The National Rifle Association, sensing trouble on its proposed bill in the state Legislature that would require employers to allow workers to have guns in their cars in company parking lots, offered some unusual compromises Wednesday:Lock up you safety facilities, separate but equal facilities, and permission.
* Creating gun rooms at work and having workers check their weapons when they arrive.
* Separate parking lots for gun owners.
* Making it OK to carry in the car, as long as you tell your boss.
Yep. Sounds like "shall not be infringed" to me.
29 comments:
A few thoughts... If it means the difference between getting fired for keeping my gun in the trunk or having to check my gun in every morning, I would rather check my gun in. ...then in a few years and there have been no incidents, we can improve the law and I will carry at work, and employers will be less willing to fight it. It is an effective method, take baby steps and even though it may be glacial the rules are improving, and I can live with it. If we ask for EVERYTHING we want we may end up with nothing at all.
I am an NRA lifer, and I truly appreciate the organization, but sometimes I wonder what these guys are smoking. Why suggest these weenie compromises?
It seems an employee who works for a company hostile to gun ownership would certainly place his/her job in an awkward position checking his/her gun in a the company "armory" every morning. Probably not the best way to advertise yourself, especially in this atmosphere of layoffs.
Not to mention the liability it may cause (the company and the gun owner) if someone stole or misused the piece.
I am sure bosses would like another task for their "to do" list. "Did Fred check in with me today? He's a gun owner and a piece may be locked up in his car." And I am sure Fred would love tracking down his boss and checking in with the gun-in-my-car-report rather than working on the financial report due at 8:30am.
And I am sure companies would love to have another government regulation thrown at them - "now we have to create gun rooms and have a separate parking lot for gun owners?"
That would certainly lead to "Gee, let's just not hire gun owners... they have already caused us too many problems, even though they've never fired a shot."
Awesome, our own parking lot! So criminals know exactly which cars to break into while we're at our desks! It'll probably be the farthest lot from the door, too.
Thanks NRA, but no thanks.
...Yep. Sounds like "shall not be infringed" to me...
Seems like an expanded "We're the Only Ones" type scenario. Expanding from 'law enforcement' to now 'ruling class'. Further subjugation upon us of course.
And Jay, you can bet that companies would have us sign a waiver, releasing them from any responsibility. And there would be a 'fee' involved for providing the 'armory'. It would be turned into a pay for 'limited Infringement' system. That's the ONLY thing business and gooberment understands - $$$$$$$!
"It would be turned into a pay for 'limited Infringement' system. That's the ONLY thing business and gooberment understands - $$$$$$$!"
Not quite, E.David, they also understand force. If they insist it be used, I insist I not be the only recipient of its use and they not be the only ones to use it.
I have to say that I'm not sure I agree with this whole issue. I want to be able to protect myself on the way too and from work just like everyone else.
However, the owners of private property should have every right to say what can and cannot be brought onto their private property. If an employee doesn't like it, he is free to seek other employment or park his car elsewhere.
I understand that a vehicle is the employee's private property, but it is a privilege, not a right, to park that car on the employer's property.
I fail to see how forcing the owner of private property to allow something on that property that he doesn't want to have there is somehow supporting Constitutional freedom. Seems like a dangerous precedent to me.
Someone please enlighten me.
[flame]
Try this: I'm a staunch Roman Catholic and am absolutely opposed to any form of birth control. Any employee who has any item, device, medicine, etc. that might be used for birth control on my property will be discharged - even if they lock it in their car. Will you agree that I'm simply exercising my private property rights and anybody who doesn't agree with me shouldn't work for me?
Or this: I firmly believe that rap music is destroying our country's moral core. Any employee who brings any rap music onto my property will be summarily discharged. That's just fine, don't you agree?
Nuts. Any employer who tried something like that would end up on national television getting hammered by Teddy Kennedy or his ilk. Why do we say "oh, but it's guns and the employer has property rights too."
I find it so obvious, I'm having trouble being patient.
The ostensible reason for gun bans in the workplace is to prevent death or injury by violence.
But gun bans don't prevent death or injury.
They want to ban guns in parking lots to prevent injury or death, but they are willing to allow cars in the parking lots, which are much more likely to be instrumental in injury or death than guns.
Businesses are insisting that their property rights trump my property rights, and their right to ban guns (which doesn't help) trumps my right to carry guns (which does help).
Where's the sense in this?
Anyway, employers can't ban guns IN REALITY without armed guards, metal detectors, and all that paraphenalia, and even then it doesn't always work. Especially around TSA screeners.
But they CAN ban PEOPLE! If these employers are so frightened of workplace violence, FIRE THE VIOLENT EMPLOYEES AND LEAVE ME ALONE!
This is probably the only unresolved difference I've had with our friend straightarrow.
Sailorcurt, anyone flaming you goes through me first. We're all gentlemen here.
wrangler5, I hear what you're saying--and legally--as far as precedent and statutory law-- I believe you are correct. But I believe if I ACTUALLY own the property, I should control what goes on there--and as long as I don't coerce you on to my property, you have the right to stay away and tell me to go to hell. If I say you can't be on the premises unless you paint your nose blue and hop on one foot, you then decide whether being there is worth it to you.
Do I agree with property owners who would discriminate like this? Absolutely not--but I believe that--after time-- a free, uncoerced marketplace would render such behavior unprofitable--meaning its nonrestrictive competitors thrive and the dinosaurs die out.
I think free people making free decisions in the absence of coercion is a superior way to get things done than using the brute force of the state to require compliance--or else.
And lee warner--can't disagree with anything you've said in terms of senselessness. I just think the greater danger lies in giving me the power to use the force of the state--ultimately backed by guns if you don't comply--to bend you to my will about what you can or cannot do on your property.
But I'll be first in line to join you guys in a boycott...
Sailor Curt, is not your home surrounded by the private property of others?
Does that place their desires as to which rights you may exercise in your home above your right?
Why not? If the surrounding of your private property, which has long been considered an extension of your home (your car)is at a venue by invitation, is it not still your private property? Does it suddenly become the property of the employer? NO! It does not. If one were to remove his firearm from his vehicle, either on his person, or just to put it in the trunk, then he would be violating the property rights of the employer if he prohibited it. The employer has no more right to determine what you may have in your private property, than do the neighbors on either side of your home, just because they flank it.
Also, the employer accepts no liability for any injury to persons or harm to private property of employees in their parking lots. They are protected by law from such liability as the parking lots are considered semi-private or semi-public. Most are "dedicated", which is a term of art in the law that means law enforcement has policing powers in the lot, thus buttressing the argument that they are, in part, public.
For those that doubt the accuracy of these statements ask security personnel what their duties are to protect your property in the employers' lots. They have none and will exercise none at risk of their jobs.
In view of the above, strictly as principle and constitutional rights the employer must lose this argument.
As a practical matter of competing interests, so must he lose on those grounds. If we were to agree that both parties are trying to infringe the rights of the other. The employer must still lose, for his trespass is, by far, more reaching in its effect. His power to deny you rights on your private property would extend far beyond any reasonable limit geographically and temporally. In effect,he will have negated your second amendment rights everywhere you go between leaving for work and returning home and all places in between.
So, as a matter of principle and constitution his property rights do not trump yours. Nor do they trump your other rights, nor should he be allowed as a practical matter to extend his reach far beyond his property in the denial of your rights.
This is no different than the above stated position that should an employee remove the firearm from his private property while in the parking lot, for any reason, including stowing it in another part of the vehicle, he has violated the private property rights of the employer. Barring that happenstance, neither party has a right to deny the other. This is not difficult, when looked at reasonably. It only appears so when everybody gets hysterical about guns and/or property rights, when one hasn't been misused and the other hasn't been abused.
If we were to hold for the employer, what is to keep your neighborhood association from barring guns in your home? Or insisting that you keep quiet because they don't like your opinions? The second amendment isn't the only one that can be attacked using the "we surround them, we make the rules, law and rights be damned."
David C. said: "And lee warner--can't disagree with anything you've said in terms of senselessness. I just think the greater danger lies in giving me the power to use the force of the state--ultimately backed by guns if you don't comply--to bend you to my will about what you can or cannot do on your property."
That's begs the question David, why it would be ok to give that same gun backed state power to the employer over what is not only your property but your travel.
This is one of our few disagreements and I admit it has me perplexed. I see my way as honoring the property rights of all involved. I see your way as the same trespass, just choosing who get snookered.
It is especially perplexing to me when I know you have a battle of similar design ongoing as to what others are trying to deny you because they surround your private property and/or jointly and severally hold it.
Well, you can't be right all the time. That's my job :D (kidding)
Sorry, straightarrow--we continue to clash like the Titans we are on this.
Yes, your car is your private property. It is mobile, and you can take it onto the property of others.
They are within their rights to define under what conditions you may bring your property onto their property.
You may own Penthouse centerfolds. I would not dream of taking your property away from you unless you want to lend them to me, but then wifey gets out the rolling pin--but I digress. You may not bring your Penthouses into my private daycare facility. Read them elsewhere. Nothing compels you to bring them onto my property and offend my delicate sensibilites.
Nothing compels you to drive your car onto my property. Keep what you like in your car--it is none of my business--until you voluntarily bring it onto my property. Sorry. I only allow red cars. If yours is blue, take it elsewhere.
I just don't see your point about the homeowners association--unless you voluntarily sign on to CC&Rs that give them this authority over the contents of your home. Why would you do that, when there are so many other options to choose from?
Still--if people wish to pool their resources and create smoke-free facilities, gun-free facilities, etc., it is their resources. I'm free to associate with others who I insist be armed and in possession of quality maduros they are willing to share.
The key difference is--my way doesn't use coercion, just voluntary association--what people are freely willing to accept or reject. You don't like my terms, you go elsewhere--you do, you comply--or at least don't let me catch you violating them.
Whereas your way requires armed agents to enforce.
SA--as an employer, I'm not saying I'll call the police on you if you don't paint your nose blue. I'll simply cease voluntarily associating with you--that is, I'll fire you.
And I have no say over what you travel with. If you want to open up Straightarrow's Gun Storage right next to my Gunfree Industries, it sounds like a swell business opportunity.
In re my own struggles with the Ranch--we have a board exceeding their CC&R authority/unilaterally abrogating agreements that were in effect when purchase decisions were made. If I was a new buyer coming in and knew that was the rule, I'd have to decide whether or not that was a showstopper for me.
straightarrow said...
"Not quite, E.David, they also understand force."...
Well, of course, but I thought that so obvious, that it didn't require notation.
The concept is readily apparent in the Federalist Papers. (Which 'they' seem to have so easily disregarded). It is the main bulwark behind the intent of the framers. In as far as the people being 'enabled', in our preservation of our OWN Freedom and Liberty.
Which brings a question to mind:
Straightarrow and David Codrea;
Do either of you know WHY the Federalist Papers have been 'tossed aside' as far as being used for determining the clear intentions of the Framers?
It is evident the Federalist was used to 'sell' the idea of the new Constitutional Federal Republic to the people. Why are the Principles not adherred to?
Does anybody know?
I don't have time to properly address this right now because I've got to go to work, but just a short one on the first two responses that were posted to me. David, I didn't realize you agree with me on this...don't worry about protecting me from flame, I can take the heat.
Straightarrow:
Sailor Curt, is not your home surrounded by the private property of others?
Yes
Does that place their desires as to which rights you may exercise in your home above your right?
No...or at least it shouldn't. They're rights to decide what happens on any specific property ends at their property line. But does that mean that, if I allow them the PRIVELEGE of parking their vehicle on my property, that I don't have the right to place restrictions on that PRIVELEGE on pain of revoking the PRIVELEGE?
They can keep whatever they want in their property (their car) but if they choose to keep something with which I disagree (yes, that would include rap music and maybe contraceptives) then they need to keep their property OFF MY PROPERTY.
That's all I've got time for right now. More later.
E David--founding principles are ignored because they can be. There is no mass outraged citizenry jealously guarding the public liberty, and no "or else" for violators.
An oversimplification, perhaps, but I believe it addresses the core of the problem.
To expand on sailorcurt: This blog is my journal. Can anyone post anything they want? technically, yes, but then I have the option to remobe it, for instance if I think the language is inappropriate, if striaghtarrow looks like he's winning a debate, or for any reason I wish. That does not constitute a 1st Am abridgement unless I can use the force of the state to prevent you from keeping your own journal and saying whatever you want.
I gotta go if I'm gonna do any blog posts today...
Lee:
The ostensible reason for gun bans in the workplace is to prevent death or injury by violence.
But gun bans don't prevent death or injury.
Where's the sense in this?
Anyway, employers can't ban guns IN REALITY without armed guards, metal detectors, and all that paraphenalia, and even then it doesn't always work. Especially around TSA screeners.
Freedom and liberty isn't just a guarantee that we will be "allowed" to make good decisions. Freedom and liberty mean having the freedom and liberty to make stupid decisions or take actions that don't work as well.
What you are saying is that, since the decisions don't make sense and don't work, that those decisions should be illegal. That, my friend, is a slippery slope.
Straightarrow:
If the surrounding of your private property, which has long been considered an extension of your home (your car)is at a venue by invitation, is it not still your private property? Does it suddenly become the property of the employer? NO! It does not. (emphasis added)
If I violate any conditions set by the inviter, does he then not have the right to rescind the invitation?
Yes, the vehicle (and the weapon inside it) is still my property, the inviter cannot confiscate it or impound it...but he can require me to remove it from his property for failing to honor the conditions of the visit.
Also, the employer accepts no liability for any injury to persons or harm to private property of employees in their parking lots. They are protected by law from such liability as the parking lots are considered semi-private or semi-public. Most are "dedicated", which is a term of art in the law that means law enforcement has policing powers in the lot, thus buttressing the argument that they are, in part, public.
I am not a lawyer and cannot speak with authority on this subject. I can say that I had a personal experience where a police officer told me that they had no authority to ticket someone (who hit my car) for a traffic violation in a private (business) parking lot.
I would assume that Police have the authority to enforce laws in any venue open to public view under probable cause...including my front lawn...or if requested by the property owner. That does not make my front lawn any less private property or any less subject to my rules and stipulations.
His power to deny you rights on your private property would extend far beyond any reasonable limit geographically and temporally. In effect,he will have negated your second amendment rights everywhere you go between leaving for work and returning home and all places in between.
That's simply not true. You are equating an inconvenience (having to park on public property versus the employer's private property) with a total prohibition. In which Constitutional Amendment can be found the right to be convenienced?
So, as a matter of principle and constitution his property rights do not trump yours.
By your logic, because the clothing that you wear is your private property, you have the right to carry anything within that clothing that you desire. Therefore, an employer's prohibition against firearms on his property is moot as long as the firearm reamins completely contained within your mobile private property.
Again I say: It is not a matter of his property rights over yours. It is a matter of your being on his property by invitation...a privelege, not a right. The property owner CANNOT demand that you remove a firearm from your clothing or your vehicle. But he CAN refuse to grant you admittance onto his private property unless you remove said firearm as a condition of entry. The employer is not denying your right to bear arms, he is denying the PRIVELEGE of entering his private property.
This is not difficult, when looked at reasonably.
It is apparently more difficult than you think. I don't consider my points to be unreasonable. Do you? You may believe them to be incorrect, but are they unreasonable?
what is to keep your neighborhood association from barring guns in your home? Or insisting that you keep quiet because they don't like your opinions?
Again, I'm not cognizant of all the legalities with neighborhood associations. I refuse to live in a neighborhood with an "association" for just those reasons. I won't have my neighbors dictate to me what color I may paint my house or whether I can put a flagpole in my lawn.
My understanding of a neighborhood association is that it is a voluntary thing and you must sign a contract before purchasing a home within the area covered by the association. Therefore, any stipulations such as you mentioned are contractual in nature. A neighborhood association cannot have you arrested for violating the terms of the contract, but can sue you for breech of contract in civil court. The issues are completely unrelated.
I think I can build a bridge here.
I think I understand David to be saying that he acknowledges that Straightarrow may be correct under the law that the property rights of an employer cannot supercede constitutionally enumerated rights of free speech or RTKBA.
However, I also understand David to be saying that we DO NOT want government interceding on our behalf in this case nothing good will come of it.
Coercing private property owners as to what can and cannot be allowed on their premises is a very slippery slope indeed! I think David is keying in on this as the greater issue.
To me the point is this; a CCW ban against those persons who would otherwise be legally within their rights is practically speaking unenforceable.
If we open the door for the government to say what can be said, carried, displayed, etc in and on private property we WILL NOT like the eventual outcome. David knows this is true and is suggesting we address gun bans through the application of public pressure rather than government mandate.
Based on the above I can happily say I agree with BOTH Straightarrow AND David on this. Property owners have no right to tell me what to do, and the government has no right to tell them what to allow on their property.
DC and SA: Allow me to toss a wrench in;
"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all
Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the
Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore
by other laws dispose of it, WHENEVER THE WELFARE OF THE PUBLICK
SHALL DEMAND SUCH DISPOSITION. He that does not like civil Society
on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can
have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his
Club towards the Support of it."
-- Benjamin Franklin (letter to Robert Morris, 25 December 1783)
Now my interpretation may be a little loose. But, what I read into this, is that THE OVERALL GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE, (PUBLICK), comes AHEAD of the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Unfortunately this opens a whole NEW CAN OF WORMS. (For whose decision will be applicable as to 'WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE PUBLICK'?) This would then logically lead us to Mr. Joseph Story; "The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Which in turn, leads us BACK to my earlier subject, The Federalist Papers; "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union."
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State." - Madison, Fed #10.
The Rights of the individual seem to be justly held out as sacred. Up to the point that the Greater weight of the Rights of THE PUBLIC, come into play. (Jefferson has a better quote, but I couldn't readily locate it).
So, according to my line of reasoning, this would set precendent for SA's argument. (Sorry, DC). The Rights of the People as a whole, take priority over the Rights of the individual. Now, Madison DOES put OBVIOUS LIMITATIONS on this, (i.e. - "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project...").
However, if we go back to the FedEralist, especially #8, 16, 28, 29, 46 and others. We see that the Right, (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY - DUTY), of the WHOLE BODY of CITIZENS bearing ARMS. IS THE CRUCIAL ASPECT OF PRESERVING OUR FREEDOM and LIBERTY.
Taking THAT into consideration. It would thusly reason to follow, THAT THE PEOPLE KEEP and BEAR their ARMS WHEREVER they go. For the COLLECTIVE RIGHT, out-weighs the Individual Right.
OUR PROBLEM, due to partial usage of the above logic. Is that the ENEMIES of our RKBA, have perversely determined that NO ARMS are more safe for everyone. They have, in effect, "tossed the baby out with the bathwater"! Leaving out, entirely, the whole reasoning for Keeping and Bearing Arms in the FIRST place.
IMO, from all the info. I've gathered, is that the RKBA is SO CRUCIAL to the PRESERVATION of OUR FREEDOM and LIBERTY, that that Right DEMANDS PRECEDENCE BEFORE ANYTHING or ANYONE ELSE!
Carry on.
E. David, we don't teach the Federalist papers nor the principles upon which they are based in our schools. The reasons are simple. It is damned inconvenient for proponents of unfettered state power to reconcile what they do with what our founders proscribed.
I grew up in a time and place where a great many men never went past the eighth grade, yet in the philosophies of liberty, government and society were positively erudite. I look back and find them to be so much more sophisticated and discerning regarding the basic tenets of human dignity and liberty than the state schooled, heritage denied product we turn out now.
I have a brother-in-law who served in the armed forces, yet is anti-second amendment. When I challenge him about his oath to defend the constitution, and point out that he has to know what it says. He is able to quote it damn near verbatim. Then he twists meanings out of it that don't exist. When pressed to explain how the words have changed meaning in his lexicon, he will shout "Federalist Papers, John Jay". I kid you not.
He so obviously has won arguments using this tactic by silencing people that didn't have a clue what he was talking about, that he thought it would work with me. I intimated that he didn't know what was in them, he said "I have them right there in the library". I told him unless he was accomplished at osmosis he was going to have to read them before they did him any good. He got hot, then even hotter when I suggested we take them down and have a reading and discussion as to their meaning. He will no longer discuss these issues with me.
Sadly after 11 years in the military, and several years as an in house journalist for corporate and collegiate concerns, he went into teaching. I am sure his lesson plans to not allow for the reading of the Federalist Papers. I would bet, though, I don't know, that the Federalist Papers are interpreted by him and that meaning is disseminated to his students, most of which will never question Mr. *****.
He's a decent man, and I like him, but I would never trust him with my rights. Oddly he is your typical liberal, he and my sister carry firearms when they feel the need, did even before CCW, but don't believe every Tom,Dick, and Harry should be allowed to do so. Who knows, what kind of nut Bubba Sixpack is? I kid you not.
Sailor Curt, until recently who would have thought that the courts would have held that the state may take the private property of one individual or a dozen, to give to another private individual for no other purpose than profit of the one over the other for a cut of the take. But, they did.
Why could they not truncate or destroy your rights in favor of a neighborhood association, whether you are a signatory or not? That sure didn't stop them in Kelo. As I stated and you must have missed, I have no sympathy for a signatory to an agreement that hands his decision making powers to someone else, when those decisions go against him. However, how large a step is it from Kelo, which a taking from the unwilling, to some other reprehensible decision that puts you under the regulation of another private entity?
That is the slippery slope, I see. The state imbuing one private entity with the power to deny rights to others. That is how the abomination of mandatory drug testing came to be. That is why almost everybody in this country has,at one time or another, had to prove he was not guilty of something no one had a right or reason to accuse him of.
For those of you that don't remember, the first USSC decision on this issue, stated unequivocally that it was an infringement on the fourth and fifth amendment rights of the individual. However, since the testing was voluntary, the employee had the right to refuse, and the employer had the right to fire him for it, they would take no further stand.
Do you think that would work for a robber? "He gave me the money voluntarily. He had a choice, I could shoot him or he could give me the money. The court should refrain from entering the private voluntary transactions of individuals."
So yeah, I see this as the larger issue. Industry should not be vested with the power of the state to deny rights that to individuals the state is disallowed.
In the drug testing question we can see that it eventually led to mandatory drug testing of anybody at anytime they want to, failure to comply and prove your innocence is severely punished. If you need proof, refuse to ever participate again. See how long you can provide for your family.
When industry and the state become interdependent and symbiotic to the detriment of the rights of individuals you have fascism. This is the greater danger. Take a look at some of the things we never thought we would suffer in contravention of our liberties here. If you check the history of these things, you will see that in approximately half the cases, industry led the assault on individual rights that resulted in increased power the state, and the other half the other way around. Both these entities gaining power,over the individual, they have no right to wield. This march to totalitarianism is slow and well disguised but, so far, inexorable. This symbiosis is deadly to liberty.
One does not have to look too far to see examples, nor does one need a razor sharp memory to remember how much more freedom we used to enjoy.
E David--I'll venture if you had asked Mr. Franklin if he ocnsidered his holdings publick or private property (and the former is actually a misnomer--it would more accurately be described as "loot") he would have opted for the latter.
SA--again, I have no ability to deny you any right. I do have the right to define the conditions on which I will welcome you and conditions that will make you unwelcome--on my property.
Let's get back to the blog example--may I delete your comments from MY journal? Using your example, doesn't that make me someone denyintg you your 1st Amendment rights?
I see no logical difference.
There is no logical differencein that scenario, David. But, you have misstated the proposition.
It would be more accurately indicative of the issue if you invited my to comment here, but then required me to voice only your opinion or one meeting your approval.
If I were not welcome here and you disinvited me, you are within your rights. You would not be within your rights to say "come in", then tell me what I must say or suffer consequences. At that point you would be denying me what is mine.
This particular issue is speech, but it relates directly and proportionally to arms. Should I be required to vote a certain way or worship a certain way because I spend time on private property at invitation. Is that not coercion? Is it not at least as immoral and unconstitutional as state coercion?
Of that I have no doubt, David. As would reasonably be expected from ANY of us. The point, attempting to be made, is that there are Principles that have greater precendence than those of the individual Right.
Which would naturally involve the MEANS of securing both the individual as well as collective Right(s). (Since Rights, unsecured, are subject to removal). The precedent would therefore be demanded, that the MEANS of securing those Right(s), are the Right(s) which should be the most closely GUARDED. Since ALL other Rights are secured by those means.
It is my believe, that this Principle can be demonstrated in the best light. By the realization of just why usage of the words 'SHALL NOT be Infringed' were employed. That it was to be applied Universally. Witness;
"With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense?"
"How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?"
"The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions." - James Madison, Federalist No. 41
Which brings us back to the Fact that our RKBA is a Natural Right, not to be Infringed upon by ANYONE, and is SUPPOSED to be PROTECTED and SECURED BY the Government. No EXCLUSIONS.
"The batteries most capable of repelling foreign enterprises on our safety, are happily such as can NEVER BE TURNED BY A PERFIDIOUS GOVERNMENT AGAINST OUR LIBERTIES."
And the bottom line, straightarrow--you have made yourself more than welcome here.
You too, E. David, and all the rest.
David, I surely hope that you did not perceive the reponse as a personal attack. I assure you that is not the manner in which it was intended. I am in your debt, and could never bring myself to attack you.
Just trying to show, that as it appears to me anyways, we have steadily lost our Rights due to compromise brought about by personal beliefs and feelings. Rather than abiding by the boundries set up on us ALL, as a society. And, that what we really have is an ALL or NOTHING proposition. And employer or no, the following applies to EVERYONE;
"But if the execution of the laws of the national government should NOT require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the CITIZENS THEMSELVES, (which I assume to mean employers as well, AND LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL employees), the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #16
Please accept in the true spirit in which it is offered.
David said: "And the bottom line, straightarrow--you have made yourself more than welcome here.
You too, E. David, and all the rest."
I know, David. Our differences on this issue are principled differences. Though I think you have the wrong of it here, I know you are basing your stand on how you interpret the same principles I interpret another way. That is one of the frustrations for me, and I assume for you,too. That we both revere the exact same principle, but interpret its proper application differently. Still makes us philosophical brothers, if not identical twins.
You are anything but a moral or intellectual coward, and I have a deep abiding respect for you.
I knew we speaking in parables and that I had not been disinvited. You're far too confident to resort to pettiness. Still wrong on this issue, but I certainly respect the integrity and thought you put into your belief. I know you did the work, morally, philosophy and in keeping with your true beliefs.
Did I mention I still think you missed this call? Oh, I did? Well, it doesn't change my opinion of you one bit, someday I may be wrong about something, myself. :D
Just in case somebody missed it. That was a joke.
Sorry about this here are the two words I messed up.
were
philosophically
Damn new fingers just aren't working out.
E David--what gave you the idea I was upset? This kinda stuff is what makes things interesting.
If I'm ever upset, I'll come out and say so--I don't exactly have a problem saying what I mean.
Nothing went on in this thread that hasn't been both fun and thought-provoking for me.
I've said before--and meant it--the purpose of debate is not to win--it's to help establish the truth. I'm especially encouraged by the high tone set here--we disagree well.
This is a good debate to have--and with all that's been said, two sides are still sticking to their principles--so that tells me the subject is worthy of continued exploration.
I'm sure it will come up again.
Straightarrow:
Your comments regarding Kelo are on the money. That heinous decision was a Supreme Court stamp of approval on government abusing its power regarding private property. I personally believe that it is an abuse of governmental power for a city government to tell me whether I can run a business or build a house on a particular piece of property that I own (zoning), or whether I can park a car on the grass in my lawn, or how far from the property line I have to put a shed.
So we are going to respond to abusive encroachments on the rights of private property owners by expousing and supporting more of the same? As much as I would like to see the desirable outcome of a law such as this, I cannot support the implementation of it because I believe that it is an infringement upon the rights of property owners to determine what they will and will not allow on their property. That this is a less egregious infringement than others that are already occuring is moot.
E. David:
The "publick" is made up of a bunch of individuals. Supressing individual rights for the sake of the "Public Good" is exactly the tack taken by the left.
Straightarrow and E. David:
I feel that I understand your points and both of you make them well and eloquently. I just simply don't agree.
And that's OK.
Speaking strictly for myself, I apprecuate greatly the tone and tenor of this comment thread. We have vigorously disagreed with each other but at all times the demeanor of all participants has been respectful and honorable.
It is only in spirited debate that we are forced to closely examine our own beliefs and convictions and, thereby, identify the failings and weaknesses in them.
I personally have great respect for each of you and this debate has done nothing but engender more of the same in me.
Thank you.
Post a Comment