AZ moves to allow carrying in bars

[mr.72]

Are YOU against the right of the bar owner to exclude persons from his establishment?

The 51% law does not accomplish this. In fact the 51% law removes the right of the bar owner to allow people who might be lawfully carrying into their bar. The 30.06 posting provision allows the bar owner to prohibit carrying guns on their property.

The fact that bars are high-crime areas is precisely why law-abiding people should be able to protect themselves in those areas by carrying a gun. Are we to outlaw guns in all high-crime areas? Then what would be the point of carrying a gun?

[frazzled]

I'll restate the question. Assume its legal to carry in bars, as I have stated I am ok with.

Are you against the bar owners being able to exclude firearms?

[mr.72]

I'll restate the question. Assume its legal to carry in bars, as I have stated I am ok with.

Are you against the bar owners being able to exclude firearms?

That is a philosophical question and not a legal question, irrelevant to this discussion.

But I'll bite. I believe that basic rights to life and to defend one's life are greater than the rights of a property owner, and it is irrelevant whether the property in question is a bar or a mall or whatever. I believe that self defense is a civil right. So I think that prohibiting people from equipping themselves to defend their lives by all means necessary in order to enter a business that is otherwise open to the public is just as wrong (morally, if not yet legally) as prohibiting blacks or women or Christians or Democrats.

If it is a private home or office without any assumption to being open to the public then you, as the property owner, can exclude anyone you like for any reason whatsoever. That includes blacks, women, Christians, Democrats, people with blue eyes, your mother-in-law, people wearing underwear, whatever. Or those carrying guns. But once you unlock the door and put up the "OPEN" sign then all bets are off. Even your mother-in-law can come in.

[frazzled]

But I'll bite. I believe that basic rights to life and to defend one's life are greater than the rights of a property owner, and it is irrelevant whether the property in question is a bar or a mall or whatever. I believe that self defense is a civil right. So I think that prohibiting people from equipping themselves to defend their lives by all means necessary in order to enter a business that is otherwise open to the public is just as wrong (morally, if not yet legally) as prohibiting blacks or women or Christians or Democrats.

Thats pretty extreme. To argue that your rights trump the rights of the property owner is...interesting. The right of property owners to exclude weapons has been around since, well England. Thats contrary to US legal tradition since before there was a USA.

[mr.72]

Thats pretty extreme. To argue that your rights trump the rights of the property owner is...interesting. The right of property owners to exclude weapons has been around since, well England. Thats contrary to US legal tradition since before there was a USA.

Well the right of the government to exclude your free exercise of religion or ability to elect your own representative government was also around since England. That doesn't make it right.

And the right for you to own slaves was also around up until the 1860s. Again, just because we did it, does not make it right.

I don't understand how we think that a property owner's rights automatically trump the rights of individual persons over their own personal effects.

[frazzled]

I don't understand how we think that a property owner's rights automatically trump the rights of individual persons over their own personal effects.

Because its THEIR property. You're saying your rights are more important than theirs and mine. Please cite for me any time in history where you've had the right to carry a weapon onto private property against the owner's wishes in Western Civilization?

[mr.72]

Because its THEIR property. You're saying your rights are more important than theirs and mine. Please cite for me any time in history where you've had the right to carry a weapon onto private property against the owner's wishes in Western Civilization?

I am making a distinction between private property vs. a piece of property which is open to the public.

And I am saying that MY PHYSICAL PERSON AND THE CLOTHING ON MY BACK are MY PROPERTY and you, as a property owner, cannot violate my own right to my own property, which may include a gun.

It does not appear to me that your property rights are any more valuable than are mine. If you choose to close your property to the public and screen those whom you allow in to the property then you can control it however you like. But (again in my admittedly idealistic, unrealistic, libertarian mind) once the doors are open to the public then you are granting them license to exercise their normal civil rights inherent to their own person when entering your property. I include self-defense among these civil rights.

[frazzled]

Because its THEIR property. You're saying your rights are more important than theirs and mine. Please cite for me any time in history where you've had the right to carry a weapon onto private property against the owner's wishes in Western Civilization?

I am making a distinction between private property vs. a piece of property which is open to the public.

And I am saying that MY PHYSICAL PERSON AND THE CLOTHING ON MY BACK are MY PROPERTY and you, as a property owner, cannot violate my own right to my own property, which may include a gun.

It does not appear to me that your property rights are any more valuable than are mine. If you choose to close your property to the public and screen those whom you allow in to the property then you can control it however you like. But (again in my admittedly idealistic, unrealistic, libertarian mind) once the doors are open to the public then you are granting them license to exercise their normal civil rights inherent to their own person when entering your property. I include self-defense among these civil rights.

Your argument makes no sense.
Its still PRIVATE PROPERTY. Its THEIR private property. You're now telling them what to do with THEIR private property. They are not telling you what to do with yours. With very few exceptions, fundamental rights cannot be forced onto private property owners.
Unlike skin color, you can change it and not bring a weapon in. Its your complete and utter option.
Its not an accomodation. Its a private bar. I'll restate. Its a private bar.
Its the same as any other right. Private property owners can limit your speech, assembly, right to worship, access, etc. etc.

Under your argument, the Moonies have an absolute right to have moonie conventions in a bar too, and distribute Moonie religious literature. Hey its a fundamental right.

The American Communist (or Nazi) Party can force a bar to accomodate them-hey the right of free speech and assembly is a fundamental right.

I have my rights. You have yours. Don't intrude on mine. If you don't like it, stay off my property.

[joe817]

And the current conditions at DFW International Airport....... parttt---lly cloudy, tem per a ture is 94 degrees with barometric pressure 29.99" and steady. Expect a high today near 102. Heat index values as high as 105. Calm wind becoming east southeast around 5 mph.

Come on guys, let's don't get into an argument of ideology, or personal philosophies. We're here to have fun and learn, k?

Thanx,
Joe

[frazzled]

Word. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

In 52 hours the grills get dragged around to the front of the house and lit to start the Block Party. Burgers, dogs, snowcones, and giant rented water slide. VIVA LA INDEPENDENCE!

[joe817]

Eggsactly frazzeled! God bless us all, everyone!

[frazzled]

I see your and raise you an agree

The burger burn/homemade margarita clock is ticking