Replies

I got a call from Russ yesterday. He has worked their for 30 years and is in charge of security here in Vegas. I told him what had happened and he was cringing on the phone when I told him about her law skills. He said the official corporate position is to "prefer" customers not openly carry.

For Miss Jane's further edification, the relevant federal statutes are as follows:

Title 18, United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code
PART I, CHAPTER 13, §ection 242:
Deprivation of rights under color of law

§ 241. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Jane and Russ may both wish to discuss the following applicable federal law as well:

Title 18, United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code
PART I, CHAPTER 13, §ection 241:
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

It appears Miss Jane may be purchasing a really nice Christmas present this year. Or alternately, you can just bring a lawsuit against the bank under Title 41, Section 1983

These statutes bring up an interesting dichotomy in which right trumps another. I think that we can all agree that the Constitution is supposed to protect the individual from the government. However, these statutes pretty much state that not only is the government prohibited from denying constitutionally guaranteed rights, but individuals can't do it either. However, which is the trumping right? The G-d given right to private property, which is a requirement to be free and independent, or the 2nd Amendment? Does a private property owner have the right to discriminate based on behavior? Can a private business legally say you can't carry a gun on his property, and that if you wish to carry, don't go there.

I am torn by this. But deep down, I believe that the right to personal property should trump an individual's right to carry a weapon, when that person who wants to carry is on that property owner's property.

Mark