2nd amend becoming meaningless

[chuck j]

The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?

Goofy topic , only to incite endless argument .

[android]

So far, the government's answer has been that property owner's rights trump individuals rights, unless of course, we are talking about the right to have a cake made for your gay wedding, or the right to eat at the same counter as people of a different race. The government views these as more important than the right to property ownership, and so property owners are forced, ultimately at the point of a gun, to give in to these demands. A citizen's right to keep and bear arms is viewed by the government as being less important than these other rights so property owners are not forced to accommodate this right. At least for now.

My personal opinion is that CONCEALED CARRY should be treated no differently than any other PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION protected class. That is how many other states, FL for example, handle concealed carry on private property OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

We don't have that protection in TX though.

[ScottDLS]

So far, the government's answer has been that property owner's rights trump individuals rights, unless of course, we are talking about the right to have a cake made for your gay wedding, or the right to eat at the same counter as people of a different race. The government views these as more important than the right to property ownership, and so property owners are forced, ultimately at the point of a gun, to give in to these demands. A citizen's right to keep and bear arms is viewed by the government as being less important than these other rights so property owners are not forced to accommodate this right. At least for now.

My personal opinion is that CONCEALED CARRY should be treated no differently than any other PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION protected class. That is how many other states, FL for example, handle concealed carry on private property OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

We don't have that protection in TX though.

Florida might be about to change that, which would really be a shame.

[Nortex]

The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?

Goofy topic , only to incite endless argument .

I don't think so at all. The OP didn't understand his right and we explained it. Not goofy at all.

[rotor]

Property owners have rights. Who owns the post office and other government land? Don't the people own it? So why can't I at least carry in a post office parking lot? Just being devils advocate.

[chuck j]

Someone old enough to carry and doesn't understand basic property rights ?

[Breny414]

Property owners have rights. Who owns the post office and other government land? Don't the people own it? So why can't I at least carry in a post office parking lot? Just being devils advocate.

Thankfully, I don't have much of a need to go to the post office much anymore.

[WildBill]

Replying to the OP - The 2nd Amendment is not becoming meaningless.
There have been some set backs and legal battles, but overall I think our rights to keep and bear and carry arms have vastly improved and are continuing to improve.

The property rights issues have been adequately explained.

[thetexan]

The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?

We dont have an inherent right to be on someone else's private property. Since most of the places we go everyday are privately owned the owners of those places have the final say. This is an ancient common law property right centuries old. When we pump gas at a gas station we do so with the consent or effective consent of the owner who can retract or modify that consent at his discretion. His only requirement is to do so according to the law.

tex

[Scott Farkus]

We dont have an inherent right to be on someone else's private property. Since most of the places we go everyday are privately owned the owners of those places have the final say. This is an ancient common law property right centuries old. When we pump gas at a gas station we do so with the consent or effective consent of the owner who can retract or modify that consent at his discretion. His only requirement is to do so according to the law.

tex

Right, and the law already dictates hundreds if not thousands of things that an owner of commercial property cannot do. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that "cannot exclude licensed concealed carriers" be added to that list. We've already done it to parking lot owners, which is why the argument that private property rights trump all doesn't really fly with me.

OP, as mentioned, there have been a number of threads about this and I don't want to reiterate the arguments here. Suffice it to say that I and others have been wondering aloud the same things you did in your post, and I'm glad to see this idea starting to gain traction.

[Breny414]

We dont have an inherent right to be on someone else's private property. Since most of the places we go everyday are privately owned the owners of those places have the final say. This is an ancient common law property right centuries old. When we pump gas at a gas station we do so with the consent or effective consent of the owner who can retract or modify that consent at his discretion. His only requirement is to do so according to the law.

tex

Right, and the law already dictates hundreds if not thousands of things that an owner of commercial property cannot do. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that "cannot exclude licensed concealed carriers" be added to that list. We've already done it to parking lot owners, which is why the argument that private property rights trump all doesn't really fly with me.

OP, as mentioned, there have been a number of threads about this and I don't want to reiterate the arguments here. Suffice it to say that I and others have been wondering aloud the same things you did in your post, and I'm glad to see this idea starting to gain traction.

I think a parking lot owner CAN prevent you from concealed carry, they just can't prevent you from having a firearm in your vehicle.

[DonFromTexas]

I have trouble understanding all this as well. From reading this then if an armed police officer comes to your door, you can tell him o buzz off and only come back after he has disarmed himself. That don't seem right either.
I think I disagree with the idea presented that the constitution ONLY applies to the government.

[The Annoyed Man]

The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?

Where is the exception to their property rights that you can do whatever you want on their property? Why are their property rights not equal to your gun rights?

They ALSO have the right to eject you from their property for being rude to their other customers, or using bad language toward them, or for spitting on the floor, or simply because they don't like the cut of your jib. ..........OR.......for loudly ranting on about your gun rights on their property. The reality is that the rights of one person often come into conflict with the rights of another person.....and not just related to gun rights. When the rights of one come into conflict with another, then compromise is the only way to make it work, and there can be no compromise if both parties are not willing to be party to it.

If you want people to stop posting signs (like I want them to stop doing), read these two threads and see if those messages make sense to you. Maybe they will help you to see things from a slightly different angle, an angle which will do more to dispel fear of people who carry and build good will between merchants and the carrying community than ranting at them about your rights will do:

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=82354&p=1051802#p1051802

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=82497#p1053974

[Scott Farkus]

Right, and the law already dictates hundreds if not thousands of things that an owner of commercial property cannot do. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that "cannot exclude licensed concealed carriers" be added to that list. We've already done it to parking lot owners, which is why the argument that private property rights trump all doesn't really fly with me.

OP, as mentioned, there have been a number of threads about this and I don't want to reiterate the arguments here. Suffice it to say that I and others have been wondering aloud the same things you did in your post, and I'm glad to see this idea starting to gain traction.

I think a parking lot owner CAN prevent you from concealed carry, they just can't prevent you from having a firearm in your vehicle.

Well, technically they can't keep you from carrying concealed (or maybe even open) inside your car, even if your car is on the parking lot owner's private property, but that's not the point. The point is that even we gun owners are already dictating to certain private property owners what will be allowed on their private property. Why are we willing to impose on property owners when the property is a parking lot, but not when it's a grocery store? That makes no sense to me and completely invalidates the "property rights are sancrosanct" argument.

[Breny414]

Right, and the law already dictates hundreds if not thousands of things that an owner of commercial property cannot do. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that "cannot exclude licensed concealed carriers" be added to that list. We've already done it to parking lot owners, which is why the argument that private property rights trump all doesn't really fly with me.

OP, as mentioned, there have been a number of threads about this and I don't want to reiterate the arguments here. Suffice it to say that I and others have been wondering aloud the same things you did in your post, and I'm glad to see this idea starting to gain traction.

I think a parking lot owner CAN prevent you from concealed carry, they just can't prevent you from having a firearm in your vehicle.

Well, technically they can't keep you from carrying concealed (or maybe even open) inside your car, even if your car is on the parking lot owner's private property, but that's not the point. The point is that even we gun owners are already dictating to certain private property owners what will be allowed on their private property. Why are we willing to impose on property owners when the property is a parking lot, but not when it's a grocery store? That makes no sense to me and completely invalidates the "property rights are sancrosanct" argument.

Well, if property owners could prevent us from carrying in our vehicles on to their property, which is accessible to the public, then they could effectively deny us the right to carry at all. So, that's a non-starter.