You are at netAirspace : Forum : The Combustion Chamber - Off-Topics : General Off-Topics

Interesting opinion piece written by Clark Neily one of the attorneys involved in the Heller case: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/140569

I am a firm believer in the constitutional right to own guns, and in fact I was one of the three lawyers who litigated District of Columbia v. Heller, the historic case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That case was an important victory not just for gun ownership but for liberty itself - something this country was founded on, but which is in increasingly short supply as the government continues its headlong rush down the road of good intentions.

That is why it is so dismaying to see the Heller decision being used to undermine another fundamental individual right: private property. An essential element of that right is the ability to decide who may come onto one's property, for what purposes, and under what conditions

I for one believe Mr. Neily makes a valid point. What is a more important right, private property rights or gun ownership rights?

BlueLion wrote:Interesting opinion piece written by Clark Neily one of the attorneys involved in the Heller case: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/140569

I am a firm believer in the constitutional right to own guns, and in fact I was one of the three lawyers who litigated District of Columbia v. Heller, the historic case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That case was an important victory not just for gun ownership but for liberty itself - something this country was founded on, but which is in increasingly short supply as the government continues its headlong rush down the road of good intentions.

That is why it is so dismaying to see the Heller decision being used to undermine another fundamental individual right: private property. An essential element of that right is the ability to decide who may come onto one's property, for what purposes, and under what conditions

I for one believe Mr. Neily makes a valid point. What is a more important right, private property rights or gun ownership rights?

First off, thanks for the link. Good read.

Second, the right of me swing my fist ends upon which the right of my chin begins (I know I slaughtered that quote, leave me alone). Both are important. If a business operator wants no guns in his business, so be it and it should be his right to have. Bars, clubs, lounges, etc. especially. The big question is going to be cars in parking lots. From the article:

HB2474 would require businesses to allow employees and patrons to bring firearms into parking areas as long as the guns stayed locked in their vehicles and would allow lawsuits against businesses that violate the law if anyone is injured or killed because a gun owner could not access a weapon.

The first part of this bill I think is ok. Your car is your property and you should be allowed to carry a gun in your car if you so desire. The bolded part I'm at odds with. What qualifies as access? Worst case scenario: the quickest route to your car/weapon is blocked by the gunman, or if said car was at the veeeeeeeery end of the parking lot and a good 5 minute walk from the building. Is that limited access? Also, any and all lawsuit bs should be aimed at the gunman, not the place of business. Hell, the place of business is going to have a hard enough time after an incident like this, a lawsuit is completely unnecessary.

As I see it, the problem is not with "gun rights" vs "property rights", it's simply giving a clear definition of what property belongs to who. If my car is my car, then that means what is in it is mine as well and that's my own business. Many states have property laws that follow this concept.

On the other hand, if my car is parked on the property of someone else, do they really have a right to dictate what I can and cannot have in my car? Put aside guns for a moment, and think about other things. What if I have drugs in the car? Is it the business of the owner of the property where the car is parked? How about if I work at ABC Supermarket and I have an XYZ Supermarket sticker on my car? What if I'm just a customer and I don't work there, what's the difference? Neither of these things presents an imminent hazard to passers by but the property owner where the car is parked would feel that he has some right to dictate either of these things.

Then lets go a step further. Why would it only be guns that are restricted and not knives? How about a bow and arrows, they are not firearms. A crossbow? What about a big, sharp screwdriver? Or a tire iron? Or an ink pen? And how can you restrict these things from the cars of employees and not restrict them from the cars of customers too?

Queso wrote:On the other hand, if my car is parked on the property of someone else, do they really have a right to dictate what I can and cannot have in my car?

That my friend is the $64 thousand dollar question, and as you stated how do you enforce it? Take illegal drugs how many businesses have "drug free workplaces" yet if you take a drug dog around the parking lot how many alerts you one get? Then what ? But the real question and it goes beyond firearms, drugs, sex and rock n roll is still does the government have the right to dicate to the property owner by statue what is allowed and what is not allowed on one's private property after the fact. I can understand if the property owner purchased a piece of property that was zoned for commerical or any other purpose that they have to follow the rules, but to change the rules after the fact.