“The onus has shifted to the private property owner to effectively enforce whatever it is the government is imposing on it. And the whole concept of private property is that you should be able to enjoy your property and use your property however you want without the fear, frankly, of someone bringing a gun and putting that premises at risk.” – Attorney Michael Schissel in When Onus Falls On Gun Sellers, National Concealed Carry Is ‘Frightening’ [via npr.org]
Oh NOW they are concerned with “property rights”. This is grade A Texas bullshit. Assholes like this need to be disbarred then publicly flogged.
Agree. They will try to use the property rights angle to attack individual rights, while at the same undermining both personal/individual and property rights.
Anything that advance the left/protects their goals they cling to.
Property rights to protect gun free zones
State rights to protect sanctuary cities/states
You on the other hand do not want to rent/sell to some groups? Nope, leftist do not care about your property rights/freedom of Association.
Your state wants to tell the Feds to drop dead, no more NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, etc? NOPE! Leftist will dog pile on you.
Screw the left, we are done allowing them to try and use our in group values against us.
Time to give these leftists a helicopter ride.
Total softball interview. He makes it sound like he’s against regulation for businesses but I’m sure he wants the government to regulate everything under the sun, as long as its with a progressive spin.
I read the transcript and it was all weak tea.
For example in regards to the PLCAA:
“Yeah, it immunizes sellers. So, for example, there are state laws that literally immunize a gun seller of any liability even if that gun seller knows he’s selling a gun to a criminal.”
That just gets left there – no “could you give me an example?” or “how could they know the buyer was a criminal?” or “isn’t it already illegal to sell a gun to someone who cannot legally own it?” – just left out there like it’s some sort of fact.
The private property discussion borders on absurd.
For someone who you think might possibly be smart enough to pass a bar exam, that was nothing but a load of untruths and falsehoods.
Ugh, but maybe if that’s the best they have to through at it…
I don’t think this guy knows how the real world works. Reading the rest of the interview he seems to think regulations is magical and nothing occurs or exists unless regulation expressly permits that thing to occur or exist.
May I roll over now Comrade Duch? No? Okay. Thank you Comrade Duch.
Then he goes on as if commercial properties, restaurants and bars are not currently subjected to government rule or regulation which affects their owners private property rights.
Like he has spent his life in a dark cave unexposed to other humans, got dragged out for the interview then put away.
This is yet another false meme propagated by the anti-gunners. Nowhere have I seen anything about requiring owners of private property to allow firearms on their premises if they don’t want them there. It’s balderdash.
Exactly. Put up a sign if you don’t want guns, and advertise that your property is unarmed and vulnerable to all would-be criminals. If someone brings a gun and you ask them to leave, it’s enforceable at least through trespassing charges, and probably much stricter laws depending on the locale. There’s no issue here whatsoever.
I understand (sorta) that some people just don’t like guns, or gun-owners/carriers, but I have a little trouble reconciling that a business owner who is supposedly frightened by the presence of an armed customer is still not so frightened that he will walk up to that armed person and piss him off by asking him to leave. WTF? Are you scared of the guy (and his gun) or not?
So then the question for you legal boys out there, can he call the cops and have them respond before he actually demands the guy leave his premises? Until he requests the gun guy’s departure, and gun guy refuses to leave, what crime has been committed that would warrant the police to show up?
A special little snowflake was frightened and made to feel uncomfortable. That’s a crime these days, right?
The status of the carrier is usually part of the state law applying to the situation.
In some, nothing happens unless or until the carrier is notified, in others it can depend on compliance with the posting or notification requirements, etc.
It’s not necessarily standard but usually specified.
Typically it’s no big deal if everyone involved isn’t a jerk but that line already seems crossed to some extent in the scenario you’re describing.
I thought that property rights were about the property owner setting the rerms and conditions for the use of his property without direction from the gocernment.
And the whole concept of private property is that you should be able to enjoy your property and use your property however you want without the fear, frankly, of someone bringing a gun and putting that premises at risk.
Would that include Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge, for starters?
In those cases, the ‘someone’ was ‘the government’. And they most certainly put those premises at risk.
I’m also curious as to this inane fear of legal, law abiding citizens causing more harm by legally conceal carrying or open carrying (whether with government permission or not), than criminals by, well, being criminals.
Nailed it.
+1 Billion
“I’m also curious as to this inane fear of legal, law abiding citizens causing more harm by legally conceal carrying or open carrying”
You don’t get it? Let me help you understand. In the anti’s world, the ONLY purpose for a gun is to kill human beings.
Therefore – if you carry a gun, you are, by definition, a pre-murderer. A murderer waiting to happen. You have declared war on peaceful society by arming yourself with a weapon that has only one purpose – murder.
Put another way – you are the murderer that they can see coming. So they despise you with all the hate and fear they can muster.
It’s that simple.
He’s a lawyer. He gets paid to make sh!t up and characterize his client as the blameless victim.
That’s his job. It’s what he gets paid to do. Is this a great country or what?
“… you should be able to enjoy your property and use your property however you want without the fear … of someone bringing a gun and putting that premises at risk.” – Attorney Michael Schissel
Any visitor to a property could bring any number of items or act in any number of ways that puts a premises at risk. If you do not want any risk, then do not allow any visitors.
CHANG: If I could just address PLCAA – this is the federal law which protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when people use their guns in crimes. Make the argument for me. Why should manufacturers be held accountable for the actions of the individuals who buy their products?
SCHISSEL: Well, it’s not just manufacturers, and that’s really the important thing. In fact, my firm has been involved more on the retail level.
CHANG: OK, fine, retailers.
SCHISSEL: Yeah, it immunizes sellers. So, for example, there are state laws that literally immunize a gun seller of any liability even if that gun seller knows he’s selling a gun to a criminal.
Were the interviewer to actually hold this guy’s feet to the fire, the next question SHOULD be…
TSTEW: I’ve researched federal and state laws in advance of this interview, including the PLCAA, and there’s something I don’t understand regarding your answer. Isn’t it a federal crime for anyone, be it a private party or a licensed Federal Firearms Dealer, to sell a gun to a known prohibited person?
SCHISSEL: Well, uh…that’s not the reality…uhhhhh…
TSTEW: Mr. Schissel, have you researched federal gun laws and, if so, how do you come to your understanding of what the PLCAA actually limits? Also, I’d be curious to know how much money does Arnold and Porter as a whole during litigation involving firearms?
He’s a lying scumbag, plain and simple…
His statements on the PLCAA are just bald-faced lies.
And his argument against reciprocity is a real head-scratcher. If I’m licensed and trusted to carry concealed in my home state, why would my being armed in Times Square all of a sudden make me a menace to society?
A gun does not put any premises at risk unless it’s owner is either grossly negligent or intentionally misuses it. It’s not radioactive. It doesn’t have antibiotic resistant tuberculosis. It can and routinely is contained. It’s just a hunk of steel (or plastic).
Well, it could be radioactive if the gun’s manufacturer isn’t careful about steel sourcing, but your point is valid.
Absurd.
If you read the brief interview at NPR, you will notice that Mr. Schissel is a prime example of an attorney with a forked tongue. Consider this gem in his interview:
“… there are state laws that literally immunize a gun seller of any liability even if that gun seller knows he’s selling a gun to a criminal.”
First of all, I doubt that it is legal in any state when a gun seller knowingly sells to a criminal. But more importantly, federal law already prohibits knowingly selling to a criminal. Thus, a seller who knowingly sells a firearm to a criminal is most certainly NOT immune to prosecution.
Thus, Mr. Schissel has blatantly lied by omission.
Exactly…and there are people out there stupid enough to gobble this crap up hook, line and sinker.
Define your terms, Mr. Schissel. There are lots of people in America who are technical “criminals” who are not on any government (unconstitutional) prohibited list. (“…shall not be infringed.”) I read somewhere that there are so many laws and regulations now that everyone commits as many as four felonies per day without even realizing it. I exceed the speed limit on a regular basis, a minor, but still criminal act. We needn’t go into detail on some other things I do on a fairly regular basis that are technically crimes, if not here in Nevada, then somewhere in the United States. Years ago (statute of limitations has run out, I hope) I regularly drove the length and breadth of California with an S&W 642 concealed in a work glove on the dash of my truck! (Great little holster, slow on the draw, though.)
If a person knowingly sells a firearm to a person they know is an unconstitutionally prohibited purchaser then they may (or may not) face consequences, but it’s already illegal. How exactly is any effort to make it illegaler going to accomplish anything? Just tacking on one more unconstitutional law on top of all the other gun laws that are blatant violations of the Second Amendment. Trump should empower a special task force to itemize these laws and have his DOJ take the necessary steps to have them repealed through Congress or nullified through the Supreme Court.
The definition of a socio-economic system where “private property owner [is] to effectively enforce whatever it is the government is imposing on it” is Fascism. In other words, it is a pretense of private property, with the responsibility of private ownership, but with all the authority forfeited to the State. Classic Fascism.
“you should be able to enjoy your property and use your property however you want without the fear, frankly, of someone bringing a gun and putting that premises at risk.”
THAT’S RIGHT YOU FING MORON, CHECK YOUR 4 LETTER WORD THERE
“S H O U L D”
YOU
“S H O U L D”
ALSO BE FREE FROM A MEDDLING GOV’T PREVENTING YOU FROM PROTECTING YOURSELF WHEN A FING AHOLE (LIKELY CREATED & EMPOWERED, BUT DEFINITELY EMBOLDEND BY THAT SAME GOV’T) THROWS THAT
“S H O U L D”
SH_T IN THE TRASH, AND COMES TO F WITH YOU.
IN
ANY
CASE
Government is the main reason for the RTKABA. Keep guns against the day your government, that
“S H O U L D”
serve you, starts to tyrannize you unbearably. THEN KEEP YOUR ARMS FOR THE END OF YOUR COUNTRY AND GOVERNMENT SO THAT YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AT A SAY IN WHAT COMES NEXT.
“Should” is 6 letters.
Schizophrenics gotta schizophrenize.
NPR is U.S. subsidized globalist-communism.
It needs to be de-funded, and the civilian market that rises to support it needs to be investigated, because (despite Ohole”s lapsed memory) we’ve already dedicated ourselves, and our futures to hunting down and killing communism wherever we encounter it.
“And the whole concept of private property is that you should be able to enjoy your property and use your property however you want without the fear, frankly, of someone bringing a gun and putting that premises at risk.”
Thank you for supporting the Castle doctrine.
Replace “private property” with “life” and you also have the rationale for the right to carry.
I know a number of people here consider the 2A panacea to be a Wild West scenario where everyone has at least one gun strapped to their hip. And I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with that, nor that it would be a major human devolution as many progressives seem to think.
I am largely opposed to GFZ’s in general. Not allowing me to carry in places that cater to the public puts me and my family at risk. While the likelihood of a DGU situation is remote, it is still present in every situation. That is why we carry.
Likewise, I am sympathetic to the homeowner that does not want guns in their home. While the chance of a properly holstered and concealed weapon experiencing a ND is also very remote, it is again still present. If that one in a million struck one of my children…
My trouble begins with those establishments that serve alcohol. I’ve been around long enough (and participated in enough benders myself) to know that common sense is one of the first things to go out the window when someone gets drunk. That, coupled with dexterity, coordination, muscle control, eyesight, and inhibition. Besides potentially turning an ordinary bar fight lethal, there’s the “Hey, look at this!” factor, which could end up leaving someone’s brains splattered on the wall. Even many saloons in the Wild West had check your guns at the door policies.
So here’s my question: How do we weigh people’s right to defend themselves in certain places against the greater likelihood that an armed populace in those places would cause more harm than good? No one wants to see another Pulse Nightclub massacre, but do we want to sacrifice thousands of lives to prevent such a thing? I know if I owned a bar, I’d want guns on or easily accessible to myself and my employees. I don’t think I’d want them on my customers.
Easy. If you’re gonna get intoxicated, don’t carry. If you’re gonna carry, don’t get intoxicated. Making a law attempting to mandate common sense into people isn’t going to give them the common sense they so desperately need.
Yes, but then I’m relying on other people to do the right thing. People who may not think they’re going to get drunk and rowdy. Ever said, “I’m just going to have a few,” and then wound up three sheets to the wind in a casino until 5am? Ever stopped drinking for an hour or more before you intended to head home, only to realize once you were already in your car on the interstate that you hadn’t sobered up at all? Hopefully you were able to get off the road without hurting anyone and sleep it off in a White Castle parking lot. If not, a moment of poor decision could really ruin your life (and someone else’s).
It’s frightening how easy it is for even the most responsible of people to have a momentary lapse of judgment. And a lot of people aren’t that responsible to begin with. It doesn’t bother me one bit to think that the guy next to me at the movie theatre, grocery store, Post Office, etc. might be carrying, because I am too, frequently even if the sign says otherwise. But it does bother me to think that the guy sitting on the bar stool next to me might be carrying. What if I say something that offends him? What if I glance at his girlfriend’s tits that are spilling out on the bar and he takes issue with it?
Overall, a government mandate that all businesses serving the public must allow guns on the premises wouldn’t be a terrible thing (did I just say a government mandate wouldn’t be a terrible thing?), but there are definitely a few situations that would need special protection. In those situations, maybe some supplemental laws would be in order? Making it a crime, for example, to draw your weapon in a non-DGU situation.
I think that is covered by ‘brandishing’ in some states. You do have a low opinion of people in bars. First the presence of alcohol will make them drink. Then the presence of a gun will make them shoot someone… or commit some other stupid act. I don’t hang out in those bars.
I have a low opinion of people in general. I try to be an optimist, but people keep challenging that!
And I don’t hang out much in bars either. Had some experiences back in my 20’s, but now job, family, all that good stuff. I just enjoy healthy discourse.
I enjoy healthy discourse as well. I am not kidding about going to a bar tonight, though. I will be there, I will carry, and, since it is a cw bar in colorado, I assume I won’t be the only one. I have yet to see anyone act a fool. I will admit that we won’t be there till closing. Maybe that is when the people you are thinking of show up. There are decent folks that go to bars. Should a non decent type get there I would rather have more options than not. People can be ass hats anywhere.
You are also falling into the “what if” trap that they (anti-gunners) throw into every argument. i.e. I have no self control, hence I cannot trust you or anyone else to have self control.
“Yes, but then I’m relying on other people to do the right thing.”
I have some troubling news for you: you are *always* relying on other people to do the right thing. Mandating certain behaviors with laws does nothing to guarantee that such behaviors will actually be practiced. If it did, we wouldn’t need a court system.
If someone wants to carry a gun into a bar in Texas (where it’s illegal), what’s stopping them? A little cardboard sign?
Walking down the street, you are relying on people to do the right thing by not ambushing you with a tire iron or jump the curb and run you over with their car. Nearly all of the time, that works out. Once in a while it doesn’t, and having a law that says you can’t drive on the sidewalk doesn’t actually make it impossible to get a car over the curb.
Uhhhh, treat me like an adult until I demonstrate otherwise. Tonight I will accompany my wife to some cw dancing. It will be at a bar, I will again be armed, and I will again not drink. Wow, that was easy
“I know if I owned a bar, I’d want guns on or easily accessible to myself and my employees. I don’t think I’d want them on my customers.”
You can post all the signs you want, even put them in all the windows in bright red neon – unless you have armed security at every single entrance and egress point in the establishment, along with metal detectors, you have NO WAY of knowing if anyone there is armed or not. Concealed is concealed.
And even with all that security (Pulse had an armed guard at the door) a determined individual simply eliminates that threat first. Perhaps we should Google the number of bars or clubs where disgruntled (and probably inebriated) customers left the establishment and returned firing rounds through the front door, or from their car as they departed.
The world is a dangerous place. Bars are even more dangerous as in stupid people/stupid places/doing stupid stuff. If armed patrons concern you, go somewhere posted as Gun Free Zone and pretend no one there has a gun.
Not to go all Second Amendment Purist here, well okay, yes I am: There is no qualifier in the Second Amendment about “…unless they are drunk.”
[Not to go all Second Amendment Purist here, well okay, yes I am: There is no qualifier in the Second Amendment about “…unless they are drunk.”]
Nice 🙂
I did solicit the Purist opinion. I like to read it, because I am definitely not a purist according to popular opinion here. I do believe that RKBA is clearly defined and needs no interpretation. With the exception of WMD’s, we should have the right to keep and bear the same arms as our military. The NFA is BS. All laws restricting “assault weapons”, magazine capacity, ammunition purchases, silencers, automatic weapons, etc. are BS. Where I differ from many of you is the concept of regulation. I think the WRM means something. Not only does it spell out the purpose of the amendment – that citizens have the right to be armed to defend ourselves from tyranny – I believe the framers intended some level of control. They were all about checks and balances, after all, with We The People being the ultimate check against the government. That said, I am opposed to permitless carry. I’ve said this in other threads, but I think Missouri made a mistake. Before you all burn me at the stake, this is an opinion shared by many in my demographic – that being mostly white, suburban males who earn good livings, and who are largely Republican or Libertarian. The concept of people with guns doesn’t frighten us. We all own guns too. What frightens us is the concept of people arming themselves without any basic training in safety and shooting. That, and the very real threat of a complex legal web that makes it nearly impossible to determine when and where we can carry.
I think WRM means something, and I think the time to define what that means is soon. Define it in no uncertain terms, so that future administrations and courts will have no recourse to alter it. I know some of you believe it is already defined. That WRM has no impact on RKBA. But if that’s the case, why are there still so many conflicting federal and state laws on the books? I say we need to clean it up and make it the same for everyone. So I will say I have a “conservative” rather than a “purist” interpretation. I seek an easy button. What I’d like to see is a simple federal permit. Once We The People have demonstrated basic competency in safely handling and using firearms, we become part of the Well Regulated Militia, and we may then keep and bear whichever and as many firearms as we see fit. Being a federal permit, there would be no reciprocity concerns, no fear of driving into New Jersey and becoming a felon. I could check my gun per TSA instructions when I travel, and could then carry it in California or NYC without worry. I do believe that violent felons should be restricted from bearing arms… for a period of time. But even they should have a review process with the ability to have their rights restored once they have demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation.
The problem with permits (and you seem like a smart guy, so you probably already know this), is that once you’ve given the government the power to decide who can and can’t be armed, the game is over. You’re relying on the government to “do the right thing” and not incrementally increase the difficulty of obtaining such a permit over time, until it’s virtually impossible to get one. If we had a trustworthy government that had shown a willingness to behave itself and treat its citizens fairly and in good faith and stay within the limits prescribed to it, permits wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. But we don’t have such a government, and my libertarian beliefs lead me to suspect that crafting such a government is highly improbable, and probably impossible.
Then again, the most dangerous people with guns aren’t going to get permits anyway, because they’re criminals. The number of people killed and injured by negligent gun handling from law-abiding concealed carriers (even in places with permitless constitutional carry) is a tiny fraction of those killed and injured (intentionally or otherwise) by gangbangers and other criminal shitheads.
Definitely true, and a big part of the reason why I said the time to seek favorable clarity will be soon. After the last election, the Fed appears to be headed back towards freedom (at least where 2A is concerned – If I was gay or a woman, I don’t think I’d feel like the incoming administration had my freedom in mind). Assuming the SCOTUS appointment goes as planned, all three branches will be favorable to 2A. That’s why I propose we do more than just clear out the laws that are blatant infringements, because that won’t be enough. The next administration could just come along and put them right back in place. I don’t trust the Fed to do anything right, except collect my taxes. And they seem to even have problems doing that correctly. My goal with a federal permit is simply to make sure the same protections and rules apply evenly to everyone in every state. I don’t like confusion, and I hate red tape. I despise laws that are blatantly written by lawyers for lawyers to keep lawyers employed (e.g. every single damned law in California). I just want to know what I need to do in order to own a gun and carry a gun wherever I live or visit. It should be easy, and it should be the same everywhere. Get pulled over in Illinois on my way up to my family farm and asked, “Is there a gun in the car?” “Yes, officer. Here is my permit, and I have seven guns in the car, because I’m planning to do a little target practice this weekend, and I haven’t fired a few of these guys in a long time.” Same deal if I get pulled over on my way to dinner in Missouri with just my EDC on my person. I think everyone here would agree that it should be that easy everywhere, except some of you would leave out the “here is my permit” part.
One would think that a 2A-friendly House and Senate should be able to draft a well-worded and precise bill for new federal law, a 2A-friendly president should sign that bill, and a 2A-friendly SCOTUS should strike down conflicting laws.
“One would think that a 2A-friendly House and Senate should be able to draft a well-worded and precise bill for new federal law, a 2A-friendly president should sign that bill, and a 2A-friendly SCOTUS should strike down conflicting laws.”
Yep. But what happens when some or all of those bodies switch to 2A-unfriendly majorities, and you’ve established legal precedent that the 2A is in fact subject to “reasonable restrictions” such as requiring a federal permit to carry? Gun-friendly Republicans won’t be in charge forever.
The reason the 2A is such an important legal construct is because, as an amendment to the constitution, it has far greater protections than any ordinary federal law. It takes a tremendous effort to override or repeal a provision of our constitution, whereas your proposed federal carry permit law could be repealed by only 50.1% of Congress and a willing president. But the 2A only has that strength if we accept it as an absolute restriction on government power. Otherwise, it will just be chipped away at a little at a time (i.e., NFA, GCA, FOPA, federal AWB, etc).
cjstl,
Here is the trouble with your position:
You don’t trust people to follow the law …
(Patrons will assault/batter patrons in bars.)
You do trust people to follow the law …
(Patrons will leave their firearms in their cars.)
You don’t trust people to follow the law …
(Armed patrons will shoot fighting patrons.)
You do trust people to follow the law …
(Patrons who left their firearms in their cars will not go to their cars to retrieve their firearms to shoot fighting patrons.)
Your position is not in the slightest bit self-consistent and fails to persuade people as a result.
I believe the more accurate description of your position is that you do NOT trust anyone and advocate for laws that appear to minimize the damage that occurs when untrustworthy people inevitably break the law. And that would almost be great except:
(1) People who are all-too-happy to start a bar fight have no regard for the law since attacking others in a bar fight entails serious felonies. If they have no regard the law, they will carry concealed into a bar anyway. Or they will go to their car and bring their firearm back into the bar. Either way, laws which prohibit carry in bars will not reduce damage.
(2) A state law that prohibits bearing arms at a bar violates the private property rights of that bar. Maybe that bar has patrons who are absolutely in control and NEVER attack others. Why shouldn’t such responsible patrons have the choice to be armed? And what about patrons who do not consume any alcohol? Why shouldn’t they have the choice to be armed?
Finally, look at it this way. If we trust someone in a party to be the designated driver and NOT consume alcohol, why don’t we trust someone in a party to be a designated protector and NOT consume alcohol?
I understand your uneasiness with armed patrons in bars. That does not justify infringing on MY right to self-defense. If you are uneasy about armed patrons in bars, then do not go to bars.
In the spirit of the article, I was trying to look at it from the position of a business owner (specifically a bar owner), who would be forced by law to allow patrons to carry in his establishment. I picked a bar, because that’s one of the few places where I could see any significant potential drawback. On a personal level, I do try to avoid placing myself in situations that pose an appreciable risk to my safety. As “Son of Alan” said, my argument does fall into some of the talking points of the antis. But if none of their talking points had merit, only the truly stupid would ever listen to them.
I don’t think I was exhibiting a lack of consistency in my argument. I think people will generally follow the law, but I don’t trust people not to occasionally do stupid things. And the risk that they will do something stupid goes up significantly when alcohol, drugs, and women are involved 😉
The suggestion that some supplementary laws might help in the event the government were to force all establishments that serve the public to allow weapons was born from the fact that good people still have that inkling of conscience, even through a cloud of inebriation. As someone mentioned, some states already have laws against brandishing weapons. If you knew that it would get you in trouble to draw you weapon when you weren’t under threat, you would have that hesitation to pull it out even if you were sloshed, and that could save some people from making bad decisions. Similar to that moment where you think you probably could drive home, but you decide to call a cab instead. How many lives have been saved because we actually listened when that little voice in the back of our minds told us that what we were about to do was wrong?
You can be sure that if his corporate donors requested regulations intended to put small business competitors out of business, he’d pass it in a heart beat “for the children.”
If the government can force a person to bake you a cake then certainly they can make sure your constitutional rights are protected. That said at some both are moronic.
Nothing personal but I need help with this one
Same.
Attorney Schnitzel makes me nostalgic for the days when I was practicing law and getting paid big bucks to make sh!t up.
Good times.
It’s so amazing that he is so ignorant that he thinks that people will actually follow the law.
No! No! No! I got the message…This whole issue is to attack people where they live…This is back to the severely flawed arguments that a Landlords, private business property owners, or property management companies can “ban, prohibit, restrict” any US citizens Lawful Constitutional rights under our US Constitutional-Bill of Rights…That this BS twisted logic would prevent any form of weapons ownership. My elderly veteran dad has gone through this in his retirement home in Massachusetts. Where the property management company told all their elderly residents thorough intimidation that the 2nd amendment didn’t exist on their property…No weapons of any kind (legal,or not. No firearms ,no knife collections, no swords, no bats, no anything that is, or could be used as a weapon!) My father is a retired 2nd in command, a ex-LT. for an armed private detachment of security officers for a gated community, and also worked on city hospital’s internal security/police force for many years as well …My dad has a lot of Law Enforcement training from over the years…And when he came across this issue…Even he thought he woke up in the “Weimar Republic, or Nazi Germany!” He argued with these management people for a year…Told them to go ahead and try to enforce it…Imagine elderly veterans on the twlight of their years being threatened and intimidated with fabricated evictions for exercising their 2nd amendment rights in a dwelling they pay for on a retirement budget! Now these management folks didn’t stop there…It 1st started as a “no smoking policy”. Then it expanded to religious items near common areas, next to your front door…Then the 2nd amendment rights of old folks….And as my dad said the next stop is your underwear draw…Look out!!! Stop your civil rights from being reasoned away !!!!
Remember this to allow landlords to do the dirty job of the government to “prohit, restrict, or ban” your 2nd amendment rights through an apartment, or condo renters lease…Under the false ideology that the landlord is like your parents when you were a kid…So ypur sleeping under their roof ..So they can “restrict, ban ,prohit” anything they please without recourse…This stuff has been going in Massachusetts for a bit….And don’t think homeowners are immune….Banks supposedly can have a say too….home insurance…..Attack you where you live….!
Divide and conquer ! The oldest trick in The book!
Property rights? Regulation destroys rights. Any regulation that says you can or cannot have a gun on private property is a violation of someone’s right to enjoy their property.
Gun free zones are areas where the government is regulating the use of said property. If that property is owned by a private citizen or another legal entity they are forcing the owner to adopt the regulation. It is up to the owner to establish what can or cannot be done on that property.
That is the opposite of property rights last I checked.
If the land is owned by the government that made the regulation, the situation changes. The regulation should be what the people that are citizens of that government want.
In the case of our Government in the US, those regulations are limited to the powers afforded it by it’s founding documents regardless of what the “people” want. The US Constitution, the specific State Constitution, etc…
In this argument, our Government is prohibited from infringing on the rights of it’s citizens to bear arms. Period.
In general, this means that smoking laws on private business property are wrong. That zoning laws restrict property rights. So does most other laws that deal with real estate. Does he understand the implications of his argument?
One more reason we should go with Henry George and have all property owned by a foundation of all the people, each with one (non-salable) share. So long as citizens have to pay government for the privilege of having land, in practice the government actually owns it and so can set restrictions. If we the people owned all the land through a foundation that was not part of the government, and the government had to pay rent, then titles to land issued by that foundation would give stronger property rights than we have at present. Then the government would be renting its land from us, and we could tell THEM how land is to be used, not the other way around.
Better yet – If you advertise that you have a gun free property, you are responsable for damage to anyone who comes on your property that may have been stopped if they had a gun.
Comments are closed.