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.
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