2nd amend becoming meaningless

[tiger1279]

The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?

[WildBill]

The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?

It's a long story. Too long to post in this thread. There are many others that explain it if you want to search.

[tiger1279]

I'm not trying to play the simpleton here. I know it's a complicated issue and has no easy and quick answer. I just thought some folks here might have some thoughts on the subject.

[jmra]

I'm not trying to play the simpleton here. I know it's a complicated issue and has no easy and quick answer. I just thought some folks here might have some thoughts on the subject.

Property owners also have rights although those rights are quickly eroding.

[Nortex]

The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?

Quick easy answer:
Because if you don't want someone carrying a gun in your home or business then you can tell them not to come in. It's your property and YOU control it, not the constitution.


Dang typos!

[C-dub]

The quick and simple answer is that businesses have always had the right to prohibit firearms and that does not violate the 2A because they are not the government that is supposed to be the one that does not infringe on that right.

And you're correct that it is being trampled on by the government because of erosion over time with liberal court decisions that have given the government that ability such as determining the manner with which one carries and even licensing itself. Then there's also the whole issue with automatic weapons and other NFA items that also infringe on the 2A.

[treadlightly]

Constitutional rights are things the government is obligated to defend, but the scope isn't universal.

For instance, you don't have to allow pro-Obama rallies on your front yard.

All your front yard merry-makers have a first amendment right to clamor for any kind of leadership they favor - but not on your front yard. That would be at your discretion.

If the police wanted to stop the demonstration, they could only do so under specific circumstances. Parade permits are lawful things, disturbing the peace is a legit charge, that sort of stuff.

The police can't ask me to stop wearing Obama Sucks tee shirts, but a business requiring a shirt and tie could tell me I couldn't

My gun isn't universally welcome at businesses, as my dollars aren't universally welcome, either.

My favorite civil rights bar bet is whether or not there is an American right to free speech. There's not - there's an American guarantee of your rights of free speech, and a pledge that Congress shall make no icky laws, but the right isn't American.

Civil rights come from outside American jurisdiction, which makes them out of reach and beyond erosion. Supposedly.

[cyphertext]

Simple answer is because the constitution limits the powers of government. In the instance of the signs, the government is not restricting your right (unless posted improperly on gov. property), the signs are just a legal notification that the property owner does not want you to carry there.

[Soccerdad1995]

The original concept of natural rights was "life, liberty and the ownership of property", this morphed into "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" when it was "sampled" for use in the declaration of independence.

Property ownership is a fundamental right. Life and liberty are also fundamental rights, and both of these are significantly empowered by the right to keep and bear arms, to state the obvious.

So we have a clash of fundamental rights here. You have the right to bear arms. A business owner has the right to the enjoyment of their property. According to our Declaration of Independence, the whole point of having government is to support and defend these natural, or "inalienable" rights. But what to do when there is a clear conflict of rights?

So far, the government's answer has been that property owner's rights trump individuals rights, unless of course, we are talking about the right to have a cake made for your gay wedding, or the right to eat at the same counter as people of a different race. The government views these as more important than the right to property ownership, and so property owners are forced, ultimately at the point of a gun, to give in to these demands. A citizen's right to keep and bear arms is viewed by the government as being less important than these other rights so property owners are not forced to accommodate this right. At least for now.

Personally, I think that racism and the irrational fear of guns both stem from ignorance. The solution for ignorance is education, but unfortunately that will not happen when you have a significant percentage of the population that is still ignorant. This was the pattern with racism, and hopefully we will see a similar pattern with the irrational fear of guns.

[Javier730]

Constitutional rights are things the government is obligated to defend, but the scope isn't universal.

For instance, you don't have to allow pro-Obama rallies on your front yard.

All your front yard merry-makers have a first amendment right to clamor for any kind of leadership they favor - but not on your front yard. That would be at your discretion.

If the police wanted to stop the demonstration, they could only do so under specific circumstances. Parade permits are lawful things, disturbing the peace is a legit charge, that sort of stuff.

The police can't ask me to stop wearing Obama Sucks tee shirts, but a business requiring a shirt and tie could tell me I couldn't

My gun isn't universally welcome at businesses, as my dollars aren't universally welcome, either.

My favorite civil rights bar bet is whether or not there is an American right to free speech. There's not - there's an American guarantee of your rights of free speech, and a pledge that Congress shall make no icky laws, but the right isn't American.

Civil rights come from outside American jurisdiction, which makes them out of reach and beyond erosion. Supposedly.

Where can I get one of these t shirts?

[Jusme]

The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?

Quick easy answer:
Because if you don't want someone carrying a gun in your home or business the you can tell them not to come in. It's your property and YOU control it, not he constitution.

Exactly, the same applies to the first amendment, if you don't like what someone says, you can ask them to be removed from your home or business. The Bill of Rights, lists the things government cannot restrict, but private property owners are not bound by those restrictions.

[Abraham]

tiger1279,

You've just been given a wonderful education.

[Middle Age Russ]

The original concept of natural rights was "life, liberty and the ownership of property", this morphed into "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" when it was "sampled" for use in the declaration of independence.

Property ownership is a fundamental right. Life and liberty are also fundamental rights, and both of these are significantly empowered by the right to keep and bear arms, to state the obvious.

So we have a clash of fundamental rights here. You have the right to bear arms. A business owner has the right to the enjoyment of their property. According to our Declaration of Independence, the whole point of having government is to support and defend these natural, or "inalienable" rights. But what to do when there is a clear conflict of rights?

So far, the government's answer has been that property owner's rights trump individuals rights, unless of course, we are talking about the right to have a cake made for your gay wedding, or the right to eat at the same counter as people of a different race. The government views these as more important than the right to property ownership, and so property owners are forced, ultimately at the point of a gun, to give in to these demands. A citizen's right to keep and bear arms is viewed by the government as being less important than these other rights so property owners are not forced to accommodate this right. At least for now.

Personally, I think that racism and the irrational fear of guns both stem from ignorance. The solution for ignorance is education, but unfortunately that will not happen when you have a significant percentage of the population that is still ignorant. This was the pattern with racism, and hopefully we will see a similar pattern with the irrational fear of guns.

In addition to natural, or God-given, rights, we also have the concept of Liberty, which can both cloud and resolve issues where rights of different folks are at odds. Liberty requires of us that we generally do what we want to do only to the extent that our activities don't infringe unduly on the rights of others. When our actions begin to interfere with other people exercising their rights, we must consider the circumstances and whether our needs/desires can be met without burdening others, or if the burden we this impose on others is the least onerous that the situation allows.

In cases of businesses putting out the Un-Welcome mat, so to speak, they are asserting their property rights. If I consider the exercise of my right to defend myself with a firearm equally important to their right for me not to enter their establishment with one (or perhaps more important), I have a duty to myself to not be disarmed. Given this duty, though, I must still act within other valid and appropriate laws. I do not have a duty to set foot in a posted business or spend money there, and if the owners have made their intent plain via correct signage or other means it is unlawful for me to enter their establishment. I therefore simply move on and do business with others who do welcome my business.

[Archery1]

All great answers!

Not to negate any current threats to our rights and to applaud those who worked so hard to keep and advance such, but I have a bit of different perspective on diminishing rights, at least in this state.

I can remember when things like "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" were just abstracts, not specific laws to protect you as in being your legal right.

I can remember when traveling with a gun in your car was open to ambiguous interpretation of legal purpose. It was spelled out, but then, it really wasn't. Loaded and within your reach as your right - yeah, get you in jail?????

I can remember when the notion of leaving you property with a loaded gun on your person would not even cross your mind as ever being something available to the public.

So, sometimes we look at things from where we are and not from where we came. Doesn't take away from what we are currently doing, but it does show us how far we have come.

[mr1337]

The Constitution limits the government's ability to violate our rights. It does not limit private property owners' rights to trespass anyone on their property.