|
Note that in these cases the property owner WANTS the person
on their property but objects to what is discretely secured in their POV (which
the property owner INVITES to park in his lot).
Here's an analogy. A gun (carried for securitry) is like
a seeing-eye dog. A piece of special purpose safety equipment. The
carry permit holder could choose a gun or a cell phone. A blind
person can choose a dog or a cane. In either situation the property owner
has to allow the item on his property. It doesn't matter of the property
owner is allergic to dog hair, hates dogs because he was bitten as a child,
fears others will be bitten, or fears his carpet will be defaced - the state can
make him allow the dog. If they can do one, they can do the other.
Same thing with requiring 5% of parking to be set aside for handicapped
persons (it doesn't matter if the property owner has 20 years of records showing
1% is sufficient in his lot).
The recent Supreme Court case reinforces the power of the
state not vice versa.
>>> Paul Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/03/05 12:38 PM >>> Robert Woolley wrote: > The general question I pose to the list is this: What constitutional or > general legal principles govern whether, when, and to what degree a state > legislature may intrude on private property rights, particularly the right > to exclude others from one's property, as it relates to the carrying or > possession of firearms? I think it's important to consider the inverse question as well: What constitutional or general legal principles govern whether, when, and to what degree a state legislature may intrude on private property rights, particularly the right to ADMIT others onto one's property, as it relates to the carrying or possession of firearms? In Texas, various special interest groups managed to get clauses inserted into the original CHL law that prohibited carrying firearms on their premises. Churches were among them, but some of the churches didn't like the prohibition, and they had no choice. Two years later, the law was modified so they had to post a sign or provide written notice for the prohibition to be effective. But, a few private property owners still have prohibitions in effect, regardless of whether they post a sign or provide written notice. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
