Frankly, although I consider myself a fairly hardcore gun rights advocate, I am torn when it comes to this kind of law. I cannot easily dismiss the argument that a property owner has the right to prohibit pretty much anything on his or her property, and that those who find such prohibitions unacceptable have the option of not going there. On the other hand, some argue that fundamental human rights--and the right of self-defense (and the most effective means of its exercise) certainly ranks among those--are always inviolate, and that property owners cannot legitimately demand the surrender of such rights, even on their own property. It's always a dilemma when rights collide. [More]Please have a look at today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column, and help spread the word.
Digg me?
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Atlanta ammunition supply is severely constrained
- Austin: Los Angeles Times: Renewed ‘assault weapons’ ban won’t help Mexico’s war against drug cartels
- Charlotte: Is Obama trying to end armed airline pilot program?
- Cleveland: No net loss for gun rights
- DC: DC City Council afflicted by pistolgriphobia
- Denver: Economics 101: guns and monkeymeat
- Los Angeles: Ya gotta wonder why they want to take the guns at all, Part II
- Milwaukee: One year ago today, DC v. Heller
- Minneapolis: 'From my cold dead hands' and gun-owner apathy
- National: No shortage of gun rights news
- Seattle: Feds assure Fox News armed pilot program is safe; 65 Dems will oppose AWB
- Wisconsin: Why does your health data get reported
Stumble it!
6 comments:
I agree the property owner should have control of what is allowed on their property. However, I think you have a right to defend yourself no matter where you are. If the property owner is willing to take responsibility for personal defense then fine, but I doubt anyone will want their company to do that. If they think an employee is dangerous then that employee shouldn't work there; gun or no gun.
Kurt, just for the sake of accuracy, it was the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (an appellate federal court) which upheld the Oklahoma law allowing firearms in vehicles, even if on an employer's property. The district court judge (who's decision was overturned by the 10th Circuit) had held that general safety considerations under OSHA conflicted with the state law. It was a clear case of result-driven "jurisprudence" at the district court level. The analysis of the district court was really pretty laughable, and the 10th Circuit called him on it.
Allthewayto11
Doh! That was sloppy of me. Thanks for the correction.
As regards this issue in respect to privately owned vehicles on company parking lots this is not a property rights versus gun rights issue. It is a property rights versus propery rights issue.
Firstly employee parking lots are quasi-public. The people who park in them are almost always there at invitation whether they be employees, visitors, vendors, or customers. That employer designated use of that lot makes it public access. No entity has the right to curtail your rights in public or on your own really private property. One leg gone.
Secondly, almost all parking lots of businesses are "dedicated". What that means is that even though upkeep for the lot remains with the owner, for other purposes such as traffic law enforcement etc. the lot has been dedicated to the authority of the local and/or state government. Where law enforcement and authority of the state is provided for, so is it necessary that the rights of the individual citizen be observed. Another leg gone.
My home is surrounded on all sides by the property of others, I bet yours is too. Everyone of you. That does not give those other property owners the right to conrol your private property. Absolutely no difference in principle between you car being surrounded by someone else's property and your home being surrounded by someone else's propery. They are both still your property with all the attendant rights that go with it. No more legs to cut off, so its time to be careful here. Since they already don't have a leg to stand on when they interfere in what is not their business.
This is a property v.property issue. There is no confusion on principle here. The confusion comes when as a people we have been indoctrinated to believe that the more powerful entity has the right to rule over us and are entitled to more rights than we.
It has become almost unimaginable that a large corporation, or state office is no more entitled to extra rights and reign over others than any single individual. The key word is entitled, we all know they wield extra power because they can and do buy people, but we let them. We have become so fearful of power in the hands of business or state that we acquiesce to their demands without a thought as to whether they even have the right to make the demand.
That fear of retribution for disobedience is legitimate. The kneeling to it is not. That is how we got here.
Kurt, thanks for your all your work for our self defense rights.
I have heard there is a movement to make clear to the government that there will be massive civil disobedience to any new gun licensing, registration or bans or the like. People are going to refuse to register, license or surrender "banned" guns. They are just excuses for eventual confiscation. Have you heard of this? What would the government forces do if 50 million gun owners refused to comply with their laws? They would have to go house to house and try and confiscate them by armed force. I am afraid this would lead to a civil war. It would be terrible, with perhaps millions of deaths. I hope the democrats realize their schemes are not worth it. Any coverage of this growing movement would be great. Thanks!
Thanks, Anon.
As for massive civil disobedience by gun owners, I'm not getting my hopes up. It's hard enough to motivate masses of gun owners to call their congresscritters--to expect them to engage in activism that carries real risk of real sacrifice strikes me as overly optimistic.
I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
Post a Comment