Exactly this.flechero wrote:Funny thing when I posted that comment I originally thought about a delineation between business and residential property...flechero wrote:
I'm with you... why should a property owner be able to restrict something that doesn't affect his property... whether my attire, what's in my pocket or concealed on my belt?
My intent in that comment was about business and retail property where the "public" is welcome. I do believe that if you invite the public in for profit, you give up your right to dictate every aspect. Whether I am shopping and have a rock in my pocket or a snub nose revolver, it make no difference to the property owner, his bottom line or his other customers, assuming I'm not assaulted while inside.
I respect the rights of a homeowner to prohibit carry in his or her own house. I won't visit them, but won't argue as I don't have to be there.
I have no expectation about being allowed to carry into a persons private residence or any property that is not open to the public. But when you invite the public into your business, there are myriad things that the government requires you to do. ADA compliance, fire extinguishers, health code, volumes of workplace laws. There are, literally, hundreds (thousands?) of pages of laws that trump "property rights" in public businesses, many of them for good reason. So why do we allow legislators to hide behind "property rights" as a reason to vote against pro-law-abiding and pro-gun legislation? Is a God-given, enumerated right subordinate to a need for a fire extinguisher?
