Posted on 10/07/2005 11:16:41 AM PDT by neverdem
The answer is obviously 'no.' The apartment dweller's exclusive property rights begin at his door.
Maybe it's me, but I can't get excited about your landlord-tenant questions. I'm sure if you had an actual example of a single tenant trying to set policy in a parking lot where a landlord says he has no jurisdiction, I'd care more.
-- what would be reasonable about inspecting a roofing contractors truck for firearms?
If the roofing contractor wants the job, and the customer's stated requirements include inspecting his vehicle for firearms, the contractor can decide not to bid on the job if he doesn't care to have his privacy invaded. Then, the customer can try to find a contractor who's willing to submit to the inspections.
You're restating the obvious to avoid answering the question at hand. -- Why do you want to ignore our Constitution to infringe on my right to have a gun within my private property [my truck]?
Then, the customer can try to find a contractor who's willing to submit to the inspections.
Telling usage. - "Submit".
If the contract is already offered and accepted, and the customer springs this inspection idea on him out of the blue, now we're talking about contractual terms, whether they're written, oral, or reasonably assumed. That's for a court to decide, if either party wants to dig in his heels and take it that far.
Yep, and rest assured, this contractor would "take it that far", and win. A jury would laugh your ludicrous position out of court.
By and large, where a business transaction is concerned, I believe it's reasonable and just for each party to set whatever policies he wants. The other is free to take it or leave it.
Obviously, you've never heard of unenforceable contacts. -- 'A contract that is tortious or calls for an action contrary to public policy is illegal and unenforceable.'
Infringements on our RKBA's are "contrary to public policy".
In this particular case, if the company's money and policies aren't to your liking, and you think you can do better somewhere else, you're free to hawk your services and/or products down the road.
Paraphrased: '-- In this particular case, if our Constitutions policies aren't to your liking, and you think you can do better somewhere else, you're free to hike on down the road to Mexico -- or Canada. --'
Likewise, if the company doesn't care for your policy of carrying guns in your vehicle, the company has the right to give its business to someone else. Each of us has the freedom of choice, and choices have consequences.
Many state legislators & courts now disagree.
--- The Georgia Supreme Court nailed the issue:
They said that your vehicle is an extension of your home, and anything you can legally possess in your home you can carry in your vehicle onto both public and private parking lots.
That's not surprising. Commies, Socialists, Liberals and RINOs are all too happy to chip away at our private property rights, just as they have our Second Amendment rights.
Geezer, In effect you're calling the Georgia Court, -- [in their efforts to defend an individuals arms & vehicle property rights,] --- "Commies, Socialists, Liberals and RINOs".. -- Whatta laugh.
Meanwhile, some conservatives believe they've won a victory when it may very well be that the opposite is true. Maybe they've been conned and don't even know it. Maybe they were thrown a bone to pacify them for awhile.
Who's been "conned"? I'd say you.. -- But feel free to continue in your strange belief that infringements on guns in parked cars somehow defends a companies property rights.
Private owner owns a Mall. Should he be able to forbid a particular race of people to enter his mall?
No.
A person is free to choose whether to carry a firearm. He has little or no choice in the matter of his race.
A person is also free to choose his religion. Would that allow a mall to forbid Christians from entering?
" -- this is a very touchy issue. my question is, does my car cease to be my property when i drive onto yours? i believe that i have the right to tell you that you can't come into my house armed, but not that i can tell you whether or not you can have the firearm in your vehicle. -- "
If the gun owner really wants to visit or do business with the property owner, the gun owner will simply have to park his vehicle somewhere else, not on the property.
Notice that geezer ignored your question: - "does my car cease to be my property when i drive onto yours?"
He knows, of course, that you are correct, and that our right to have a weapon in our cars is not trumped by his 'right' to be unreasonable.
absolooezer0:
" -- also at issue, how does the company justify search? is there a written document, signed by the employee, that allows this search? -- or is does it violate search and siezure laws? -- "
The company would be stupid to try it without giving ample notice prior to attempting any such search. Hard-to-miss signs in the parking lot, signs at the doors, etc. This assumes the company's objective is not to catch violators; rather, the company really does want to keep firearms off the property.
Unless I'm mistaken, the 4th Amendment restricts what governments can do, not private property owners.
It seems pretty simple; anyone who doesn't want to be searched is free to leave the premises. It's not as if anyone is being threatened with imprisonment for refusing to be searched.
Geezer is mistaken. Sure, the 4th Amendment restricts what governments can do, but it is also the law of the land, and even private parking lot owners are obligated to observe our laws and support & defend our Constitution.
Note too that some of these companies started this whole issue by 'searching' employees cars with gun sniffing dogs, then firing anyone who objected.
Corporate police state anyone?
Yes, of course. I'd have thought the tagline I've been using throughout this discussion should have made that clear enough.
You're restating the obvious to avoid answering the question at hand.
I've avoided nothing.
Why do you want to infringe on my right to have a gun in my private property [my truck]?
Apparently, my point isn't clear. I am not saying you can't keep your gun in your truck. I'm simply saying, if you insist on keeping your [whatever] in your truck, you cannot park it on my property. I'm not infringing on any of your rights. You have no RIGHT to be on my property, with or without your [ truck | Yugo | mother-in-law | burning flag | earrings | firearms ]. If you dislike my policies, no one is forcing you to abide by them, much less throwing you in jail. You are free to leave. In fact, you MUST leave if I don't want you here. That's the way it worked until the Almighty Nanny State usurped control from the property owner.
Obviously, you've never heard of unenforceable contacts. -- 'A contract that is tortious or calls for an action contrary to public policy is illegal and unenforceable.'
Of course I've heard of them. They exist. (If, somewhere buried in the fine print of our contract, I stated you could bring no Arabs onto my property, that would be unenforceable.) However, I don't believe this should be one of those cases. 'Public policy' should uphold the property owners' rights but, increasingly, it does not. Understand, I'm not stating how it IS, I'm arguing how it SHOULD BE. It's my opinion. Our 'public policy' is constantly evolving and it's getting worse, not better.
But, enough already. I've stated my position and, at this point, I couldn't care less whether you and your attitudes and invectives agree with it or not.
Certainly. Then, we'd see who's serious about their beliefs.
Oh, and by the way, I believe Revelation 13:17 says that's actually going to happen someday. (That prophecy seems to eliminate any hope of the Christians taking their business to a friendlier mall, though.)
No big deal. I'd very much enjoy knowing where every retailer stands on every issue, so I can better decide where to spend my money. (Besides, the shopping malls are among the very last places I care to spend any time or money. ;)
Are you going to search the cars of every person who mows your lawn, etc? There's quite a difference between having a gun locked in the trunk of your car and wearing one while mowing the lawn.
If I have such an aversion to firearms, he should probably park his car in the street and not in my driveway.
Likewise, and have a profitable weekend. I've enjoyed our exchange and thank you for it.
I don't carry a gun in my vehicle but no one but a law enforcement officer with a search warrant is going to search the inside without my permision.
During the great Carter Administration gas shortages I read about a gas station on the Florida where the attendant would stick their heads inside a vehicle to check their gas gauges before selling them any gas. They were telling the reporter that people would smash or otherwise destroy thir gas gauges.
After reading the story, I told my wife, "The sob stuck his head in my window he would be pulling back a nub".
The same applies about looking inside my vehicle either for a gun or stick of gum.
Yes, of course. I'd have thought the tagline I've been using throughout this discussion should have made that clear enough.
-- 'Public policy' should uphold the property owners' rights -- [over gun rights?]
But enough already. I've stated my position and, at this point, I couldn't care less whether you and your attitudes and invectives agree with it or not.
My attitude is not really the one at issue here.
Your attitude however is made clear, - you could "care less" about the Constitutional issues, despite your 'tagline'.
No one is infringing on your RKBA. The issue is simply whether you are welcome on my property. If you wish to be on my property, you leave the A outside. If not, you leave. It's all up to you. It's really very simple.
you could "care less" about the Constitutional issues, despite your 'tagline'.
LOL. Anyone who knows me knows that, for one to arrive at that conclusion, he'd have to be a loon or a dolt. If in fact I "could [sic] care less" about Constitutional issues, I would have bailed out of your p*ssing match long ago.
No one is infringing on your RKBA.
Companies are infringing on our right to keep arms in our cars using the bogus issue of 'workplace safety'.
The issue is simply whether you are welcome on my property. If you wish to be on my property, you leave the A outside. If not, you leave. It's all up to you. It's really very simple.
Yep,it simple. You admit caring less about our right to bear arms in our cars.
-- You could "care less" about the Constitutional issues, despite your 'tagline'.
LOL. Anyone who knows me knows that, for one to arrive at that conclusion, he'd have to be a loon or a dolt. If in fact I "could [sic] care less" about Constitutional issues, I would have bailed out of your p*ssing match long ago
You started this match at #3 by asking everyone:
If I hire someone to put a new roof on my house, mow my lawn, etc., do I not have the right to tell him if he will not disarm, he is not welcome on my property, if that is my desire?
The answer? - Sure, but the effect of that "desire" is to p*ss on the Constitution.
I don't carry a gun in my vehicle but no one but a law enforcement officer with a search warrant is going to search the inside without my permission.
Note that some of these companies started this whole issue by 'searching' employees cars with gun sniffing dogs, then firing anyone who objected.
Corporate police state anyone?
So, your RKBA trumps my right to throw you unwelcome carcass off of my property, eh?
If nothing else, you've helped me understand why some gun grabbers think we're a bunch of wild-eyed lunatics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.