Private property: 2A rights vs civil rights

[Liberty1911]

I've been thinking about stores/malls etc. that post signs forbidding guns on their property.

They also, apparently, have the right to ask you to leave if you're carrying a gun and the police will enforce their wishes if called.

Contrast that with civil rights. A store can't put up a sign saying "no blacks allowed", and they can't ask someone to leave because of their race.

Private property owners are bound to respect civil rights, but apparently not 2A rights.

What I'm wondering is, why do you think this is an accepted legal reality?

Should private property rights be paramount? If not, then what's an acceptable reason to force accommodation?

I have my opinions of course, but I'd like to see what others think.

Discuss.

 

[fireblade]

in my opinion for what it worth its simple your property rights trumps a cilvians 2a rights .....you have the right to have unarmed cilvians on your property if so posted and warned if thats what you want......i think they have been talking about this from the old west till now......

 

[eric001]

Don't forget that the 1A rights disappear in stores, businesses, malls, etc. as well. Wear a shirt with the "wrong" kind of saying printed on it and see how long it takes to get asked to leave--or be told to, depending on how nice they feel like being.

Their store, their rules; they can set any (non-discriminatory) rules they want, and I can always take my $$ elsewhere if I don't like those rules.

Of course, just to rattle some cages... what they don't know won't hurt me, and CC means they won't know!!

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think anyone should be allowed to discriminate against anyone else for any reason, 2nd amendment, race, religion, sex, etc.....

 

[rockhopper46038]

in my opinion for what it worth its simple your property rights trumps a cilvians 2a rights .....you have the right to have unarmed cilvians on your property if so posted and warned if thats what you want......i think they have been talking about this from the old west till now......

What's the qualifier on "civilian" for? Do you think it should be ok for military personnel to trump an owners property rights?

EDIT: Rather than just ask that question, I should say that I am a strong proponent/advocate of private property rights.

 

[fireblade]

i do not ......but military does Hurricane Andrew ,Katrina, are example were a property owers can not ask or disarm military personal in emergency response,security on private property......i should know i was there in homestead after Andrew....

 

[rockhopper46038]

I believe you. It never should have happened.

 

[HavokCycle]

I think anyone should be allowed to discriminate against anyone else for any reason, 2nd amendment, race, religion, sex, etc.....

its private property. business or residential. they can deny service and access to whomever they like.

 

[88GT]

I've been thinking about stores/malls etc. that post signs forbidding guns on their property.

They also, apparently, have the right to ask you to leave if you're carrying a gun and the police will enforce their wishes if called.

Contrast that with civil rights. A store can't put up a sign saying "no blacks allowed", and they can't ask someone to leave because of their race.

Private property owners are bound to respect civil rights, but apparently not 2A rights.

What I'm wondering is, why do you think this is an accepted legal reality?

Should private property rights be paramount? If not, then what's an acceptable reason to force accommodation?

I have my opinions of course, but I'd like to see what others think.

Discuss.

Yes. End of discussion.

 

[88GT]

its private property. business or residential. they can deny service and access to whomever they like.

They should be able to deny service and let the bigots be bigots. But Big Brother and the crybabies decided a while back to pick favorites.

 

[HavokCycle]

They should be able to deny service and let the bigots be bigots. But Big Brother and the crybabies decided a while back to pick favorites.

it doesnt have anything to do with bigotry, i hope you realize. if, and when, i start a no-pants club, you damn well better not wear pants.

 

[88GT]

it doesnt have anything to do with bigotry, i hope you realize. if, and when, i start a no-pants club, you damn well better not wear pants.

LOL, you must have missed the last version of this discussion.

 

[HavokCycle]

LOL, you must have missed the last version of this discussion.

dunno, this is a rehash of other topics weve had recently, most notably the BW3s discussion that was started last month and still going.

 

[88GT]

dunno, this is a rehash of other topics weve had recently, most notably the BW3s discussion that was started last month and still going.

No, it wasn't that one.

 

[sun]

I think anyone should be allowed to discriminate against anyone else for any reason, 2nd amendment, race, religion, sex, etc.....

its private property. business or residential. they can deny service and access to whomever they like.

They should be able to deny service and let the bigots be bigots. But Big Brother and the crybabies decided a while back to pick favorites.

For the most part that's why Nazi's are not very popular any more.

 

[Bunnykid68]

For the most part that's why Nazi's are not very popular any more.

You are really going to compare us to NAZIS? Are you friggin serious. We said nothing about rounding up people and killing them or denying them any of their own personal rights.

The only thing we are saying is basically if I do not like black people or chineese people I should have the right to deny them access to any property that I own. They could still visit any government owned property or property owned by anyone willing to let them on their own property.

 

[Liberty1911]

For the most part that's why Nazi's are not very popular any more.

Wow. I can't believe someone played the Nazi card.

 

[jbombelli]

it doesnt have anything to do with bigotry, i hope you realize. if, and when, i start a no-pants club, you damn well better not wear pants.

I would never join any no-pants club that would allow me in the door.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I would never join any no-pants club that would allow me in the door.

And all of INGO thanks you tremendously

 

[Liberty1911]

Meanwhile, back to the topic.

It seems that society has accepted the fact, through existing law, that civil rights trump property rights, which trump 2A rights.

It doesn't seem consistent to me, and I'll agree with the others who say that if I privately own property, even a business, I should be able to restrict access to anyone for any reason.

Should the government really have the power to force associations on private citizens? They clearly do, but I don't think they should.