The anticipatory attack

Joe Fleming is out of the gates early bashing the NRA for its bill to prohibit employers from prohibiting firearms in vehicles on an employer’s property.

I think Joe is couching the argument in the right terms: this is a private property vs. second amendment issue.

It seems we need to look and see which of those rights takes priority to decide whether or not we should push this law. Personally, I think the Constitution gives greater weight to the right of private property than it does to the right to keep and bear arms. The latter only gets a mention in one amendment to the constitution. The former gets mentioned throughout the text of the constitution and several amendments thereto.

As a result, I think we should give greater weight to the rights of property owners than to the rights of gun owners. I support the second amendment, but I would not carry my gun onto someone’s property when the property owner was explicit in not wanting guns on the property.

Of course, conversely, when the next insane high school student decides to go postal at a shopping mall, it might be nice if someone had a gun and could take the kid out.

15 comments

  1. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I think that any common sense human would prioritize private property directly behind freedom of consience and thought. The freedom to own firearms is far down that list…when lexically ordered.

  2. Randy Lewis says:

    My right to punch you in the nose stops at the end of fist and the beginning of your nose. The Chamber is right and the NRA is wrong. You have a right to posess a gun, I have a right to stop you from coming on my property with it. This is not a complex problem. It is only made complex by simpletons.

  3. Bill Simon says:

    Randy,

    Well, please make sure you provide a lockbox outside your property for me to deposit my gun into that I carry in my car BEFORE I enter your property…and, when I leave, I can retrieve it.

    Unless you’re willing to provide a police escort for everyone who travels to and from your “property” and everyone else’s property.

    Try thinking outside your left-wing shaped box every now and then.

  4. Painterman says:

    Why do I keep getting the feeling this is an argument looking for a place to happen. When has this been a problem in GA where someone was fired or punished for having a weapon in their car or truck? This should fall under a “don’t ask, don’t tell” category.

  5. Still Looking says:

    Amen to last two posts. This is irresponsible legislation that lacks common sense. It is almost as absurd as NRA defense of teflon coated bulletts that can pierce a policeman’s bullett proof vest.

  6. Goldwater Conservative says:

    This is an argument that is looking for a place to happen. You are absolutely correct painterman. All you really need is a good court case to settle though…legislation is not really necessary. It need not even be a gun case…it would help though. Criminal trespassing could apply. There does not need to be a lock box to store a gun in before entering. If you are on someone else’s private property and they do not want you in possession of a firearm on the premises…then you must abide. It is private property. People do not get into an uproar because Bill Simon does not allow non-WASPs on his property…why should firearms have any exception. When you refuse or knowingly (really even unknowingly) bring a firearm onto private property that prohibits their possession…you are committing a criminal trespass. Plain and simple.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    “non-WASPs”….are you insinuating that I only allow WASPs on my property?

    For the record, Catholics are good, fine people…not that the typical Southern Baptist would or could ever admit that. 🙂

  8. Randy Lewis says:

    Grift — thank you — Bill doesn’t have a clue about much of anything. I also think people should have the right to own shoulder-mounted rocket launchers — and I have a right to prohibit them from coming on my property with them loaded. ;>)

  9. Paul Shuford says:

    How is a gun in your car in a parking lot on “someone else’s property”? Unless it is taken out of the car, it’s still on your property, and should not be subject to anyone else’s preferences. Why doesn’t the NRA just push for a law confirming that?

  10. Paul Shuford says:

    Still Looking,

    No teflon coating on earth can make a bullet more likely to penetrate a protective vest. It’s been tested, and found to be BS. From what I understand, this was the NRA’s position. You seem to be very, very poorly informed.

    Goldwater Conservative,

    What are the laws concerning criminal trespass? From what I understand, you can only be arrested if you refuse to leave when asked, if a place is open to the public in any way.

  11. Doug Deal says:

    If the NRA wants to be so in your face about this loser of an issue, I would support businesses just firing people who brought guns on site, as this is a right to work state, and as long as it is not one of the few Federally protected reasons, you can fire anyone for any reason.

Comments are closed.