Property Rights vs 2A Rights....

CaptainHaplo · 05-06-12, 11:47 PM

My reasoning for posting this question - and leaving off what I saw as an obvious option - was that this has been a rather disturbing conversation at DefensiveCarry.com - disturbing because MANY of the CC folks there seem to be under the impression that as long as its hidden, no harm=no foul.

As a 2A supporter - this really, really gets to me. NC is an open carry state - and I am glad of it. If someone wants to get the permit to conceal, fine. And while 2A rights should be curtailed (by government) in only the most specific ways (federal property, etc) - private property rights of an owner should always trump the 2A rights of a VISITOR who can choose not to visit your home/business...

Yet the "concealed is concealed" mentality seems to exist there is droves. I am pleasantly suprised that common sense and the respect for the rights of others is shown here with the results.

I took the same position that Kazuaki took - literally pointed out the same scenario - and the result was "well if its concealed..". Like these people never realize that "printing" happens! Not to mention - lets say no one gets shot - but the owner notices. He requires the carrier to leave. Legally he can - and if the person carrying refuses - its a trespassing charge at the least. Still - its more about the harm done to the cause. If the store owner was ever amendable to being convinced that legal gun owners are responsible - it just got blown.

Finally - private property rights are the basis for people even being able to own anything - including a firearm. Such rights are denoted in the constitution itself - it was that important to the Framers. James Madison once wrote:

"as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may equally be said to have a property in his rights"

To somehow claim that 2A rights supercede the right of a private property owner - and then claim to be a "constitutionalist" (which most 2A'ers do) just shows an ignorance that baffles and saddens me.

Thankfully, you all have shown that common sense within the community of owners and carriers is not dead. Its good to see....

*Mods - couldn't figure how to close the poll - feel free to do so.

View Poll Results: While carrying, would you enter a " no weapons" posted business if it were legal?
No, I would never carry a firearm anyway.	2	18.18%
No, I would choose to do business with another firm	8	72.73%
Yes, I would carry my weapon concealed. No one will know.	0	0%
Yes, Its legal for me to exercise my 2A rights.	1	9.09%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

05-06-12, 11:47 PM	#21
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	My reasoning for posting this question - and leaving off what I saw as an obvious option - was that this has been a rather disturbing conversation at DefensiveCarry.com - disturbing because MANY of the CC folks there seem to be under the impression that as long as its hidden, no harm=no foul. As a 2A supporter - this really, really gets to me. NC is an open carry state - and I am glad of it. If someone wants to get the permit to conceal, fine. And while 2A rights should be curtailed (by government) in only the most specific ways (federal property, etc) - private property rights of an owner should always trump the 2A rights of a VISITOR who can choose not to visit your home/business... Yet the "concealed is concealed" mentality seems to exist there is droves. I am pleasantly suprised that common sense and the respect for the rights of others is shown here with the results. I took the same position that Kazuaki took - literally pointed out the same scenario - and the result was "well if its concealed..". Like these people never realize that "printing" happens! Not to mention - lets say no one gets shot - but the owner notices. He requires the carrier to leave. Legally he can - and if the person carrying refuses - its a trespassing charge at the least. Still - its more about the harm done to the cause. If the store owner was ever amendable to being convinced that legal gun owners are responsible - it just got blown. Finally - private property rights are the basis for people even being able to own anything - including a firearm. Such rights are denoted in the constitution itself - it was that important to the Framers. James Madison once wrote: "as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may equally be said to have a property in his rights" To somehow claim that 2A rights supercede the right of a private property owner - and then claim to be a "constitutionalist" (which most 2A'ers do) just shows an ignorance that baffles and saddens me. Thankfully, you all have shown that common sense within the community of owners and carriers is not dead. Its good to see.... *Mods - couldn't figure how to close the poll - feel free to do so. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo