Replies

"And I disagree. But let me ask precisely what you think such corporate policies accomplish?? If someone is going to "go postal", do you honestly think a company policy of "no firearms in your vehicle" is going to stop them?? When they're willing to commit multiple murders."

First off, private property owners don't have to justify the wisdom of any legal restrictions they put on the use of their property. I'm not arguing the wisdom or lack thereof of such policies, just the right of a property owner to restrict the presence of firearms on his personal property if he deems it right to do so. I personally support the second amendment, own several firearms and practice with them regularly. But I support personal property rights every bit as much.

Which is more important to you:

The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

-Or-

The property rights of anti-gun bigots?

The practical reality is that private (or public) parking lot bans on firearms in personal vehicles effectively limits firearms to the home (unless the landlord bars firearms).

Besides ,the "legal" status is that only a very tiny number of people in the U.S. actually have absolute property rights through land grants;the rest of "private property" is rented from the government.Think not?Then don't pay your property taxes and see how long it remains "your" property.

If you as a private or public property owner or agency wish to ban firearms then YOU should be held fully and personally liable for any injury suffered by any person unable to defend theirself on your property,or who was unable to defend theirself while enroute to or from your property from their home.

I want a list of the other constitutional and natural rights you think property owners should be able to ignore at will.(REALLY want to hear how you plan to deny homosexuals,handicapped,blacks, or Democrats from your place in light of current law!)

"I personally support the second amendment, own several firearms and practice with them regularly. But I support personal property rights every bit as much."

I see it differently. My right to defend my life (which, at bottom, is what we're REALLY talking about) outweighs a business owner's right not to "feel uncomfortable", which is really all that is at stake on their part.

First off, private property owners don't have to justify the wisdom of any legal restrictions they put on the use of their property.

Exactly. The bar close to my house doesn't allow hats. My favorite restaurant makes me wear a tie. Things that would be a sure violation of my 1st Amendment rights in public, but on private property, it's absolutely up to them.