I could see that. Letting "the people" hunt on "the people's land" that was stolen out from under them! Yikes at socialist hunters.

 

[Flyingswords]

There have been a rash of stories lately about various businesses being coerced by force of law to participate in gay marriage ceremonies against the moral objections of the owner. I saw a story last week about a town in Idaho telling two ordained ministers who ran a for-profit wedding chapel that they would have to perform gay marriages or face potential fines and/or jail time.

There was the Hobby Lobby thing last year where the Affordable Care Act was being used to coerce a business into providing abortion inducing drugs against the owner's wishes. There was a story a few days ago where the state of California is about to start requiring churches to cover abortions in their employee's health policies.

There have been any number of things over the years where we've told businesses that if you choose to engage in commerce, you have to comply with X because, well, you engage in commerce with the public, or something. Largely this had to do with civil rights, but also things like the Americans with Disabilities Act and others. However, the gay marriage and abortion proponents seem to have kicked it all up a notch lately, and I am extremely troubled where this is headed.

Anyway, I don't wish to debate the merits of those issues in this thread. But more and more, these stories are making me wonder why we as gun owners continue to give private property rights the benefit of the doubt and defer to the business owners wishes when it comes to the exercise of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We seem to be the only group willing to do that in America today.

I understand two wrongs don't make a right. I understand I can choose not to patronize an anti-gun business (usually), but so can the gay couple who forced a baker to make them a wedding cake he didn't want to make. I understand private property rights are sacrosanct. I want to believe all that, but is it time we rethought that in the onslaught of all the other things that are going on in the culture lately? When does the "other side" have to be coerced through force of law to respect OUR rights? When does this become a two way street? Was it ever? Should it be?

Thoughts?

Just a few days ago, authorities dropped the claims/charges/etc against that couple due to the fact(s) that the lesbian making those accusations against them was already married from another state (MA I think it was).

 

[roadkill]

Repeal 30.06 and then you have a wide open variety of signs that could be placed in any number of locations making it tougher for gun owners.


Should we also do away with no trespassing signs and painted posts?

Only if those signs carry the force of law. I just got back from Idaho. Talked to some people there about chl law. Over there can post no guns but the signage doesn't carry the weight of law. If asked to leave you must or you'll be cited for trespassing. I never saw a business posted either.

 

[txinvestigator]

If a private business wants to ban firearms I will respect their rights, though I disagree with them. Not sure how many more shootings we need to have before it is proven Gun Free Zones are just Target Rich Environments but some people are determined to be misguided.

However, the 30.06 law is crap. Once again, additional legislation was enacted for something that already existed. You could have told people no guns, asked them to leave, and if they refused it becomes trespassing and they can be removed by force of law anyway. 30.06 signs are just another burden on lawful gun owners and do nothing to stop those that would do harm. Do you really think someone who intends to rob a store gives two craps about that sign?

I'm not for forcing my views on another or violating their rights in the assumption that mine are greater. I would like to see this bullshit law repealed though.

30.06 is a HUGE improvement. Without 30.06, a ghost busters sign would enact 30.05 and one could be charged with trespass.

 

[diveRN]

I'm with the OP for one reason only: Bad guys couldn't give a turd about 30.06. They're going to go into a business armed whether there's a valid sign posted or not.

Thinking about this critically leads me to conclude that in a public place, such as a business, which is already governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Acts of 1963, and myriad other "acts," no one-person's right to "private property" should trump another person's right to keep and bear arms. If I want to refuse to sell to Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, or even white folks, I can't do it without the potential for legal repercussions. Therefore, the whole, "it's private property and I can do what I want" bucket fails to hold water because really, you can't do whatever you want. Now, a truly private place, such as a person's home where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy... that's a different matter.

As for the argument for/against the 2A and tactics to "win the fight," I don't think stooping to the left's level is the way to go. To come out on top, we need to win hearts and minds. To do this, gun owners need to be responsible, act like civilized people, and be choosey in the battles we fight. Personally, I don't think walking through Walmart with an AR thrown over your back is an effective method to win hearts and minds.

 

[Younggun]

Crazy how some are so willing to trample the rights of another while cursing the gov for trampling on our rights.

Nobody here has a right to enter a business. A 30.06 sign doesn't stop you from carrying.

That business doesn't have a responsibility to keep you safe from bad people either.


Just a bunch of excuses to act like liberals in order to get your way. I'll have no part of it. I fight to preserve rights, not infringe them.

 

[jordanmills]

Privately owned property. Not Government owned property. Bill of rights gives us protection from infringements from Government, since anything in the borders of a country is generally considered property of a government. You dont have a choice but to be on American land, when you live here, you do have a choice whether or not to go to that restaraunt up the street.

Tell that to the americans with disabilities act, or your local code enforcement office. Private property is far from private.

 

[jordanmills]

Only if those signs carry the force of law. I just got back from Idaho. Talked to some people there about chl law. Over there can post no guns but the signage doesn't carry the weight of law. If asked to leave you must or you'll be cited for trespassing. I never saw a business posted either.

Well ours are pretty ineffective. I can't imagine any situation where a cop or a DA would press an issue where someone claimed they didn't see the sign, as long as they began or offered to make their way out when notified.

 

[jordanmills]

That business doesn't have a responsibility to keep you safe from bad people either.

I've got to disagree with that one. If they infringe on my natural right to protect myself while allowing me on their property, which I agree they have the right to do, then they accept at least some of the liability for what might result from it.

 

[Younggun]

I've got to disagree with that one. If they infringe on my natural right to protect myself while allowing me on their property, which I agree they have the right to do, then they accept at least some of the liability for what might result from it.

Don't feel safe, don't go there. They aren't responsible for the actions of a low life.


We are responsible for our own safety. We make choices based on each of our perceived risks weighed against the reward.