Right to Carry on Private Property?

[Jack Ryan]

A business owner should, and does, have the right to ban guns from their property. but it should end there.. Here in Indiana it is not a crime to go into a store that has a no guns sign.. If they find out you have it, and you do not leave then it is trespass..

On the other hand Businesses that benifit from the government , with land tax abaitments for example, should not be allowed to ban such things from being stored in cars..
it is a trade off.. If you want full control over your property you should pay full tax..
If you want a tax break then the government / people can limit what you can do with your property..

I agree with your position 100%. I can't think of a single instance when it would not be reasonalbe to apply it.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Further, if you wish to prevent them from doing that, how do they protect themselves enroute to and from your property without keeping the gun in the car while there? This doesn't address interstate carry laws-for the sake of this example, let's address me, an Indiana resident with a LTCH. I may lawfully carry or have in my vehicle any handgun I can lawfully possess. If I drive to "Jack Ryan's Store" to purchase a loaf of bread, a dozen eggs, and a quart of milk (what can I say? I like French toast with my bacon! ), you presumably want the business of customers who bring money. I park in your lot and find that you have on your door a sign that says "no guns allowed".

What? Now because I sell french toast supplies I am responsible for your safe transport the rest of the day?

How a person ensures their own safety is their own responsibility. It's bad enough as a store owner they can beheld responsible for every thing concerning a customer from tripping over their own shoe laces to pourig hot coffee on them selves. Now the store owner is responsible for their safety on the trip to the store and home again?

I don't think so. You can't even hold the police responsible for criminal activity that is detrimental to you on the road, in public or even in your own home and it is their stated job to do so. They are professionals accepting the responsibility to control crime and they can't do nor prevent it. Yet some how if I don't allow any one who cares to carry a gun in my french toast supply store I am now responsible for the Obama hordes gunning you down an hour later in front of the post office?

 

[Bill of Rights]

What? Now because I sell french toast supplies I am responsible for your safe transport the rest of the day?

How a person ensures their own safety is their own responsibility. It's bad enough as a store owner they can beheld responsible for every thing concerning a customer from tripping over their own shoe laces to pourig hot coffee on them selves. Now the store owner is responsible for their safety on the trip to the store and home again?

I don't think so. You can't even hold the police responsible for criminal activity that is detrimental to you on the road, in public or even in your own home and it is their stated job to do so. They are professionals accepting the responsibility to control crime and they can't do nor prevent it. Yet some how if I don't allow any one who cares to carry a gun in my french toast supply store I am now responsible for the Obama hordes gunning you down an hour later in front of the post office?

OK.. Let me try this one more time. I think I must not have phrased my question to you correctly and understandably.

I am for the moment ignoring the issue of your property and/or property rights somehow being more important in this discussion than mine.
so...
(again, if I cannot park on the street...)

• The law says I can carry.
• Your policy is that I can't carry in your store
• Your policy is that I can't have a gun in MY vehicle if it's on YOUR land.

thus

• If I don't violate your policy, I have to leave the gun at home.
• If I leave the gun at home to remain in compliance with your policy, I am disarmed enroute both to and from your business.

• You've said that your right to control your property does not extend to my trip to and from.

Please explain how I would go about being armed on my way to and from your business and also be in compliance with your policies. I know it is my responsibility to do so; I'm asking how it could be accomplished.

Blessings,
B

 

[Jack Ryan]

(again, if I cannot park on the street...)

• The law says I can carry.
• Your policy is that I can't carry in your store
• Your policy is that I can't have a gun in MY vehicle if it's on YOUR land.

thus

• If I don't violate your policy, I have to leave the gun at home.
• If I leave the gun at home to remain in compliance with your policy, I am disarmed enroute both to and from your business.

• You've said that your right to control your property does not extend to my trip to and from.

Please explain how I would go about being armed on my way to and from your business and also be in compliance with your policies. I know it is my responsibility to do so; I'm asking how it could be accomplished.

Blessings,
B

OK, if I were a store owner and you pose this question to me, I would answer, "I don't know. I don't care. It's not my job to solve that problem for you. I don't care what you do with your gun any where else but you can't come here with it. If you CHOOSE to leave it at home that's your choice. If you CHOOSE not to shop here that's your choice. What EVER you choose to do other than bring it on to my property, that is YOUR CHOICE."

If you choose to lay it on the curd down the street that's your choice. If you have your girlfriend hold some where else while you shop here that's your choice.

If I want to allow people to carry firearms on MY property, that is MY CHOICE, not yours.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Your policy is that I can't carry in your store

• Your policy is that I can't have a gun in MY vehicle if it's on YOUR land.

thus

• If I don't violate your policy, I have to leave the gun at home.
• If I leave the gun at home to remain in compliance with your policy, I am disarmed enroute both to and from your business.

• You've said that your right to control your property does not extend to my trip to and from.

Please explain how I would go about being armed on my way to and from your business and also be in compliance with your policies. I know it is my responsibility to do so; I'm asking how it could be accomplished.

Blessings,
B

Now to answer the question from the gun owner perspective rather than the store owner perspective which is some thing I can speak to from expirience.

I carry concealed. When some one finds out I am carrying a gun it is going to be too late to stop a threat to me from getting hurt. I don't intend for any one to ever know I am carrying unless I am threatened.

When I see signs like we are discussing, I ignore them and go on about my business as if they didn't exist. If any one were to notice and ask me to leave, I'd just leave. That's all. No big deal.

I've gone to resturaunts before with out planning out the day before and not wanted to sit 2 hours on a gun in the theatre and then another hour in a resturaunt. I didn't think it was any thing special but it occured to me to put the gun under the seat before I drove in the parking lot and then lock all the doors when I left. If I didn't like that idea then I would put it in the truck at the store before and lock it before I drove to the place I didn't want to carry it.

I'm not under constant zombie attack, I'm just prepared as is reasonable in the event of one.

I used to be this all fired gun carrying ball of steel wire with a hair trigger when I was young and full of what ever we were full of. Now if I really think there is a darn good chance I'll need a gun, number one I ask my self if I really want to go there. It seems like a bad idea.

Second if I'm bound and determine to go some place I think I really might need a gun, I put my pocket size 9mm in the safe and load the 870 full of 00 buck, and pick up my 45 acp and three extra full magazines.

If you see me carrying those it isn't going to matter what the sign says or who is there pointing at it.

 

[Pami]

Moved these posts out of the Required Testing thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...10602-would_you_support_required_testing.html

Please continue the property rights discussion here, and continue the required testing discussion in the above thread.

 

[indyjoe]

I used to be this all fired gun carrying ball of steel wire with a hair trigger when I was young and full of what ever we were full of. Now if I really think there is a darn good chance I\'ll need a gun, number one I ask my self if I really want to go there. It seems like a bad idea.

Personally, I believe that anyone who only chooses to arm themselves when they think something might happen, will not be protected when something does. It usually happens when you least expect it. Chances are much higher that when you are carrying you are in condition yellow. You are aware that where you are going might be dangerous and are looking for threats. Often criminals will not do anything, because they can see and sense this alertness. When you do not expect anything to happen and let yourself slip into condition white is when you will be in a situation to require your gun, but you left it at home because you did not think you would need it.

If you see me carrying those it isn\'t going to matter what the sign says or who is there pointing at it.

So basically you are saying that you will not allow anyone to carry on your property, but will disregard the wishes of those that say you cannot carry on theirs? Sorry, sir, but that is the definition of a hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

 

[Rookie]

Habib is a devout muslim who carries his Koran every where he goes. He decides to stop at Jeb's hillbilly hotel, and notices a sign that says, "No Korans are permitted on this property". Are you saying that the owner has the legal right to make this rule? If so, then I could see how the owner could make the no gun rule. If not, then I don't see how the owner could legally make a no gun rule. They are both rights - aren't they? What distinguishes the two?

 

[indyjoe]

Habib is a devout muslim who carries his Koran every where he goes. He decides to stop at Jeb\'s hillbilly hotel, and notices a sign that says, No Korans are permitted on this property. Are you saying that the owner has the legal right to make this rule? If so, then I could see how the owner could make the no gun rule. If not, then I don\'t see how the owner could legally make a no gun rule. They are both rights - aren\'t they? What distinguishes the two?

The owner has a legal right to make the rule. The rule has no legal standing. However, the owner has the right to tell you to leave for ANY REASON. If I do not leave because my shoes are blue, then I can be cited with a trespass and arrested. Since this rule has no legal weight, it is up to the individual if they choose to follow it. A vehicle is a special case. If it is in the vehicle, the property owner has no rights to control what is in the vehicle other than asking the person to leave. By allowing the person to be there, they give up their right to control what is brought onto their property IN the vehicle, assuming it is legal.

 

[Rookie]

Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties

Private Property:

(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.
(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.
(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.
(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.

According to what I've found, they would have that right. But, wouldn't you be in danger of discrimination?​

 

[Rookie]

BTW, I know this is an argument that will never be won. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is that it would be considered discrimination to exclude someone based on their religion or other reason (I remember reading one time about women claiming discrimination because they weren't allowed in a men's only club) and yet the same amendment that protect these rights includes "to keep and bear arms"

 

[indyjoe]

I think a distinction between personal property and commercial property is important as well. You can tell anyone to get off your personal property, without discrimination issues. I believe doing that in a commercial property (thinking retail, etc.) would have discrimination issues.

 

[Rookie]

A store is considered commercial property, isn't it?

 

[hoosiertriangle]

There is a very important distinction between private (home) property and private (commercial) property. You cannot legally discriminate against somebody and force them off your commercial property if they belong to a protected class (sex, race, religious affiliation, etc.) This is a generality, and there are nuances to this. The rationale basically comes from the concept that you as a private (commercial) property owner have decided to open your doors to the public and invite them. You can certainly make that invitation conditional, but the law presumes a business makes an unconditional invitation for the public to enter.

Private real property (land) rights aren't as cut and dry as most of us would like to think. You may have real property, but what you can do with it can surely be limited very easily and quickly. The best examples are home owners covenants, utility easements, nuisance law, environmental regulations, access easements, innocent encroachments, eminent domain, and my personal favorite adverse possession. All of these examples can act to limit your right to use your private property.

Opening your private property up for commercial use further erodes your rights. It is a trade off and you get to choose to make the trade off. Also, employers (say in Florida) that don't want their employees to be able to keep things in their private they can choose to move their business and jobs out of state. It's a choice of doing business.

It is a fine balancing act indeed walking the tight rope between private property and gun ownership. My only major point is show that private property rights aren't as iron clad as we'd like to think they are.

 

[Rookie]

BTW - anyone wants to carry on my property or in my house has my blessings (provided you are responsible).

 

[Rookie]

There is a very important distinction between private (home) property and private (commercial) property. You cannot legally discriminate against somebody and force them off your commercial property if they belong to a protected class (sex, race, religious affiliation, etc.) This is a generality, and there are nuances to this. The rationale basically comes from the concept that you as a private (commercial) property owner have decided to open your doors to the public and invite them. You can certainly make that invitation conditional, but the law presumes a business makes an unconditional invitation for the public to enter.

Private real property (land) rights aren't as cut and dry as most of us would like to think. You may have real property, but what you can do with it can surely be limited very easily and quickly. The best examples are home owners covenants, utility easements, nuisance law, environmental regulations, access easements, innocent encroachments, eminent domain, and my personal favorite adverse possession. All of these examples can act to limit your right to use your private property.

Opening your private property up for commercial use further erodes your rights. It is a trade off and you get to choose to make the trade off. Also, employers (say in Florida) that don't want their employees to be able to keep things in their private they can choose to move their business and jobs out of state. It's a choice of doing business.

It is a fine balancing act indeed walking the tight rope between private property and gun ownership. My only major point is show that private property rights aren't as iron clad as we'd like to think they are.

But, wouldn't barring someone who is legally carrying be discrimination? It falls under the same rights, doesn't it? I understand they can ask you to leave if they don't feel comfortable, but a blanket "no guns"?

Like I said, an argument that won't be won - but it's curious that they can discriminate on some issues but not on others...

 

[VN Vet]

I respect the carry laws of Our Country. We are a Republic and not a democracy; a Country of Laws not of Men. If we don't like the Laws they we have a right to try and change them.

If there are any attornies out there, please respond:

If you are in a public place you are intitled to self protection. If you are not give the right to self protection, then it must be provide to you at no charge. Ask for an armed escort. If one is not provided to you in a timely manner and you are injured or killed as a result of not having protection for yourself, you do have a right to bring action against those who denied you that protection. Walmart has backed down from this and allowed concealed carry on there property. However, I do not know of anyone who has tried this at an airport or Local, State or Federal Government businesses.

While I know one can sue anyone for any reason, I believe this one is a sound and just reason for a suit.

Comments?

 

[Gryphon]

I once worked as a security supervisor for a division of an international corporation. It was my duty to enforce company policy, rather I agreed with it or not. But, when I was given the order to write employees up for smoking in their vehicles when they drove onto the parking lot, I took a cut in pay by transferring to a different client location that didn't have this ridiculous rule. And even though most of the clients I worked for refused to allow anyone to possess firearms on their property, I always kept a loaded .357 Magnum revolver out of sight in my vehicle. What these nervous ninnies never knew, never hurt them. And it sure helped me maintain my peace of mind.

I think a fully enclosed motor vehicle that can be securely locked should be considered an extension of ones home, and respected as such by everyone, including the police.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Personally, I believe that anyone who only chooses to arm themselves when they think something might happen, will not be protected when something does. It usually happens when you least expect it. Chances are much higher that when you are carrying you are in condition yellow. You are aware that where you are going might be dangerous and are looking for threats. Often criminals will not do anything, because they can see and sense this alertness. When you do not expect anything to happen and let yourself slip into condition white is when you will be in a situation to require your gun, but you left it at home because you did not think you would need it.

True.

So basically you are saying that you will not allow anyone to carry on your property, but will disregard the wishes of those that say you cannot carry on theirs? Sorry, sir, but that is the definition of a hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Hold on, Joe... if I'm reading what he's saying correctly, this was a quasi-hypothetical. That is, IF he decided to make this rule regarding his land, he thinks he would be within his rights to do so. Further, and again, if I'm reading correctly, he's saying he would peacefully leave when asked, just as he would expect someone to do on his own property, if he had a property with such signage. I'm not sure I'd call it hypocrisy.

In my last post, I stated that I was leaving alone the issue of one person's property > the other person's property.

Jack, I understand what you're saying now, though I still contend that by claiming that your property rights trump those of other people whose property is upon yours by implied invitation (parking lot of a business open to the public) and disallowing firearms on that lot or on the person of the prospective customer, you force the customer to choose either to be disarmed throughout their trip to and from your business OR to ignore your policy OR to simply patrionize one of your competitors and avoid the whole issue.

I do respect private property rights, very much. I do not think that those rights of a land owner supercede the rights of the vehicle owner whose vehicle is parked on that land by implied or expressed invitation. By example, a person who lives in a motor home full time can claim in some places that that motor home is his domecile and be as protected in his lawful carry thereon as you are in your home. I have not researched it, but I do not believe that Indiana is one of those places. Regardless, though, since it seems that you're arguing this not from a perspective of law but rather of inherent, fundamental rights irrespective of statute, I'll ask that question now: Irrespective of case law, statute law, etc., and speaking as a matter of inherent human rights (granted by our Creator) to (among others) life, liberty, and property, how do you differentiate the rights of the landowner vs. the rights of the vehicle owner?

Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

Habib is a devout muslim who carries his Koran every where he goes. He decides to stop at Jeb's hillbilly hotel, and notices a sign that says, "No Korans are permitted on this property". Are you saying that the owner has the legal right to make this rule? If so, then I could see how the owner could make the no gun rule. If not, then I don't see how the owner could legally make a no gun rule. They are both rights - aren't they? What distinguishes the two?

I think that the point made about Habib and his Koran at Jeb's Hillbilly Hotel is relevant when speaking of inherent rights.

Constitutionally speaking, however, as written, prior to the incorporation of some of the Bill of Rights upon the individual sovereign states, the 1A specifies that Congress shall make no law re: religion. It says nothing about the states not doing so, nor does it restrict that power (or right) from the individual citizen. Not so the 2A, which IMHO much more generally restricts the power to infringe upon the individual RKBA from federal, state, and local government as well as from the individual citizen.

Rights always trump powers, and the RKBA is made sacrosanct by the 2A. When the prefatory clause (which explains why the operative clause exists) is removed along with the prepositional phrases explaining whose right and what right(s) are being discussed, the subject of the base sentence is "(the)right" and the predicate is "shall (not) be infringed". Not "by Congress", not "by the states", not even "by the people".

The right shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Blessings,
B