Categories
Antigun

Property Rights

The Hill is claiming that state law should protect the rights of homeowners by having ‘no carry’ gun defaults on private property. AWA over at GunFreeZone agrees. Here is one of the few times that I disagree with the lads over at GunFreeZone. In the interest of full disclosure, this is what he said:

I believe in both our right to self defense and our property rights. I personally have a rule that on our property if we are having a gathering of people that are not all gun people that concealed carry is allowed but open is not. We have some friends that are to scared of firearms to even look at them in person. That’s fine.

If a business wants to limit firearm possession in their place of business to criminals only, that is their choice.

Let me explain why I disagree.

When I was in high school (many, many years ago) my football coach used to explain to us the difference between involvement and commitment:

When you eat breakfast, the chicken that provided the eggs is involved, but the pig that provided the bacon is committed.

Coaches, especially in the south, have a way with words. Although it is a bit outlandish, my coach’s words reveal an important truth: it is easy to be involved with something, but it takes a lot more to be committed to it. So it is with liberty and rights.

When a company opens a location, the owners of that company risk very little. They have only risked a relatively small amount of money in the endeavor, and are insulated from any personal risk by the very nature of corporate law. If anything should go horribly wrong, the only thing that the nominal owner stands to lose is his investment cash. In other words, stockholders are chickens that are only involved with the business.

It is for that reason that companies make decisions that affect only the bottom line. After all, they are there to protect the owners’ interests, and the only interest the owner has is to get his investment money back with a little extra for his risk. It is this truth which allows government to use the law of unintended consequences to control a business without seeming to.

Let’s apply this to gun laws: As a government entity, I pass a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons, but I place a clause in the law allowing a business owner to opt out of the law. Many property rights people will applaud this law, and think that property rights are protected.

The problem is in the law of unintended consequences. Other laws hold a property owner liable for any act that they allow to take place on their property, but hold them harmless from those acts as long as the property owner has taken reasonable steps to prevent that act. You see the position that you have just placed a corporation in, don’t you? The business is now liable for the actions of any concealed carrier that they allow onto their property, and held harmless for the actions of armed killers, as long as they post a sign that says “no guns.”

The right of property owners has already been shredded. No property owner who wants to avoid a potential multi million dollar lawsuit would allow concealed carry.

Decision making process:

Will I be held liable if CCW shoots someone? Yes

If I prohibit carry, will I be held liable if a criminal kills my customers?
No

Post signs prohibiting carry

Back to our breakfast analogy: The corporate business owners, wanting to protect the only skin they have in the game are our chickens. The business posts the signs banning CCW. The public who frequents that business is now at the mercy of the armed criminals who know that they are now safe to practice their trade, and the business is safely insulated from all liability when it happens.

Congratulations, guns are now banned in public, and you have just cheered them on as they used your rights to make bacon.

I have been making that case for over a decade. That is why I have ignored these signs.

There are those who say that the person could always choose to shop elsewhere, but since the law is the law everywhere, there is no real choice. Very, very few business owners will choose to take the chance of facing a multimillion dollar award.

12 replies on “Property Rights”

Since, ultimately, I am the only one responsible for my safety, I carry everywhere. Just as the police are not responsible for my personal safety (check all the various SCOTUS rulings for the ignorant), neither are the businesses. Since those businesses are not responsible for my safety, they also may not prohibit or limit my ability to do such (I’m not talking law here, I’m talking reality).

I carry everywhere I go, unless there’s a metal detector I have to go through, like courthouses or MRIs. Everywhere else, I’m using full resources to protect myself and family.

And for those who disagree, I’m fine with that. Just realize in todays world, I’m only protecting me and mine.

Decision making process:

“Will I be held liable if CCW shoots someone? Yes
If I prohibit carry, will I be held liable if a criminal kills my customers?
No
Post signs prohibiting carry”

I made this same argument many years ago (not as succinctly as you, though) about teachers carrying in schools. This is why I think almost every school admin is against arming teachers. The minute some teacher with a CCW makes a mistake (and it will happen), the admin who allowed it will be crucified. Ban guns from school, and thoughts and prayers (with counselors) will be available after every school shooting. But the admin will still be able to say they did everything they could to prevent it.

Administrators do not get fired for NOT making the right decision, they get fired for making the wrong decision.

Thus: Make no decision

In many states, including “no weapons” on their laundry lists of rules is illegal; they typically require “no guns” signs to be clearly and distinctly posted.
As far as banning weapons, it is impossible since with some knowledge, everything can be used as a weapon, including most of the body! But they don’t seem to recognize their hypocrisy…

If you carry concealed, then who’s to know if you are armed in a business with a stupid sign. The only sign in Texas to which I pay attention is the 51% sign (means a business derives 51% or more revenue in alcohol sales) and I do not frequent those places. Carrying in there is a felony in Texas.

The rest with their 30.06 signs are just a request to be ignored if you are properly concealed.

Meh, GFZ’s been rapidly going down the tubes ever since Miguel let hypocrites like AWA and JkB take over the site.

I don’t have a personal issue with either of them. I can disagree with someone with respect and still consider them honorable

When a man makes a whole post about how the wife of conservative radio host whose opinion on abortion he disagrees with deserves to be violently raped as punishment for said disagreement, he permanently forfeits any claim to being honorable or worthy of respect.

I dont ever recall seeing anything like that on that site. Link?

Sadly I didn’t bother bookmarking it when he put it up a year or so ago, and my attempts to look it up since have been stymied by the unreliable search function and lack of accessible archive for older posts (or if there is one, I couldn’t find it).

I do, however, very clearly remember the phrase ‘fuck her and make her raise the baby’ being used. Which is not the kind of statement that has a whole lot of alternate interpretations beyond the obvious.

Derp, almost forgot to mention that this was JkB, before AWA started posting, so not too relevant to him, admittedly.

The business owner has posted his sign.
Now let him enforce it.

And the most he can do, if I do not comply, is ask me to leave.
Your terms are acceptable.

The state criminalizing that back-and-forth beyond that point is unconstitutional infringement.

It’s also asinine to criminalize an infraction or misdemeanor into a felony.

Imagine the business owner decrees no music on his premises. And then the state gets into the act, goes full retard, and deploys the SWAT team because someone is humming in the aisles.

It’s that recockulous.

One of the bank branches where I bank has performed due diligence: metal detectors, tied to a man-trap. No one can bring in weapons, including criminals.
That level of investment and due diligence should be mandatory for any business posting a “no weapons” policy.

Don’t want to drop $40K for man-traps and metal detectors at all entrances?
Then you can’t post a no-weapons policy.
Easy-peasey.

Freedom always brings responsibility.
Business owners banning guns entirely are getting a free ride.

If they want to adopt instead a no open carry policy on weapons, we can talk.

The current set-up is like businesses reserving the right to free speech, and requiring all customers to be gagged upon entry.

Even as a private property owner, your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

Comments are closed.