College Students use gun to ward off 6 time felon intruder, Now face expulsion

[RRKore]

you didnt answer the question there moron, are you ok with blacks, gays etc not being serviced at private establishments?

I'm not, in most cases. If the "private establishment" needs any sort of license to operate, then no, they should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race. 

However, if it's TRULY private, like if it's some dude's pool house where he's having some kind of party or something, then hell yeah, keep out whomever you want.

[tonymctones]

I'm not, in most cases. If the "private establishment" needs any sort of license to operate, then no, they should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race. 

However, if it's TRULY private, like if it's some dude's pool house where he's having some kind of party or something, then hell yeah, keep out whomever you want.

lets keep it to the context of privately owned business open to the public

why then are you ok with discriminating against those who are legally exercising their right to own guns?

[RRKore]

lets keep it to the context of privately owned business open to the public

why then are you ok with discriminating against those who are legally exercising their right to own guns?

Please give me an example of the kind of business you're talking about first.

[tonymctones]

Please give me an example of the kind of business you're talking about first.

a restaraunt, bar, daycare...take your pick, it doesnt matter what private business it is.

[RRKore]

a restaraunt, bar, daycare...take your pick, it doesnt matter what private business it is.

Pretty sure that all those businesses require government licenses to operate so I'd say no, they are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race. 

[tonymctones]

Pretty sure that all those businesses require government licenses to operate so I'd say no, they are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race. 

so does an apartment, so why are they allowed to discriminate against a constitutionally protected right?

[RRKore]

so does an apartment, so why are they allowed to discriminate against a constitutionally protected right?

Renting an apartment requires a license?  I don't think I know what you mean.

As far as asking why it's permissible for a licensed business to say "no guns" but not "no blacks" or "no gays", I'm really not sure but I have a few guesses: 
- It may be because there are specific anti-discrimination laws on the books that deal with businesses trying to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation. 
- It may be because guns are much more of a safety issue. 
- It may have something to do with the fact that businesses have a right to not serve individuals based on their conduct (but not to not serve classes of people based on traits they can't change).

[240 is Back]

All of us ACCEPT being stripped of our rights on a daily basis.  We're cool with it on SOME things.

Getting on a plane, we surrender our 4th amendment rights.  You cannot search my suitcase if I'm carrying it down the street without probable cause or you violate my 4th rights.  But hey, welcome to the airport, search my shit, here you go, thanks for the Anal search too, Mr TSA dude.

So really, we're just picking & choosing which we want to disagree with

[avxo]

When a guest is on your property, you're totally cool with requiring them to suspend their constitutional rights.

Oh boy... time for Civics 101!

If you're hosting a party, or opening a restaurant, you can kick people out (expel them) for all sorts of reasons, violating their constitutional rights.

It's true that if you're hosting a party, or opening a restaurant, you can kick people out (expel them) for all sorts of reasons. It's not true that in kicking them out you're violating their constitutional rights. The Constitution binds the Federal Government and it's agents. Via the 14th Amendment it also binds, as appropriate, the States and their agents. An individual in their private capacity cannot violate the rights afforded you by the Constitution.

If you believe this is mistaken, then please explain which rights afforded us under the Constitution of the United States can be violated by an individual in his private capacity and how such a violation could occur. It might be helpful if you can provide links to the relevant jurisprudence.

You can have your bouncer search them (4th amendment), you can tell them no XYZ shirts, violating 1st amendment.

Except you aren't violating their constitutional rights. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution limit what the government can do and can't bind individuals in their private capacity. Don't take my word for it though:

The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The emphasis is mine; it doesn't get any more clear than this.

The 4th Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This one isn't quite as clear for a number of reasons, but fear not. In U.S. v. Jacobsen, Justice Stevens writes that the Fourth Amendment is "wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (466 U.S. 109).

I could go on, but the point is that when an Amendment doesn't explicitly state that it binds the Government and only the Government, controlling case law and decades of jurisprudence do. It's simple: private individuals cannot violate your constitutional rights.

If I want to search you before letting you into my house, that's perfectly fine from a 4th Amendment point of view. If I want to say you can't post on GetBig while you are in my house, that's perfectly fine from a 1st Amendment point of view. See, among other cases Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board.

To be clear, perhaps these kinds of positions are douchey positions for me to adopt, but neither involves a violation of your Constitutional rights. Because - and please repeat after me - people acting in their individual capacity and not as an agent of the Government cannot violate the rights afforded you by the U.S. Constitution.

[240 is Back]

great post man!

[RRKore]

Oh boy... time for Civics 101!


It's true that if you're hosting a party, or opening a restaurant, you can kick people out (expel them) for all sorts of reasons. It's not true that in kicking them out you're violating their constitutional rights. The Constitution binds the Federal Government and it's agents. Via the 14th Amendment it also binds, as appropriate, the States and their agents. An individual in their private capacity cannot violate the rights afforded you by the Constitution.

If you believe this is mistaken, then please explain which rights afforded us under the Constitution of the United States can be violated by an individual in his private capacity and how such a violation could occur. It might be helpful if you can provide links to the relevant jurisprudence.



Except you aren't violating their constitutional rights. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution limit what the government can do and can't bind individuals in their private capacity. Don't take my word for it though:

The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The emphasis is mine; it doesn't get any more clear than this.

The 4th Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This one isn't quite as clear for a number of reasons, but fear not. In U.S. v. Jacobsen, Justice Stevens writes that the Fourth Amendment is "wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." (466 U.S. 109).

I could go on, but the point is that when an Amendment doesn't explicitly state that it binds the Government and only the Government, controlling case law and decades of jurisprudence do. It's simple: private individuals cannot violate your constitutional rights.

If I want to search you before letting you into my house, that's perfectly fine from a 4th Amendment point of view. If I want to say you can't post on GetBig while you are in my house, that's perfectly fine from a 1st Amendment point of view. See, among other cases Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board.

To be clear, perhaps these kinds of positions are douchey positions for me to adopt, but neither involves a violation of your Constitutional rights. Because - and please repeat after me - people acting in their individual capacity and not as an agent of the Government cannot violate the rights afforded you by the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not too proud to say that I needed this civics refresher.   Thanks!!

[tonymctones]

Renting an apartment requires a license?  I don't think I know what you mean.

As far as asking why it's permissible for a licensed business to say "no guns" but not "no blacks" or "no gays", I'm really not sure but I have a few guesses: 
- It may be because there are specific anti-discrimination laws on the books that deal with businesses trying to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation. 
- It may be because guns are much more of a safety issue. 
- It may have something to do with the fact that businesses have a right to not serve individuals based on their conduct (but not to not serve classes of people based on traits they can't change).

I am not arguing the letter of the law, I understand whats legal and whats not.

What I am arguing is that preventing someone from possesing a firearm at their place of residence is essentially nullifying the 2nd ammendment.

and that if you can deny certain aspects of constitutionally protected rights, you should be ok with violating them all.

[RRKore]

I am not arguing the letter of the law, I understand whats legal and whats not.

What I am arguing is that preventing someone from possesing a firearm at their place of residence is essentially nullifying the 2nd ammendment.

and that if you can deny certain aspects of constitutionally protected rights, you should be ok with violating them all.

I understand the point you are trying to make but I think you're only persisting because you either don't understand what avxo wrote about distinguishing laws from constitutional rights or you just don't buy it.

Constitutional rights say what people can do without being interfered with by the government.  Laws spell out what people can't do. 

Given what avxo wrote, I think that it's legal for a private party on property he owns to prevent others (even tenants who reside there) from carrying guns there because there is no law against doing so.  (This would seem to be the case with the guy who lived in the dorm.) 

BTW, I imagine there are jurisdictions that have laws on the books saying that certain types of businesses cannot withhold service based on whether a citizen has a gun or not.  In the absence of such laws, though, the private property owner can tell the gun folks to scram.

[tonymctones]

I understand the point you are trying to make but I think you're only persisting because you either don't understand what avxo wrote about distinguishing laws from constitutional rights or you just don't buy it.

Constitutional rights say what people can do without being interfered with by the government.  Laws spell out what people can't do. 

Given what avxo wrote, I think that it's legal for a private party on property he owns to prevent others (even tenants who reside there) from carrying guns there because there is no law against doing so.  (This would seem to be the case with the guy who lived in the dorm.) 

BTW, I imagine there are jurisdictions that have laws on the books saying that certain types of businesses cannot withhold service based on whether a citizen has a gun or not.  In the absence of such laws, though, the private property owner can tell the gun folks to scram.

apparently you dont understand my point again I understand the laws, legally anybody can enter into an agreement that reliquishes their constitutional right.

Thats why its legal for employers to require workers not smoke even off duty. The issue is that the apartment IS THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE!!!!

if you cant own a gun where you live, where are you supposed to keep it?

They arent going to someone elses residence, they are going HOME!!!

[RRKore]

apparently you dont understand my point again I understand the laws, legally anybody can enter into an agreement that reliquishes their constitutional right.

Thats why its legal for employers to require workers not smoke even off duty. The issue is that the apartment IS THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE!!!!

if you cant own a gun where you live, where are you supposed to keep it?

They arent going to someone elses residence, they are going HOME!!!

Dude, I know what you're saying and it does kind of suck but if a guy is just renting his home, it's not really his.

The actual owner can lawfully impose all kinds of restrictions (not just ones related to guns).  Even restrictions that the government can't impose on someone who completely owns his residence.

[avxo]

apparently you dont understand my point again I understand the laws, legally anybody can enter into an agreement that reliquishes their constitutional right.

Thats why its legal for employers to require workers not smoke even off duty. The issue is that the apartment IS THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE!!!!

if you cant own a gun where you live, where are you supposed to keep it?

They arent going to someone elses residence, they are going HOME!!!

As I explained, private individuals cannot violate another individuals constitutional rights. On top of that, I believe that property owners should be able to control how their property is used and how to run their business. So I would have no problem with a landlord prohibiting weapons on the property provided that such a limitation was clearly spelled out in the lease agreement. The refusal of a landlord to allow weapons on a property doesn't infringe on your Constitutional rights and, in my opinon, the argument that "it's their home" is vacuous.

But I could argue the issue both ways, really. Ultimately, the libertarian side of me simply puts if foot down and says: "a property owner should be able to refuse to rent his property to someone for any reason - including for no reason at all."

However, we live in the real world. And in the real word and under the current framework, there are several other factors to consider. First and foremost is the fact that an integral component - often only implied - of any lease is the covenant of enjoyment, which ensures that the tenant's possession of the property during the lease term is not automatically superseded by the landlord's ownership rights. So, while a homeowner retains title and rights to the property during the lease term, he is limited. For example, a landlord cannot consent to a search of the home by the police, especially against the tenant's wishes.

I won't venture a guess on how a Court would rule on the issue, but if the lease clearly says "no weapons are allowed on the premises" then I don't know how you side-step that without the Court striking that provision off.