One's own Constitutionally-protected rights end where they infringe upon another's, especially if one considers property rights to be valid natural rights that merit Constitutional protection.
That said, there is also the natural (and Constitutionally-protected) rights to choose who to associate or enter enter agreements with. This includes the right to choose where to spend one's money. That means if someone wants me to disarm before entering their establishment, I am free to go and do business elsewhere, as well as request that others I associate with not do business with said establishment. Depending on the type of establishment, the impact could be marginal or significant. If its marginal, I don't expect them to change the rules on their property. If its significant, they likely will.
And to be clear, what I said in my previous post was not directed exclusively, and perhaps nor inclusively, toward you. My personal position on the National Rifle Association is that they are rather counterproductive in terms of fully ensuring that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not infringed. In fact, I believe the NRA to be facilitators of a certain level of infringement solely for the purpose of keeping themselves in business.
I will continue to buy guns from this man so long as there is money in my pocket.
James Madison did not believe the “Bill of Rights” was necessary due to the enumerated powers already set forth within the Constitution. That’s just a matter of fact. He agreed to write the first ten amendments at the insistence of others. He basically believed they were unnecessary.
Madison believed that there was already enough protection in the constitution due to the separation of powers, i.e. -- the federal government could not infringe upon the states’ rights because of the restraints already placed upon it – any powers not set forth specifically for the feds were to remain with the states.
This has all become topsy-turvy and screwed around with the fourteenth amendment.
And, before it can be concluded that federal law trumps state law, it must be remembered that the federal law in question has to be pursuant to the constitution. That’s important.
Constitutional scholars are still debating whether the “fourteenth amendment” applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Liberals want it both ways and will say some amendments do, and some amendments don’t and that’s hogwash. They can’t have it both ways.
As stated above, Madison only wrote the amendments due to the insistence of others as a further guarantee against the central government infringing upon the rights of each state.
Therefore, I think one could safely take his stand with Madison and conclude that the “right to bear arms” extended beyond and before the second amendment and is a “God Given” inalienable right even before his composition of the first ten amendments.
I would personally take my stand with the others who wanted the extra guarantee, but any discussion of the first ten amendments should recognize Madison’s viewpoint. You don’t have to agree with it, but it should at least be recognized and enter into any debate.
If the “right to bear arms” is God given, then no government – federal, state, or local can or should be able to interfere with it.
If it is accepted that the fourteenth amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states then you have accepted the Owellian concept that a set of amendments designed as a protection for the states from the federal government is now a set of amendments that can be used by the federal government as a weapon to be applied against the states.
Liberals use this argument everyday to try and justify no prayer in school. How does prayer in an Oklahoma school equate to congress establishing a national religion? It doesn’t.
A business owner can’t, and should not be able to, put up a sign that says “whites only.” Therefore, if we accept that the “right to keep and bear arms” is God given and an inalienable right, it should only logically follow that business owners should not be allowed to put up gun buster signs.
So, when those signs go up, I would respectfully submit that my constitutional rights have been adversely affected. Telling me I should just go do business elsewhere is like telling me to go eat at a different restaurant because establishment "a" won't allow me in because of the color of my skin.
It depends on which part of the Fourteenth Amendment is in question. Incorporation via the Due Process Clause? That in and of itself is an infringement upon natural rights protected by the rest of the Constitution.
Privileges or Immunities Clause that was neutered by the Slaughter-House cases? Then one must consider that this clause was debated and intended as a reinforcement of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV which had been promptly neutered and largely ignored shortly after the country's founding. In that case, Fourteenth Amendment incorporation is proper in the sense that it is congruent with Article IV.
Anyone who favors Due Process incorporation believes that there are no such things as natural rights and that "rights" are only granted by governments. With Due Process incorporation (such as what we got with Heller and McDonald), any infringements upon the protection afforded by the Constitution are to be presumed constitutionally-valid until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Conservatives do the same - mostly with different amendments, but in many cases with different applications of the same amendments.
I'm enjoying discussing this with you Veggie, but I've got to hit the rack.
Good points -- all I can say is anyone who favors Due Process incorporation must be a product of Harvard or some other re-education camp. Kind of like the one's they had in Vietnam. And, I'm sure you've read Jefferson's views on the Supreme Court.
Goodnight...
Good points -- all I can say is anyone who favors Due Process incorporation must be a product of Harvard or some other re-education camp. Kind of like the one's they had in Vietnam. And, I'm sure you've read Jefferson's views on the Supreme Court.
Goodnight...
I'm confused... what is "illegal" about going in a business with a posted sign? It's my understanding there is no law being broken by doing so. Can they ask you to leave and charge you with trespassing if you refuse? Yes, but I can't find anything in statute that says its illegal to disobey a sign.
He didn't break the law by CC'ing in a business with a sign. Perhaps you should study the OK SDA a little. Those signs have no legal significance whatsoever. You are only breaking the law if the business owner sees that you have a gun, asks you to leave and you refuse to do so. Then is is only trespassing.
This actually depends on who is interpreting the signs. I have had lawyers tell me that the signs do contain force of law and not other notice need be given. Much like a no smoking sign or a no shirt no service sign. However, given that information, the city of Moore Police Department requires the owner or manager to give a verbal request before they can charge a person with trespass. The sign at Chuck-E-Cheese specifically states the sign serves as your notice.
\
It doesn't depend on anything of the sort. The signs are not legally binding. Period. Business owners have to ask you to leave before it is even trespassing, not just in Moore.
Chuck E Cheese can put anything on their sign that they wish. It still doesn't make the sign legally binding. That's like a sign that say, "Not Responsible For Accidents" but you get hurt in their store and it's their fault. That sign means nothing. Texas, however has the 30.06 sign that actually is legally binding. Oklahoma has no such sign.
It doesn't depend on anything of the sort. The signs are not legally binding. Period. Business owners have to ask you to leave before it is even trespassing, not just in Moore.
Chuck E Cheese can put anything on their sign that they wish. It still doesn't make the sign legally binding. That's like a sign that say, "Not Responsible For Accidents" but you get hurt in their store and it's their fault. That sign means nothing. Texas, however has the 30.06 sign that actually is legally binding. Oklahoma has no such sign.
Similar threads
