Here's an except for an email I received today from Ignatius Piazza, owner of Gunsight:

I have the answer to the insanity of Gun Free Zones and I am putting my money where my mouth is by paying the legal fees of the first victim to file a very specific lawsuit against the Cinemark Movie Theater chain that denied responsible citizens their right to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves against the murderous rampage of a deranged killer.

Just bullshit. The rights of private property owners trumps the right to carry a concealed weapon on their property. End of story. Good luck!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Just bullshit. The rights of private property owners trumps the right to carry a concealed weapon on their property. End of story. Good luck!
Peter.

Sounds like the beginning of a good

So which trumps in the long run? the right to defend one's self, or property rights?

I don't know...that would be a question for a jury, IF such a suit were filed and went to trial.

One other thing about rights is always worth remembering. None are free. The exercize of any and all of them have costs attached.

It's kind of like the old example of a car legally entering an entersection through a green light, even though the driver sees another car coming from his left at a high rate of speed and for whom the light is red. The one on the right with the green light has the right of way. And he can exercize it if he is stupid enough to.

But then, even though he is dead right, he will possibly be dead, right?

Sometimes the same kind of thing applies with our other rights. They may be our rights, but there may be a heavy cost if we exercize it or them.

I'm no lawyer but I would suppose that they wouldn't propose a suit unless their attorney's deemed there were sufficient grounds.

Private property rights apply fully to property used privately. Rights on private property open to use by the public is a different matter. For example, if a man comes to knock on your door and you order him out of your yard because he is of a particular ethnicity, and only on that basis, you are well within your rights. But the owner of a restaurant open to the public cannot do the same or he is violating the man's civil rights. Perhaps the fact that the theater was open to the public changes liability.

Legal experts?

Last time I was in Dallas I stayed at a hotel that had clear signs to the effect that no concealed weapons were allowed. I would have thought that if it was as open and shut as some of you think this would have been legally resolved a long time ago.
Peter.

Peter, never said it would be an Open and Shut case. I would just like to see it tried. Theaters and such think they are reducing the chance of a law suit by prohibiting guns, we need to show then that may not be the case.

quote:

Just bullshit. The rights of private property owners trumps the right to carry a concealed weapon on their property. End of story. Good luck!
Peter

AS along as they are open to the public for bussness.

I don't see it any differants then not allowing blacks,gays ect in.

It is amazeing how the anti's jump on the private property rights thing when it comes to guns but not anything else.

Property rights generally trumps all others, your choice don't like the rule go somewhere else. The American way would dictate that a competing company who wanted their business would allow it...time will tell. It boils down to what the people want nothing more nothing less

raamw, now that is an interesting thought: two competing cinema chains, one says "CCW not allowed" the other says "CCW encouraged". How many would go to each one?!!!
Peter.

quote:

AS along as they are open to the public for bussness.

I don't see it any differants then not allowing blacks,gays ect in.

That's kind of how I see it. Especially since it's an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.

Their is some variation in property rights from state to state. I remember reading something about a bill, I think it was in Arizona (perhaps someone from that neck of the woods could help out), that in one state if a business does now allow CCW, they are held to a stick liability standard if anything violent should happen to the CCW holder while on their property.

When Arkansas recently passed their CCW law, a similar provision was in the original bill. It went so far that if you employer forbid you to have a firearm in the parking lot, and you were carjack and hurt on the way to work, the employer would be held liable. Unfortinatly this provision did not make in into the final law.

If we can start changing the liability equation, it will start changing the thinking of these businesses.

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:

quote:

AS along as they are open to the public for bussness.

I don't see it any differants then not allowing blacks,gays ect in.

That's kind of how I see it. Especially since it's an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.

Their is some variation in property rights from state to state. I remember reading something about a bill, I think it was in Arizona (perhaps someone from that neck of the woods could help out), that in one state if a business does now allow CCW, they are held to a stick liability standard if anything violent should happen to the CCW holder while on their property.

It was part of the bill before the AZ legislature to allow student CCW carry on educational campuses. Unfortunately the bill did not pass, thanks to heavy lobbying by the teachers' unions, the university Regents, and local Chiefs of Police.

I think it would have passed anyway, had it just made the schools liable for injuries if they barred CCW carry and a student was injured through a resulting inability to defend himself/herself.

But the drafters of the bill also required that schools barring concealed carry by licenced students and visitors would have to provide extra full-time campus police, secure storage of firearms for licensed students who could not take their guns into the classrooms, and manned metal detector units at all building entrances.

In the current economic times, that was simply too costly to carry the day, as the university Regents made it clear they would ban CCW carry in all of the State's universities regardless what expenditures that might require. As usual, the "liberal" educators had their way.


As far as property rights automatically trumping all other rights, if that was true, neither zoning laws nor restrictive deed covenants would exist.

It takes a court order to overcome property rights, basically in the public best interest. As you recall prior to the construction of the interstate highway system back in the 50"s, a lot of property was taken under that philosophy public domain. The same apply to state, county and local laws or codes, somethings that civilized people have to live with, like a politician once stated, don't like the laws then move to a lawless nation...food for thought.

quote:

Originally posted by raamw:
It takes a court order to overcome property rights, basically in the public best interest. As you recall prior to the construction of the interstate highway system back in the 50"s, a lot of property was taken under that philosophy public domain. The same apply to state, county and local laws or codes, somethings that civilized people have to live with, like a politician once stated, don't like the laws then move to a lawless nation...food for thought.

Legislation works just as well as court orders.

For instance, building heights are often limited by local legislation. Although the owner of property on which a building is erected owns the space for an infinite distance above the ground (at least in theory) he cannot build to a height above the limit imposed by an applicable local ordinance.

So the "property right" to build is his, but the exercize of and extent of that "right" is often limited by local legislation. He can challenge that legislation and/or its implementation in court, and he may or may not win.

Probably most often he will not triumph. But he may win...that's why we have all those high-priced lawyers everywhere you turn. They play both sides in settling what is the just extent of rights (and what is not) under specific circumstances.

Not a perfect system, but as so many say about the American government, it is probably better than our other options currently available.

Please see my tag line

Under the political theory of natural law/rights and the social contract (upon which this republic is founded), government is desgined to arbitrate between competing rights of individuals to provide redress/relief for either party (to prevent bias and anarchy).

Some states recognize the issue being discussed.

In MO, a posted sign declaring CCW carry unauthorized is fine, however, to carry concealed into such premises can result in a range of the following:

Nada. The never knew you are carrying.

If your'e determined to be carrying, the proprietor can order you to leave. Okay. I 'm gone. Answer is to carry properly.

If you refuse and a peace officer gets involved, you can be ticketed. $100 fine.
(Of course, if you give the officer cause, you can be arrested for other various and sundry crimes-trespass, criminal trespass, breach of peace etc)

Mulitple incidents can result in your endorsement being suspended or revoked.
RSMO chapter 571

The comment about private property vice "open to the public" property- I can demand everyone entering my home to strip nekkid- but no one would comply, they (like me) would just depart and never return. Walmart won't search every person to insure they are free from arms-for the same reason. Walmart depends on the public for existence, I, in my home, do not.

Actually, Walmart has a "laissez faire" (let the people decide) corportate attitude these days. They follow and allow whatever the state laws the store is in and do not post against any lawful activities.... Smart. Costs less, live better.

Do I carry everywhere except where expressly forbidden by law? You guess.

Best;