frazzled wrote:austinrealtor wrote:frazzled wrote: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?
