The NRA: More on the Side of Guns Than of Liberty in a Tennessee State House Race

National Public Radio the other day noted how the National Rifle Association is targeting one of its own members, a staunch Second Amendment defender, in a Tennessee state representative race, because she believes in liberty and private property rights more than she believes in "gun rights" for the sake of gun rights.

Details from the NPR report:

The head of the NRA's lobbying arm, Chris Cox [says]: We've put up ads and billboards comparing Debra Maggart to Barack Obama. That's because while both say they support our Second Amendment rights, they've both worked against our freedoms behind closed doors.

[NPR REPORTER BLAKE FARMER]: State representative Debra Maggart of Hendersonville, Tennessee crossed the NRA by helping block an effort to allow people to keep guns in their vehicles at work. She says it would have trampled on private property rights of business owners. The NRA's wrath is trained on this ranking Republican incumbent, but gun owners are irritated with the state's GOP leadership as a whole. Maggart just went along with the Republican governor, who had been told in no uncertain terms by the state's largest employers they wanted the guns-in-trunks bill scuttled....

Representative Maggart calls the NRA's campaign bullying and a fundraising stunt.

MAGGART: You know, they've got to have a reason to collect your dues. You know, they've got to have a reason for people to send them a check.

FARMER: Maggart, herself a member, has been sending the NRA checks for years, and contends she's about as big a gun gal as she could be. She hosts a skeet shoot fundraiser. She has her carry permit, and is a regular at the local indoor shooting range, which has turned its back on her.

The NRA is showing itself a mere lobbying group for a special interest and not an actual defender of liberty here. As the Cato Institute's Roger Pilon wrote on Cato's blog:

The NRA’s Chris Cox, who’s spearheading this political vendetta and, in the process, is supporting Maggart’s tea-party backed opponent, invokes both “our First Amendment right to assemble to petition our government” and, of course, the Second Amendment, seemingly oblivious to the fact that neither is relevant here. In fact, the issue could not be simpler: individuals, including employers, have a right to determine the conditions on which others may enter their property.

The Second Amendment prevents the government, not private parties, from infringing your right to keep and bear arms. If a private party can ban you from his property for any reason, good or bad, he can do so for carrying a gun. So too with the First Amendment: it limits whatgovernments, not private parties, may do; government may not violate your rights of assembly and petition, none of which is happening here.

As so often happens, here again we see how single-issue politics, in the name of liberty, ends up undermining liberty. The tea party should know better.

My December 2008 Reason magazine feature "How the Second Amendment was Restored" (and my book Gun Control on Trial) explain how the NRA was an enemy of the Heller case's successful bid to get the Supreme Court to recognize that the Second Amendment indeed applies to individuals, until its very last step.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    The NRA is showing itself a mere lobbying group for a special interest and not an actual defender of liberty here.

    This is not new news. But thanks for noting it to keep it in front of us.

    I'm as staunch a 2nd amendment person as you'll find (and my overly-full gun cabinet will attest)...but I've never joined the NRA precisely because of shit like this.

  • ||

    ...but I've never joined the NRA precisely because of shit like this.

    The way I see it, the money I save on not forking over dues to the NRA is more money I can spend on guns and ammo.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Those would both be illegal now if it weren't for the NRA and those who did pay their dues. Enjoy your liberty, freeloader.

  • ||

    While we're at it... I also enjoy H and R and all the work that the Reason Foundation does and I've never donated a dime to them or clicked on an ad on their website. And I do enjoy my liberty, jackass, which includes the freedom to not waste my money on organizations of my choice regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

  • Ted S.||

    I only donate ampersands.

  • ||

    I only donate ampersands.

    Lord knows H ampersand R could use all you have.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm hoarding all of mine so I can swim in a pool of them like Scrooge McDuck.

  • ||

    What we need is an independent centralized authority that is empowered to print more ampersands as needed in order to ensure that we never run out and prevent these types of shortages. Think of what it could do to boost the comment threads of reason.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Of course you have the freedom to freeload. And I have the freedom to wag my finger of shame at you for doing so.

  • ||

    Yes...you have the freedom to be a hypocrite. I'm sure you too enjoy many freedoms in this world that you don't help pay for. But if you're going to point fingers, have the balls to admit your own freeloading.

  • ||

    If they're rights, using them without paying someone isn't really "freeloading".

  • LTC(ret) John||

    ^^^^^
    This!

    I have to pay a lobby group to enjoy my Consitutional rights? F the NRA.

  • ||

    Exactly my point. Tulpa seems to believe that because I own guns and am not a member of the NRA then I'm freeloading. That would mean that anyone who doesn't donate to the ACLU, or any myriad of organizations that at one time supported something you believe in, is a freeloader. The argument is so stupid that only someone as blinded by their own superiority as Tulpa could make it.

  • Pip||

    Those guns of yours? You didn't buy them. Someone else made that happen.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Nothing the ACLU has done has helped my freedom one whit. It's nice to have them around but I don't do the sorts of things that get me in trouble with the law.

    If there is a constant drumbeat to use the force of law to prevent you from doing something, and you spend money on that thing without helping the organization that's fighting that drumbeat, then yes, you are a freeloader.

  • robc||

    ...but I've never joined the NRA precisely because of shit like this.

    Being right?

    Ive not joined for plenty of reasons, but shit like this isnt one of them.

  • ||

    Being wrong?

    Ive not joined for plenty of reasons, but shit like this isnt one of them.

    Fixed.

  • wareagle||

    I am a little confused here. What exactly is the problem with a property owner deciding what is and is not allowed on his premises? When private property rights collide with a constitutional amendment, who wins?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The Constitution is about the government, not your employer.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Exactly. The property owner is absolute dictator over the use of his or her property.

  • robc||

    And he can ask you to leave/fire your ass.

  • Bryan C||

    The inside of your vehicle is not the landowner's property.

    Of course, the property owner is free to ask the owner of the vehicle if they have a gun, a Bible, a 20oz soda, or some other dangerous object concealed inside it. Of course, the owner of the vehicle is free to lie about it.

  • GW||

    "The inside of your vehicle is not the landowner's property."

    THIS is really the crux of the issue, and I honestly don't know where to stand on this one. Inside my car is MY property.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    And you don't get to use my parking lot for your property/car unless you abide by my rules.

  • SteveE||

    My employer can search my car when they pry it from my cold dead hands--well, I'm not going to unlock it for them, at least.

    Truthfully, I have worked at an employer where the employment agreement indicated that firearms were not welcome on company property (this isn't too surprising), and when I asked HR if that included the parking lot, they wavered, so I told them I'd be parking on the street--and then they told me it was OK to park in the company lot.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    so I told them I'd be parking on the street

    Which is the correct response if you don't want to abide by the firearms rules.

  • Randian||

    So is the inside of your body. Can you consent to drug tests to 'see' what is inside of your body? Of course you can. You can therefore consent to let an employer 'see' the inside of your car.

  • GW||

    I think your employer being allowed to drug test you is bullshit too. What you do on your own property or on your own time is your business.

  • Randian||

    Right, so you don't really believe in freedom either.

    GW, who are you to tell me that I cannot contract away my rights?

  • GW||

    Whose freedom are we talking about? Clearly not that of the employee.

    If they were genuinely your rights, you wouldn't HAVE to contract them away.

    Why am I not free to smoke pot on my own time, since it has no impact on my job? Your employer isn't allowed to force himself into your house to see if you're doing drugs; that would be illegal. Why is it legal for you hinge your employment on a breach of your privacy?

    Similarly, your employer would not be legally allowed to break into your car to search for a gun. If your car is on their property, you guys are making it sound like they have complete domain over your vehicle. Not so.

  • Randian||

    If they were genuinely your rights, you wouldn't HAVE to contract them away.

    What? I have the right to free speech. I contract away that right when I promise not to tell my boss 'fuck you' to his or her face.

    Why am I not free to smoke pot on my own time, since it has no impact on my job?

    Why am I not free to surrender that right?

    Why is it legal for you hinge your employment on a breach of your privacy?

    They're my rights to give away, not yours!

  • GW||

    Give yours away all you want. I don't want to give away mine.

  • Randian||

    Then don't. But that does not mean that drug testing or car searches should be prohibited by law, which is what you seemed to be advocating upthread.

  • Pip||

    The SCOTUS long ago ruled that your car is private property and absent a warrant, can't be searched by the cops (unless they have probable cause).

  • Mo||

    And you have no right to work for said employer. I'm not a fan of drug testing, but the employer can make that the condition of employment.

  • GW||

    So could they make it a condition of your employment that they will randomly come to your house, and use force, if necessary, to enter, to determine if you're using drugs?

    And another note on drug testing: some companies are required by law to drug test certain employees, but of course government employees CAN'T be tested, by law. Interesting, this.

  • Randian||

    So could they make it a condition of your employment that they will randomly come to your house, and use force, if necessary, to enter, to determine if you're using drugs?

    I am sure what you meant to say was "Could you, Randian, contract away your rights to bodily and property integrity if you, as a grown man and a free adult in the United States, so do contract?"

    Because, see, when you frame it like that, the answer is obvious.

  • GW||

    "I am sure what you meant to say was "Could you, Randian, contract away your rights to bodily and property integrity if you, as a grown man and a free adult in the United States, so do contract?"

    Because, see, when you frame it like that, the answer is obvious."

    Yes, the answer is obvious. Here's the other side of the coin:

    "Your employer, should you choose to work for them, has compete domain over every aspect of your life as a condition of employment. You have no protections under the law."

    Just THINK of the things that employers could demand. There would be ZERO attractive young women in the workforce, because their bosses could demand anything (wink wink) as a condition of employment.

    See how far the rabbit hole goes here?

  • Randian||

    In other words, you believe in limiting my freedom of contract because others *might* behave badly.

  • GW||

    Or you could say that I'm protecting your freedom of privacy because I'm preventing your employer from raping you (literally) as a condition of employment.

    Something tells me that if your wife came home and said that she quit her job because the new policy was that anyone would be subject to the sexual whims of his/her supervisor, you would not simply say "Oh well, get another job somewhere else".

    And then to find out that was the new policy EVERYWHERE. So if she wants a job, she's going to have to bend over. Such is the invasion of privacy that is the drug test. I don't really have a choice to work elsewhere when the policy as ubiquitous.

    It's funny that when we talk about the TSA, we mention that the government does things that private sector people would be jailed for. Now, many of you are advocating exactly the opposite.

  • Coeus||

    Just THINK of the things that employers could demand. There would be ZERO attractive young women in the workforce, because their bosses could demand anything (wink wink) as a condition of employment.

    Wrong. There would be ZERO attractive women in the workforce without skills. And I have no problem with that.

  • ||

    I'm not sure what you guys are arguing about here. Allowing your employer to drug test you isn't contracting out your rights, it's simply contracting out limited access to certain bodily fluids. Agreeing to let your employer drug test you is no more an abrogation of rights than allowing people onto your property. If you agree to it (and you CAN stop agreeing to it at any time), than it's (legally) ok for them to do so, and not violating your rights over your body or property.

    My take on the issues here? If a business owner doesn't want a person carrying a gun, or a vehicle with a gun in it, on their property, it's entirely fair and not an abrogation of the gun owner's rights. The business owner(s) can set their own conditions for access. I think an issue that's come up in the past is WHO owns the parking lot? It's not always the same people as who owns the business.

  • ||

    The Constitution is about the government, not your employer.

    People say this a lot, but it's wrong. Even the Cato guy has it wrong. The Constitution, if it binds anyone, binds private parties as well as the government. Private parties cannot abrogate your freedoms any more than the government can.

    The issue people don't recognize is that barring people from access to private property isn't abrogating their right to bear arms, nor their right to free speech. It's simply the owner exercising control over their property. Disallowing access to gun owners carrying firearms and people who engage in speech the property owners don't like doesn't prohibit anyone from carrying guns or speaking, it just means they aren't allowed onto that piece of private property while doing so.

    In contrast, when the government imposes laws restricting gun ownership, or tries to prosecute people for their speech, they ARE abrogating the people's right to bear arms and their right to free speech, because those restrictions have nothing to do with declining to provide a venue, and everything to do with disallowing those activities entirely. The government can't disallow public space for gun ownership or free speech, because public property is owned by the PUBLIC, which includes gun owners and free-speaking citizens. Government can't unfairly discriminate against some or all of the population for exercising their rights.

  • Randian||

    Private parties abrogate your freedoms all the time. It's the essence of contract law. Your post basically agrees with the premise while disclaiming them in the beginning.

  • ||

    No, you don't understand the nature of freedoms. Allowing someone to do something isn't a violation of your freedoms, it's a legitimate exercise of your control over yourself and your property. By your logic, allowing someone onto your own property is a violation of your property rights, even though you're ok with their access. That's not the case. When you agree to a contract, you're freely allowing them do something. Being able to allow other parties access to your property is PART of your rights, not a VIOLATION of them.

  • GW||

    What do you do when allowing access isn't an option, but mandatory? And every employer demands access as a condition of employment?

    It's no longer a voluntary contract; its coercion.

  • ||

    They aren't forcing you to enter into employment. Where is the coercion? There isn't any force involved in the offer. They aren't MAKING you take employment with them, nor threatening you. They're providing work conditions. If you choose to go along with that, that's your choice. If you don't, that's ALSO your choice, no coercion involved.

  • GW||

    Hey, I wouldn't have a job if it wasn't a necessity. Trust me. But it's kind of important.

    Like I said, your tune would change if the assault on your person was severe enough.

  • ||

    No one is "assaulting your person" here. If you agree to their terms of employment, you're agreeing to certain things (like drug tests, for instance). If you choose not to go through with those things, you can. And they are then free to refuse continued employment to you. Whether you "need" money or not doesn't entitle you to a job, which is what you're claiming here.

  • GW||

    What's the weather like on your planet? There are PLENTY of public spaces where you can't carry a gun. Don't believe me? Try carrying a gun into your local courthouse, a building clearly owned by the public.

  • ||

    Government can't unfairly discriminate

    Repeating for emphasis. There ARE public places that people can't carry guns, but the reasons this isn't allowed are generally for very specific reasons and don't unconditionally violate people's rights to carry guns.

    There are other ways governments restrict gun possession. Convicted felons can't carry guns. But few people would consider outlawing felon gun-ownership, or denying gun carry in specific public areas (such as courthouses) as unfair discrimination. Denying the right to bear arms in public places in general, though, is considered much less permissible.

    Even then there are disagreements about having public places which prohibit gun possession. There are people who think prohibiting gun carry in any public place is wrong. While I don't know if I go that far, I lean more toward that than toward broad-based prohibition of public carry. Even for those who don't go that far, there are many people who think certain places (such as public colleges) where guns are prohibited should NOT have those prohibitions.

    And I would never claim that government is perfectly consistent. There have been many efforts to prohibit gun carry in various public places, with much opposition to them as well. The court cases and decisions involved go into more detail about why some public prohibitions of gun carry are considered permissible, while some are not. I'm not going to go into all of that detail here though.

  • Coeus||

    But few people would consider outlawing felon gun-ownership, ... as unfair discrimination.

    I do. It may have been logical when felonies were all violent crimes, but now most felonies are for crimes against the state.

  • ||

    I do. It may have been logical when felonies were all violent crimes, but now most felonies are for crimes against the state.

    You make an good point. I wonder if there are any civil rights organizations that talk about that.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    "The Constitution, if it binds anyone, binds private parties as well as the government. Private parties cannot abrogate your freedoms any more than the government can."

    Nice wishful thinking, there. And, I suppose that civil court, and, in some cases, criminal court, exist to help people sort out mutual abrogation of freedoms. But the Constitution was intended to restrain GOVERNMENT, not private parties, and it was written in a specific style, in order to do that. The phrasing characteristically used throughout the document does not grant rights, but rather protects against infringement of rights, by saying clearly what GOVERNMENT may not do.

  • R C Dean||

    Its not a conflict between property rights and a constitutional amendment, its a conflict between two fundamental human rights: the right to own (and control) property, and the right to effective self-defense.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The second right can be exercised by staying off the private property in question. You don't have the right to use someone else's property.

  • robc||

    There is no conflict. The right to bear arms is absolute and the right to property is absolute and the 2nd rightholder can tell the first to leave. But there is no need for state involvement.

  • BarryD||

    There is no need, but given that there are mountains of legal restrictions on what an employer can do, and can demand of an employee already, there would appear to be little reason for the state NOT to be involved, either.

    It's stupid to talk about an employer's rights over his employees as if they were absolute, or contracts as if there were no restrictions on what rights can be contracted away. This is NOT REALITY. Not even close. Nor should it be. Employers have killed people. Lots of people.

    Keeping someone from having the means to defend themselves in their possession when they go home, is not dissimilar from barring the doors to a workplace when there is a fire. And that ship sailed a long time ago, when some employer did just that and killed a lot of people.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Keeping someone from having the means to defend themselves in their possession when they go home, is not dissimilar from barring the doors to a workplace when there is a fire.

    Yes, it is dissimilar. Seriously?

  • BarryD||

    If you don't believe anyone needs to defend themselves when they go home from work, then you might think they're dissimilar.

  • ||

    If you don't believe anyone needs to defend themselves when they go home from work, then you might think they're dissimilar.

    If you think physically preventing people from fleeing a fire is different from disallowing someone with a gun onto your property, they're dissimilar. If you don't think they're different, you're a moron.

  • ||

    there would appear to be little reason for the state NOT to be involved

    That's ridiculous. That the state involves itself in employers in some ways doesn't justify interfering with them in other ways. And that's assuming all the ways it ALREADY interferes with employers is justified in the first place.

    Keeping someone from having the means to defend themselves in their possession when they go home, is not dissimilar from barring the doors to a workplace when there is a fire.

    That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Barring people from leaving is entirely different from telling people they can't bring guns on the premises. You're arguing RESULTS, rather than PROCESS. The processes are completely different.

    Physically keeping people from leaving is an outright violation of not only their basic freedom of movement, but their freedom of association as well. Telling people they can't bring guns on the premises doesn't actually keep them from carrying guns, it just sets conditions for access to private property.

    Saying you should be allowed to bring anything you like on their property is then a violation of their property rights, AS WELL AS their freedom of association.

    And even an argument based on results fails, as barring people from leaving the premises during a fire has an automatic result of death, while prohibiting guns on property doesn't automatically mean they'll be shot as soon as they leave the premises.

  • wareagle||

    okay, let's go with your wording. Which has primacy? Reading below, the issue has been firmly straddled.

    The next question is, what is the NRA's real problem with this woman because this seems like an inside baseball type of complaint.

  • R C Dean||

    Sure, there's not necessarily any conflict if we treat this as a trespass issue, although it raises the issue of whether the property owner assumes responsibility for the safety of anyone on their property if they condition being on their property with being defenseless.

  • BarryD||

    Precisely.

    Courthouses may not allow private citizens to carry firearms, but they are typically guarded by a lot of armed people, and protected by metal detectors.

    Also, the workplace is a special case, since employees leave the premises, daily, and may need to protect themselves on the way home.

    This is not so simple. Rights and responsibilities both count for something.

    And as far as employers having absolute property rights to the workplace in the same way that all private property owners have over our homes, that's nowhere near the reality we live with.

    As a homeowner, I can refuse to allow someone to enter because of his race, gender, disability, veteran status, age, etc., and I can say it to his face.

    Employers cannot legally do that, either to applicants or customers. So what's special about keeping people from defending themselves before and after work, that employers should suddenly have absolute property rights?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Also, the workplace is a special case, since employees leave the premises, daily, and may need to protect themselves on the way home.

    If you don't like the workplace rules, find another job. I can't f-ing believe I'm having to say this on a libertarian site. You guys are going down the MNG path with this garbage.

  • BarryD||

    ROTFLMAO

    If you don't like the workplace laws, find another country, you mean? There are MANY laws governing what can happen in the workplace. This one would be FAR from the most significant restriction on the mythical absolute property rights of employers.

  • ||

    If you don't like the workplace laws and they're constitutional, find another country

    Fixed.

  • Coeus||

    If you don't like the workplace rules, find another job. I can't f-ing believe I'm having to say this on a libertarian site. You guys are going down the MNG path with this garbage.

    Awesome. Tulpa's finally using his scolding powers for good.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    it raises the issue of whether the property owner assumes responsibility for the safety of anyone on their property if they condition being on their property with being defenseless.

    No, it doesn't. Point to a successful litigation, or any litigation for that matter. It's not like property owners banning guns from their property is a new thing.

  • Robert||

    This comes up in regard to petitioning and leafletting in shopping centers too. I have some sympathy for the argument running thusly:

    When land is a commons, persons are allowed to travel thru it, carry gusn on it, and leaflet or solicit petitions on it. It has long been recognized that when the commons is privatized, a public right of way needs to be maintained, else a property owner could prevent people's traveling thru to get to points beyond. Could not the "retained public rights from the commons" work as well with weapons and speech issues? In Loretto v. Teleprompter it was established that the landlord of an apt. bldg. had to allow reasonable access to a cable line to be installed for tenants, as long as its installers were liable for damages they might do during install'n y maintenance.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    This is the Chris Cox whose SEC couldn't bother to look into Madoff's apparent fraudulent activities? Maybe NRA members who understand the concept of private property ought to write him and demand this stupid
    campaign be halted. Better yet, the NRA board should remove any officer who doesn't stand by the concept of private property.

  • Dylan||

    The NRA has a different purity test than the LP.

  • Brutus||

    I'm pretty sure that's a different Chris Cox.

  • Michael||

    O/T (lil' late for AM links): Harry Reid is vying for the title of most contemptible, worthless sack of shit currently serving in Congress:

    “I don't think the burden should be on me,” Reid told home-state reporters. “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn’t he release his tax returns?”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....1057.story

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I don't think the burden should be on me. The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has fucked sheep. Why didn’t Reid release his home surveillance video?

  • Dylan||

    He missed his true calling as a prosecutor.

  • Brutus||

    I think the burden is on Harry Reid to disprove my contention that he fucks sheep after going home every night.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Always with the sheep. Can't you guys get more creative? Work some gibbons into it, maybe?

  • RBS||

    I think the burden is on Harry Reid to disprove my contention that he fucks Tulpa after going home every night.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Wait, did you just insinuate that Tulpa is a gibbon? That's not very nice. Gibbons are majestic animals, and do not deserve that kind of base slander.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It's a race to the bottom. And if Mitt Romney actually did engage in tax evasion, with the personal wealth he's known to have, the IRS would be so far up Romney's ass, he'd be shitting 1040A forms.

    As far as Harry Reid goes, he needs to learn how to fill out his own financial disclosure forms before he lectures other people about their tax returns.

  • Brandybuck||

    Ugh. Where did all these SpritHood ads come from? Are Furries going mainstream? I'm ready to wretch.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I haven't seen any. It must be something specific to you, Brandybuck. Is there a secret you'd like to talk about?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I get Chinese wife-by-mail ads.

    I don't know why I get them, but I'm nto arguing.

  • The Hammer||

    SpritHood? I keep getting Amex and RoyalShave ads. Maybe you're just not libertarian enough?

  • Generic Stranger||

    I do not normally unblock my ads, but when I do, I get ads for monocles.

    Stay greedy, my friends.

  • The Hammer||

    That's more like it.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Try Chrome with AdBlock. No adds, just a glorious field of white background here on H ampersand R.

  • ||

    This issue is actually an interesting one. Isn't your car your property, and a mobile bit of it at that? Even when you are on someone else's property, they don't have the right to enter your car, correct? So why can't you have a gun in your car even if they don't want you to? If they can't enter your car even on their property, isn't that a de facto confirmation that it is, in fact, a tiny island of your property, and therefore you can have whatever you want in it?

  • Brett L||

    In FL, this is true everywhere but Disney. Literally.

  • Pro Libertate||

    There's a Disney exception? Really? How?

  • SIV||

    They're sovereign.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, but under state law. I think the guns-to-work law is a state statute.

  • BakedPenguin||

    There are Reedy Creek exemptions to laws the Mouse finds objectionable.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't think they can buck state law that way. What they can do is lobby to be exempted from some laws like, apparently, the guns-to-work law.

  • Brett L||

    Yep. It is legal to carry your gun to work in your care everywhere in FL except for fireworks manufacturers, of which there is one in FL. The Mouse.

  • T||

    I have to give the Mouse credit for that one. Disney has the bestest lawyers.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They can do magic. A number of laws favor theme parks larger than X. Only Disney is larger than X. They also somehow blocked I-4 improvements for decades in order to keep people from staying on the west coast of Florida and driving over to the parks.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Because they're trained by Imagineers.

  • Drake||

    I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not sure what the right answer is here. Yes, definitely, a private property owner should be able to say no weapons on my property. That said, by doing that, the owner takes on the obligation to protect his guests.

    With a car, it seems to me that you should be able to keep your gun in it, regardless of where you park. That's the law in Florida, for instance. It's not like property rights trump every possible right--some still remain in your person even when on someone else's property.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    With something this ambiguous, I try to err on the side of fewer laws. That puts me on Maggart's side here.

  • robc||

    Wrong. The fewest law position would mean to laws regarding guns on property at all.

  • robc||

    s/to/no/

  • Scotticus Finch||

    That's what I understand the current situation to be -- no specific laws. And Maggart blocked an effort to create a new law requiring property owners to allow guns in the cars.

    If I'm wrong about that, then I agree with you entirely.

  • robc||

    I guarantee you we arent currently in a condition of no laws, so Im right.

  • Bryan C||

    "And Maggart blocked an effort to create a new law requiring property owners to allow guns in the cars."

    Arguably, property owners are already required to allow guns in the cars. The current unjust interpretation of the law allows them to deny this civil right to their employees.

  • Randian||

    You don't have the civil right to disregard private property owner's wishes.

    You may as well join the Left in saying that any limitation on your speech is a violation of your "civil rights"

  • BarryD||

    No, but you have the right to support a law that restricts certain uses of private property when they impact other people.

    There are many such laws. There's no special reason that this one should not be enacted, in the interest of practical application of the right to bear arms.

  • The Dan||

    Didn't Rand Paul address this on MSNBC or something? Civil Rights that can force a landowner to serve people he doesn't want to serve, can just as easily be used to force them to serve gun owners as a civil right.

  • BarryD||

    Exactly.

    When you can open a parking lot for general use, and legally post a sign that says, "No n-----s can park here!" then I figure you can post a sign that says, "Nobody with a gun can park here."

    Civil rights have been enforced against property owners when that property is open to the public, or some subset thereof. That's a fact. Some libertarians oppose this, but I don't see too many Reason articles blasting the NAACP for its support of laws that won't let restaurants refuse to serve African-Americans.

    The tone of this article is simply ridiculous.

  • SIV||

    Could the employer ban Bibles and religious symbols from the glove boxes and trunks of an employee's car?

  • Pro Libertate||

    This is all messed up by government involvement. The private owner could always toss someone off their property for pretty much any reason, including having a gun in your car.

  • mr simple||

    But how would they know unless they gained access to your car, which you should be able to deny as it's your property?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Easy. Make access to your car a condition of entry.

  • BarryD||

    This is still true. Put up a fence and some No Trespassing signs, and you can keep out all the aged African-American wheelchair-bound veterans you want. Open a store and do that, and you will run afoul of some laws.

    As soon as you open up your property to the public, or some subset thereof, though, the balance of rights does shift. How much it should shift is subject to debate, but it's silly to pretend that there's no balance to be struck.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I'm pretty sure most people here are against laws requiring non-discrimination by private businesses.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    That could be construed as religious discrimination in employment. Which shouldn't be illegal but is.

  • Mo||

    Why? Your body is your property too, yet a property owner can say you can't carry explosives on your body or that you must dress a certain way before entering their property. Your car isn't an extradimensional space that prevents people from applying their rules on it. If someone says that no cars with Raggaeton CDs in them can come on their property, that's their right.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If someone says that no cars with Raggaeton CDs in them can come on their property, that's their right.

    This, BTW, should be the default condition of all property. Owners should have to put signs up saying "Raggaeton welcome here" and notify all of their neighbors to move out of the area.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Yeah, I'm with you on this one.

    Having a gun in your car, even if that car is on someone else's property, doesn't impact the owner of that property at all. While the government providing force to private owners to exclude gun containing cars certainly does.

    If a business doesn't want cars containing guns on their lots, then don't have a parking lot.

    Also if they don't want them and still want a parking lot, it's their responsibility to keep gun containing cars off their property. It's not the public's responsibility.

    The law is dumb, the NRA seems correct in this case.

  • robc||

    Also if they don't want them and still want a parking lot, it's their responsibility to keep gun containing cars off their property. It's not the public's responsibility.

    This.

    Sames goes for concealed carry, and my state does it right. Posting "no guns" at the door means nothing. If they ask me to leave, whether they have posted or not, and I dont, Im trespassing.

    If they dont know Im carrying, they dont know Im carrying.

  • SIV||

    This is the law in GA.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    The law is dumb, the NRA seems correct in this case.

    Maggart ... crossed the NRA by helping block an effort to allow people to keep guns in their vehicles at work.

    It isn't clear if this "effort" was a new law or an effort to repeal a current law.

    If it was a new law, I support Maggart in blocking it. If it was an effort to repeal existing law, I'm with the NRA.

  • robc||

    I agree. And I read it as the law currently is in line with the KY and GA law as stated above and she is blocking an effort to repeal it.

    But it isnt clear.

  • SIV||

    Any area/building/property posted with a sign per 39-17-1359

    It is a criminal offense to have a gun in your car if the owner posts a sign.
    To the extent the NRA-backed law repeals this it is pro-liberty.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    That settles it for me. Thanks, robc and SIV.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    That's an anti-trespassing law. Which is not unlibertarian, unless you want to join Will Wilkinson and the left-libertarians.

  • SIV||

    No it isn't.Unless you want to say it is a criminal offense to wear a concealed religious symbol under your clothing against the wishes of a property owner.

  • Fluffy||

    It's fraud.

    If I say you can only have access to my property if you don't have a gun, and you say, "Sure, I have no gun!" and come on my property while you secretly do have a gun, you're defrauding me.

  • BarryD||

    That's not fraud. Fraud has to involve some material gain.

    If I tell you that I was in the movie Jaws, in a bar somewhere, and I wasn't, that's not fraud.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    That would be an extremely stupid thing for a property owner to do, but I don't see anything wrong with it. If a property owner informs you of his rules and has no preexisting obligation to allow you on his property, that's all there is to it. You follow his rules or you stay off the property.

  • GW||

    Food for thought: If I can only park in a lot provided by my employer, and the employer bans guns, the practical effect is that my employer has restricted me from legally carrying my weapon elsewhere on my commute where it *is* legal for me to carry.

    I don't see this as a pro-liberty position.

    Walmart was one of the first companies to post signs prohibiting concealed carry in their stores when these various states started legalizing concealed carry. Then one day, an astute lawyer in their legal department mentioned that Walmart could be sued and held liable for restricting a person's ability to defend himself if an incident were to occur. The signs came down.

  • BarryD||

    Exactly. If there is state enforcement of the employer's wishes, then it becomes an individual rights issue, and the NRA is correct.

    It's not a simple property rights issue when a crime is created by a sign.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So I guess trespassing isn't a property rights issue either, since it's "created" by those NO TRESPASSING signs.

  • BarryD||

    Are you really stupid, or just a troll?

    No Trespassing signs make it a crime to enter the property. Therefore they don't criminalize otherwise-legal conduct on the property.

    When property is opened up to the public, the owner cannot enforce his property rights in the same way as when the property is closed to access.

    What world do you live in, anyway?

  • Randian||

    Any law that requires property owners to surrender their rights to politically-favored interest groups is wrong, and should either be blocked or repealed. I fail to see how the status of the current law informs the rightness or wrongness of the action in question.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    I fail to see how the status of the current law informs the rightness or wrongness of the action in question.

    Because that's the whole issue. If there is a law (and there is, we know now) making it criminal to ignore posted no-gun signs, then that's a bad law and should be repealed.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So if Obamacare had included a provision removing marijuana from Schedule I, libertarians should have supported Obamacare?

  • BarryD||

    If it were competing with an otherwise identical law without the provision, probably yes. There's such thing as "more" or "less" libertarian, in the real world.

    There are many restrictions on what employers can do to their employees. This law exists within the vast ecosystem of existing laws.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    I keep trying to follow you on this one, but can't.

  • Hugh Akston||

    A car is your property, but it doesn't make sense to treat it the same way as real (in the legal sense) property because it moves, and can move onto/into property owned by other people.

    Real property owners should retain the right to bar people from carrying chattel property onto their land if they want.

  • ||

    The cops can't search my car without a warrant, just like my house. Doesn't that create legal precedent for it being moving private property?

  • Hugh Akston||

    But what about the parking lot owner's property rights? Are you going to force him to allow you to bring whatever you can cram in your car onto his property just because he owns a certain kind of land improvement?

    Beyond the property rights issues, you're also imposing extra liability costs on him if the gun ends up hurting someone.

  • robc||

    Any parking lot owner has the right to ask you to leave for any reason* whatsoever already.

    *the few exceptions to this should be repealed.

  • ||

    rob has this correctly. If, for some reason, the property owner thinks I have a gun in my car, he can demand that I leave, and if I do not, then I am guilty of trespassing. But frankly, if I decide to ignore their "rule", and they don't find out...oh well.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I agree entirely. And if you ignore the "no weapons allowed" sign and your gun ends up hurting someone, then the liability is yours and not the property owners.

    The only thing I can't figure out is why you continually try to enter property with signs clearly stating "No Episiarchs."

  • ||

    Because it's not fair! Why won't they love me?

  • Surly Chef||

    I've gotta disagree with you on this Epi. While I can see how the case you are making might be compelling. What makes a car different than say and backpack, or a gym bag? It's simply larger and used for transportation, but it's still a mobile piece of property that you keep stuff in. It's not a physical location. I guess, size and orientation matter to me in this case. The car is on someone else's property, everything in it is also on their property. I would find it unreasonable for my employer to rifle through my shit all the time, but I could also leave.

  • ||

    But again, I ask: can you search my car even if it is parked on your property? You can't, right? Isn't that an automatic confirmation that it is therefore mobile private property?

    As for a backpack, we have seen that obviously, places like nightclubs and the like have shown that as a condition of entry, they can search your shit. But what about not as a condition of entry? If you are in the supermarket and an employee comes up and asks to search your backpack, what would your reaction be?

  • Mo||

    Yes you can, as long as you're not the government. The 4th Amendment prevents the government from unreasonable search, not private individuals. If I say, "All vehicles entering my property may be searched, I can search them." A nightclub is allowed to do random searches on people that a cop could never get away with.

  • ||

    No they absolutely cannot. They can say "let me search your backpack or GTFO", but they cannot just go into my bag. Which makes my bag private property.

  • Mo||

    If they inform you ahead of time and get you to acknowledge it (say as part of the employment contract) they sure can.

  • ||

    See my response below.

  • Bryan C||

    No. They're allowed to request that you submit to a search, and ask to you to leave if you don't submit to a search.

    If you refuse a search and then refuse to leave, you're trespassing. The property owner can then choose to call the police, or not. The police can then require you to leave under penalty of law. The reason why you're being asked to leave is no one else's business.

    Property owners can "require" anything they want. The only recourse they have if you decline to observe their requirements is to ask you to leave. They don't own you, or your backpack, or your camera, or your car.

  • Brutus||

    I'd say that the lot owner has the right to ask to search your car, and to tell you to leave if you refuse. But he doesn't have the right to actually enter it.

  • Mo||

    They have the right to do either. The land owner can say, "We reserve the right to search your car as we please and if you don't like it go somewhere else".

  • ||

    Nope. They still can't. If they "reserve the right" to search your car, and then go to do it and it's locked, they cannot smash a window and search it. All they can do is say "since you won't let us search your car, GTFO".

    Again, this makes it mobile private property.

  • Mo||

    Or they could tow it off the premises at your expense. Which means they can reserve the right to search it. Just they can't reserve the right to damage it.

  • ||

    This is semantics. The fact is, they can't search my car unless I let them. They can have it removed, they can tell me to get in it and leave, but they cannot damage it or enter it if I do not let them.

    This, by default, makes it private property. It just happens to be mobile private property. It's similar to a boat, actually.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    There's no limit to the absurdities that people can convince themselves of when they live in a carefully constructed echo chamber.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    There are different kinds of private property. If someone sits on your car you can't have them arrested for trespassing, for example.

  • Bryan C||

    Suppose they sit inside your car.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It wouldn't be trespassing. Not sure what it would be (assuming the car wasn't locked).

  • shamalam||

    Really? If somebody sits on my car I can't say, "please get off my car"? I think you are wrong about this.

    I don't know if it would be trespassing, but I am pretty sure nobody has a right to sit on my car without my permission.

  • BarryD||

    How this works varies from state to state.

    Some states recognize a backpack as private property, and the interior of a car obviously. Some recognize the interior of a car as such.

    This is not black and white.

    But the answer is that, in fact, some states DO recognize the interior of your car as your private property. Why shouldn't it be?

  • The Hammer||

    It is an interesting issue. If your car is on their property, should it have to conform to their rules? I really don't think it's something that the state should be forcing on people either way.

  • ant1sthenes||

    There's also the fact that businesses, moreso than other property owners, are very susceptible to government influence. Combining this with some sort of OSHA regulation penalizing an employer for gun-owning workers or whatever would be a back-door gun control law.

  • Drake||

    The NRA is no mere lobbying group for a special interest! They are the most powerful and successful special interest group in the country - because they stick to only one issue.

    I'm a member - I have to be according to my club rules, but recognize what they are. The NRA goes out of it's way to find candidates from both parties, even people who are virulently anti-freedom in every other way. This may be why they are so powerful.

  • T||

    Depends on who you privilege here in the property rights discussion. If my vehicle is my property, and I have the paperwork to prove it is, why does my employer get to assert how I use my property if it does not interfere with his use of his property? Let's face it, what's in my car is really none of my employer's fucking business. How about privileging my right to privacy and self defense over the employer? Individual liberty, remember?

  • Randian||

    I do not agree. If I can tell you I don't want guns on my property, that's my absolute right as a property owner.

  • robc||

    And you can tell me to leave.

    And if I dont, Im trespassing.

    I dont see why the state needs to be involved at all (except to arrest on trespassing charges if it gets to that).

  • Dylan||

    I read the article as Maggart "blocked an effort" to require that employers allow guns in the cars. As in there is no law now either way (as it should be) and Maggart is trying to keep it that way.

  • robc||

    If there is no law, then employees are allowed to carry guns in their cars already.

    So, there must already be a law. And that law should be REMOVED to get to your fewest laws position.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If there is no law, then employees are allowed to carry guns in their cars already.

    No, if there is no law then the employer gets to decide what to do with their own property, which could include banning guns. It can also include allowing guns.

  • robc||

    They can ban guns. They can fire employees, they can ask them to leave.

    But it is purely a civil issue that doesnt involve the state.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But it is purely a civil issue that doesnt involve the state.

    Then why are you trying to involve the state by forcing employers to allow guns?

  • SIV||

    Any area/building/property posted with a sign per 39-17-1359

    It is currently a criminal offense to disobey the policy.

  • Bryan C||

    As I understand it, this is not about enforcing trespassing laws equally across all circumstances. It's about applying the power of the state to criminalize one side of what should be a purely civil disagreement

    Because right now the law makes it a criminal offense to disregard the preferences of a private property owner. Not a civil issue, mind you, but a criminal one.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You're saying that it's outrageous for trespass to be a criminal issue? Or are you saying that a sign telling you can only be on this property if you do X isn't asking you to leave?

  • Dylan||

    No, if there is no law then employers are able to say "No use of our parking lot if there is a gun in your car. Please sign this form giving us permission to search your car while it is on our lot. If you don't no parking privileges for you."

  • Dylan||

    Damn you AD!!!!!!!!!

  • Dylan||

    robc, that's why we're on Maggart's side, because we read the story as if there is currently no law. And we feel sorry for her because her name is Maggart.

  • robc||

    There has to be a law currently or this wouldnt be an issue.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    There has to be a law currently or this wouldnt be an issue.

    It's an issue because people are trying to issue a law which removes the ability of employers to place rules on the use of their parking lots:

    State representative Debra Maggart ... helping block an effort to allow people to keep guns in their vehicles at work

    Also from the article, providing more context about what they mean by "allowing people to keep guns at work":

    The NRA’s Chris Cox, who’s spearheading this political vendetta and, in the process, is supporting Maggart’s tea-party backed opponent, invokes both “our First Amendment right to assemble to petition our government” and, of course, the Second Amendment, seemingly oblivious to the fact that neither is relevant here. ...The Second Amendment prevents the government, not private parties, from infringing your right to keep and bear arms. If a private party can ban you from his property for any reason, good or bad, he can do so for carrying a gun.

    When they say "allowing people to keep guns at work", they don't mean it's currently illegal. They mean it's currently up to the employer.

  • BarryD||

    Now I'm not particularly familiar with TN politics, but this much I do know. When a Tea Party candidate challenges an establishment Republican incumbent, and I don't know much about the race, I support the Tea Party challenger.

  • Randian||

    Yes, Maggart is the private property defender here. Her state wanted to force landowners to accept conditions.

  • The Hammer||

    Yeah. If there is a good guy here, it's definitely Maggart. Not the NRA.

  • SIV||

    Wrong as usual, impact tool.

  • The Hammer||

    Tell us some more about how wonderful Romney will be, SIV.

  • SIV||

    Wrong as usual, impact tool.

  • The Hammer||

    The NRA is running ads comparing the woman to Obama because she did not let them ram through a bill that, by any honest reckoning, is simply the government blindly trampling into a complex situation wielding a sledgehammer, and you think they're the good guys here? Explain that, SIV.

  • Proprietist||

    This. No property owner should be forced by law to permit guns in any car on their property. What you're missing, robc, is that they "can't" ask them to leave for having an unwanted gun. Some jerk will sue the property owner because they kicked him off their property and thus didn't follow the law.

  • robc||

    Some jerk will sue the property owner because they kicked him off their property and thus didn't follow the law.

    Then change THAT law.

    Two wrong laws dont make a right.

    We get into this argument ALL the time on here, as someone pushes an unlibertarian law to "balance" another unlibertarian law. The answer isnt "gay marriage", the answer is eliminating state sponsored marriage.

    The answer isnt banning aliens from getting welfare, the answer is getting rid of welfare.

    Etc etc.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Then change THAT law.

    That's the law you're defending.

  • robc||

    That's the law you're defending.

    Bullshit. Im asking for NO law at all.

    The law should state nothing. I can carry in my car legally, you can ask me to leave.

  • Proprietist||

    So you are agreeing with us that Maggart is right, since she just blocked the bad new law forcing property owners to accept guns in cars on their property. I'm sure she would also vote against a law banning guns in cars on their property.

  • Randian||

    Seriously, I have no idea what robc thinks is going on here, but the law would have required property owners to accept gun-carrying on their permission, whether they liked it or not.

    That ain't libertarian, that's for sure.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Seriously, I have no idea what robc thinks is going on here

    Maybe he got into some of his homebrew?

  • Bryan C||

    "Some jerk will sue the property owner because they kicked him off their property and thus didn't follow the law."

    So what? Why is it any of the legislature's business if two private individuals choose to sue one another?

  • Proprietist||

    Because the legislature just gave him grounds to win a frivolous lawsuit AND to be exempt from criminal trespass charges if he refuses to leave the premises over the possession of the gun, as that is now declared a "right".

  • BarryD||

    But on the other hand, why shouldn't having the practical means to defend oneself on the way to and from work be a right?

    Self-defense is a hollow right if it can't be practically achieved.

  • Proprietist||

    If you don't like your employer's jurisdiction over their property, you can change jobs. It's the same complaint the Left have about benefits or pay. If you don't like the conditions, nothing's stopping you from leaving.

    It's their own loss if they are idiots about the way they enforce their property rights and if they lose good employees who want to legally and responsibly carry/store on site.

  • Randian||

    Congrats, Barry, you just justified Obamacare.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Then it's a civil matter, not a legal one.

    Post a sign, assess the amount of damage done to you by him having a gun in his car in defiance of your sign, and take it up with the civil courts.

  • T||

    That damage being, of course, 0$.

  • robc||

    Exactly.

  • Dylan||

    Right but the company should retain the right to take away the employee's parking privileges on their lot.

  • robc||

    Sure, but that isnt a criminal aspect and doesnt involve the state.

    NO LAW IS NECESSARY FOR THAT.

  • The Hammer||

    "NO LAW IS NECESSARY FOR THAT."

    This is really the crux of the issue.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It's a legal one. If he allows you onto his property with the caveat that you can't have a gun, and you go on with a gun, you've trespassed on his property.

  • RBS||

    At common law trespass is a tort, so while it is a legal issue it's not criminal.

  • robc||

    Isnt there also criminal trespass?

  • RBS||

    There is, it probably varies by jurisdiction. I personally think criminalizing trespass is retarded. The things that trespassers do on your property after the trespass are already crimes, like BE etc. I'm sure I could have said this better.

  • robc||

    False. You havent trespassed until he asks you to leave and you dont.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So I can go right into your bedroom and not have trespassed until you ask me to leave?

    The owner said "You can't come to place Y, unless you X". You went to Y, but you didn't X. Therefore you didn't have permission to use his property. That's trespassing.

    He already asked to you leave before you even got there.

  • RBS||

    Have you been invited on his property then just went into his room or did you break into his house first?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You make the analogy fit, let's say he said "You can come into my house if I'm there with you." However, he wasn't there when I went in.

  • The Hammer||

    When my car was broken into, the local prosecutor explained it to me this way: A closed door or gate is an implication that you need specific permission to enter the property. A locked door or gate is explicit, which is why breaking into a locked car or house is criminal trespass. That's why they ask if your door was locked when they are filling out the reports, on the off chance they actually catch the perpetrator, so they can charge him with criminal trespass in addition to the theft/destruction of property charges.

  • robc||

    He already asked to you leave before you even got there.

    If we agreed to a contract to that effect, then I agree. But posting a sign, for example, is not a contract.

    But its still a civil issue subject to damages, not criminal.

  • Randian||

    But posting a sign, for example, is not a contract.

    It can be.

    "You are hereby notified that by entering these premises, you expressly agree not to have any weapons on your person or in your vehicle at any time"

    You enter the property, and there is your contract.

    But its still a civil issue subject to damages, not criminal.

    Who said anything about criminality?

  • robc||

    A law is being passed or exists or something, that eventually ends up criminal.

    "You are hereby notified that by entering these premises, you expressly agree not to have any weapons on your person or in your vehicle at any time"

    You enter the property, and there is your contract.

    If I dont sign it or agree to it in some manner, no it isnt.

  • Randian||

    You agreed to it by entering the property. I don't have to have your spoken affirmation that you agree to be bound by a contract for you to be bound by a contract.

  • robc||

    Bullshit, you cant prove I read the sign otherwise. Ditto for shrinkwrap agreements on software.

    There is a reason they make you click a box to affirm your agreement.

    I know some courts have rules shrinkwrap contracts as legit, but that is bullshit.

  • Randian||

    I know some courts have rules shrinkwrap contracts as legit, but that is bullshit.

    Well, then I guess that settles it!

    Bullshit, you cant prove I read the sign otherwise. Ditto for shrinkwrap agreements on software.

    I don't have to. Concurring with the requirements a property owner lays out for you is old, settled law.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I know some courts have rules shrinkwrap contracts as legit, but that is bullshit.

    Opening a piece of shrinkwrap to get at an object you already purchased is a very different situation from walking onto private property.

    If you purchase a ticket to an event at a building and then are informed for the first time by a sign on your way in that you're not allowed to bring guns, that would be analogous.

  • BarryD||

    How hard would a judge laugh at an attempt to enforce that contract?

    Would he/she actually fall off the chair, or just come close?

  • Randian||

    A law is being passed or exists or something, that eventually ends up criminal.

    I will say it again: Maggart blocked the law. No one is talking about criminality here.

  • mr simple||

    IANAL, but I'm pretty sure a contract requires a meeting of the minds, which a sign is not. If a business posts a sign that says "We are not responsible for bodily harm," but then, through some negligence of theirs, I get hurt, they are responsible and the sign means nothing.

  • Randian||

    That's because of common tort law, not because of contract law.

    Your end of "meeting of the minds" can be inferred by your entry onto the premises.

  • GW||

    This is false. Here's a great example:

    STAY BACK 200 FEET. NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BROKEN WINDSHIELDS.

    You see that on the back of dump trucks all the time. Except in most places the ARE, by law, responsible. The sign is for suckers.

    There's also lots of language in written contracts that often can't be enforced. I call them stupidity clauses, because only stupid people think they're bound by them. Many contracts absolve one party or the other, even in the case of gross negligence on the part of that party. It's not worth the paper it's written on, and won't hold up under the law.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That sign example is irrelevant because it's claiming something they don't have the right to decide. Most of the people claiming a sign isn't sufficient for trespassing are agreeing that if you refuse to leave after the owner tells you to get off, you're trespassing. The owner of the dump truck doesn't get to decide liability rules on the road.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You are using his property as a parking spot.

  • robc||

    Yes. And he can put conditions on that. And if I violate them, its a civil matter. It only becomes criminal if he asks me to leave and I dont.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    He already asked you not to come onto his property and you did anyway.

  • robc||

    No he hasnt, he hired me, so he clearly invited me to come onto his lot.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Not if he said "Don't come on here with a gun".

  • robc||

    Then he can fire me.

    IT IS CIVIL NOT CRIMINAL YOU FUCKWIT.

    If I come on with a gun, he can fire me, he can ask me to leave, whatever. But there is no crime committed until I refuse to leave.

  • Proprietist||

    If the law Maggart blocked had passed, he COULDN'T ask you to leave for keeping a gun in your car, because the government's discretion that all gun owners are allowed to keep guns in their cars at their workplaces has overridden the property holder's rights to ban guns on their property.

  • robc||

    Sure he could, as its a fucking at will state and your punk ass can be fired.

  • Randian||

    robc, read this again:

    IF the law Maggart blocked had passed
  • robc||

    Its still not clear if its a new law or a repeal of a current law.

    Laws are repealed by passing laws.

    As I said clearly at first, I want a situation of zero laws on the issue.

    I dont see Maggart pushing for that.

  • Proprietist||

    From everything I'm reading, I'm seeing Maggart as supporting the right for a business to allow or ban guns on their property at their own discretion, and would oppose any laws that make that decision for them. Seems pretty clear to me she's in the right on this.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "If you come on this property with a gun in your car, you will be considered trespassing, with no further action required on our part. Sign here to get your parking pass."

  • robc||

    "If you come on this property with a gun in your car, you will be considered trespassing, with no further action required on our part. Sign here to get your parking pass."

    See, that is the way to handle it.

  • Proprietist||

    So you agree with Maggart and not with the NRA, correct? I think we're all in agreement here more or less.

  • robc||

    Its not clear at all what Maggart and the NRA support exactly.

    I dont think either agree with me.

    For one thing, Maggart hasnt set the capital building on fire yet.

  • Randian||

    It is abudantly clear from the article!

    State representative Debra Maggart of Hendersonville, Tennessee crossed the NRA by helping block an effort to allow people to keep guns in their vehicles at work. She says it would have trampled on private property rights of business owners.

    What is unclear about that?

  • robc||

    Because it isnt clear what the current law says.

    See my other posts.

    In KY, you can post a sign at your parking lot that says "no guns allowed" and I can still park in it with a gun in my car. Only, IF you ask me to leave and I refuse, can you charge me with trespassing.

    Other states allow postings specifically. Is the NRA trying to get rid of a TN posting requirement that would put TN on par with KY and GA or are they trying to force owners to allow guns?

    Here is the reason I ask...if TN already has the KY style law, there is no reason to add another law, because you effectively already have what they want. I carried with a gun concealed in my car for years. So there was no need for a law of the type you are claiming, because I already had the law de facto, if not de jure.

    I dont see the NRA wasting efforts in that case. Thus, Occam's razor suggests that TN already has a fucked up law.

    Whether the NRA proposal corrects the fuckedupedness or makes it worse isnt clear, but its clear Maggart isnt removing the fucked up law.

  • Randian||

    Wrong.

    [Maggart] says she joined other Republican leaders in deciding not to hold a vote on a bill that would have required employers to let workers bring their guns to workplace parking lots because it still needed work to avoid preempting property rights.

    From here.

  • robc||

    And you are wrong, see SIV below. The law is as I stated, they have a specific posting law.

    That doesnt mean the NRA law is perfect, it does sound like it needs work.

    But it:

    1. repeals a current bad law
    2. allows for carrying on PUBLIC property
    3. probably goes too far wrt private property

    So thats 2 strong points in its favor and 1 weak point against. Maggart can introduce an amendment weakening #3 without killing off #1 and #2.

  • Randian||

    She stated that she blocked the bill because precisely because of #3. I don't give a shit if the law has 99 "good points" in its favor; you don't vote for laws that violate private property.

  • robc||

    But voting against the bill violates other laws.

    The current law is anti-libertarian. This law appears to also be anti-libertarian. Which direction is more anti-libertarian?

    Property rights arent some special end-all that they trump any other right. This law appears, in my opinion, to do more good than harm.

    If nothing else, that is allows the carrying of guns in cars on public property is a huge fucking win for liberty.

    The thing is, the negative bit of this law isnt even really a problem due to TN being an at-will employment state. They may not be able to ban employees from carrying guns in their cars but they can still fire them, so problem solved.

  • robc||

    But voting against the bill violates other laws rights.

  • Proprietist||

    No it doesn't. Voting against the bill means current violations stand, but it doesn't add new violations. Wasn't it just you who was griping just a minute ago about how some libertarians advocate for bad laws that aren't purely libertarian solutions?

  • Randian||

    Property rights arent some special end-all that they trump any other right.

    Yes they are.

    robc, did you know that 90% of the CRA desegregated the public sector? Are you saying you would have voted for the CRA because the invasion of business owner's rights was outweighed by the good the bill would do?

    This is the rankest utilitarianism. You are the mirror image of Tony: whatever furthers your interests = good, whatever does not = bad.

  • robc||

    You just called me a utilitarian? Really?

    Im generally in agreement that any bad part makes a law bad.

    But that is in libertopia. Unfortunately, real laws always suck. Hence I prefer getting rid of as many as possible, and this apparently gets rid of one, as the posting bullshit goes away.

    Property rights trump other rights? Really? Like the right to life? Or liberty?

    You want to order the rights so I know which is most important?

    Look, if you are saying that you oppose any law that has any anti-liberty clause absolutely, Im okay with that. I dont agree, but I get it.

    But like with voting, sometimes candidates arent perfect and sometimes laws arent perfect.

    The CRA is a good example...I think it was too extreme to support as a whole. The EFFECT went well beyond 10%.

    This law, on the other hand, affects private property rights MAYBE 1%. The at-will employment law prevents it from being worse than that.

    Is it utilitarian to vote for a 99-1 law instead of holding out for a 100-0 law?

    I dont think that meets the requirements.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The only "bad law" you seem to pointing to is one considering posting signs sufficient warning for rules about gun ownership. You really think getting the mechanism that qualifies as a sufficient agreement is more important than being able to make that agreement in the first place?

  • Robert||

    Then I suppose you want the choice made that results in whatever's worse.

  • Proprietist||

    You're being stubborn about this, and it's making you look either foolish and/or lacking in reading comprehension.

  • robc||

    If that was directed at me, you are wrong, as Im the only one who comprehended the situation correctly, apparently.

  • Proprietist||

    Funny, you haven't yet talked anyone into agreeing with you. First you grouse about how some libertarians here always seem to advocate for imperfect solutions to violations of rights with policies like gay marriage (even though that is merely granting all adults equal contractual rights) instead of the libertarian ideal of no laws. Then you grouse about how we won't get on board with a law that arguable corrects some bad gun restrictions but patently violates private property rights.

  • robc||

    Gay marriage laws only make things worse.

    This is a mixed bag, but its a minor mixed bag as the anti-liberty part has almost no effect due to at-will laws.

  • Randian||

    Gay marriage laws only make things worse.

    This is a mixed bag, but its a minor mixed bag as the anti-liberty part has almost no effect due to at-will laws.

    Short robc: My personal hobby-horses are more important than other people's personal hobby-horses, therefore I WIN.

  • robc||

    Which is my personal hobby-horse in this case, because it isnt obvious to me?

    Its funny, because I think I care more about property rights than gun rights, but apparently you think otherwise. Based entirely on this thread. I guess you havent been reading me for years and years.

  • Randian||

    Its funny, because I think I care more about property rights than gun rights, but apparently you think otherwise.

    You said it yourself by your own terms:

    Property rights arent some special end-all that they trump any other right. This law appears, in my opinion, to do more good than harm.

    If nothing else, that is allows the carrying of guns in cars on public property is a huge fucking win for liberty.
  • robc||

    Reading comprehension problem again?

    I declared all rights to be equal. I can favor property rights (which doesnt make it less equal) and still acknowledge that this barely diminishes property rights, while adding on a bunch of other property rights that are currently being violated.

  • robc||

    Funny, you haven't yet talked anyone into agreeing with you.

    Scotticus Finch.

    You should shut up, you are making yourself look stupid.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    Funny, you haven't yet talked anyone into agreeing with you.

    robc already mentioned it, but he did convince me.

    And to be fair, my opinion is the most important.

  • SIV||

    It is clear what the current law says

    "Any area/building/property posted with a sign per 39-17-1359"

    Signs carry weight. Possessing a firearm on your employers property against his wishes is currently a criminal offense.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Signs carry weight. Possessing a firearm on your employers property against his wishes is currently a criminal offense.

    Which is irrelevant to the main point od the discussion, as all that addresses is what mechanism of notification of rules is sufficient. robc has stated several times that he thinks the owner should be able to ban guns. He apparently thinks clearly labeling your lot isn't sufficient notification (which is actually largely irrelevant since this discussion was about employers who would logically tell their employees this rule exists). The point is that the blocked law would force employers to allow guns in their cars regardless of their wishes.

  • robc||

    The point is that the blocked law would force employers to allow guns in their cars regardless of their wishes.

    No it doesnt. They can fire the employees.

  • Proprietist||

    And risk the lawsuits when the employee claims that he was fired in violation of what Tennessee declared his "right" to bring guns on his employers' property?

  • Bryan C||

    Yes. They risk lawsuits. Your point?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That these are lawsuits which are only valid because of the law we are discussing?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    This is shocking. I bet teachers' unions would be there for a candidate who believes in education and student choice more than he believes in "teacher rights" for the sake of teacher rights. Right?

  • The Hammer||

    Funniest thing I've seen all day.

  • robc||

    If its in the car, its not on the businesses property.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Wouldn't this imply that I can just drive onto your lawn as long as I stay in my car?

  • robc||

    You can. Your car cant.

  • robc||

    If I tell you to leave, and you dont, you are trespassing either way.

  • Dylan||

    Bur you're in the car not on their property. What's the difference between a human and a gun in this case?

  • robc||

    Nothing. In both cases, if I tell you to leave and you dont, it is trespassing.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But if I tell you not to come on and you do, it's not trespassing?

  • robc||

    Posting a sign (which is how most businesses handle it) is not telling me anything.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Considering this law was about employers, it's a safe bet that they would be told during some kind of orientation.

  • robc||

    True, and TN is an at-will employment state, so just fire their ass.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    In IL that is enough.

  • Fluffy||

    Posting a sign (which is how most businesses handle it) is not telling me anything.

    Sure it is.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Sure it is.

    This seems like a particularly odd point. He was dancing before when someone discovered that current law considers ignoring a posted sign to be trespassing, because that someone validates his position that the NRA is right to endorse the law. Apparently robc thinks that signs not counting as an agreement is the most important part of this issue?

  • Chris Mallory||

    Sure, but you are also responsible for any damages you cause.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Doherty: More on the Side of Boring Than of Alt-Text in a Reason Hit and Run Post

  • The Hammer||

    There oughta be a law!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Now that's one we can all get behind.

  • Tim||

    More to the point, can property owners search vehicles on their premises?

  • robc||

    Sure, if they require it as a condition of admission.

  • T||

    Good luck enforcing that one. If I say no, I win that argument. Any attempt to search it without my consent leaves the property owner liable for damages done to my vehicle.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That wasn't that hard. If you say no they don't let you onto the lot.

  • Dylan||

    No they can't search your car w/o your permission but they should be able to refuse to allow you to park on their lot unless you agree to a search.

  • Dylan||

    You win this time AD.

  • robc||

    And they can.

    I assume TN is an at will state so they an fire anyones ass for any reason.

  • Proprietist||

    It certainly should be legal if it's not.

    Arguing that there is a constitutional right not to be searched by a private party is the same illogic as arguing that getting fired for saying something bad is a violation of freedom of speech.

  • Bryan C||

    "It certainly should be legal if it's not."

    How would that work, exactly? A private party asks to search your car. You say no. Then what? Do they break in? Do they seize you with their private police force and have their private court sentence you to a term in their private jail?

    No. Because aside from the fact that you're standing on their property, you and the property owner are co-equals. All they can do is ask you to leave their property. Which they could already do anyway.

    The Constitution places restrictions on what the government is permitted to do. It doesn't logically follow that private parties operate under no restrictions at all. The government is not Constitutionally permitted to detain and strip search you without cause. That doesn't mean that Starbucks can.

  • Proprietist||

    You leave the property if you do not want to be searched. If you don't leave the property, they can prosecute you for trespassing.

  • Proprietist||

    Also, I'm not saying private parties have no restrictions at all. But on their own property, they are not accountable to the Constitution, only to the laws that exist. A private college can enter a dorm room without a warrant and write a citation (even for a legal act) because it is their own property.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    All they can do is ask you to leave their property. Which they could already do anyway.

    Not if the law in question passes.

  • SIV||

  • Proprietist||

    We defend politicians when they're right and criticize them when they're wrong, mostly blind to which team they're on. Pretty much every single politician, including Ron Paul, is wrong about something.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The best way to deal with a nuanced, complex issue is to pass a sweeping, unenforceable law.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The NRA is showing itself a mere lobbying group for a special interest and not an actual defender of liberty here.

    Wait, you mean the "National Rifle Association" is specifically concerned with gun owners' interests rather than libertarianism in general? What a sham! /sarcasm

    If they called themselves the "American Civil Liberties Union" you'd have a legitimate gripe if they were on the anti-liberty side of an issue. Of course, Reason/CATO libertarians are always falling over themselves painting the ACLU in a positive light despite its rather large unlibertarian blemishes.

  • Proprietist||

    The ACLU has done much more for expanding liberty in this country than most organizations on either side. They're wrong on guns, but that's not their primary focus.

  • robc||

    but that's not their primary focus.

    Bullshit. Its a civil liberty. There primary focus is civil liberties. Bearing arms is the premier civil liberties as it guarantees the others. Hence, it is their primary focus, and they have generally fucked it up.

  • Proprietist||

    Guns are not even listed once amongst their many "Key Issues" on their site. Thus it is not their primary focus.

    They are wrong on guns, but to write off everything they do right because of one bad policy is like writing off Ron Paul because he's wrong on immigration.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    They also supported McCain-Feingold.

    If they call themselves the Civil Liberties Union and don't consider gun rights to be part of their focus, then they are implicitly saying there are no gun rights.

    If they want to pick and choose which liberties to defend, maybe they should change their name to reflect their focus. Like the NRA's name does.

  • Proprietist||

    How does any of that negate the point that they've done more to advance civil liberties than almost every other organization? They support rollbacks of the war on drugs, the police state and government censorship. They defend the rights of the least defensible to ensure such rights remain absolute.

    Since they're not a perfect libertarian advocacy group, they are obviously just frauds and authoritarians? Any objective libertarian must admit that the ACLU has done far more good than bad.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    It depends on how you weight the issues. They don't defend the right to self defense, or the right to free speech in a political campaign. Those are huge.

    And what about school choice? Freedom from predatory taxes? From onerous regulation? The right of property owners to restrict illegals from crossing their land? The lefty ACLU is unlikely to please an "objective libertarian" on any of those issues.

    Would they defend the right of anti-abortion groups to assemble and protest at a public university? They've been accused of looking the other way.

    The ACLU's rep is that if it's a lefty cause, they are all over it. Otherwise, not so much. I'm sure there are notable and commendable exceptions to this, but the overall tenor the organization is to defend certain freedoms within the context of a generally statist and left-wing ideology. This doesn't make them the bad guys, but your insistence on the ACLU-rocks-or-you-suck litmus test rings hollow to me.

    Remember: Aaron Sorkin wrote a valentine to the ACLU called "The American President." That ought to give everyone pause.

  • Proprietist||

    The ACLU is amongst the best inroads that exists from the Left towards libertarianism. They are one of few organizations on the Left constantly pointing out the dangers of government overreach and abuse. They go too far the other way in many places, but would the nation be freer without them keeping the most authoritarian tendencies on the Left in check?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    But apparently the NRA gets no similar consideration for doing more to protect gun rights than any organization anywhere; as soon as they're wrong (from our POV) on a minor issue then we're going to rip them for being unlibertarian.

  • Proprietist||

    I gladly defend the NRA and consider them one of the important and effective civil liberties organizations. And I call them out when they're wrong, just like I call out the ACLU when they're wrong on guns.

  • Randian||

    Well, Tulpa, then I guess everything they do is okey-dokey, because they aren't libertarians.

    Sheesh. What is your point, exactly?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I disagree with the NRA on this issue, actually.

    The point is, the breathlessness with which Doherty rails against the NRA over this is pretty strange. It's like ripping the US Chamber of Commerce for being more interested in business concerns than liberty.

    I suspect it has to do with a lot of other angst hardcore gun libertarians have against NRA, the same that leads them to flock to more consisted but irrelevant orgs like the GOA and SAF (as much as 0.1% of the population can flock).

  • Randian||

    So, in other words, an ad hominem.

    Thanks for nothing.

    It's like ripping the US Chamber of Commerce for being more interested in business concerns than liberty.

    And that is a bad thing because...?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    "Ad hominem" occurs when you (possibly implicitly) claim that a position is wrong because of negative aspects of the person holding/advocating a position.

    I could not possibly have done this, since I never claimed Doherty's position was wrong.

    On the issue of the law, I agree with Doherty. On the issue of whether the NRA is more concerned with gun owners' interests than libertarianism, I agree with Doherty. Not sure where you can find an ad hominem there.

  • Randian||

    One wonders why if you so eagerly agree with the post you felt the need to take jabs at Reason, Cato, and the ACLU. Must be part of your ongoing series of "Tulpa the Outsider!"

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Confronted with the clear falsity of your previous accusation, your response is to insult me further. Right out of the Glib playbook. Master Warty would be proud.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And the thing is, you don't have to wonder. I explained precisely what my problem with each of them was.

    See, unlike you and your co-Axials, I back up my claims with justification.

  • Randian||

    You justified your claims by making shit up:

    I suspect it has to do with a lot of other angst hardcore gun libertarians
  • Tulpa Doom||

    That's not made up. It's true that I suspect what followed.

  • RBS||

    Breathlessness? Really, Tulpa, you need to get out more.

  • wareagle||

    so what's the NRA's real beef with Maggart? Comparisons to Obama sounds like election year hyperbole and it's not like this question is a no-brainer. Even here, folks on either side raise some interesting points.

  • Randian||

    There is not another "side". There is one libertarian position, and it is Maggart's:

    State representative Debra Maggart of Hendersonville, Tennessee crossed the NRA by helping block an effort to allow people to keep guns in their vehicles at work.

    The state law would have forced private property owners to allow something they would not necessarily have allowed. That's not a libertarian position.

  • wareagle||

    Of course, there is another side. Read upthread; plenty of folks have articulated it.

    I'm asking what the NRAs beef is with Maggart because this seems like flimsy stuff.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Of course there's another side. The fact that it's not libertarian in your view doesn't mean it's an invalid position.

  • ||

    sadly, some people will apply that test "is it libertarian" vs. "is it correct?"

    it's almost like a team red/blue thing in terms of fealty

  • Randian||

    Libertarianism is correct, otherwise I would believe something else.

  • ||

    that misses the point, but thanks for reinforcing it

  • R C Dean||

    As many have already pointed out, this should be treated under ordinary trespass rules, no special laws needed.

    If the owner doesn't want guns on his property, then anyone who has one should be treated as a trespasser, that is, someone who is there without the owner's permission. Which is exactly what they are: the owner has given permission to use his parking lot, come into his business, whatever, on the condition that you don't bring a gun. You break the condition, you don't have permission.

    That means you get asked to leave. Only if you refuse may you be forcibly removed, etc. That's the way trespass works, and I see no reason why it doesn't handle this issue perfectly well.

  • Randian||

    Maggart BLOCKED the law that would have rendered carrying a gun without permission a non-trespassory act.

    Everyone gets that, right? Maggart blocked the proposed law.

  • wareagle||

    yes, folks get that. The NRA thinks you should be allowed to keep a firearm in your car. Some on here agree with that, others don't on the premise that vehicles are also private property.

  • ||

    the problem is see with property owners having this right is that it radically infringes on people's rights OUTSIDE the workplace. if one is prohibited from having a gun in the car, then one must be unarmed to and from work, etc. not just at the workplace

    i think it's a tough balancing act case, BASED on that issue

    similarly, a business could prohibit political signs from within vehicles, even if hidden in the trunk. this would interfere with people's ability to march, etc. OUTSIDE the workplace

    i think it's a tough issue, taht libertarians could come down on either side of

  • Randian||

    Cars are, of course, private property. In Libertopia, so are our bodies.

    That said, you can surrender your legal rights in your private property in contract. I can subject myself to drug tests for higher pay, thereby relinquishing my privacy in exchange for money. You can relinquish your right to carry by entering private property.

    Full stop.

  • ||

    actually, in many respects, you CANNOT cede certain rights to your employer. for example, in many states like mine, with very limited exceptions (like law enforcement) an employee cannot agree to be subject to polygraph

    you also can't, by contract, sell yourself into slavery

    etc.

    regardless, i think the issue here is one that thoughtful libertarians can come down on either side

    i realize that doesn't make for good frothing argumentation, but it is what it is.

    it's a tough balancing test.

  • Proprietist||

    No, wareagle. The NRA thinks you MUST be allowed to keep a firearm in your car on someone else's private property. Big difference.

  • wareagle||

    and folks here still disagree regardless of word choice. Apparently, so do the legal minds in Tennessee.

  • robc||

    WHAT DOES THE FUCKING LAW SAY?

    Does it say "we repeal the provision allowing owners to post "no gun" signs that have criminal meaning"?

    If so, her blocking the law is not the libertarian position.

  • Randian||

    The gun lobby faults Maggart and other top Republicans, from Gov. Bill Haslam to House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, House Speaker Beth Harwell and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, the Senate speaker, for blocking the group's Safe Commute Act.

    The legislation, dubbed the guns-in-parking lots bill, would allow employees and others with handgun-carry permits to keep weapons locked in their vehicles on most public or privately owned property.

    From here.

  • robc||

    Public property?

    Hell yes she shouldnt be blocking it then.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    What about this part: or privately owned property.?

  • Randian||

    It is more important to safeguard private property than it is to permit guns on public property.

    Sorry, but all you're doing is selling out because this is of interest to you.

  • wareagle||

    no one has argued the public property aspect, just the private.

  • robc||

    its an (maybe THE) important part of the law she is blocking.

    She blocked that part too. So, Maggart is arguing it, if no one else.

  • wareagle||

    I'm with you re: public property; less certain as to private. A state full of attorneys can't agree on that, small wonder folks outside the law would disagree.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Can't you be sued for civil trespass even if you leave when asked after it's discovered you've violated a rule of the property?

  • robc||

    Only if you have done damage.

    Carrying a gun doesnt do damage, so in this case, no.

    KY, GA and a bunch of other states get this right.

  • RBS||

    The trespass is the damage.

  • wareagle||

    this is why lawyers make people crazy. If the trespass is "the damage" but no tangible damage of any sort was done, what are you suing for?

    A property rule is violated, the offender is asked to leave and does so; absent actual quantifiable damage to the premises, pursuing this seems like a huge waste of money.

  • Randian||

    Because the common law treats land as a much more precious thing than you do.

    It is important to establish a private property owner's rights, even if the damages are nominal, to prevent future dickwads from thinking they can do whatever the hell they want without permission from the property owner.

  • robc||

    You, and the law, are wrong.

    It isnt important at all.

    The damages arent nominal, they are nonexistent.

  • RBS||

    Did you really just argue that property rights are not important?

  • wareagle||

    RBS,
    no, I didn't. I asked what damage are you suing over?

  • Randian||

    He already told you the trespass is the damage.

  • wareagle||

    He already told you the trespass is the damage.

    and how much time and money shall we waste because someone violated a rule, was notified of the violation, and accommodated the rule? I'm sure judges across the state are looking forward to tying up their calendars with this sort of thing.

  • RBS||

    and how much time and money shall we waste because someone violated a rule, was notified of the violation, and accommodated the rule? I'm sure judges across the state are looking forward to tying up their calendars with this sort of thing.

    Like I said it's incredibly unlikely anyone this century would actually sue for common law trespass.

  • RBS||

    Damn threaded comments, I was responding to robc responding to Randian. I responded to you below.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    robc, you're off in your bubble of legal solipsism again.

    The law as it stands is that you can sue for trespass when someone enters your property knowing they are violating your rules.

  • wareagle||

    okay fine; the law student is correct and all the other folks who passed the bar but disagree with him are full of shit.
    Apparently, so are those among you who are not lawyers but similarly disagree.

  • Randian||

    It's black-letter law that trespass to land is a damage in and of itself. If anyone told you differently, they told you wrong.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    the law student is correct and all the other folks who passed the bar but disagree with him are full of shit.

    For all anyone knows, everyone involved in this thread is a garbage collection school dropout living in his uncle's basement.

  • RBS||

    There is a difference between the right to sue and actually suing someone. I'm pretty sure no attorney in their right mind would take the case of neighbor v. neighbor where the trespasser just walked across the guys lawn.

  • ||

    exactly. there is also a concept in law called "de minimus" and such a case would be a perfect example

  • Randian||

    There is not a law concerning 'de minimus' when it comes to trespass to land. Even nominal trespass is actionable.

  • ||

    randian, again, saying it's "actionable' says jack shit about the real world.

    i'm not saying it's not actionable. i'm saying that no attorney in his right mind would waste his time, and it's the kind of thing that could happen in some fantasyland, but in reality is almost certain not to happen

    as usual, you are arguing for the sake of arguing

    nobody is saying it's not actionable.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    nobody is saying it's not actionable.

    robc is.

  • RBS||

    I think this breaks down like this:

    robc doesn't think trespass is actionable absent physical damages

    wareagle thinks the idea of trespass being actionable without physical damages is retarted.

    Randian has taken the hardline always actionable stance, which even though correct isn't realistic.

    Tulpa, dunphy and myself agree it's actionable but nobody would actually sue for it these days.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So Randian is...technically correct?

  • RBS||

    AD, yes he is.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You disappoint me RBS. I set it up so easily for you.

  • RBS||

    I know I realized after I hit submit. I was too ashamed to make a second post and hoped no one would notice.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    This is why we need an edit button!

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    So Reason fed us all this hype about the "new" Reason.com and wants our feedback on how much better it is, etc. Recently, they also started making us register to post comments. You would think that in the midst of all this "improvement," they would have given registered users the ability to edit their own comments. THAT would improve life greatly for their faithful participants. New layout, type styles, etc. are not nearly as important.

  • Coeus||

    Editing comments isn't conducive to honest argumentation.

  • ||

    fair enuf

  • Randian||

    dunphy, this is the danger of using legal terminology you do not understand.

    de minimis means "in a lawsuit, a court applies the de minimis doctrine to avoid the resolution of trivial matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny."

    Therefore, trespass to land is not de minimis, because a de minimis finding means the case is not actionable.

  • ||

    i'm using it how my prosecutor uses it. so, maybe he doesn't understand it either, which is entirely possible, knowing some prosecutors.

    briefly put, "it's too minor to consider going to court on , even if it's TECHNICALLY actionable"

    that's what i mean by de minimus, whether in a lawsuit, or in a criminal matter

  • SIV||

    TN appears to have criminal penalties for disregarding a "no guns" sign in an employer's parking lot.

    Any area/building/property posted with a sign per 39-17-1359

    Maggart is on the anti-liberty side.

  • robc||

    this is me doing the "I am right" dance. See my long post half way up where I deduced the existence of this law from mere logic.

  • Randian||

    [Maggart] says she joined other Republican leaders in deciding not to hold a vote on a bill that would have required employers to let workers bring their guns to workplace parking lots because it still needed work to avoid preempting property rights.

    You are wrong, and joining with SIV makes your position all the more dubious.

    You are both claiming that because Maggart did not move to repeal the sign law, that proves that she is "anti-liberty". That law was not at issue here. What was at issue was a law REQUIRING private property owners to limit their rights because of a politically-connected interest group.

  • robc||

    That law is ALWAYS at issue.

    This law repeals that law. And repeating myself, see above.

  • SIV||

    Randian,

    There is still time to drop out and go to flower arranging school.

  • Randian||

    Don't you have a Know-Nothing Party meeting to attend or something?

    Go away, the adults are talking.

  • SIV||

    Yes, little girl, we adults are talking and I provided the cite to back up robc's argument. You were too busy posting fucking newspaper blog excerpts.

  • Randian||

    Which contained a video of Maggart saying exactly what she thought, thereby rendering you wrong yet again.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    How does that make you right, except possibly in the tangent about whether or not a sign counts as you agreeing to rules?

    You said that you think it should be up to the lot owner to decide if guns are allowed. Maggart is blocking a bill that would force lot owners to accept guns on their property. Isn't that the position you want?

  • Randian||

    AD, robc is more concerned with being able to carry a gun in a public park than the unimportant property rights of a minor few.

    Don't you see how libertarian that is?

  • robc||

    All rights are equally important. None are more important than others. Im concerned about both. You are the one saying some rights trump others.

    Literally, you agreed to that. And that is bullshit.

    And fuck yeah, carrying in a public park, or a state capital (as my state allows) is fucking important.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If you have no way of figuring which rights trump which when there's a conflict, you can't apply natural rights philosophy to the real world.

    Not a problem for a utilitarian (yay) but for you Lockejobbers it's a problem.

  • robc||

    Rights are never in conflict.

    If you perceive a conflict, then you are misunderstanding at least one of the rights.

  • Randian||

    Apparently they are in conflict, because you think your right to carry in a public park "trumps" private property rights.

  • Randian||

    Yep, you're a rank utilitarian, robc. You're willing to trade away private property rights, the ultimate individual right, so you can carry in public parks that shouldn't even exist.

  • robc||

    Their is no ultimate individual right.

    And if there is, its not property, its either life or self-ownership.

    But since rights are never in conflict, there is no need to weigh them.

  • Randian||

    Property rights flow from life and self-ownership. The right to life is meaningless if you can't keep that which you earn to feed yourself. You'd starve in a matter of days. If property rights flow from the right to life, it is the ultimate individual right.

  • robc||

    But property rights depend on the right to self defense in order to protect said right, hence, that would make, by your standard, the right to bear arms greater than property rights.

    property rights keep sliding down the list.

  • Randian||

    But property rights depend on the right to self defense in order to protect said right, hence, that would make, by your standard, the right to bear arms greater than property rights.

    The only reason you have the right to defend is because of the property rights in the first place. You have it exactly backwards. The fact that you own "Property X" gives you the right to defend "Property X"

  • ||

    rubbish

    "rights are never in conflict"

    i've seen few dumber statements in my life.

  • robc||

    Give me a situation where you claim rights are in conflict, and I will show you they arent.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Damn dunphy, we agree twice in the same thread!

  • ||

    the entire concept of having criminal laws shows that rights are in conflict.

    a law says your right to do X is trumped by other people's right not to be subjected to act X.

    in brief.

    and over and over again, complex legal issues come down to weighing rights in conflict.

    look at abortion... the right of the fetus vs. the mother

    or true threats doctrine

    or citizen arrest law - the right of a citizen to restrict another's liberty vs. that person's right to do X

    etc. etc.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's a well summarized argument.

  • mr simple||

    the entire concept of having criminal laws shows that rights are in conflict.

    This is completely wrong. We have laws to protect rights. You don't arrest a burglar because he has a right to burgle that conflicts with someone else's proprty rights. What rights are in conflict in a murder? This is why libertarians are against laws that make things illegal that do not violate someone else's rights, e.g. drug laws.

    the right of a citizen to restrict another's liberty vs. that person's right to do X

    The reason you had to use a variable rather than an actual right is because that situation cannot arise. No one can citizen's arrest someone who is doing something they have a right to do. You haven't come up with a situation yet that disproves robc's theorem. In the abortion argument, pro-choice people do not believe the child has rights until it is born, pro-life do. The rights are not in conflict, the understanding of when they are conferred is.

  • robc||

    public parks

    Strawman.

    Public PLACES, not public parks.

    And unless you are going anarchist, there will always be public places.

    Im more concerned about carrying in state office building than public parks. And I can in my state. Mostly (our laws arent perfect).

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Public parks are public places.

  • robc||

    Public parks are public places.

    ???

    I never said they werent.

    He was saying I was making an argument based on the subset of public parks, but I was basing it on the superset of public places. It was an attempt to minimize my argument.

  • Randian||

    How is a minor administrative matter such as "can you carry inside the capitol building?" more important than private property rights?

  • robc||

    Its hard to shoot tyrants if I cant get near them with a weapon.

  • Randian||

    Like the carry law would really prevent you from doing that if you really wanted to.

  • robc||

    Like the carry law would really prevent you from doing that if you really wanted to.

    It makes it easier.

    After 9/11, KY added metal detectors at the doors of the state capital. It caused problems as a significant number of people carried to work and to visit. So they had to unstrap, hand the weapon to the guard, go thru the detector, then reconceal after they got thru.

    The quickly went away.

    Without that law, there might still be metal detectors at the doors.

    BTW, the assembly rooms and conference rooms do ban firearms, but the office space and open space allows carry.

  • robc||

    And I didnt say more imporant. This isnt about "private property rights", this is about one tiny nit of private property rights, that while important, is unfortunately stuck in a giant whale of a bill, that 1: fixes other private property right issues (the posting law) and 2: fixes yet another private property rights issue, me being allowed to carry my property onto public property.

  • Randian||

    You being able to carry on public property is not a private property rights issue. That's a definition error on your part.

    You want to violate the freedom of association to get to your personal goals.

  • robc||

    You being able to carry on public property is not a private property rights issue.

    Yes it is. Carrying item X that I own on public property is absolutely a private property right.

  • Randian||

    So, robc, you should be able to carry a bomb into a public building?

    See, this is the problem with "public property".

  • robc||

    You want to violate the freedom of association to get to your personal goals.

    What is my personal goal here?

    Its TN, I dont fucking care.

    But yes, I am saying that in this case, I would prefer she propose an amendment to fix the freedom of association issue instead of blocking the rest of the bill that fixes lots of rights violating problems.

  • Randian||

    Which is a far, far, far, far cry from your first post, which is that Maggart was anti-liberty for blocking this bill and the NRA was right. The NRA is the party that tried to abrogate private property rights in the first place.

  • robc||

    minor administrative matter

    There you go again.

    I thought you supported property rights, but you consider my property rights to be a minor administrative matter?

    Make up your fucking mind.

  • Randian||

    The level of permissiveness on public property is subject to democratic whims. Public property is held in trust by the government through the people, and it therefore is not "your property" to do with what you please.

  • robc||

    The level of permissiveness on public property is subject to democratic whims.

    Bullshit.

  • Randian||

    Uh, yeah, it is. I can have a rally on private property all I want. Not so with public property. I can go naked on private property. Not so with public property.

  • robc||

    I can go naked on private property.

    Not true, in general. The laws on nakedness depend on sight lines, not type of property.

    Not so with public property.

    Also, not true. There are public places where nudity is allowed.

  • robc||

    Also, nudity is not a right.

    If you want to argue that it is and public exposure laws are invalid, go right ahead.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Laws against trespassing are anti-liberty?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    robc made an argument upthread that it's not trespass since you either have to sign a contract beforehand or be asked to leave before it counts.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    robc is incorrect about that; he's arguing (as usual) from what he thinks the law should be, not what it is, and not informing other people of that important fact.

  • robc||

    You were aware of it.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You were aware of it.

    I was aware of it too. I just think it's an insanely ridiculous position to say that you can't be trespassing when the owner tells you beforehand what the rules are.

  • robc||

    And it is the way the law is, at least in KY.

    Im not trespassing due to a posted sign saying "no guns".

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Explain to me how being on someone's property when you have been explicitly denied permission isn't trespassing?

  • ||

    the NRA is a single issue civil rights group. compare and contrast with the ACLU , which at least claims to be broad based (unles it's the 2nd amendment, then never mind, cheddar)

    the NRA does not, though, kneejerk support any expansion of firearms rights. for example, they believe in restrictions on convicted felons and firearms, as one example.

    in a case that is (imo) a close balancing test, between very disparate rights, i would kind of expect the NRA to come down as they did . that's their JOB, as an advocacy group. it's the job of other advocacy groups or people to take the opposing side, so that a discourse can ensue.

    much as a defense attorney's job is to defend his client, even when his client is obviously guilty as fuck, i don't expect the NRA to always be on the "right" side, but to be on the pro-gun side, within "reason"

    again, i think people always want to argue that one side is UNlibertarian, but imo this issue can go down either way and still be libertarian.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This is presumably a "workplace violence" issue.

    Why don't we just make it illegal to shoot people at work?

  • SIV||

    Think of the poor cops

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Threadwinner.

  • mr simple||

    Silly SIV, cops don't have to follow the law.

  • ||

    lol. this rubbish again

  • ||

    Yes, we all know those laws just don't apply to cops.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The reason the employer wants to ban guns in its parking lot are really irrelevant to the discussion we've been having...

  • ||

    i believe that's true. the balancing test issues are paramount. the REASON for th eban is not

  • Auric Demonocles||

    For once we agree.

  • ||

    we agree far far more often than we disagree. it's just we concentrate on the latter

    compare your beliefset to mine, and then contrast with your average dem or lib

    we would share the vast majority of stuff and be in agreement, whereas we would both disagree with either party

    it's just we concentrate on the minutaie.

    the big stuff (and legalization of drugs, limiting cop/state power, eliminating the IRS, etc. etc) are the big issues - we generally agree on

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The reason the employer wants to ban guns in its parking lot are really irrelevant to the discussion we've been having...

    This jibberjabber would be equally reasonable ridiculous if the company banned beer inside private vehicles parked in their lot. If the fundamental problem the rule is meant to solve is on-the-job drunkenness, then make a rule dealing with actual incidences of that, and don't fuck with the guy who works the second shift and stops by Costco for beer on the way to work and leaves it undisturbed in the car until he goes home.

    What if the employer decides to ban stuffed animals in the back window, or those little soccer balls girl soccer players like to hang from their rear view mirrors?

    And, of course, heaven forbid we should allow these things to be hashed out case by case by the people involved.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I think the employer should have the right to ban beer in the car or stuffed animals or those rear view mirror balls because it's their property. It would be a ridiculous policy, but they should still be allowed to do it.

    For the record, I wouldn't work at an employer that banned guns in the parking lot (even though I did intern at a place in college that did this, and it was in gun-friendly Vermont).

  • The Late P Brooks||

    For all anyone knows, everyone involved in this thread is a garbage collection school dropout living in his uncle's basement.

    Fuck you.

    I worked my ass off in Clown College. I can't help it if they refused to award me a rubber nose just because of that "thing' involving the Dean's niece. I thought clowns were *supposed* to love little kids.

  • ||

    Yeah, that was such bullshit. Once she hit 16, she was fair game.

  • ||

    In Louisiana the inside of your car is the same as the inside of your living room. Legally it is an extension of your home.

    If your employer can tell you what you can or cant have inside your car just because you drove it onto their property, can they also tell you what color your car must be? What kind of car you can drive? I think not. My car, my property. Keep your nose out of it.

    If you decide you dont like me or my car, ask me to leave.

  • ||

    i doubt it vis a vis state power.

    if louisiana is like most states, then cops have expansive search powers of a motor vehicle interior that they would not have of your living room.

    for a # of reasons (carroll doctrine, etc.)

    i could be wrong. i don't know louisiana law specifically, and i'd LOVe to be wrong, since it would be kewl to have another libertarian state that limits such police power

    my state does. cops have MUCH more limited search power here than almost any other state

    it's one reason i chose to live here, and it's mostly due to our state constitution, which recognizes PRIVACY

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If you decide you dont like me or my car, ask me to leave.

    That's what they did when they told you you can't come onto their lot with a gun. I'm having trouble understanding the position several people have taken that you have to wait for them to come onto your property before you can tell them not to.

  • Fluffy||

    If your employer can tell you what you can or cant have inside your car just because you drove it onto their property, can they also tell you what color your car must be? What kind of car you can drive? I think not.

    Of course they can.

    If I have some kind of irrational animus against Toyotas and announce that no one who owns a Toyota can work for me, that's my business.

    You people are buying in to the ludicrous statist notion that there's a material difference between a wage employee and a piecework worker or someone who hire ad hoc to perform a service.

    If I'm shopping for a new accountant and go to meet a prospective firm and want to decide I'm not going to use that firm because they all drive BMW's, that's stupid, but entirely within my rights. And if I can do it to a 3rd party accounting firm, I can do it to an in-house accountant.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's how trespass works, in practice, at least in Texas:

    The property owner has to give notice that entry on the property is prohibited. This can be done with a sign, orally, or (in rural areas, depending on your state) with fencing intended to exclude people or by painting your trees or posts a given color (in Texas, believe it or not, purple).

    You put up a sign saying "Public Parking Lot. Entry Prohibited If Guns In Car." Or oral notice of some kind.

    Now, anyone who drives into your lot with a gun is a trespasser, and the property rights people are happy. What's their remedy?

    Without a showing of actual damages, there's no damages that can be collected. Effectively, no civil remedy without actual harm.

    As far a getting somebody arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and jailed for criminal trespass; technically, no "face to face" request to leave is required if your property is posted or the trespasser has notice (I only deal with this because I work in a hospital, and we have to give a particular kind of notice, so I was wrong upthread about this being a general requirement). Other states may be different.

    In Texas, outside of certain establishments, a "No Guns" notice does not count if someone has a concealed carry permit, BTW.

    If we're talking about an ideal world, I could live with property owners being able to trespass someone who carries a gun after being noticed, IF the property owner took full legal responsibility for their safety while on the property.

  • ||

    yes. in my state, or at least under my prosecutor's filing standards, generally speaking, the person must be told to leave, and usually by a cop BEFORE they can be arrested for trespass. the exception is where they OBVIOUSLY have no right to be (like breaking into a home) or where they have been given prior notice (like previously given a written trespass warning)

    but i've never in 20 yrs seen a case, nor would th eprosecutor take it, where i arrested somebody for entering a property against CONDITIONS in a sign.

    shit varies a lot state to state

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Everything up through "In Texas, outside of certain establishments" is what I would say the ideal is.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So if I forbid people from bringing food or drink onto my property, I have a responsibility to feed them and provide water?

    If the property is that dangerous, maybe the person who desires to enter it should reconsider.

  • ||

    something i haven't seen mentioned, and speaking descriptively here, not normatively.

    there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference in how the law recognizes property rights in regards to a BUSINESS vs. a home (home is a castle, etc.)

    SUBSTANTIAL.

    thus, it is entirely possible to, with the understanding of this distinction think the balancing test and this law is OK with regards to parking lots at places of business, while recognizing that it would not be ok in regards to a PRIVATE home, or presumably the driveway/parking area of a private home

    again, there are a myriad of examples, but all sorts of privacy interests, etc. are diminished in a business place one owns vs. a private home.

    i think that is an important distinction to keep in mind when viewing this case. saying it's "ok" to place this restriction on a BUSINESS owner is not saying it would be ok to place one on the owner of a private home.

  • Paul.||

    I'm cautiously with the NRA on this one. Debra Maggart's heart is in the right place, but she's wrong.

    It is about property rights. The property rights of the car owner. I can carry any legal object in my car, wherever I go. If it's legal for me to carry a firearm in my car, then that's that.

    Telling me I can't have a hello-kitty bobble head in my car when I drive on your lot is a property rights issue... my property rights.

  • Proprietist||

    Take smoking as a good example. We all agree that there should be no laws banning smoking. However, we also agree there should be no law forcing any property owner to allow smoking.

    But does the property owner not have any right to say "you can't smoke inside your car while parked on my property"? Or even something with less outside impact - can't they ban you from making love in your car while parked on their property?

    If you think they can have you removed for trespassing, you are agreeing Maggart was right. The property rights of the landowner trump the property rights of visitors on their land. Doesn't mean the visitor has no rights and their property can be seized at will, but the landowner has final discretion over who can stay or leave and what can or can't happen while on their own property.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So I can drive my car into your driveway and do whatever I want as long as I stay inside the car?

  • ||

    see my above post.

    the law makes distinctions between rights of a homeowner and rights of a business owner. the latter have much fewer rights, even moreso if it's a "licensed " establishment (liquor, etc.)

    a man's home is his castle. his business place?

    nope

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I did see it, I just choose not to address it since it is a bullshit distinction (because I'm arguing in a normative sense). Property I own should be mine, regardless of what I use it for.

    The issue that I'm pointing out with this analogy is the double standard they have with regard to property. It's connected to the double standard you're mentioning about laws regarding business (e.g. Civil Rights Act).

  • ||

    i can accept that. i was speaking descriptively, not normatively.

    at a minimum would you accept a business shouldn't be able to say "no blacks" in regards to employees or customers?

    because a HOMEOWNER certainly should. should a business owner have that right iyo?

    how about if it's a hotel, and the only one in town?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    should a business owner have that right iyo?

    Yes. And if I saw a place that did that I wouldn't shop/work there. Hopefully enough people would agree and they'd go out of business. But just because I think someone shouldn't do something doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

  • ||

    again, i can respect that pov. while i have a different one.

    i think that when it's a place of public accomodation, like a hotel, that it can't exclude blacks (or whites or whatever)

    i readily admit though that it DOES infringe on a liberty (private property interest)

    however, i also agree IN THIS DAY AND AGE, as a practical matter, i think a business that tried that shit would go out of business. i doubt there is any place racist enough for such a business to thrive

    that says a lot about how far we've come baybee since 1960's

    i will also say it's refreshing to have a discussion, to respectfully disagree, and to not have it devolve into a shouting match of name calling.

    and even moreso NOT to have my positions MISSTATED. i hate that. i like when people disagree , and i even like being shown to be wrong and/or changing my mind based on intelligent argumentation

    but nobody likes to be misrepresented

    cheers

  • Romulus Augustus||

    "however, i also agree IN THIS DAY AND AGE, as a practical matter, i think a business that tried that shit would go out of business. i doubt there is any place racist enough for such a business to thrive"

    And that's precisely why the law isn't necessary. Practically, the repeal of the law would help smoke out all those closet racists and bigots who are currently forced to accomodate blacks in their motel or straight patrons in their gay bars so that the rest of us could boycott/shun such people.

  • ||

    right. but i'm not saying the law is necessary (in this day and age) vis a vis blacks being hired.

    i think it's necessary because if and when they are treated disparately (e.g. wages etc.) on account of race, they have redress since it's a violation of the law.

    whereas w/o the law, it would just be "tuff shit. you got fucked over for the last 10 yrs. have a nice day"

    however, the law we are talking about (the gun law) presents a different problem in that it effectively prevents a person from defending themself OFF the property since they can't carry to/from.

    apart from the distinction (in the law, whether you support it or not) giving less latitude to workplace vs. homeowners/other private property, i think that's the primary issue with the gunz thing.

  • ||

    A "place of public accommodation" sounds like a bullshit distinction, a way of trying to pretend a PRIVATE business is "public". "Public" in the legal sense should only refer to places owned by the government (aka the people). Any business such as a hotel makes private agreements with anyone it chooses to put up. There is nothing public about private arrangements.

  • ||

    that's great, but "place of public accomodation" is the term used in case law

    mebbe instead of saying it SOUNDS LIKE BULLSHIT (iow you are unfamiliar with it, and thus case law), you would be better served by reading some constitutional law

    regardless, i am speaking descriptively vis a vis places of public accomodation. if you want to understand the case law, go ahead and read it and then you will understand this bullshit distinction, as referenced in various cases (e.g. civil rights laws, etc.)

  • Proprietist||

    A court would agree with that precedent by upholding that section of the Civil Rights Act. However, this still patently violates the 1st Amendment freedom of association, which reciprocally includes the right to not associate. Businesses are by definition more open than a house, but that doesn't mean they need to give up any of their property rights.

  • Bryan C||

    "So I can drive my car into your driveway and do whatever I want as long as I stay inside the car?"

    Of course you can. Until I ask you to leave.

    Are you doing something illegal? I'll call the police, and then ask you to leave.

    Unless, of course, I have a sign at the end of my driveway that says "Trespassers will be eaten by rabid dogs". Then I can kill you with impunity. Because, hey. Sign.

  • ||

    damn

    i need more signs for my uniform

  • Fluffy||

    I can prevent you from undertaking any LEGAL activity I don't like, if you're on my property.

    So your gun being legal is immaterial.

    I can say, "No running a newspaper in your car on my property!" too. And "But my car is MY property and it's my 1st amendment right!" is not a counterargument.

    The argument begins and ends with my property line. There's nothing else to consider.

  • ||

    I can prevent you from undertaking any LEGAL activity I don't like, if you're on my property.

    Rather than you preventing them from doing so, you are simply denying access to people undertaking the prohibited activities.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Of course you can. Until I ask you to leave.

    So you admit there is some limit to the property rights I enjoy inside my own car.

    Additionally, why do you have to ask me to leave before the police get involved if you've already told me not to come (e.g. an employer having a policy about their parking lot which the employees obviously know of)?

  • mr simple||

    So you admit there is some limit to the property rights I enjoy inside my own car.

    I don't think this is right. It's more of the situation Randian suggested earlier by saying you can trade away some of your rights in exchange for something else, e.g. employment or a parking space.

    why do you have to ask me to leave before the police get involved if you've already told me not to come

    I don't think he sugggested he had to, but it's usually best not to get the police involved if you don't have to.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    By saying "Until I ask you to leave" he's saying that is the point I start trespassing. My point is that in this case, the property owner has informed you before you entered the property that they don't want you there. In effect, they've already asked you to leave. Why, then, isn't it automatically trespassing upon entry?

  • ||

    So you admit there is some limit to the property rights I enjoy inside my own car.

    I'd say that's not actually a limit to your property rights over your car, it's an exercise of the private property owner's rights over HIS property (the business).

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I think the employer should have the right to ban beer in the car or stuffed animals or those rear view mirror balls because it's their property.

    In theory, I probably agree. And I do not believe the employee should be able to dictate the terms of employment. The door, she is thataway.

    But then you rapidly find yourself on a very steep and slippery slope by giving the employer what amounts to the "hecklers' veto" [if I understand the term correctly] over a wide sweep of behavior outside work as well. Want to go to the range after work and burn off a few mags? Too bad. Want to stop at the gun store and pick up your kid's surprise birthday present on the way to work? Too bad. Want to take off directly from work Friday afternoon to get your elk? Too bad. Having trouble with your girlfriend's ex? Too bad.

    I'm still stuck on the actual behavior you (the employer) want to prevent, which is (presumably, unless you're just a hoplophobic dick) your employees shooting one another at YOUR place of business. Tell 'em not to. Or CONSEQUENCES.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Yeah, the employer can demand a bunch of ridiculous things. Don't want to accede from them? Don't work there. You'll find that there will be a competition with less stupid restrictions getting all the good employees.

    I'm still stuck on the actual behavior you (the employer) want to prevent, which is ... your employees shooting one another at YOUR place of business. Tell 'em not to.

    Yes, that makes more sense, but I don't think we should require people via law to act perfectly reasonably.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm still stuck on the actual behavior you (the employer) want to prevent

    Who says I'm trying to prevent anything?

    Maybe I just have an irrational preference to not having anyone have a gun on my property.

    Private property is the space in which each of us gets to indulge their irrational preferences. And anyone who doesn't like them can get the fuck out. That's what private property is for.

  • ||

    i think this is reasonable

    i think the two main arguments against are the fact that it strongly affects one's ability to carry outside the workplace if one can't store it in the car

    and

    the distinction some (and the law ) make between a home or other private property and a workplace, where in the latter one's ability to exclude (see, race etc) is not absolute (in the home, it is)

    but i think your argument is sound

  • The Late P Brooks||

    As a practical matter, the employee can always park on the public street and walk through the gate, but in some large business settings, this can be difficult to actually do.

  • Fluffy||

    Work somewhere else.

    Or be self-employed and work at home.

  • ||

    The employer has the right to demand that no guns go onto their private property. The employee has the right to refuse searches of their private property (their car's trunk) even while it is on their employer's property. The employer has the right to make it a condition of employment that all vehicles entering their property must open their trunk to inspection. The employee has the right to park their unopened trunk car outside the employer's property to avoid such a search.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The only part where I would disagree with you is:

    The employee has the right to refuse searches of their private property (their car's trunk) even while it is on their employer's property.

    and only if you are implying that they can keep it there (e.g. not have the car towed) without accepting a search.

  • ||

    the state of WA again expands liberty...

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l.....74696.html

    note: school officials can search students based on "reasonable suspicion" . cops need probable cause (note: i said search, not pat frisk). court ruled properly that the cop was a COP, even if an SRO and if the school wanted the bag searched, they could have done so themselves, but if a cop does it - he needs PC or consent.

    contrary to the reason meme, courts FREQUENTLY rule against police searches, etc. links to the LED shows it happens all the time and in MY state, privacy rights have expanded in the last 10 yrs, especially due to ladson.

    we cannot search a car incident to arrest, for example

  • Fluffy||

    The damages arent nominal, they are nonexistent.

    Then trespass has absolutely no meaning and shouldn't exist.

    If you decide to hold a barbecue on my front lawn, what are my real damages? Zip.

    If you decide to go hunting on my property when I've posted it's forbidden, what's my harm if I'm not the deer? Zip.

    My posting of an anti-gun rule inconveniences you in carrying your gun around. Tough shit. Work somewhere else if you don't like it.

  • mr simple||

    Then trespass has absolutely no meaning and shouldn't exist.

    No, they're talking about civil recompense. The law grants the ability to legally evict anyone from your property or defend it as necessary. It isn't necessary for me to have to pay you a large sum of money just because I step foot on your property without your permission for the law to be apropos.

  • Randian||

    No one gets a payday out of nominal trespass to land. that's why it's rarely pursued as a tort.

  • BarryD||

    There aren't any real damages in many cases.

    That's why there's criminal trespass. You can have them charged with a crime.

    You could collect civil damages if they, say, held an organized event on your property without permission. You could sue for rent, expenses, etc. But it would be difficult to collect damages from someone who, say, took a shortcut across your land but didn't hurt anything, disrupt any activity, invade your privacy, etc.

  • ||

    i would also note a clear distinction.

    when an employer is the GOVERNMENT, under the law they are more restricted than a private employer from making many restrictions, and imo this is JUST

    iow, work for subway, criticize jared (in an offduty social media post) get justifiably fired.

    work for Chicago PD, criticize the chief, or the mayor, or etc. not fireable

    the obvious distinction is that the 1st amemdment applies to govt. and to govt. employers. this doesn't mean a govt. employer can't set rules of workplace decorum. clearly, they can fire you if you tell your boss to fuck off

    but they shouldn't be able to penalize OFF DUTY political speech, and if you work for govt. much of what you say about your own employer will be political speech. remember, nearly every police chief is an appointed politician and nearly every sheriff an elected one

    take an example where a deputy sheriff is himself running for sheriff. of course in his campaign, he is going to say shit about the current sheriff

    should then the current sheriff be able to fire him? of course not

    there's also a body of law starting to protect whistleblower cops under the 1st, which si similarly necessary

    without such protection, a cop who turns in another cop, let alone a superior or the chief, for misconduct , could simply get fired. that would strongly incentivize people to keep quiet about corruption, and strongly punish people for doing the right thing

  • Tulpa Doom||

    That's another issue on which Reason is terrible. Being a sucker of the public teat, paid with money taken at gunpoint, shouldn't grant you special rights.

    IMHO the Bill of Rights only applies to govt in its role as coercer, not as employer. Too many perverse incentives otherwise.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    IMHO the Bill of Rights only applies to govt in its role as coercer, not as employer.

    Agreed.

  • ||

    this is utter rubbish. it has nothing to do with special rights.

    it has to do with the constitution. it limits GOVERNMENT. if your employer happens to be govt, guess what? 1st amendment issues apply because they are GOVERNMENT

    read the constitution. it's not a special right

    it's a constitutional limitation on govt.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The issue is that taking away a job isn't violating coercing you.

  • ||

    that;'s wonderful but irrelevant

    the issue is that the 1st amemdment limits govt. not just from "violent (i assume you were trying to say) coercion" but from a lot of other stuff when it comes to stuff involving free speech

    period.

    this is a difference BASED on the constitution. calling it a special right or bringing up stuff like "violent coercion" are red herrings

    the issue is very simple. the 1st amendment limits govt. and it was DESIGNED first and foremost to protect unpopular, and especially anti-govt. and political speech

    you can keep ignoring the relevant issue, but that IS the relevant issue

    even post-garcetti, the idea is that govt. punishing people for criticizing govt. is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    and i find it utterly unshocking that respect for constitutional rights is diluted by reasonoids when god forbid, the rights are exercised by police officers

    if you want to live in a world where govt. can punish people for criticizing govt, great. i don't, and fortunately, i have the constitution on my side

  • Coeus||

    the issue is that the 1st amemdment limits govt. not just from "violent (i assume you were trying to say) coercion" but from a lot of other stuff when it comes to stuff involving free speech

    All government coercion is violent coercion. It is all ultimately enforced at gunpoint by you and your ilk.

  • ||

    groovy, then the above poster is wrong. it IS violent coercion

    either way, the point stands.

    the govt cannot punish people for exercising free speech.

    it has nothing to do with 'special rights' of a police officer. you have the same right to exercise free speech and not be punished by govt as i do. and if and when the govt. tries to punish you for free speech, i would support you, just as much as i would expect support if they tried to punish me.

    the first amendment matters, and it applies to us all. even cops

  • Coeus||

    I don't disagree, I just wanted to make that clear.

  • ||

    works for me.

  • Coeus||

    But the perverse incentives enter into it when your unions get involved with stuff you do on the job. Something you seem to have no problem with.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    if and when the govt. tries to punish you for free speech, i would support you, just as much as i would expect support if they tried to punish me.

    And when they try to lock you up or fine you, I'll be on your side.

    My above comment wasn't about violent coercion. It started as "violating your rights" and I decided to switch to "coercion" but missed part of the deletion.

    if you want to live in a world where govt. can punish people for criticizing govt, great.

    I don't, but I also recognize that withholding something I'm not entitled to isn't "punishing" me.

  • Coeus||

    Make sure you think through the implications of this stance. With government continually expanding and crowding out the private sector, more and more people will be reliant upon them for a job. Do you really want them to be able to fire people for putting a Ron Paul sign up in their yard? The government horns its way into markets and displaces other employers by force. The very existence of government employees outside of the military is a market distortion. Restricting their actions via the constitution is the only check there is.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Then pass a law or get a contract.

  • Coeus||

    There is already a law.

  • Fluffy||

    Im not trespassing due to a posted sign saying "no guns".

    If you don't like the trespassing law, how about the fraud law?

    If I announce to you that a condition of your employment is that you not bring your gun on to my property, and you nod your head and say, "Sure! When can I start?" and you bring your property on to my property anyway, AFAIAC the whole of your earnings while working for me is fraudulently obtained.

    You keep wanting to make it the employer's responsibility to find the gun and tell the employee to leave. It's pretty obvious this is because you want people to be able to lie to obtain employment (eg say they have no gun in their vehicle) and not get caught. Lying to get a material benefit is straight-up fraud.

  • ||

    i can tell you that would never fly as a CRIMINAL fraud.

    you wanna hear a fucked up one a guy from my agency got fired for?

    he calls in to the dept and says he will be on military leave for the weekend.

    THEN, he calls in sick to the military

    THEN at the same time he signs up and works a "off duty" traffic detail (directing traffic for a private company in uniform)

    essentially, triple dipping

    he was fired forthwith

    another guy was suspected of not showing up for his (off duty) security detail (private community hires officers for security).

    IA stakes out his house for a couple of his details

    turns out he never left his house. he claimed he worked, but he never left his house

    again, promptly fired.

    that kind of shit is fucking amazing.

    i imagine the anti-cop set will say "why wasn't he arrested derp derp?"

    fwiw, the prosecutor considered it, but could not find one case of any PRIVATE employee (many of whom have been canned for similar shit) ever being charged with theft for that stuff either, and they decided that a firing, which in WA means that he can never be hired again in state for any agency, was enough.

    he did have to pay back a bunch of pay though

  • ||

    i imagine the anti-cop set will say "why wasn't he arrested derp derp?"

    An unfair characterization. I don't know anyone here who claims matters of employment contracts are criminal offenses. Derp derp.

  • Coeus||

    Someone on this virtually unmoderated site probably did at one time, so he uses it to paint all of his detractors with. I'm gonna start applying policeone comments to him.

  • ||

    If I announce to you that a condition of your employment is that you not bring your gun on to my property, and you nod your head and say, "Sure! When can I start?" and you bring your property on to my property anyway, AFAIAC the whole of your earnings while working for me is fraudulently obtained.

    Unless you as the employer can magically prove that each and every day I as the employee deliberately brought a gun onto your premises in knowing violation of this policy, then not so much so.

    I would be OK with labor laws, or the lack thereof, that permitted a redress such as immediate termination of employment for that act, or for any reason whatsoever.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Or be self-employed and work at home.

    I am. I do.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I would never spend as much time as I do fucking off on HnR if somebody was paying me to be Doing Something Else.

  • DegFooo||

    The NRA clearly has a LOT of spare time on their hands lol.

    www.Anon-Got.tk

  • whip_lash||

    I expect and as a member require the NRA to defend the right to keep and bear arms against all comers, public and private, just as, say, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education defends free speech even at private universities.

    Yes, gun rights and private property rights conflict here, but that isn't relevant to the NRA. It isn't the National Rights Association or the National Second Amendment Association. It's the National Rifle Association.

    Personally, I'm more than happy to let property rights prevail in this conflict - provided that my employer provides an absolute financial guarantee of my safety while on their property. If they won't, then I have no interest in their opinion of what I keep in my car, and I should be legally insulated from having to. The right to survival takes priority over their distaste.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement