Great editorial

[LittleRedToyota]

i've been involved in a rather heated debate over on glocktalk with a bunch of people who think the government should be able to force private property owners to allow guns on their private property.

in doing some research on the topic, i came across a brilliant editorial on gun rights, property rights, the foundations of our country, etc. written by some guy i had never heard of named Howard Blitz.

i thought some of you would find it interesting, so i am posting it here. it is one of the best pieces i have ever read.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Edito...?InfoNo=030349

2nd Amendment Restricts Government, not Individuals

When the founders wrote the United States Constitution, many of them felt that it did not do enough to constrain the activities of government officials and is the reason why the Bill of Rights was written. In the preamble to the Bill of Rights the founders state very succinctly that the Bill of Rights are even further restrictions on the power of government clarifying even more as to what government officials are forbidden to do in order to help build confidence in government for the benefit of all individuals.

The Second Amendment restricts government officials from making laws infringing upon the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It makes no mention as to the types of arms upon which those restrictions are placed. It also does not prevent private individuals and private businesses from placing restrictions on others to keep and bear arms in their homes and workplace.

With the recent killings on college campuses and even here in Yuma at the Yuma Regional Shopping Mall, the call for more government control of firearms continues even though every single gun control law on the books violates the Second Amendment. Many argue that guns kill and are the reason for all government restrictions on firearms. However, that is like arguing that pens and pencils cause misspelled words.

The beauty of the free society that the founders bequeathed to us is that by enforcing private property rights, government officials are in a position not to interfere with the peaceful lives of individuals thereby leaving them alone to make their own decisions about their own lives and property.

There is currently a bill being debated in the Arizona state legislature to allow teachers and students who possess a state permit to carry a concealed weapon to bring a weapon onto campus. There is also a bill before the state legislature to allow business owners who own businesses that serve alcohol to post signs if they do not want firearms on their grounds. Currently, Arizona law does not allow weapons on school property or where alcohol is served.

Because the founders supported the rights of private property owners, the decision as to whether weapons were allowed anywhere was decided by the individual property owner, not government officials. It was and still is against the law, since the Bill of Rights still exists, for government officials to decide when and where any firearms are allowed.

However, because schools are owned and operated by government a conflict arises with the Second Amendment. If schools were not owned and operated by government, but were owned privately, there would be no conflict with the Second Amendment and the decision whether to allow weapons on campus would be made by the owner.

Since private property to some degree still exists in the serving of alcohol, there is no conflict with the Second Amendment and private individuals and businesses already have the right to decide for themselves whether to allow weapons on their property. Government officials have no business to interfere with this decision.

Government officials also have no business whether to allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon. The Second Amendment forbids it.

If a free society is to be maintained, then the Bill of Rights must be honored by all individuals, especially government officials for whom it is intended. Individuals would then have to take responsibility of their own property and lives and make decisions about them instead of turning those decisions over to government officials.

By giving up the individual responsibility of making such decisions, the individual gives up his inalienable rights removing the very restrictions on government that the founders intended with tyranny being the end result.

[TonyF]

The only thing I would like to see is legislation passed allowing firearms to be maintained in our vehicles when parked in our employer's parking lot. IIRC, such legislation is pending in Florida.

[Pa. Patriot]

Arguing on Glock Talk is like........ Well, you know

[LittleRedToyota]

The only thing I would like to see is legislation passed allowing firearms to be maintained in our vehicles when parked in our employer's parking lot. IIRC, such legislation is pending in Florida.

that's actually the law that got the argument over at glocktalk started.

the thing is...the parking lot is private property. not public property. it belonds to the business owners...not the public and not the employees (unless it is an employee owned company). (in the case of leased office space, the parking lot may not even belong to the business owner, but to someone else.)

the government has no business telling business owners they have to allow firearms on their private property (including in a car that is parked on their private property).

if employees don't like their employer restricting them from keeping guns in vehicles parked on the employer's private property, the employees should either park elsewhere, work elsewhere, start their own business, or band together and demand that the employer do away with the restriction (i.e. have their union demand that in the next collective bargaining agreement).

as a business owner, the government telling me what i have to allow to be brought onto my parking lot is no different from the government telling you what you have to allow to be brought onto the driveway at your house.

it's my business. i own it. it's my right to make the rules regarding what can and cannot be brought onto my property.

[LittleRedToyota]

Arguing on Glock Talk is like........ Well, you know

yeah...i know. sometimes i just can't help myself. glutton for punishment, i guess.

[TonyF]

that's actually the law that got the argument over at glocktalk started.

the thing is...the parking lot is private property. not public property. it belonds to the business owners...not the public and not the employees (unless it is an employee owned company). (in the case of leased office space, the parking lot may not even belong to the business owner, but to someone else.)

the government has no business telling business owners they have to allow firearms on their private property (including in a car that is parked on their private property).

I don't necessarily disagree with you but my vehicle is my private property.

if employees don't like their employer restricting them from keeping guns in vehicles parked on the employer's private property, the employees should either park elsewhere,

At my place of employment, there is literally nowhere else to park except the company parking lot.

work elsewhere, start their own business,

Not very practical.

or band together and demand that the employer do away with the restriction (i.e. have their union demand that in the next collective bargaining agreement).

I work for a fortune 500 company with 35,000 + worldwide employees. Chances are slim to none that at my facility we'd be able to change corporate policy.

as a business owner, the government telling me what i have to allow to be brought onto my parking lot is no different from the government telling you what you have to allow to be brought onto the driveway at your house.

it's my business. i own it. it's my right to make the rules regarding what can and cannot be brought onto my property.

Specifically with regard to firearms in employee's cars, it's an issue of liability but guess what, if an employee bursts into my workplace and shoots and kills someone, the company is getting sued anyway. There is no way that a prohibition on firearms in the workplace is going to prevent a successful civil lawsuit brought by the deceased employee's family. They'll of course settle out of court but they will pay.

My point is they WILL pay.

To disallow firearms in employee's vehicles does absolutely nothing to preclude potential civil lawsuits. That's why they do it, not based on constitutional grounds.

How does a "corporation" have "civil rights"? Are not the first 10 amendments to the constitution "individual rights". How does a corporation exercise its "individual, civil rights"?

[LittleRedToyota]

I don't necessarily disagree with you but my vehicle is my private property.

right. and, thus, a company should not be able to force you to let them search your car. but, they should be able to say "if you do not let us search it, you must remove it from our property."

they should also be allowed to, especially if it is in the company policies you agree to when taking employment there, say "and don't bother coming back to work anymore."

Not very practical.

living in a free country requires putting up with all kinds of impracticalities. it is part of the price we pay for being free.

I work for a fortune 500 company with 35,000 + worldwide employees. Chances are slim to none that at my facility we'd be able to change corporate policy.

true. but that is part of the price you pay for the relative security, ease (as compared to starting your own business), and benefits of working for a fortune 500 company. you gotta take the bad with the good. if you want complete control, you need to take the risks and put in the work to start your own business. then you get to call the shots.

seriously, look at it from my point of view. i took huge financial risks to start my own company. i put in ungodly hours to make it viable. i lived on ramen noodles. i am still doing those things to some extent. it's mine (and my partner's). we have poured our entire lives into it. we created it. we own it. nobody has the right to tell us how to run it. no one else has earned that right. if we want to make a rule saying no one can bring a gun onto the property of the business we created, built, and own, no one has then right to tell us we cannot. (or course, we have made no such rule...guns are welcome...but that is not the point.)

also, note that even fortune 500 companies have owners...namely the stockholders. the company belongs to them...not the public...not the employees (unless the company has some sort of employee stock ownership program...in which case the employees are owners just like the other stock holders).

To disallow firearms in employee's vehicles does absolutely nothing to preclude potential civil lawsuits. That's why they do it, not based on constitutional grounds.

i agree. but, the motivations for the business owners (or management acting on behalf of the owners) is irrelevant.

How does a "corporation" have "civil rights"?

the corporation itself does not. the corporation's owners, however, do. specifically, they have "property rights"...and the business, and all of its assets including the parking lot...are the private property of the corporation's owners.

just like your house is your private property, and even though my car is my private property, if i park in in your driveway you have the right to tell me what i can and cannot have in it while it is in your driveway. you also have the right to ask me to prove to you that i do not have anything in the car that you do not want on your property (i.e. to let you search it). and, you further have the right to, if i refuse to prove that i do not have any such thing in my car, to ask me to remove both the car and myself from your property.

the bottom line is that businesses are private property...the private property of the business owners. and, private property rights are one of the most fundamental foundations of our country.

(not to mention the more pragmatic aspect of the precedent these laws set in regards to the legitimacy governmental regulatation of the possession of firearms on private property. if the government can tell private property owners that they must allow firearms on their property, they can also tell private property owners that they are not allowed to allow firearms on their private property.)

[Swarner793]

Arguing on Glock Talk is like........ Well, you know

One good thing about Glock Talk is it lead me here

Be safe.

Scott

[TaePo]

So, when I lived in town and someone temporarily parked in my driveway late at night, I could approach them and search their car for contraband?

I am just wondering how far a property owner can go over another's rights. In my case, they are trespassing and I have no idea why/what their intentions are. So that should give me even more right than an employer vs. employee parking situation I would guess.

[Swarner793]

right. and, thus, a company should not be able to force you to let them search your car. but, they should be able to say "if you do not let us search it, you must remove it from our property."

they should also be allowed to, especially if it is in the company policies you agree to when taking employment there, say "and don't bother coming back to work anymore."



living in a free country requires putting up with all kinds of impracticalities. it is part of the price we pay for being free.



true. but that is part of the price you pay for the relative security, ease (as compared to starting your own business), and benefits of working for a fortune 500 company. you gotta take the bad with the good. if you want complete control, you need to take the risks and put in the work to start your own business. then you get to call the shots.

seriously, look at it from my point of view. i took huge financial risks to start my own company. i put in ungodly hours to make it viable. i lived on ramen noodles. i am still doing those things to some extent. it's mine (and my partner's). we have poured our entire lives into it. we created it. we own it. nobody has the right to tell us how to run it. no one else has earned that right. if we want to make a rule saying no one can bring a gun onto the property of the business we created, built, and own, no one has then right to tell us we cannot. (or course, we have made no such rule...guns are welcome...but that is not the point.)

also, note that even fortune 500 companies have owners...namely the stockholders. the company belongs to them...not the public...not the employees (unless the company has some sort of employee stock ownership program...in which case the employees are owners just like the other stock holders).



i agree. but, the motivations for the business owners (or management acting on behalf of the owners) is irrelevant.



the corporation itself does not. the corporation's owners, however, do. specifically, they have "property rights"...and the business, and all of its assets including the parking lot...are the private property of the corporation's owners.

just like your house is your private property, and even though my car is my private property, if i park in in your driveway you have the right to tell me what i can and cannot have in it while it is in your driveway. you also have the right to ask me to prove to you that i do not have anything in the car that you do not want on your property (i.e. to let you search it). and, you further have the right to, if i refuse to prove that i do not have any such thing in my car, to ask me to remove both the car and myself from your property.

the bottom line is that businesses are private property...the private property of the business owners. and, private property rights are one of the most fundamental foundations of our country.

(not to mention the more pragmatic aspect of the precedent these laws set in regards to the legitimacy governmental regulatation of the possession of firearms on private property. if the government can tell private property owners that they must allow firearms on their property, they can also tell private property owners that they are not allowed to allow firearms on their private property.)

LRT,
You hit every nail on every head. As a Security Manager for one of "America's Top 100 Companies to Work For", I feel this post should be used in every property rights seminar EVERYWHERE!

Do I agree with corporate policies regarding possession of weapons. That is a resounding "NO". But I agree with their right to do so even more. Thank you for wise incite. It is a breath of fresh air from people stammering and spitting in my face about how they "know their rights".

A little story, not firearms related but private property issue related. At a Retail Facility I am responsible for in State College, Obama supporters have been disobeying requests not to solicit on the property. One defied a request to leave, stated I was "violating" his rights and he did not need leave. Short story is, I contact the County Dispatch Center and Requested Municipl Police for Defiant Trespass. He realized it was for real and literally ran away. There have been many encounters with Obama's people, they are the worse campaign when it comes to respecting private property rights. The Clinton Campaign were requested once and we never had contact with them again. You would almost think the Obama people are a cult or something...oh, wait....somebody else said that

Be safe.

Scott