Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Home Depot and Guns

What if Home Depot didn't allow crutches or walkers on their property, claiming that it was a safety issue? Don't you think the Supreme Court would find some pretext to say that this was a violation of a customer's fundamental rights? Yet there is no amendment to the Constitution acknowledging crutches or walkers as a right belonging to every individual. There is, however, an amendment acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms.



As for your property rights, in my opinion you have the right to have a policy against the carrying of weapons, whether at your home or in your store. What that amounts to is if you invite someone onto your property, and then discover he has violated your policy (which was made known to him beforehand), you have the right to ask him to leave. If he does not, then he becomes a trespasser, and you can call the police and have him expelled. That's how real property rights work. It goes well beyond real property rights, however, to be able to make the act of carrying a weapon onto your property a crime in itself. That is the issue we are discussing here.

Hawkeye,
Sounds like we pretty much agree.

Hawkeye, this is the way Texas works. If a place wants to bar carrying there is a specific sign with specific wording that must be posted in such a way so that the public will see it before entering the place. If you carry beyond that sign you are guilty of criminal trespass.

However the little sign of a pistol with a circle and a bar or something else similar don't cut it. It is not legal notice according to the law. If you carry in a place like that and are detected you can be asked to leave. If you leave then no harm no foul. Only if you refuse to leave are you guilty of criminal trespass.

BCR

B.C.R., that law sounds like it protects a person's authentic property rights, without over-stepping. A very reasonable approach.

The difference between the protection afforded by the 13th and 14th Amendments lies in their interpretation. The 13th flat out bans slavery. That has been interpreted to mean "badges and incidences of slavery." So if an individual discriminates on the basis of race, he is in violation of the Constitution without any state action. However, the other rights found in the Constitution have only been interpreted as protections against state action. So there is a slight difference in application. That is why I believe that Home Depot is not violating anyone's Second Amendment right. However, that is only because of the way the Constitution has been interpreted, not because that is the way it should be. Heart of Atlanta did deal with the Commerce Clause, and in fact many of the rulings related to civil rights were an applictaion of the Commerce power. If the Court wants something done bad enough they will find a way to make it happen, just like Congress. Hawkeye, if you are going to argue the state licening of the business, read Moose Lodge v. Irvis. In that case the court said that the granting of a liquor license to a private club was not enough to constitute state action, and therefore its banning of blacks was not a violation. So the fact that a business incorporates in a state, or is licensed to do business is not sufficient. Its a weak thread as well. Given your opinion on Scalia I doubt there is anything I could ever say that would convince you otherwise. Also, through the doctrine of selective incorporation, not all of the rights in the bill of rights have been made applicable as to the states. This means until a case comes up where that issue is presented, that right isn't binding on the states. There hasn't been a case where the Second Amendment has been dealt with in that way, so as of right now it is not binding on the states. Again, I'm not saying that is the way it should be, but that is the way the Court has called it. Other rights that fall in to that situation are the 3rd Amendment protection from quartering of troops and the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil case. The idea is to keep the Federal government out of things unless or until it becomes necessary.

Bueller, about the only amendment not currently being violated is the third. I am well aware of all the disingenuous reasoning behind the various Supreme Court decisions. I was only speaking about what things might be like if they actually upheld the Constitution. When they make up ideas like incorporation via the 14th, they should also be consistant, but that's too much to ask of this crowd. I am personally one of those who doesn't like the 14th Amendment, even if it would, if applied correctly, force states to recognize our right to keep and bear arms. It was designed to destroy the Federal system established by the Founders, and it achieved its goal. States are now subjects of the Federal Government, rather than sovereign in their own right. One could make the argument, of course, that the 14th is invalid due to the fact that the Southern states, after the Civil War, were essentially forced at gun point to ratify it. Doesn't sound like government by the consent of the governed to me.

The intersting thing about our form of government is that if the Constitution is amended, then it means what that amendment says it does. Amendments like the 14th are product of a document that was designed to address changes in the fabric of our society that the founders had not envisioned when they wrote the document. The fact that they made it amendable at all shows that they were looking to the future. Personally I think the 14th was not only a good amendment, but very necessary. There is no difference in my mind between state sanctioned opression and federal sacntioned opression. By ratifying the Constitution the states gave up a certain amount of their autonomy because under the Articles of Confederation the central government was too weak to do anything. There were 13 separate nations, and they just couldn't work together well enough to accomplish anything without a stronger central force. However, the founders recognized that a central government could easily trample the rights of its citizens unless its power was limited. Thus the bill of rights was written and added to the Constitution. The post civil war amendments are an extention of that idea to the states. If the rights of citizens can be restricted by a state government, that is no different than the federal government doing it. Can you honestly say institutionalized segregation was a good thing? Federalism means a division of power between the state and central government, not state domination. Federalism also means that certain areas of the law belong to the states only. Take for example that wretched piece of legislation called "the Gun Free School Zone Act". Congress didn't even bother to try to come up with a basis for their power to pass that law, basing it loosely on the Commerce power. The Court struck it down because it violated federalism. Given your view on post civil war America, I think I can figure out your view on this whole issue. The only thing I can say is that is not the way the system works. You can either spend all your time slamming it, or work within it to do the best you can to protect your position. I can assure you that the picture you paint as to the domination of the states by the Federal government is no where near as oppressive as you believe. There are a lot of things I don't like about the Federal government, especially after working for it for 10 years. However, I would not turn it all over to the states to do for themselves. Some would do a decent job, others (California comes to mind) would go to one extreme, while others would go to the other end of the spectrum. In the end we would no longer have a nation, and would not be able to do most of things this nation has accomplished during its life time. You always have to look at the bigger picture, and not just your own little corner of the world. I've lived in several states, and each of them had things that I like, and other things I hated. But at least there was a common thread. I didn't have to exchange currency just to cross the border from Louisiana to Texas just to buy a beer!

Bueller, I think you need to read up on the Reconstruction period, and see how the 14th Amendment was crammed down everybody's throats. If it were ratified by consent, the reasoning in your above post would be perfectly legitimate.

I guess where we differ is in that you see the 14th Amendment as something evil that was forced upon you while I see it a being necessary to secure liberty to all in this nation. Clearly that was not possible before the 14th was passed. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Bueller, I am sure you are not even close to understanding me. One can favor the principle of outlawing slavery without favoring what was done during and after the Civil War to the South and to our nation as a whole.

I think I do understand where you are coming from, I just disagree. After the civil war this nation ceased to be a confederation of states, and became one nation. Many think that was a bad thing and long for more autonomy for their particular home state. My view is that it was necessary to move in to the future that came with innovations like the trans-continental rail road and heavy industry, just to name a couple, which are the types of things that have made this country strong and powerful. Yes, there are problems associated with that as well. However, do you think this country could have prevailed in WWII under the pre-civil war concept of what this country was? I don't think so myself. I guess it all depends on your perspective and the way you view history.

As for what happened in the South, well bad thing happen in war and there are always repercussions. If I recall my history correctly the first attack was launched by the South on Ft. Sumpter. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Attrocites were committed, like buring Atlanta, but in war you see the true level of man's in humanity. Its hard to point a finger at one side as being worse than the other, both were shameful at times. However that was almost 150 years ago, so its passed. Only by letting that go can you move on for the future. I know people in both the north and south that still can't. Kind of a waste in my opinion.

You may find it interesting that I wrote an article for my school's law review this fall that called for an end to DOJ review of state voter redistricing plans as being no longer necessary, and outweighed by its intrusion on Federalism. At one time this was necessary to combat state sponsored infringement on the voting franchise. Now it isn't, and should go. During the Clinton administration the Voting Rights Act was used by the Justice Department to force the states to enact ACLU sponsored redistricing plans that created ridiculous looking districts just to favor certain demographic groups. The Supreme Court you have so much distain for repeatedly sided with the states, and slammed DOJ for exceeding their authority. So Federalism does still exist in this country, and the Court does support it, you just have to look for it.

Actually, although I know what you mean, it stopped being a confederation in 1789. Both the Continental Railroad and heavy industry were well underway before the Civil War. It was the Civil War that caused the postponement of the C.R. This country would not have been involved in the First World War to start with. That being the case, the Second World War would never have happened. Germany, France and England would have come to a peace, whereby Germany would have gained a little territory from France, including Alsace-Lorraine, and Hitler would never have risen to power. Well, the first act of war was committed by the North. If you recall, they did resupply Fort Sumpter, which was in Confederate territory. Who was it who said that he who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it? Good for you.

1. While the US did stop being a confederation on paper in 1789, it didn't stop acting like one until after the civil war. The South's attempt to leave the union proves it.

2. My point with the CR and heavy industry was just an example of things that required national unity to succeede.

3. WWI was not the only cause of WWII. Study the history between France and Germany, as well as the Great Depression. Saying that WWI was the only cause is a failure to learn from history. Hitler's rise had nothing to do with the rise of Imperialism in Japan, just for an example.

4. How can it be an act of war for the United States to resupply its own installation? The South's leaving the Union was not a valid act under the Constitution. Therefore the attack on Ft. Sumpter was the first act.

5. There is a difference in learning from history and holding a grudge. Many people I have met from the South still do. Get over it.

6. Snyde remarks are not necessary. Just trying to educate you on the fact that Federalism is not dead, despite your way of thinking. Now who isn't interested in learning?

You can sit around a gripe about the passing of days you believe were much better. However given that you did not live during those times I do consider that a waste. The world has changed, and like it or not this nation has to. That doesn't mean it has been a bad thing.

I indicated that I understood what you meant. Perhaps division would have been even better But for American involvement in WWI, WWII would never have happened, i.e., it was a proximate cause. I stand by it. Germany would have been the winner of WWI, even if by a small margin (gaining only a little French territory), and that would have been the end of it. It is arguable that the Southern States, never having given up their sovereignty previously, retained sufficient sovereignty to withdraw from a voluntary union with other states and to form a new union of their own choosing. Show me where in the Constitution it says that states may not secede from the union. The burden is on you, especially in light of the Tenth Amendment. That being the case, Ft. Sumpter was on foreign soil, and the alien occupants refused to leave. Under these conditions, a military resupply was an act of military hostility. I don't hold a grudge. I have to plead ignorance on this one. Just what snide remark do you claim I made? I believe that liberty is better than tyranny. I believe that limited government is better than total government. Where am I wrong?