Private Property -> Constitutional Carry

[grylnsmn]

civil rights?

If he's singled me out for exclusion because I'm carrying, he's crossed the line.

But him opening his property, except to me while carrying specifically discriminates against my uninfringible right to carry.

If I have no right to be on his property without a firearm, then I agree that me carrying does not magically grant me a right to his property. But I just shan't be prohibited only because I'm carrying.

I'm not to have less rights than anyone else, just because I'm carrying.

His infringement is less than mine would be, similar to civil rights' "pre-eminance".

The part that I put in bold shows the fatal flaw in your reasoning.

You don't have a right to be on someone else's property. A right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." If I give you an invitation to enter my property, you don't have a right to be there, because it is not an entitlement. You have the privilege to be on my property. (Privilege - "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.") The property owner, on the other hand, has the right to be on and control his own property. He is entitled to be there. You are not.

You have no right to be there whether or not you are carrying a firearm, and because of that, he can choose to offer you a conditional invitation based on whatever criteria he wants (including whether or not you have a firearm). That is his right, and he doesn't infringe any of your rights when he issues that conditional invitation because you have no right to it in the first place.

By attempting to force entry onto his property in violation of his conditional invitation, you are infringing his rights. However, his conditional invitation in no way infringes your rights because you never had a right to be on his property in the first place.

You seem to be using the fact that we (as a society) have decided to allow a limited infringement of the right to property (as related to specific classes of people, such as race, gender, etc) as a basis to further infringe the right to property. That is not the same thing as your rights being infringed because someone else won't let you onto their property while you are carrying a gun.

 

[ChristCrusader]

You seem to be using the fact that we (as a society) have decided to allow a limited infringement of the right to property (as related to specific classes of people, such as race, gender, etc) as a basis to further infringe the right to property. That is not the same thing as your rights being infringed because someone else won't let you onto their property while you are carrying a gun.

What imposed that limited infringement upon the property owner, "as related to specific classes of people, such as race, gender, etc"? Statute.
I'm observing that the US Constitutional 2A (superior to and predating statute) imparted a similar higher priority of bearers' and keepers' rights, and likewise the VA Constitution, Art1, Sect13, with similar effect of being unable to demand disarmament or refuse service/access if otherwise available/offered.

 

[OC for ME]

civil rights?

If he's singled me out for exclusion because I'm carrying, he's crossed the line.

But him opening his property, except to me while carrying specifically discriminates against my uninfringible right to carry.

If I have no right to be on his property without a firearm, then I agree that me carrying does not magically grant me a right to his property. But I just shan't be prohibited only because I'm carrying.

I'm not to have less rights than anyone else, just because I'm carrying.

His infringement is less than mine would be, similar to civil rights' "pre-eminance".

I appreciate your reasoning, you expressed it well, and I appreciate your time and effort to wrangle this, to test and scrutinize the issue so thoroughly, and you come close to swaying me; but I think the major impasse is which right is uninfringeable, and carrying has 2 Constitutions declaring it to be the one of the two.
I'm also not willing to continue accepting, unsupported by equal or higher law, that personal property rights are superior to carrying rights at face value. It's being tossed around as an assumed given. I understand an inherent, unspoken sacredness to it; but unspoken, traditional, and mythical must give way when high-level wrtten law assigns the uninfringeable class of keeping and bearing above it.

This is totally different than saying carrying a firearm acts as a skeleton master key that grants acccess into and onto anyone else's private properties with less permission required than if not carrying. I'm not suggesting that just because I'm carrying, I get unfettered access to enter someone's bedroom at 2 am. All of a property owner's other reasons to restrict access to me stay intact. I'm speaking of scenarios where carrying is the only expressed or proven disqualifier. Prop Owner wants or is willing to allow access if it just weren't for the carrying. Carrying by itself can't be the disqualifier; especially when access to needed goods and services sold to the public is in play.

Even reason, to me, says that a person carrying does not impinge in any way upon another person, any more than me wearing brown socks or boxers would (under appropriate outer clothing), so it doesn't physically negatively impact the property owner by allowing carrying to remain the primary right.

The US and VA Constitutions place carrying into a protected status, long before civil rights demanded them and subjugated property owners' rights to them, in certain circumstances. Being a protected purple penguin who worships seagulls still won't get you into the Prop Owner's bedroom at 2am uninvited. There are different attributes in the comparisons between civil and carry rights, but carrying is nevertheless specifically a Constitutionally created protected action.

You "saying" it over and over again is not going to make it true. Your rights end at my property line. You don't like my rules, do not enter upon my property.

If you are on my property and I request that you exit please be considerate and leave.

It would be very very unfortunate to have "our conversation" turn adversarial and my request becomes a demand. Cops do come in handy from time to time, they will do what I tell them to do when a citizen is trespassed from my property and that citizen refuses to leave.

TFred has provided free sage advice. I recommend that you consider it and then take his free advice.

 

[grylnsmn]

What imposed that limited infringement upon the property owner, "as related to specific classes of people, such as race, gender, etc"? Statute.
I'm observing that the US Constitutional 2A (superior to and predating statute) imparted a similar higher priority of bearers' and keepers' rights, and likewise the VA Constitution, Art1, Sect13, with similar effect of being unable to demand disarmament or refuse service/access if otherwise available/offered.

Where is the Second Amendment (or Article 1 Section 13, for that matter) made applicable against private individuals? A constitution is not binding upon individual citizens, but rather it is binding upon governments, unless it specifically states otherwise.

Remember, the right to property is also protected by the Constitutions of the US and Virginia (see the Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Article 1 Section 11). The Virginia Constitution specifically says that "...the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments..." (Article 1 Section 12), but that doesn't mean that your freedom of speech is extended to my private property.

Can you point to any precedent or any other law that supports your claim that those constitutional provisions apply against private individuals? If you do, then please cite them. If you don't, then please stop making your baseless claim.

Even the statutes that you reference were only upheld by strict scrutiny, as the least restrictive means to accomplish a legitimate government interest. Making that sort of claim extend to the carrying of firearms is a very big stretch, to say the least.

 

[Grapeshot]

This thread is going nowhere. It is like a circle - no end and no point.

Locked it.