Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Full Metal Mickey
The
Magic Kingdom is partially seceding from Florida—at last!—and
refusing to enforce Florida's concealed weapons law on Disney
turf.
Disney, which has 60,000 employees and a long-standing policy against allowing guns on its land, cites an arcane—and late-added—loophole in the new law, which took effect Tuesday.
The company's position stunned backers of the new law, who said Wednesday that they never intended to exempt Florida's largest single-site employer.
"You've got to be kidding me," said state Sen. Durell Peaden, a Panhandle Republican and one of the authors of the bill.
What's the loophole, anyway?
The bill states that property owned or leased by an employer who has a permit required by federal law to manufacture, use, store or move explosives would still be off limits. Disney has a permit for its fireworks shows.
And how did it get there?
The loophole was lobbied for by a group of lawyers that represented groups and businesses that included Disney.
Yeah. As twist endings go, that's not quite Sleeping Beauty.
Dormouse|7.3.08 @ 10:11AM|#
I don't get it. If it's private property, can't they decide whether they want to all guns or not?
Taktix®|7.3.08 @ 10:13AM|#
I don't get it. If it's private property, can't they decide
whether they want to all guns or not?
Not in Florida.
This is a prime example of the pendulum swinging too far. The 2nd
Amendment exists to defend the right to property, not to violate
that right...
|7.3.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Good thing I RTFA; otherwise I would have no idea what this post was actually referring to.
|7.3.08 @ 10:21AM|#
Taxtix said:
This is a prime example of the pendulum swinging too far. The 2nd Amendment exists to defend the right to property, not to violate that right.
A) This isn't really a 2nd Amendment issue.
B) How are you supposed to be able to defend yourself with a gun
when you go into the Quik-E-Mart if your employer bans you from
keeping it in your car?
Is it wrong to take pleasure in the Law of Unintended Consequences?
I'm not sure why I'm taking such perverse pleasure in seeing the
Florida legislature get bamboozled by a bunch of high paid lawyers,
but I am.
SIV|7.3.08 @ 10:26AM|#
IANAL and all that but isn't your car treated as an extension of
your home to some extent. Does Disney have the right to conduct a
warrantless search of all vehicles parked on their property?
Or do your mobile property rights trump their fixed ones?
Jerry|7.3.08 @ 10:28AM|#
It should be Quik-E-Mart's responsibility of protecting it employees while at work.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 10:34AM|#
don't get it. If it's private property, can't they decide
whether they want to all guns or not?
I was about to jump on the hating big government train before
reading this, and I still will, just on a different car.
Complaint: big government gave special rights protection to a small
class of property owners, i.e., the fireworks exemption thingie,
rather than giving ALL property owners or leasholders the same
protection.
It is similar to smoking bans that do not apply to tobacco stores.
It is different than smoking/non-smoking requirements for some
businesses.
As Dormouse stated, the entity controlling the private property
should have the final word on guns, and I will add, smoking.
|7.3.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Jerry said:
It should be Quik-E-Mart's responsibility of protecting it employees while at work.
Wake up Jerry. I was talking about a Disney employee who chose to
stop at the Quik-E-Mart for their breakfast burrito.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 10:46AM|#
MP,
I think I get what you are saying. But I am in a similar situation,
with a CCP that is valid in VA, but my customer (federal
government) does not allow me to bring any firearm onto their
property, especially the building I work in, nor any of their
leased/rented property. I would be legal all the way through my
normal commute, until I step off the METRO train, or at least leave
the platform.
To top it off, the trails along the Potomac River where I hike are
federal property and it is currently illegal for me to carry a
firearm there, open or concealed.
The former is not a violation of my rights, but I find the latter
to be and welcome federal legeslation to correct the latter. Well,
both, but the former may be too much to ask.
|7.3.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Good for Disney. Why should the state dictate a uniform gun policy for every private business and property owner? And why exactly is Reason siding with the state on this one?
Josh|7.3.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Good for Disney. The government has no business telling them that they *have* to allow weapons on their own property. Supporting gun rights might be the traditional libertarian position, but in this case you have to avoid a knee-jerk reaction and realize that this goes too far.
jkp|7.3.08 @ 11:00AM|#
The gun-nut in me is frustrated. But the private-property nut in me applauds Disney for finding a way to force the government to piss off.
|7.3.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Guy Montag said:
The former is not a violation of my rights
Why not? Agreed that your employer has the right to ban weapons
possession on their property. But then they should be able to
accommodate gun owners by allowing them to put the gun in a locker
at the security booth (or some such thing). By not making that
accommodation, you are implementing a de facto ban on possession
during an employee's commute, thus revoking the right to
self-defense via firearm on property outside of which the employer
maintains control over.
Employers should make accommodations for legal goods which they
wish to ban from their property. Either by allowing them to remain
in locked cars, or taking possession of them at a secure station
for later return to the employee. And that's how the FL law should
have been written, to either allow for vehicular possession or
allow the employer (without exception to the type of employer) to
implement a secure facility to retain possession of banned items on
behalf of the employee.
SIV|7.3.08 @ 11:14AM|#
So those advocating Disney's property rights here believe a property owner should be able to conduct non-consensual warrantless searches of any vehicle parked on their property?
Jerry|7.3.08 @ 11:17AM|#
MP, obviously, if you have an unalienable right to posses a gun at home, there should be some way to transport that gun from producer to consumer. But that does not automatically mean you should be allowed to carry guns on public roads on every occasssion. Each state individually should come up with legislation for that, which might range from total ban to reasonable relax rules.
Isaac|7.3.08 @ 11:17AM|#
By not making that accommodation, you are implementing a de
facto ban on possession during an employee's commute, thus revoking
the right to self-defense via firearm on property outside of which
the employer maintains control over.
I don't see how that works... you can still drive all the way up to
the entrance with your gun. The fact that its an inconvenience to
have to, say, have someone meet you at the entrance to pick up your
gun before you enter does not mean that the business is violating
your right to drive to work armed.
And besides, you still have the ability to find work elsewhere. It
was part of the employment agreement that you not bring weapons
onto work premises.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:17AM|#
MP,
I must strongly disagree with you.
A property owner should have no government imposed
requirement for storing property they deem not appropriate for
their facility. Their only responsibility should be to make a
reasonable effort (signs are fine) to inform people entering their
facility what is not acceptable.
If a property owner wants to be on the nice side, then some fancy
schmancy armory could be provided, right next to the hottie coat
check girl by the cigar room.
BTW, the fed busses I ride on occasion do not allow the carrying of
open drinks (to include the standard Starbucks cups with lids). I
can either finish it while waiting for the next bus or trash it.
That is not a violation of my rights either, any more than them
deciding I can not bring a lit cigar or cigarette on the bus. Have
not tried dipping, but I think that is out too.
Isaac|7.3.08 @ 11:18AM|#
SIV,
It's not non-consensual. By entering their property you are
implicitly consenting to their rules. You still have the right to
turn around and leave as soon as you find out they want to search
you before entering; its not like once you're there, they can force
you to stay for a search.
Jerry|7.3.08 @ 11:19AM|#
SIV, does a company have a right to search employees' vehicles in order to make sure that no company secrets are removed from the company's office?
SIV|7.3.08 @ 11:34AM|#
So Walmart and BestBuy do have the right to make you show them
your receipt and shopping bag before you leave.
I do find a blanket waiver of all of your property rights whenever
you set foot(or tires)on another's property to be troubling.
|7.3.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Isaac said:
The fact that its an inconvenience to have to, say, have someone meet you at the entrance to pick up your gun before you enter does not mean that the business is violating your right to drive to work armed.
The fact that it's an inconvenience to to have to, say, assemble
your weapon before you can use it does not mean that the Government
is violating your right to be armed in your home.
I'm not sure I see the difference. Wasn't the "inconvenience"
factor one of the roots of Heller?
And yes, we are talking about a government ban vs. a private ban,
which is the root of Guy's argument. But I reject the
"inconvenience" argument.
Guy, I agree with you in general. But still, I have a hard time
swallowing that an employer has an unmitigated right to determine
the appropriate contents for my car. But, as is said time and time
again around here, employer/employee rights are optimally solely a
function of the contract between employer & employee.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:38AM|#
SIV,
It is not a waiver of any property rights. It is a balance of
property rights between the guest and the host.
The shopkeeper has no right to take any of your property that you
brought with you.
Josh|7.3.08 @ 11:39AM|#
I do find a blanket waiver of all of your property rights
whenever you set foot(or tires)on another's property to be
troubling.
If it really concerns you, then be aware that you can now live a
productive life without ever leaving your home, thanks to the
wonders of the internet.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:41AM|#
MP,
Guy, I agree with you in general. But still, I have a hard time
swallowing that an employer has an unmitigated right to determine
the appropriate contents for my car. But, as is said time and time
again around here, employer/employee rights are optimally solely a
function of the contract between employer &
employee.
I do not believe that an employer has the right to search an
employees car in most circumstances. However, if the employer
discovers that an employee is violating the rules of employment
through other means, like the employees contraban falls out of car
door pocket in view of other employees, etc. then it is fine by me
if they are terminated on the spot.
If it is otherwise legal 'contraban' then certainly no criminal or
civil action should follow.
|7.3.08 @ 11:45AM|#
So Walmart and BestBuy do have the right to make you show
them your receipt and shopping bag before you leave
My understanding is:
They have a right to ask for it, but if you refuse they can not
legally detain you unless they are going to call the cops and have
you arrested.
I don't get it. If it's private property, can't they decide
whether they want to all guns or not?
Aren't places of public accomidation not treated the same as
private property? Don't places that are open to the public fall
under the category of public spaces in the context of regulations
like these?
|7.3.08 @ 11:49AM|#
I think what's missing here is a law providing that an employer
or property-owner who bans guns on their property has full
responsibility, and strict liability, for protecting the people who
come on their property.
With power comes responsibility, after all. If you want the power
to ban guns, you get the responsibility that goes with it.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:50AM|#
CT,
Aren't places of public accomidation not treated the same as
private property? Don't places that are open to the public fall
under the category of public spaces in the context of regulations
like these?
Yes they are, but it does not mean that we have to like it.
SIV|7.3.08 @ 11:50AM|#
It is a balance of property rights between the guest and the
host.
That is what I'm geting at.Disney certainly should be able to bar
firearms from their amusement parks.I'm not so sure they should be
able to ban them from locked vehicles in their parking lots.
I would think you retain some property rights to your person and
effects when present on private property other than your own.
|7.3.08 @ 11:57AM|#
SIV said:
I would think you retain some property rights to your person and effects when present on private property other than your own.
Except that you don't have an unmitigated right to enter someone
else's private property in the first place. The rules of entry are
entirely definable by the property owner.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:59AM|#
SIV,
I'm not so sure they should be able to ban them from locked
vehicles in their parking lots.
I forgot about tresspassing! Sorry, gotta flipflop from my previous
post.
If the property owner makes a ban on their property and people
violate it, they are tresspassing and the property controller makes
the call on filing charges, even in an employer/employee
relationship.
I do not believe that the property owner should search vehicles,
but they should have some leeway in that. Don't like it? Park
elsewhere.
|7.3.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Guy,
You could also argue that, unless explicitly allowed for by the
employer/employee contract, any employee automotive searches
executed by the employer is the employer engaging in an act of
trespassing.
thoreau|7.3.08 @ 12:22PM|#
This is a hard subject. As MP just pointed out, the rules of
entry onto a property can be defined by the owner. OTOH, it's not
clear to me what rights the owner has in regards to enforcement of
those rules. For instance, if the property owner asks you upon
entry "Do you have any of the following in your car?" and then
rattles off a list of prohibited items, how far can the property
owner go in verifying that?
If a land owner suspected that a car parked on the property
contained contraband, can the land owner enter the car? If he
enters it and doesn't find anything, but he suspects a secret
compartment, can he get out the tools and start taking things
apart?
I suppose that a land owner could make consent to possible
dismantling a condition of entry, but even then, if the owner wants
to invoke that condition wouldn't he have to at least make a
reasonable attempt to contact you (e.g. announce on the intercom
"Will the owner of the silver Honda Accord with license plate
ABCDEFG please come to the security office"), or have some
reasonable basis for believing that there's contraband in the
car?
I guess you could say that if you agreed to it then, well, you
agreed to it. But just as the owner has the right to evict you from
the land, you have the right to revoke your consent and leave. If
you announce that you're going to leave and cancel your entry
agreement with the owner, the owner of the land no longer has a
right to dismantle your car, and he has to let you leave with your
car intact.
I suspect that the lawyers here could shed more light on this, but
in general I don't think that intrusively searching a car is
something that land owners can just do on a whim. If they can't do
that, then their practical ability to enforce a ban on contraband
is limited.
BakedPenguin|7.3.08 @ 12:29PM|#
TFA mentioned the local Orange County school system is also exempt. I wonder if the Florida State Universities are exempt as well. They've had a total ban on handguns (including parked cars) for a while now.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 12:41PM|#
You could also argue that, unless explicitly allowed for by
the employer/employee contract, any employee automotive searches
executed by the employer is the employer engaging in an act of
trespassing.
In reality, I believe that varies from place to place.
In Montag's Rainbow Puppy Land, as long as the property owner
explicitly states that they do indeed reserve their right to
inspect anything entering their property, then no problem. Don't
like it? Go park across the street. Don't want the possibility of
being patted down entering or leaving? Go work elsewhere.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Relevant note: in Tennessee, when the Concealed Carry Permit law
went into effect, it was illegal to have a firearm on the property
of anyplace that sold alcohol, including "package store" parking
lots, bar parking lots, etc. I find that to be a violation of the
property owner's rights to allow it if they wish.
The law was changed so now you can keep your firearms locked up in
your vehicle when on that sort of property. Still a violation of
property rights of the alcohol seller, in my book.
My CCP has more utility in VA than in the State where it was issued
(TN), and even more in Florida (including this fireworks special
case).
In VA, I can carry open in a bar (as long as the management does
not have an issue) and I can carry concealed in the bar parking
lot.
Go figure.
|7.3.08 @ 1:30PM|#
So wait, if i work for Disney and i keep a gun in my car and i get caught do I get fired or do I get arrested?
Downtown Greensboro Woolworth\|7.3.08 @ 1:34PM|#
The rules of entry are entirely definable by the property
owner.
Not anymore.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Guy, I agree with you in general. But still, I have a hard
time swallowing that an employer has an unmitigated right to
determine the appropriate contents for my car. But, as is said time
and time again around here, employer/employee rights are optimally
solely a function of the contract between employer &
employee.
People are making a mountain of a mole-hill here.
If you don't want to leave your gun at home, park at another
parking lot. If you don't drive, rent a storage space nearby. There
is no inherent conflict between your property rights and Disney's
in this case.
It is, imho, the concealed weapon permit that creates the
problem.
Conflating your right to keep and bear arms with some implied right
to conceal arms creates the conflict. Exercise your rights in the
open.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Dr. T.
The landowner does not have the right to search the car.
They have the right to have the car removed from their land.
They, it seems, have the responsibility to inform you that they
want your property removed from their land, and to give you
reasonable opportunity to comply.
If they tow your car without notice, they are probably liable for
the costs to you. With notice that your car will be towed if you
violate certain conditions, the towing bill is yours.
Really, this doesn't seem like a complicated matter at all. Just
because the property involved is a gun, does not complicate the
issue in the least...the only complicating factor is the
concealment clause in the law that takes information away from the
property owner and forces them to bar entry based on suspicion
rather than knowledge, imho.
ZManner|7.3.08 @ 2:12PM|#
"Relevant note: in Tennessee, when the Concealed Carry Permit
law went into effect ... "
It's not a concealed carry permit. It's just a carry permit.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:13PM|#
joshua corning,
Fired would be the most extreme case, it seems.
The more complicated question for me is how the concealed carry law
deals with me if I am not Disney and want to bar concealed weapons
from my land, including in the cars of my employees. If I fire you,
do I get arrested? Can you force me to continue employing you? Am I
required to provide you with parking?
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:13PM|#
There is an interesting theoretical question involved with this.
If I am carrying a concealed weapon and I walk on Disney property,
am I carrying it on myself or on Disney property, or on both, or
neither?
Neither seems unlikely.
I think the KY law handles this best. Private businesses cant post
anything they damn well want, as far as "no firearms". But, if they
see me carrying on their property, they can merely ask me to leave.
If I dont, Im trespassing. If I just ignore there sign, Im not
trespassing, they have to specifically ask me to leave and I have
to refuse, before I have violated the law (assuming Im not
trespassing thru some other means). The act of carrying onto their
property against their wishes does not make me a criminal (just
rude). If they never know Im carrying, then touch titties for
them.
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 2:15PM|#
If a land owner suspected that a car parked on the property
contained contraband, can the land owner enter the car? If he
enters it and doesn't find anything, but he suspects a secret
compartment, can he get out the tools and start taking things
apart?
Actually, that's been done before in relation to fireams. Dog
searches of parked cars, too.
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Employment is a less tricky issue. I dont think there is
anything in the KY law prevents an employer from banning employees
from carrying, under threat of being fired if caught. And I dont
think there should be.
However, cars gets into a tricky area. As I support at will
employment laws, however....
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 2:18PM|#
That should have been:
touch titties for them.
Been too long since I've seen the woman, got too turned around by
the thought and couldn't type I guess.
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:18PM|#
NM,
Do you oppose anonymous speech too?
That damn publius should have been arrested instead of being
appointed to the surpreme court, elected president, and appointed
to the cabinet.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:21PM|#
robc,
Seems, again, like the concealment issue could be the cause of
conflict that goes away if carry permits are "open-carry" rather
than concealed.
It also seems that you are endorsing the logic behind most
regulations involving property rights. A property owner does not
have absolute authority on their property. Their rights do not
supersede the rights of an individual they have allowed on their
property. So if a mom wants to breast-feed, you have no right to
intervene? If I want to sneak a gun into your house, you have no
right to stop me? Or is this only for places of public
accommodation? Is the implied "accommodation" of such places what
restricts the property owners rights somewhat?
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:24PM|#
NM,
I dont treat places of public accommodation any different than my
living room. I think that is a false distinction.
Im willing to give the property owner absolute right, but, just
like with a breastfeeding mom, the most he can do is ask me to
leave if I violate his rules. He catches me carrying (concealed or
otherwise), he kicks me out. He catches her breastfeeding, he kicks
her out.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Do you oppose anonymous speech too?
Clearly...;^)
But my serious response is...do you see a difference between the
right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms?
Does any rule that applies to any right apply to all other
rights?
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:27PM|#
NM,
if carry permits are "open-carry" rather than
concealed.
One more thing. In my state, there is no need for a open-carry
permit. Open-carry is constitutionally protected. Not sure how it
applies to businesses, public accommodation may screw things up,
preventing the business from kicking out an open-carrier. My permit
is a CDW - a concealed deadly weapons license. I guess I can carry
my ninja stars openly (Im actually not sure about that, my license
specifically covers them, but Im not sure if the open carry clause
of the constitution applies to bats/knifes/ninja stars or just to
firearms).
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:29PM|#
robc,
So, given that position, what is the point of the KY law? It seems
redundant to a basic trespassing law.
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:29PM|#
But my serious response is...do you see a difference between
the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms?
Does any rule that applies to any right apply to all other
rights?
No. Yes* **.
*That I can think of right now. Its possible the answers is
no.
**At least natural rights. For example, I think incorporation and
strict*** scrutiny should apply to all natural rights.
***Is that the strongest standard - thats the one I meant.
ellipsis|7.3.08 @ 2:30PM|#
It should be noted that this issue involves employees only, not
customers.
The original post wasn't clear on that, but it becomes clear once
you RTFA.
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:32PM|#
NM,
So, given that position, what is the point of the KY law? It
seems redundant to a basic trespassing law.
The KY law makes in clear that carrying cant ever be accelerated
past basic trespassing. Other than those limited places
specifically banned, carrying itself is never a crime. Ditto
concealed carry with a proper license.
There are some things, like failure to inform a police officer that
you are carrying that can get you in additional trouble, but you
know what I mean.
Until a few years ago, concealed carry was outright illegal in
KY.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:34PM|#
robc,
Regarding "open-carry."
It doesn't, and shouldn't need a permit anywhere. I believe that
such a requirement is unconstitutional...even if you may be
required to register the gun.
The reason a concealed-carry permit is required, it seems, is
because of the potential conflict between you and a property owner
who doesn't want guns on their property.
I feel that a notice that you shouldn't bring that gun onto my
property should kick in as soon as your read the sign. If you
violate, you should lose your concealed carry permit. That seems
like a more reasonable approach than the KY law.
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Funny KY concealed carry story.
KY passed concealed carry law. They banned the chambers of the
state assembly and committee meeting rooms, but not the rest of the
capital building. Then 9/11 happened. With heightened security,
post 9/11, they added metal detectors at the capital entrances.
Regularly, people walked up, pulled out a concealed hand gun,
handed it to the guard, walked thru the detector, guard handed back
the gun, they re-concealed it. They got rid of the metal detectors
in short order.
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:36PM|#
NM,
Nah. The KY law is real handy when you forget to deconceal before
going into the bank.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:40PM|#
robc,
Regarding natural rights.
I see a difference between basic rights and derived rights, so
there is a distinction between speech and the right to bear
arms.
Speech is a basic right.
The right to self-defense/preservation is a basic right.
The right to keep and bear arms is a derivative right that flows
from the more basic right to self-defense.
Property rights, in general, are also derivative rights (see
Proudhon for discussion).
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:41PM|#
NM,
I think the point of the KY law is what I was referring to in my
first post. On my body is considered to be my private property, so
it isnt on their property, its on mine. Sort of like, they couldnt
post a sign saying "no boxer underwear" or something. Its a tricky
call. I can see your side too. I argued it out both ways when I
first saw the law.
My local ballpark searches bags before admittance. They dont allow
weapons in. I dont think Ive ever carried to the ballpark, but my
business partner has, I think. They dont frisk. Really poor
security. :)
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:43PM|#
NM,
I can agree with the basic/derived rights thing, but Im not sure it
makes a difference. Whatever method of self-defense I choose, I
should be able to keep it secret from my potential attacker, to
make their strategy harder.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Nah. The KY law is real handy when you forget to deconceal
before going into the bank.
How many times do you get to "forget?"
On the second instance, aren't you already on notice and
trespassing?
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:46PM|#
NM,
How many times do you get to "forget?"
On the second instance, aren't you already on notice and
trespassing?
I only forgot once. They never knew. So I never got my first
notice.
I assume you would be trespassing the 2nd time if they told you to
never come back. Im guessing it would apply however trespassing
normally applies.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 2:50PM|#
ZManner,
Okay Mr. technicality, mine says Handgun Carry Permit and
"allows" me the pleasure of carrying concealed in a host of places
that others may not.
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:50PM|#
NM,
Does a habitual trespasser ever lose their CDW
permit?
Not sure, good question. Trespassing in that case might cause you
to lose the license the first time.
I avoid doing anything that would cause me to lose it.
I did have a client that I spent 7 months on site. Downtown,
involved some night time walks thru parking garages, I was glad I
was carrying. About 4-5 months in, the CIO of the company
discovered I was carrying (via conversation). He told me never to
tell any of the higher ups, it would freak them out. As I said then
"You didnt find out until now, did you?"
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:54PM|#
NM,
From a quick glance, misdeameanor trespass wont cost you your
license. Any felony conviction will, FOREVER. Falling 1 year behind
on child support also costs you your license (until you catch up, I
guess).
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 2:55PM|#
The difference, in my mind, between the basic and derived rights
is that someone exercising their basic right is not violating a
derived right if they come into conflict. So, my right to life
supersedes your right to self-defense until I am doing something
that puts your right to be secure in your person in danger.
So deadly force is not always justified...proportional action to
defend yourself, you can't kill me because you think I might hurt
you later, etc...
But a derived right never supersedes a basic right. So your right
to property should not give you the right to kill me to protect
that property, for instance. Your right provides you with all kinds
of mechanisms for recompense for the loss of property, but doesn't
give you the right to violate my more basic rights.
I can talk my way out of this position, but I think it is close to
right.
robc|7.3.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Here is the appropriate KY law (places you cant carry, followed
by the specific law related to private property):
A concealed firearm or other deadly weapon SHALL NOT be carried in
the following places:
* Police station or sheriff's office.
* Detention facility, prison or jail.
* Courthouse (Court of Justice, courtroom or court
proceeding).
* County, municipal, or special district governing body
meetings.
* Meeting of governing body of a county, municipality, or special
district.
* General Assembly session, including committee meetings.
* Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense beer or
alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion
of the establishment is primarily devoted to that purpose.
* Elementary or secondary school facilities (without the consent of
school authorities).
* Child-caring facilities, day care centers, or any certified
family child care home.
* Areas within an airport where restricted access is controlled by
the inspection of persons or property.
* Any place where federal law prohibits the carrying of a
firearm.
In addition to the above restrictions, units of state and local
governments and postsecondary education facilities (colleges,
universities, technical schools and community colleges) have the
authority to limit the carrying of concealed weapons on property
owned or controlled by them (KRS 237.115). You should check with
units of state and local government as well as postsecondary
education facilities prior to carrying a concealed weapon on their
property.
Also, KRS 527.070 prohibits unlawful possession (whether carried
openly or concealed) of a weapon on school property, except for
certain specified exceptions. KRS 244.125 prohibits loaded firearms
(concealed or otherwise) in places where alcohol is sold by the
drink, except for certain specified exceptions.
In addition, Kentucky law does not prohibit the owners of
private premises from excluding persons carrying firearms. Failure
to vacate private premises when asked to do so could result in a
criminal trespass charge.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 3:00PM|#
So, for a thought experiment on the balance between between
basic and derived rights.
Assume the right to life is basic.
Assume that property rights are derived.
You have the right to be secure in your property, and happen to own
some food.
I will die if I don't get some food into my system in the next 2
minutes (let's say diabetic shock or something).
I will be violating your basic right by taking your food and
consuming it. For this violation you deserve future recompense, but
don't have the right to use force to keep me away from the
life-saving food.
Something like that.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 3:02PM|#
That should say, "I will be violating your derived right by taking your food..."
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Failure to vacate private premises when asked to do so could
result in a criminal trespass charge.
How does this not kick in as soon as you read the sign?
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 3:07PM|#
I should be able to keep it secret from my potential
attacker victim, to make their
strategy harder.
This is the far more common reason to hide a gun, it seems. You
lose a good deal of protection from the most common types of
potential attackers by hiding your gun, even if you may be gaining
protection from a rarer type of attacker...imho.
robc|7.3.08 @ 3:21PM|#
NM,
In all the times Ive carried concealed, Ive never had either a
victim or an attacker. I think the numbers are about even. This is
true for most legal concealed carriers. If anything attackers
outnumber victims. Notice the word LEGAL.
robc|7.3.08 @ 3:23PM|#
NM,
A sign isnt good enough. You can set up metal detectors if you
want. Apparently, you can search bags too. For whatever reason, a
sign is not considered binding. "If you cross this fence, you will
die in a hidden tiger trap" isnt considered a legit warning
either.
robc|7.3.08 @ 3:24PM|#
NM,
If you just ask, I will give you the food. Other than that, Im fine
with shooting you.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 3:29PM|#
robc,
Sounds like the balance they have in Texas, based on
what's-his-name-was-it-Hill who shot two people in the back for
running of with property that belong to someone else.
I think, intuitively, he overstepped, but others certainly
disagree.
|7.3.08 @ 3:47PM|#
NM,
What if you need the food in two minutes, but I (who own the food)
need it in three or four, or maybe in an hour? Does your "greater"
need trump my ownership?
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
I think that you are describing a conflict between basic rights,
and in that case the additional weight of your property rights
(which are derived from the very basic right of the need to secure
supplies to sustain life) would trump my claim to the food.
But in the case of the "hour" before you need the food, if I can
definitely replace your food before you needed it, then it may be
that the immediacy of my basic right trumps the derived property
right to that food item.
Nice twist, of course.
robc|7.3.08 @ 4:59PM|#
NM,
The basic right to life doesnt provide you the right to any
available food.
Its sort of like Franklin's "A republic, if you can keep it". You
have the right to life, if you can keep it. Now, that right
provides you protection from other, but grants you nothing
else.
I think the distinction you are trying to make between basic and
derived rights is idiotic. A derived right inherits all the
strength of the basic right.
If you think of it like a derived class in OO programming, the
derived class is actually stronger. It inherits all the methods of
the base class, plus any addition methods.
|7.3.08 @ 5:18PM|#
This is a pretty good discussion, a few things:
1) Neu,
The reason a sign isn't binding, is because you can not prove that
I saw it. Businesses like to use those small, clear stickers for
"signs", and they put them in weird places. Sometimes these peel or
get damagaged, making them unreadable. In a mall type situation,
the mall may put the stickers on their main entrances, but not on
the Sears entrance. So If I enter the mall from the Sears every
time I visit the mall, I may never see the sign.
2) Concealed v. Open Carry as a strategy is a useless discussion.
Gun owners can not come to an agreement, and leads to very heated
discussions on the internet and in real life. There are valid
points on either side of the argument, but it's just going to come
down to preference.
3) While Joe Horn did shoot the men in the back, they were found on
his property, meaning that they had advanced on him. Still not sure
if I agree with what he did, or even him getting off of the
charges, but there is a part of me that says, "The punks got what
they deserved."
4) Here in AZ we have a Concealed Weapons Permit. This means any
weapon that is not prohibited (nun chuks). I can open carry those
same weapons without any type of permit.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 5:24PM|#
If you think of it like a derived class in OO
programming
Now that's an idiotic idea.
A derived right inherits all the strength of the basic
right.
So you are going with the all rights are equal, and no true rights
will ever conflict idea of rights?
I never said I couldn't be talked out of the idea, but there does
seem to be a sort of hierarchy to rights to me...
And a need for a rational method to resolve conflicts between
rights claims in particular contexts.
I don't find an unsupported assertion by robc to be a very good
argument against the idea of structural complexity to the system of
rights, even in a natural rights view of the world.
But since your claim used the word "idiotic" you must be pretty
sure of your reasoning.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Nick M.,
1) I recognize the "I didn't see it" or "I can't read" defense for
signs, but once it is established that I both saw and read the
sign, it seems I have been given notice as to the policy.
2)You are, of course, right about the advantages/disadvantages
discussion on open carry. I do think that there are some clearly
fallacious arguments made on both sides, however. One of the ones
that always bugs me is the idea that hiding the weapon is a
deterrent to criminals...a claim that shows no understanding of
risk aversion, criminal behavior, or a host of other obvious
facts.
The main argument for concealed carry as a given right, to me,
comes from the apparent overlap between a right to keep and bear a
weapon, and the right to be free from unlawful searches. But I am
not sure if that applies beyond law enforcement encounters. Most
laws make clear statements that you need to actively notify police
about a lawful weapon, it seems.
3) Horn, that was his name. Like I said, my gut is that he
overstepped, but I recognize the arguments to justify his actions.
I think the fact that they were already fleeing, were not
threatening him directly, that he knew police were in route, had
been advised by police not to intervene, stated that he wasn't
"gonna let them get away with it," and several other facts n the
case make it hard for me to buy the "I was afraid" argument. As far
as I know, there has never been a claim that they were "advancing
on him." No account of the incident that I have seen puts that on
the table. But I don't see how that gives him the right to kill
them after they have already begun to flee.
Neu Mejican|7.3.08 @ 6:46PM|#
The basic right to life doesnt provide you the right to any
available food.
That is, certainly, not clear in any sense and has been the source
of much of the debate about rights from the conception of the
idea.
Its sort of like Franklin's "A republic, if you can keep it".
You have the right to life, if you can keep it. Now, that right
provides you protection from other, but grants you nothing
else.
Keeping life might require that I steal from you, infringing upon
your property rights. The question is whether you can justify the
use of force to stop that infringement if it is not threatening
you, but only your property. My sense is no...as long as it is not
threatening your right to life (and other similarly basic
rights).
Robert|7.4.08 @ 1:30AM|#
I find this funny in the ha-ha sense. Because Disney gets to bring explosives onto their property, they also get to exclude firearms from their property.
|7.4.08 @ 3:55AM|#
Couldn't make it through all the comments, so forgive me if it's
already been mentioned...
But this sorta begs the question of landlord/tenant rights. Can my
landlord make, as a condition of my continued residence, a rule
stating that I can't keep firearms in the home? He can certainly
tell me I can't smoke in it. Seems to me that from a purist
perspective he can make any prohibitions he wants and I have the
choice to abide by them, or find a different place to live. And I'm
not sure why the place I choose to work or vacation shouldn't have
the same control over their property.
When not allowing people with guns on your property is outlawed,
only outlaws will not allow people with guns on their property!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245