Philadelphia Zoo

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by Elmar

Its called you ignoring someone else's right to do as you please which is exactly what anti's do - ignore your rights so they can do as they please. Absolutely no moral difference between the two ideas that one's own wants are more important than any other's rights.

Sorry, but this is a failed analogy:

The anti-gun crew want to use the force of law to disarm and make you helpless, which does you harm. I am not advocating using the force of law for anything nor am I advocating disobeying the law. The no-gun sign at the zoo is legally nothing more than a request. Disregarding that request harms no one.

"Rights" and "wants" are not equivalent. My right to self defense is not lesser than the zoo's lawyer's want that I be disarmed.

The differences that make your analogy fail are: use of force (law vs request); resulting harm (helplessness against criminals vs no harm at all); and a major difference in degree.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by Elmar

My rights to my property and its use are as important as any of my other rights including my 2nd amendment ones. That goes the same for everyone else. If you don't respect the rights of others it is insanity for you to expect them to respect any of your own. If you don't want to go anywhere you can't carry your gun, don't go anywhere you can't carry it. Not that hard - you don't have a right to be in the zoo, that is a privilege extended to you by the zoo.

The rights of property are not the same for private homeowers vs a business or non-profit organization open for public use. When you open a business or other facility for public use, you give up some rights of private property. So just saying "private property" like some sort of incantation doesn't really mean anything. Second, you can't just equate all aspects of all rights as exactly the same, when they aren't. There is a scale of things.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by adymond

The point is that the zoo is private property. If they say no weapons you should respect that just as you should respect my right to say I don't want anyone in my house carrying a gun while they are getting drunk. The rule is backed by the right of private property.

There are many flaws with this.

1. Not all property is created equal. A homeowner's control over his residence is not the same as a public institution.

2. Me carrying and getting drunk in your house presents an actual risk to you. Me CCW-ing at the zoo presents no risk to anyone.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by adymond

The argument against a private property's rights to impose restrictions of admitance is just as bogus as the anti-gun nuts argument against our right to bear arms.

You're half right -- the analogy is bogus.

[jahwarrior72]

the bottom line is this:

the zoo has a policy that forbids the possession of a firearm.

if you are observed with a firearm, you will be asked to leave.

if you do not leave, then you will charged with trespassing.

so, make sure that you are not observed possessing a firearm; that way, you avoid breaking any real laws.

i just took my family to the Bronx Zoo, in a city that doesn't allow any guns to be carried. in that case, i had no choice but to disarm. you, on the other hand, do have that choice.

stay armed, stay safe, and enjoy your zoo trip.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by dgg9

Second, you can't just equate all aspects of all rights as exactly the same, when they aren't. There is a scale of things.

Sorry, maybe I just missed it, but where does it explain the scale? Or is the scale of things sort of like the scale of things that is instituted with the 10 commandments? Last I checked our Bill of Rights like the 10 Commandments does not say 1st above all others blah blah blah. Each right like each commandment is meant to be followed and enforced. I do agree that a business or not-for-profit organization does have some restrictions on their rights (not able to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex), but they retain the right to determine who they serve/admit to their property. I bet you cheered when the owner of a steak house in St Louis or Kansas City or something like that about a year ago refused to serve OJ saying he did not serve murders. I bet you probably defended his right to do and say that (I know I did). I don't see a difference. The argument about perceved harm is not valid at all. Not one person is forcing you to go to the zoo. If you were mandated to go to the zoo I might agree that they can not tell you how to behave, but if you choose to go to the zoo you are implicitly aggreeing to their rules. by disregarding those rules you are breaking that implied agreement. By breaking that agreement you have spat on their right to determine who has access and under what circumstances patrons are welcome. The sign may not have legal weight, but it is backed by the same document you are clinging to in an effort to defend your right to carry a weapon. By disregarding one you by default are weakening the other.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by jahwarrior72

the zoo has a policy that forbids the possession of a firearm.

Is that policy not as diserving of respect as is our 2nd ammendment? The right to private property (whether owned by an individual or a corporation) should be respected. If it is not then why should our right to bear arms? One could argue by that logic that we are not allowed to OC. The right only extends to us owning a firearm maybe not carrying. It begins to impose false restrictions on rights granted by the BoR. If you are willing to trample on the right of private property owners why can't someone trample on our 2nd ammendment right?

[GeorgeF]

Where is the policy listed for the Zoo?

[adymond]

Originally Posted by GeorgeF

Where is the policy listed for the Zoo?

I tried to bring that up previously. We are arguing about a hypothetical that I don't know and I haven't seen anyone mention it. There may not even be one, but I thought I remembered seeing something about a "no weapons" statement somewhere when I last went with my family.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by adymond

Sorry, maybe I just missed it, but where does it explain the scale?

Your entire post is overflowing with wildly over-heated rhetoric. To address the core problem with your post: you are talking too much about abstracts, such that, in your world, just calling something a "property right" means it's as sacred as all other things called "property rights" and exactly the same as all other things called rights.

In the real world, we do not deal with abstractions. Decisions have to be made about specific instances of those abstractions, and the instances are not all the same. Not all "property rights" are exactly the same in importance, just as not all "RKBA" is exactly the same.

The right of a homeowner to exclude someone who is objectively causing harm is one thing. The right of a public institution to inflict an irrational rule against someone causing NO objective harm is another, much weaker, right. Is it still a "right?" Sure -- to a degree, a lesser degree. And I weigh that much-dissipated right against the objective risk of harm to myself and the objective loss of RKBA, when disarmed due to irrational policy. Just calling anything, no matter how irrational and attenuated, a "property right" does not give it some talismanic power to be called a moral imperative.

In this, as in all things, we weigh specifics, case by case.

I do agree that a business or not-for-profit organization does have some restrictions on their rights (not able to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex), but they retain the right to determine who they serve/admit to their property.

You've just contradicted yourself. No, they don't have that unlimited right, as a public establishment.

I bet you cheered when the owner of a steak house in St Louis or Kansas City or something like that about a year ago refused to serve OJ saying he did not serve murders. I bet you probably defended his right to do and say that (I know I did). I don't see a difference.

And if it wasn't OJ, but some random black guy -- still ok to kick him out? And even if you take the extreme line that the owner should be able to do anything to anyone based on some over-touted notion of "property rights" -- why, exactly, should I go out of my way to respect his wishes, no matter how irrational and especially if his wishes become adversarial to mine?

"Property rights" is a vague term. In reality, there are all sorts of property rights, at varying levels of importance and varying degrees of moral imperatives. And they represent exactly one factor when making decisions.

but if you choose to go to the zoo you are implicitly aggreeing to their rules.

That's your interpretation, not mine.

The sign may not have legal weight, but it is backed by the same document you are clinging to in an effort to defend your right to carry a weapon. By disregarding one you by default are weakening the other.

Only if you are thinking in terms of hopelessly abstracted rhetoric, where you are no longer able to weigh real, specific things. If you do that, you realize that the "sin" of ignoring an irrational non-legal rule is far outweighed by me protecting my own life and limb.

Bottom line: carry bans of this sort may be a vastly attentuated "property right," but they are irrational and serve no purpose. My flouting them causes no harm while my obeying them does cause objective risk of harm. Do I have to go to the zoo or any other place? No, but in this case there are reasons to do so, and those reasons (whatever they are) plus my right to self defense are then weighed against the dissipated and abstract "property right" of the PZ lawyers. I decide, on a case by case basis.