San Anotonio 30.06 Establishments

[stdreb27]

And do you think, you should be able to harvest wild game from your private property without consideration to current game laws?

 

[Younggun]

Lol, don't tell young gun, he might call you a liberal sympathizer...


No but seriously, here is my rub, and why I give my argument any credence and obviously no one else does here. Since I'm a closet liberal.

Carrying a gun while you go about your day, is enumerated in the constitution. Along with the press and religion you're specifically singled out. Unlike, the handicapped or gays etc. (and this is a distinction I'm making that you're not). Property rights not so much, heck they could put an army in your house during war time... And if they feel like putting a freeway through your front yard, they can just take it and offer you what they thing is fair market value.

The 30.06 laws restrict your ability to bear arms. Hell the government even drew up a sign to tell people, you can't carry here. Which in my experience has mainly been used by government...

There is a whole lot of precedent to some regulation when it comes to private property open to the public.

From multiple angles, fire marshall , building inspection, food, ADA, to whatever whims the city has. (Some things are constitutionally delegates to the state and muni levels).

Disarming someone in a place of business, can potentially harm them, quite a bit. (See Luby's from way back when).
When you do, with the support of the government (30.06 sign), in a space open to the public, how is that not government restricting one's ability to bear arms?


So while I do have a very strong urge to agree with you, (see Mexicanhippy's person A and B characterization). I do find this train of thought compelling.
And the reason it isn't like the eventuality as described earlier by YoungGun's wedding cake fiasco is because gay access to wedding cakes by Christian bakers aren't enumerated in the constitution.


Now since I'm a liberal, let's discuss how you can kill your own unborn baby.

Several errors on this post, but I'm just gonna touch on one because it actually applies here.

The business owner isn't infringing on your right to bear arms. He is saying you can't enter his business while bearing arms. You can bear arms all day long, and all night to, no problem at all, just not on his property.

You have no right to enter his property outlined in the constitution, even if it is a business.

 

[Younggun]

And do you think, you should be able to harvest wild game from your private property without consideration to current game laws?

That's a very difficult question, an one I have struggled to answer for a long time. Would need a good discussion in the subject before I could reach a conclusion.

And a completely different subject.

 

[Booyah]

The 30.06 laws restrict your ability to bear arms.

No they do not. This is not a disagreement, you are factually incorrect...as much as if you had said 2+2=5.

Hell the government even drew up a sign to tell people, you can't carry here

No they did not, the property owner did...he was just wise enough to choose to do it in a way that would be recognized by the government as 'effective notice' if the government ever got involved...most of the time the government never gets involved though.

I said it once and I'll say it again...a 30.06 sign, nor its owner, is capable of disarming you, legally speaking. If you are on a 30.06 property while unarmed it is because YOU chose to disarm yourself. You have the ability to stay armed if you choose to.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

And do you think, you should be able to harvest wild game from your private property without consideration to current game laws?

Yes. But I wouldn't.

The game laws are good guidelines to voluntarily follow anyway as a responsible conservationist. There's a lot of thought that goes into them each year.

There is a whole lot of precedent to some regulation when it comes to private property open to the public.

From multiple angles, fire marshall , building inspection, food, ADA, to whatever whims the city has. (Some things are constitutionally delegates to the state and muni levels).

These are all infringements that could be solved by market and industry solutions.

Now since I'm a liberal, let's discuss how you can kill your own unborn baby.

What you talkin bout Willis? Libertarians I know would consider that murder.

 

[stdreb27]

No they do not. This is not a disagreement, you are factually incorrect...as much as if you had said 2+2=5.



No they did not, the property owner did...he was just wise enough to choose to do it in a way that would be recognized by the government as 'effective notice' if the government ever got involved...most of the time the government never gets involved though.

I said it once and I'll say it again...a 30.06 sign, nor its owner, is capable of disarming you, legally speaking. If you are on a 30.06 property while unarmed it is because YOU chose to disarm yourself. You have the ability to stay armed if you choose to.

Sure it does, when you come from the perspective of "the second amendment is my carry permit".
It designates a means in which you cannot carry if you were to enter a public space.

Now I'm going to make an assumption here, as I am not familiar with the means in which they do it. But a long time Ago, someone probably brought a court case, and as a result they made a distinction between arms with a cartridge and black powder. Is if you're concealed carrying black powder are you subject to the 30.06 restrictions?

 

[stdreb27]

Yes. What you talkin bout Willis? Libertarians I know would consider that murder.

Liberals not libertarian. I got called a liberal.

 

[stdreb27]

That's a very difficult question, an one I have struggled to answer for a long time. Would need a good discussion in the subject before I could reach a conclusion.

And a completely different subject.

It is a difficult question. But it deals with the same concept of property rights...

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Liberals not libertarian. I got called a liberal.

That's right.

Not enough coffee yet...

 

[stdreb27]

Several errors on this post, but I'm just gonna touch on one because it actually applies here.

The business owner isn't infringing on your right to bear arms. He is saying you can't enter his business while bearing arms. You can bear arms all day long, and all night to, no problem at all, just not on his property.

You have no right to enter his property outlined in the constitution, even if it is a business.

I'm going to make this point again. But you're spitting in the wind if you don't recognize there is a whole host of regulations in regards to a place with public access. And it's hypothetical. You're spitting in the wind.

As much if not more so than what is in my opinion "the second amendment is my concealed carry permit."

Of course as a society they have no problem restricting guns, and providing some muscle if one choose to test it and get caught.

Vs say your property right to put the toilet paper roll wherever the hell you want to.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Society, government and individuals (property owners) are three distinct things.

 

[winchster]

Sure it does, when you come from the perspective of "the second amendment is my carry permit".
It designates a means in which you cannot carry if you were to enter a public space.

Ok since you argue that the 2A is your carry permit and property rights aren't in the constitution as the foundation of your stance......

Please show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to go into a store.

 

[Younggun]

I'm going to make this point again. But you're spitting in the wind if you don't recognize there is a whole host of regulations in regards to a place with public access. And it's hypothetical. You're spitting in the wind.

As much if not more so than what is in my opinion "the second amendment is my concealed carry permit."

Of course as a society they have no problem restricting guns, and providing some muscle if one choose to test it and get caught.

Vs say your property right to put the toilet paper roll wherever the hell you want to.

I don't recall defending any if those regulations you speak of, and I actually think it would be hilarious if a business mounted their toilet paper rolls to the ceiling.

I haven't defended the need for a CHL either. I actually stated that I appose pretty much all firearms regulations.

I don't see how saying "there is a lot of gov involved" is justification for getting more gov involved. Using current infringements as justification for future infringements just doesn't make sense.


As I said before, two wrongs don't protect rights.


Property rights are nothing more than individual rights. The basic human right to control ones own property, to have control over the fruits of ones labors.


What is it that leads you to believe you have a right to enter a business? I ask because that belief, that you have a right to enter, is the error that seems to be the root of your misconception.

 

[Booyah]

Sure it does, when you come from the perspective of "the second amendment is my carry permit".
It designates a means in which you cannot carry if you were to enter a public space.

That also is factually incorrect, perspective does not matter (just like with 2+2=5). 30.06 addresses trespassing. It has an affect on your ability to be on the property...it does not have, nor have you offered a single example of how it has an affect on your right or ability to bear arms. Show me where the 2nd amendment addresses trespassing.

Any verbal notice, regardless of format, qualifies as 30.06 notice as well. There is no legal definition for what verbal notice must contain. The person who exercises his right to tell you to get off his property, does he magically become a government agent? Where is the government involvement in that scenario? Where is your right to be armed being infringed? He legally can't disarm you...even while you are still on his property making your way to the exit. He can't even stop your from using it, if you need to, while your are still briefly on his property. The only thing being infringed is your ability to be on the property...and the 2nd amendment doesn't address that in any way.

I have not commented on some of your other points and that is deliberate. I am only interested in correcting factual errors, not speculation or opinion. You assertion that 30.06 infringes on the 2A is factually, legally and in every other way, incorrect...no opinion, no perspective involved. Willful ignorance of that fact does not make your "perspective" any more valid.

 

[stdreb27]

That also is factually incorrect, perspective does not matter (just like with 2+2=5). 30.06 addresses trespassing. It has an affect on your ability to be on the property...it does not have, nor have you offered a single example of how it has an affect on your right or ability to bear arms. Show me where the 2nd amendment addresses trespassing.

Any verbal notice, regardless of format, qualifies as 30.06 notice as well. There is no legal definition for what verbal notice must contain. The person who exercises his right to tell you to get off his property, does he magically become a government agent? Where is the government involvement in that scenario? Where is your right to be armed being infringed? He legally can't disarm you...even while you are still on his property making your way to the exit. He can't even stop your from using it, if you need to, while your are still briefly on his property. The only thing being infringed is your ability to be on the property...and the 2nd amendment doesn't address that in any way.

I have not commented on some of your other points and that is deliberate. I am only interested in correcting factual errors, not speculation or opinion. You assertion that 30.06 infringes on the 2A is factually, legally and in every other way, incorrect...no opinion, no perspective involved. Willful ignorance of that fact does not make your "perspective" any more valid.

It creates a tax, in which you have to pay in order to carry outside a very narrow set of circumstances.

I suppose you support poll taxes too?
Tax=restriction

 

[Younggun]

It creates a tax, in which you have to pay in order to carry outside a very narrow set of circumstances.

I suppose you support poll taxes too?
Tax=restriction

They could do away with the CHL (should also, constitutional is the way to go) and change the working of 30.06 and simply change any reference to a CHL holder to "person" and it would have the same effect.

But it is actually the CHL, and not 30.06 that is a "tax". Booyah didn't make any reference to the cost of the CHL as it is irrelevant to this topic. Nor did he voice any support of it one way or another.

 

[winchster]

It creates a tax, in which you have to pay in order to carry outside a very narrow set of circumstances.

I suppose you support poll taxes too?
Tax=restriction

Huh?

 

[Younggun]

Huh?

He was redirecting.

 

[Booyah]

It creates a tax, in which you have to pay in order to carry outside a very narrow set of circumstances.

I suppose you support poll taxes too?
Tax=restriction

You are quite skilled at ignoring facts. I already stated that I have deliberately not shared my opinion on any of this nor will I. I am also not interested in discussing your opinions, perspectives or any speculative jumps to conclusions you make. I have simply pointed out a specific point about which you are incorrect...that is all.

 

[Charlie]

I'm holding off a while to see how this comes out, but ............... all the responses are, in my opinion, just opinions of an individual's own translations of "rights, laws, etc., etc.") (sarcasm)