gun rights Archive

Why the Starbucks Gun Carrying Statement Doesn’t Bother Me at All, and Why Gun Advocates May be to Blame

Well here we go.

Guns and Abortion

As you’re well aware, there’s been a tragedy.

Indiana’s HB 1065, the Gun in Your Glove Box and Property Rights

Every once in a while an issue comes up that pits some rights against others. HB 1065, which is legislation the Indiana State House passed and is now awaiting Governor Mitch Daniels’ signature is one of those pieces of legislation. The bill essentially makes it illegal for a business/employer to have a policy against employees bringing firearms, locked in a glove box or otherwise stowed away, onto their property. Now, at first blush libertarians like myself might hail this legislation as a massive blow in favor of people’s right to self defense. But, is this not also a massive blow against private property rights? Let’s examine further and without getting tied up in the emotions of the gun issue. We’ll also presume that we’re addressing things from a natural rights perspective within the confines of Constitutional government (not what passes for the authoritarian government systems we have today).Let’s lay the ground rules first.1. You have a right to your life, liberty and property.2. Nobody may deprive you of these rights without your permission.3. You have the right of voluntary association (you may not be forced to associate with people you do not desire to). Voluntary association and activity is always superior to that which is forced.4. Government is the negation of liberty and exercises all authority by threat of force or violence.5. Being on someone’s property without their permission is trespassing.6. The Constitution sets restrictions on what government may do.7. Any private property owner could set a policy that nobody is allowed to park on their property. Or that only American made cars are allowed or only blue cars or whatever else.Let’s analyze the impact of HB 1065Currently, an employer may set a policy that says that nobody is allowed to bring a firearm onto their private property, even if it is locked in the glove box of a car. Now, personally, I find this terribly offensive to anyone who has gone through the process and is licensed to carry a firearm or even more offensive to anyone that might be former military. BUT, if the private property owner sets this policy then:1. It is not the government forcing one side or another to accept anything.2. Voluntary associations are maintained (you may park elsewhere; petition the property owner for relief; do it anyway and keep your mouth [and glove box] shut; choose to no longer provide labor or professional services to a company, business or property owner that does not share your values)3. The property owner’s sovereign control of their property so long as nobody’s rights are involuntarily violated is preserved (you volunteer to the restriction by continuing to park on their property or work there)4. There is no Constitutional violation because government did not create this restriction, a private property owner did. Just like a private business owner might choose to fire somebody for saying something stupid, offensive or threatening – there is no “free speech” protection in the private sector.If the government sets a law that requires property owners to allow this then:1. Association is no longer voluntary. The private property owner must now accept your trespass against their wishes. 2. It reinforces the idea that the government, not property owners, is the final arbiter of what is permissible on your premises. (smoking ban advocates try and pretend that patrons are involuntarily deprived of their right to life by the cigar or cigarette smoke in bars, completely ignoring that people voluntarily walk in and expose themselves or voluntarily work there [SAME LOGIC APPLIES HERE – You believe in private property rights and voluntary association or you do not])3. An employer might just add a line to their job applications – “Are you licensed to carry a firearm” and start denying employment based on the answer. If gun permit information is available as part of a background check that might also cause an employer pause if they are adamant in ensuring no firearms are on their property [note: payment for a permit to exercise a right is a ridiculous notion but, at least the General Assembly is working to protect that information by making it private via HB 1068]4. Instead of somebody risking losing a job if discovered, the business owner is now a criminal if they attempt to retain control over their property.So, while people may momentarily think they’ve won some kind a “take that you bozo employer I’ll bring my gun if’n I wanna” victory, just remember that property owners just got a big, “government is the final arbiter of what you must allow and you’ll shut up and take it” from big government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.As for me personally, I strongly support the right of people to be prepared to defend themselves but I abhor the idea that government has to tell me what must be allowed on my property. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to government restrictions not to private property owners.

Indiana’s HB 1065, the Gun in Your Glove Box and Property Rights

Every once in a while an issue comes up that pits some rights against others. HB 1065, which is legislation the Indiana State House passed and is now awaiting Governor Mitch Daniels’ signature is one of those pieces of legislation.
The bill essentially makes it illegal for a business/employer to have a policy against employees bringing firearms, locked in a glove box or otherwise stowed away, onto their property.
Now, at first blush libertarians like myself might hail this legislation as a massive blow in favor of people’s right to self defense. But, is this not also a massive blow against private property rights? Let’s examine further and without getting tied up in the emotions of the gun issue. We’ll also presume that we’re addressing things from a natural rights perspective within the confines of Constitutional government (not what passes for the authoritarian government systems we have today).
Let’s lay the ground rules first.
1. You have a right to your life, liberty and property.2. Nobody may deprive you of these rights without your permission.3. You have the right of voluntary association (you may not be forced to associate with people you do not desire to). Voluntary association and activity is always superior to that which is forced.4. Government is the negation of liberty and exercises all authority by threat of force or violence.5. Being on someone’s property without their permission is trespassing.6. The Constitution sets restrictions on what government may do.7. Any private property owner could set a policy that nobody is allowed to park on their property. Or that only American made cars are allowed or only blue cars or whatever else.
Let’s analyze the impact of HB 1065
Currently, an employer may set a policy that says that nobody is allowed to bring a firearm onto their private property, even if it is locked in the glove box of a car. Now, personally, I find this terribly offensive to anyone who has gone through the process and is licensed to carry a firearm or even more offensive to anyone that might be former military. BUT, if the private property owner sets this policy then:
1. It is not the government forcing one side or another to accept anything.
2. Voluntary associations are maintained (you may park elsewhere; petition the property owner for relief; do it anyway and keep your mouth [and glove box] shut; choose to no longer provide labor or professional services to a company, business or property owner that does not share your values)
3. The property owner’s sovereign control of their property so long as nobody’s rights are involuntarily violated is preserved (you volunteer to the restriction by continuing to park on their property or work there)
4. There is no Constitutional violation because government did not create this restriction, a private property owner did. Just like a private business owner might choose to fire somebody for saying something stupid, offensive or threatening – there is no “free speech” protection in the private sector.
If the government sets a law that requires property owners to allow this then:
1. Association is no longer voluntary. The private property owner must now accept your trespass against their wishes.
2. It reinforces the idea that the government, not property owners, is the final arbiter of what is permissible on your premises. (smoking ban advocates try and pretend that patrons are involuntarily deprived of their right to life by the cigar or cigarette smoke in bars, completely ignoring that people voluntarily walk in and expose themselves or voluntarily work there [SAME LOGIC APPLIES HERE – You believe in private property rights and voluntary association or you do not])
3. An employer might just add a line to their job applications – “Are you licensed to carry a firearm” and start denying employment based on the answer. If gun permit information is available as part of a background check that might also cause an employer pause if they are adamant in ensuring no firearms are on their property [note: payment for a permit to exercise a right is a ridiculous notion but, at least the General Assembly is working to protect that information by making it private via HB 1068]
4. Instead of somebody risking losing a job if discovered, the business owner is now a criminal if they attempt to retain control over their property.

So, while people may momentarily think they’ve won some kind a “take that you bozo employer I’ll bring my gun if’n I wanna” victory, just remember that property owners just got a big, “government is the final arbiter of what you must allow and you’ll shut up and take it” from big government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.
As for me personally, I strongly support the right of people to be prepared to defend themselves but I abhor the idea that government has to tell me what must be allowed on my property. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to government restrictions not to private property owners.

Self Defense in City Parks, Washington State Validates Right to Carry and Gun Free Zones Continue to Be Violence Magnets

A female Superior Court judge in King County, Washington has ruled in favor of individuals who sought to end a ban on carrying firearms in city parks.

Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.

“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.

The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”

As some people are aware, Indianapolis Councilor Ed Coleman (Libertarian – At Large) has introduced legislation which would eliminate the unconstitutional city ban on individuals, who have gotten permission from the government by way of a permit to exercise their rights (sarcasm intended), carrying their personal firearms onto city park property. In other words, he has introduced a proposal to restore an individuals right to defend themselves in a way that would align city code with both state and federal law where such restrictions either don’t exist or are expiring this month.Now before the anti-gun folks have a fit, let’s consider the following.You walk up and down city streets and drive all over public roads every day with countless other people who are licensed to carry their firearms and have them on their person or in their vehicles either openly or concealed. The streets are not running red with law abiding citizens shooting each other are they? Do you feel unsafe walking around Monument Circle at lunch time because some of those folks have guns on them? Of course not. Interestingly enough, in some states (like New Hampshire) one can legally “open carry” into the State House (although bureaucrats are trying to play games with it now [see this link and associated video] )!Where should you feel unsafe? So-called “gun free” zones maybe?This past week we saw a faculty member at the University of Alabama kill three people and wound others when she was denied tenure. We also saw this month where an elementary school teacher shot other faculty members when he was told he would not have a job next year. We all remember what happened at Columbine or at Virginia Tech. All “gun free zones”. Yet, that didn’t stop crazy people with criminal intent from taking a gun into those areas and attacking people who were legally (but unconstitutionally perhaps?) denied the choice of defending themselves. It was great to see the Fraternal Order of Police speak publicly in favor of Mr. Coleman’s proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal caught Mayor Greg Ballard (R) off guard and he probably spoke too quickly when suggesting he would veto the proposal if it landed on his desk. There is never a wrong time to restore rights or liberty to the people. Most conservatives and libertarians would expect Republican officials to fully support this kind of thing if they truly believe in protecting people’s natural rights. One can only hope that the Mayor doesn’t feel backed into a corner as after careful consideration there would be no reason not to support this except to play silly political games.There was a rumor that councilor Mike Speedy, who is running for State House this year, has been interested in this kind of proposal in the past but never thought it would get enough support. Now that with the Heller and the Seattle decisions showing courts will support individual rights, there should be no reason other councilors shouldn’t jump on as co-sponsors. But, again, political games could trump actually doing the right thing. We’ll see.The important thing to remember is that “gun bans” are “massacre enabling” restrictions and do not protect anyone. You can’t protect the sheep from the wolf by making all of the sheep weaker.

Self Defense in City Parks, Washington State Validates Right to Carry and Gun Free Zones Continue to Be Violence Magnets

A female Superior Court judge in King County, Washington has ruled in favor of individuals who sought to end a ban on carrying firearms in city parks.

Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.

“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.

The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”

As some people are aware, Indianapolis Councilor Ed Coleman (Libertarian – At Large) has introduced legislation which would eliminate the unconstitutional city ban on individuals, who have gotten permission from the government by way of a permit to exercise their rights (sarcasm intended), carrying their personal firearms onto city park property. In other words, he has introduced a proposal to restore an individuals right to defend themselves in a way that would align city code with both state and federal law where such restrictions either don’t exist or are expiring this month.
Now before the anti-gun folks have a fit, let’s consider the following.
You walk up and down city streets and drive all over public roads every day with countless other people who are licensed to carry their firearms and have them on their person or in their vehicles either openly or concealed. The streets are not running red with law abiding citizens shooting each other are they? Do you feel unsafe walking around Monument Circle at lunch time because some of those folks have guns on them? Of course not. Interestingly enough, in some states (like New Hampshire) one can legally “open carry” into the State House (although bureaucrats are trying to play games with it now [see this link and associated video] )!
Where should you feel unsafe? So-called “gun free” zones maybe?
This past week we saw a faculty member at the University of Alabama kill three people and wound others when she was denied tenure. We also saw this month where an elementary school teacher shot other faculty members when he was told he would not have a job next year. We all remember what happened at Columbine or at Virginia Tech. All “gun free zones”. Yet, that didn’t stop crazy people with criminal intent from taking a gun into those areas and attacking people who were legally (but unconstitutionally perhaps?) denied the choice of defending themselves.
It was great to see the Fraternal Order of Police speak publicly in favor of Mr. Coleman’s proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal caught Mayor Greg Ballard (R) off guard and he probably spoke too quickly when suggesting he would veto the proposal if it landed on his desk. There is never a wrong time to restore rights or liberty to the people.
Most conservatives and libertarians would expect Republican officials to fully support this kind of thing if they truly believe in protecting people’s natural rights. One can only hope that the Mayor doesn’t feel backed into a corner as after careful consideration there would be no reason not to support this except to play silly political games.
There was a rumor that councilor Mike Speedy, who is running for State House this year, has been interested in this kind of proposal in the past but never thought it would get enough support. Now that with the Heller and the Seattle decisions showing courts will support individual rights, there should be no reason other councilors shouldn’t jump on as co-sponsors. But, again, political games could trump actually doing the right thing. We’ll see.
The important thing to remember is that “gun bans” are “massacre enabling” restrictions and do not protect anyone. You can’t protect the sheep from the wolf by making all of the sheep weaker.