An argument against 30.06

[Embalmo]

Yea, and the "ideology versus reality" debate ultimately proves that 30.06 posted establishments welcome criminals with guns and forbids everyone else from defending themselves; which is why I see it as so discriminatory. I guess I should have begun this debate with the disclaimer that I am am absolute realist, and I abhor debating in the abstract. I often say that every liberal sentiment should begin with the phrase, "In a perfect world..."

Embalmo

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

or "in my world"

[RPB]

No smoking ....

When the "No Smoking in elevators" law passed, it was a defense if there was no ashtray/no place to extinguish your cigar prior to entering/getting on the elevator.

This all reminds me of before Gilley's in Pasadena closed ... hand-lettered sign advises patrons to check guns, knives, chains, knucks, all your weapons at the front door.

They provided a place to "extinguish your smoke" with the hat-check-girl/coat-check-girl/weapon-check-girl ...

I"m tempted to go to a 30.06 place and while standing outside the door waving a few thousand in hundred dollar bills and hollar in the door to the owner "WHAT YOU WAN'T ME TO DO?" ... (and when he comes closer) ... "since you won't allow me in and YOU have no place to check my gun?" ... I'm tempted, now all I need is .... few thousand in hundred dollar bills. (and .... a place with a 30.06 sign, because no one in my city has one posted... they all got better sense than that.)

[frazzled]

No smoking ....

When the "No Smoking in elevators" law passed, it was a defense if there was no ashtray/no place to extinguish your cigar prior to entering/getting on the elevator.

This all reminds me of before Gilley's in Pasadena closed ... hand-lettered sign advises patrons to check guns, knives, chains, knucks, all your weapons at the front door.

They provided a place to "extinguish your smoke" with the hat-check-girl/coat-check-girl/weapon-check-girl ...

I"m tempted to go to a 30.06 place and while standing outside the door waving a few thousand in hundred dollar bills and hollar in the door to the owner "WHAT YOU WAN'T ME TO DO?" ... (and when he comes closer) ... "since you won't allow me in and YOU have no place to check my gun?" ... I'm tempted, now all I need is .... few thousand in hundred dollar bills. (and .... a place with a 30.06 sign, because no one in my city has one posted... they all got better sense than that.)

You know I've only seen one 30.06 sign actually. Lots of the "no unlicensed carry" signs and one 51% sign (I don't look for 51% signs so could be more) but only one 30.06 and none of the mythical gunbuster signs.

[A-R]

Your right to defend yourself is utterly irrelevant when compared to my rights to my property and my right to exclude you from it.
You may disagree but too bad. Thats free rights of private ownership, contract, and a thousand years of stare decisis against, well nothing. You have no rights here.

Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves? I mean, the Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In fact, some early declaration of rights amongst the colonists did specify "life, liberty, property" but this was revised in Jefferson's sentence of a lifetime to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_libe ... _happiness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, in my humble opinion, our rights to "life" and the protection of that right and of our lives trumps ANY right to property. Your property is NOT more important than my life. Period.

Examples:
You have no right to knowingly allow dangerous activity or hazards on your publicly accessible property. Don't believe me? Go ask the next property manager you find about "slip and fall" hazards and proactive mitigation. Go ask about mold, and asbestos, and countless other hazards for which you as property owner WILL BE HELD LIABLE if you do not take steps to properly mitigate. To say nothing of compliance with ADA and other Federal, state, and local building codes and regulations.

So why then does a property owner have the right to prevent me from defending myself? To, in effect, declare his property a gun-free zone of defenseless victims in waiting? Because the worst (as Embalmo eluded to) has not yet happened to a CHLee who was denied his right to carry and subsequently killed or severely injured in an attack he could have defended against if he'd had his weapon.

[srothstein]

Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves?

I don't know about him, but I can. All I need to do is to point out that the Constitution only protects you from GOVERNMENTAL infringement on any of your rights. Other people can infringe on them all they want and it is not illegal nor a violation of the Constitution. So, if it is my property, my rights trump ALL of yours. If it is public property, our rights are equal. If it is your property, your rights trump all of mine.

And the more I think about it, the more I am willing to bet we all learned this very principle at home from our parents, and taught it to our kids. At least, if you are my age, I am confident your parents at one time said something along the lines of "my house, my rules." The principle still applies.

[A-R]

Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves?

I don't know about him, but I can. All I need to do is to point out that the Constitution only protects you from GOVERNMENTAL infringement on any of your rights. Other people can infringe on them all they want and it is not illegal nor a violation of the Constitution. So, if it is my property, my rights trump ALL of yours. If it is public property, our rights are equal. If it is your property, your rights trump all of mine.

And the more I think about it, the more I am willing to bet we all learned this very principle at home from our parents, and taught it to our kids. At least, if you are my age, I am confident your parents at one time said something along the lines of "my house, my rules." The principle still applies.

Steve, I understand your point. I really do. But how to do you explain all the other "rules" for property owners who willingly open their property to the general public? When I talk about my rights vs a property owners rights, understand I'm not talking about truly "private" property like your house or your ranch land. I'm talking about property that they owner has willfully opened to the general public, such as a store or restaurant. Even with such "semi-public" property, I fully understand the owner's right to throw me out for most any reason. I just don't see how that right extends to his ability to post a sign (no matter how problematic) that in effect makes me a criminal if I walk past it while exercising my right to defend myself.

That just swings the delicate pendulum too far toward the property owner's rights over my rights. I think we all agree that all rights are a balancing act - my rights stop where yours begin, and vice versa.

And believe me, I'm a HUGE proponent of property rights. I think emminent domain is a violation of private property rights. I think homeowners associations and zoning are a violation of private property rights. But those are all allowed because "we the people" have collectively agreed to these infringements. So why is it so hard to envision a day when "we the people" collectively agree that my rights to self-defense trump anyone's rights to absolute reign over property that is willfully open to the general public.

[Embalmo]

Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves?

I don't know about him, but I can. All I need to do is to point out that the Constitution only protects you from GOVERNMENTAL infringement on any of your rights. Other people can infringe on them all they want and it is not illegal nor a violation of the Constitution. So, if it is my property, my rights trump ALL of yours. If it is public property, our rights are equal. If it is your property, your rights trump all of mine.

And the more I think about it, the more I am willing to bet we all learned this very principle at home from our parents, and taught it to our kids. At least, if you are my age, I am confident your parents at one time said something along the lines of "my house, my rules." The principle still applies.

The problem with this analogy is that we're not talking about private residences, we are talking about places that are completely open to the public, so as we enter these places open to the public, we are put in danger of becoming a victim of crime. As we all know, in reality, a 30.06 sign invites illegal carry and prohibits legal self defence. Let's get away from the "piece of property" mentality and look toward a reality like a dark hospital parking garage or a mall full of gang bangers.

Embalmo

[RPB]

I think on February 1, 1960, that FW Woolworth owned the property the lunch counter was on in Greensboro, North Carolina, that tried to excercise a "right" to essentially refuse service to certain people, ...
yet the government later infringed upon Woolworth's (property owner) rights in order to protect the right of those hungry peoples' rights of Liberty and the Pursuit of Hamburgers.
So, business property owners rights don't *always" reign supreme over other individuals rights utilizing that business property.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I am in complete agreeance with Embalmo and Ausitn.

We are talking about public property. You may own that property but you are inviting the public in and in turn taking responsibility for them.

As they said before...If I get a virus from your establishment due to something you did or did not do you will be held liable.

So why is it then that you can deny me the right to defend myself but if I get hurt or killed you are not held liable?

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't know about him, but I can. All I need to do is to point out that the Constitution only protects you from GOVERNMENTAL infringement on any of your rights. Other people can infringe on them all they want and it is not illegal nor a violation of the Constitution. So, if it is my property, my rights trump ALL of yours. If it is public property, our rights are equal. If it is your property, your rights trump all of mine.

That about sums up my feelings in the matter.

Frazzled, to austinrealtor's point, right now, the only way you have of knowing whether anybody around your kids is armed is to pat them all down. Obviously, you can't do that in public, and you'll alienate all your friends and family members if you do it to them in either your or their homes. And if you can't pat them down, then you have to rely only on the law to make sure that nobody is armed around your kids. Fine so far.... as far as that goes....

I understand your (admirable) desire to be your childrens' protector. But consider the following: off campus, anyone around your kids who is armed with a concealed weapon will be either A) a criminal; or B) a CHL holder; or C) an undercover/plainclothes LEO. On campus, it will likely be A) a criminal. That's it, because a law abiding CHL holder is going to disarm before entering the premises, and last I heard, undercover cops aren't working too many drug stings in grammar schools these days. So, barring CHL access to school campuses actually works against your childrens' safety, not in favor of it.

To the point that some CHL holders are yahoos, sure, it's true. But most aren't, and to a greater degree than the general public. CHL crime stats empirically back this up. We commit crimes at a lower rate than the non-CHL public. That is a provable fact. So, empirically, are your kids more safe around CHL holders, or are they safer around non-CHL holders? If you put aside the emotional freight for a minute and consider the facts, and only the facts, the answer is self-evident.

Just a few thoughts...

[frazzled]

Your right to defend yourself is utterly irrelevant when compared to my rights to my property and my right to exclude you from it.
You may disagree but too bad. Thats free rights of private ownership, contract, and a thousand years of stare decisis against, well nothing. You have no rights here.

Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves? I mean, the Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In fact, some early declaration of rights amongst the colonists did specify "life, liberty, property" but this was revised in Jefferson's sentence of a lifetime to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_libe ... _happiness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, in my humble opinion, our rights to "life" and the protection of that right and of our lives trumps ANY right to property. Your property is NOT more important than my life. Period.

Examples:
You have no right to knowingly allow dangerous activity or hazards on your publicly accessible property. Don't believe me? Go ask the next property manager you find about "slip and fall" hazards and proactive mitigation. Go ask about mold, and asbestos, and countless other hazards for which you as property owner WILL BE HELD LIABLE if you do not take steps to properly mitigate. To say nothing of compliance with ADA and other Federal, state, and local building codes and regulations.

So why then does a property owner have the right to prevent me from defending myself? To, in effect, declare his property a gun-free zone of defenseless victims in waiting? Because the worst (as Embalmo eluded to) has not yet happened to a CHLee who was denied his right to carry and subsequently killed or severely injured in an attack he could have defended against if he'd had his weapon.

Contract rights to property were proteced by the merry King of England long before the right to self defense was made (unless you were a royal of course). Property right were the bedrock of their culture and trumped all considerations. Similarly rights of the government (in this case the King) were established in a modern context with the Normans. Spanish (aka Napoleonic Code) laws also reflects the primacy of the government

It would be easier for those arguing with me to show an instance in law where someone's (a civilian's) right to carry trumped the property rights of an owner.

I understand your (admirable) desire to be your childrens' protector. But consider the following: off campus, anyone around your kids who is armed with a concealed weapon will be either A) a criminal; or B) a CHL holder; or C) an undercover/plainclothes LEO. On campus, it will likely be A) a criminal. That's it, because a law abiding CHL holder is going to disarm before entering the premises, and last I heard, undercover cops aren't working too many drug stings in grammar schools these days. So, barring CHL access to school campuses actually works against your childrens' safety, not in favor of it.

Annoyed, I think thats a different thread. but as noted in that thread, thats the reason I am ambivalent about the issue. I'd rather debate that on that thread if needed as I'm moving on from this thread. I was done afetr the wife/rape post.

[A-R]

Your right to defend yourself is utterly irrelevant when compared to my rights to my property and my right to exclude you from it.
You may disagree but too bad. Thats free rights of private ownership, contract, and a thousand years of stare decisis against, well nothing. You have no rights here.

Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves? I mean, the Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In fact, some early declaration of rights amongst the colonists did specify "life, liberty, property" but this was revised in Jefferson's sentence of a lifetime to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_libe ... _happiness" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, in my humble opinion, our rights to "life" and the protection of that right and of our lives trumps ANY right to property. Your property is NOT more important than my life. Period.

Examples:
You have no right to knowingly allow dangerous activity or hazards on your publicly accessible property. Don't believe me? Go ask the next property manager you find about "slip and fall" hazards and proactive mitigation. Go ask about mold, and asbestos, and countless other hazards for which you as property owner WILL BE HELD LIABLE if you do not take steps to properly mitigate. To say nothing of compliance with ADA and other Federal, state, and local building codes and regulations.

So why then does a property owner have the right to prevent me from defending myself? To, in effect, declare his property a gun-free zone of defenseless victims in waiting? Because the worst (as Embalmo eluded to) has not yet happened to a CHLee who was denied his right to carry and subsequently killed or severely injured in an attack he could have defended against if he'd had his weapon.

Contract rights to property were proteced by the merry King of England long before the right to self defense was made (unless you were a royal of course). Property right were the bedrock of their culture and trumped all considerations. Similarly rights of the government (in this case the King) were established in a modern context with the Normans. Spanish (aka Napoleonic Code) laws also reflects the primacy of the government

It would be easier for those arguing with me to show an instance in law where someone's (a civilian's) right to carry trumped the property rights of an owner.

I understand your (admirable) desire to be your childrens' protector. But consider the following: off campus, anyone around your kids who is armed with a concealed weapon will be either A) a criminal; or B) a CHL holder; or C) an undercover/plainclothes LEO. On campus, it will likely be A) a criminal. That's it, because a law abiding CHL holder is going to disarm before entering the premises, and last I heard, undercover cops aren't working too many drug stings in grammar schools these days. So, barring CHL access to school campuses actually works against your childrens' safety, not in favor of it.

Annoyed, I think thats a different thread. but as noted in that thread, thats the reason I am ambivalent about the issue. I'd rather debate that on that thread if needed as I'm moving on from this thread. I was done afetr the wife/rape post.

Frazzled, all due respect (and I continue starting all my posts with that because I truly do respect your stance and willingness to take such a stance on a gun board )

That said, I don't really care what rights were bestowed upon the commoners by the jolly old King of England. I seem to remember we roundly kicked his derriere in the late 1700s, so the relevant laws start then, not before then. Granted, laws of civilized society before 1776 influenced the crafting of our own Constitution and other founding documents, but what credence they were given is expressed in our laws.

Also, it's a red herring to suggest the only way to debate your point is to provide an example of a civilian gun right trumping a property right. But here's one: the owner of government property in Texas cannot prohibit me from entering said government property by posting 30.06. Now who owns government property? The government? the politicians? the people? ..... i digress

But the point here is that some rights (like the right to life and self defense) are natural and inalienable rights. The right to property is a man-made right, IMHO. Don't remember any deeds of trust or Realtors in the caveman days, but a caveman sure would beat you with a heavy stick if you attacked him.

I digress again

At one point in our recent history an open-to-the-public property owner could prohibit you from entering based on your race/skin color, your disability, even your hair style "get outta here you darn hippy!" ... but when this ability to prohibit entry became criminally enforceable (Jim Crow laws), the people wisely rose up to say "enough is enough".

Now, despite this suppsedly absolute right of property owners to do as they see fit on their OTTP property, they cannot (by law) exclude based on race, disability, even DOGS must be allowed to enter if their purpose is to lead the blind.

But I realize it's a stretch to compare CHL to race or disability as a sort of "protected class" so let me try this one more theory on for size ...

If you post a sign that says "no tatoos in my restaurant" because you want to keep out bikers and other riff-raff, would a guy with a tatoo on his back completely concealed by his shirt be breaking any law (including trespassing 30.05) if he were to enter this restaurant? Now, obviously, if he removed his shirt and showed his tatoo and the owner told him to leave and he refused, OK he's now trespassing. But as long as he minds his own business, doesn't cause trouble, and keeps his tatoo concealed - he's not breaking any law (that I know of - IANAL).

What about a "no weapons" generic sign and a guy walks in carrying a 3-inch bladed Swiss Army knife concealed in his pocket?
What about a "no cell phones" sign and a guy walks in carrying a cell phone in his pocket with the ringer turned off?

So why is it different for those who legally carry concealed weapons? As long as we remain concealed why not just leave it as "what they don't know can't hurt them". Why make it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE to merely enter a building while carrying a weapon?

[Purplehood]

I like the Tattoo analogy.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I do too (tatoo) and very well put Austin!