An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms

Posted by: KenK

An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/08/10 10:34 PM

I almost posted this in the Yellowstone thread but felt it was too much of a hijack, so I'll create a new thread here.

Doing my very best not to get too political ... really thinking more legal here ... the Yellowstone gun posts have me wondering ...

At least in the U.S., with the recent Supreme Court rulings that a person has a natural right to be able to defend themselves (as in bear arms) it makes me wonder if an "organization" prohibits someone from having a gun while on that organization's property means that the organization now has an inherent responsibility to protect you (since you can't protect yourself), and if something happened to you - not having your own protection, that you could sue them for not providing that protection.

So, does a park that forbids firearms have a responsibility to protect me while I'm in that park?

Same for a business or a government building.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/08/10 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: KenK
So, does a park that forbids firearms have a responsibility to protect me while I'm in that park?


That would be nice, but I highly doubt it.

In 2005, the Supreme Court decided again that police have no legal duty to protect an individual. (See Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.) In practical terms, an individual could not successfully sue the local police department for failing to respond effectively to a 911 call. Even if a state or municipality has restrictive gun laws, police have no legal duty to protect an individual. Thus, it would be highly unlikely for park police to be legally responsible for an individual's protection.

If more people fully understood the way American laws work with respect to police protection of an individual, a strong majority of people in America would be pro-gun for law abiding citizens.
Posted by: Teslinhiker

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/08/10 11:37 PM

How about this analogy....if it makes sense.

I have a right to defend myself against a dog attacking me. You own a restaurant where by law, dogs are not permitted (except seeing eye dogs of course). I am a customer at your restaurant and sitting out on the streetside restaurant patio (on private property). A person with a dog walks by and the dog bites me. Does the .gov and restuarant have an inherent responsibility to protect me even though dogs are not permitted because if dogs were permitted, I would of had my dog with me and chances are, the other dog would not have bitten me because my dog would of stopped it.
Posted by: KenK

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/09/10 12:45 AM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
In 2005, the Supreme Court decided again that police have no legal duty to protect an individual.


I've never heard of that case, but I kind of thought that might be the case. Interesting. Thanks for that info!!
Posted by: hikermor

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/09/10 01:05 AM

I have been retired from the NPS for a number of years, but the classical policy that prevailed then (and I'll bet still applies) is that preservation of life is No. 1, fire suppression is #2.





Posted by: haertig

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/09/10 01:19 AM

I have no problem with people who want to rely solely on the police for their protection. Go for it. What I don't agree with, is those people wanting to tell me I have to follow their same illogical thought process.

If a place prohibits firearms, I don't go there. Not necessarily because I want to carry a firearm there. But because I am in more danger when I am there. These places are meccas for criminals (WITH firearms).
Posted by: pezhead

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/09/10 05:49 PM

We've had some places here take down there signs after getting robbed. Now they like it when some of us come into there place of business.
Posted by: JBMat

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/09/10 09:38 PM

In the dog/restaurant analogy -

You probably would not have any standing to sue the restaurant or the government, as the laws prohibiting dogs are for health reasons, not safety reasons.

Also, what if your dog incited the other dog to attack - now you are the one getting sued by both the restaurant and the other dog owner - oops, not too much protection there.

You would have a course of action against the dog owner who failed to control his animal - said animal having bitten you.




Posted by: MartinFocazio

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/10/10 01:00 AM

Originally Posted By: KenK

At least in the U.S., with the recent Supreme Court rulings that a person has a natural right to be able to defend themselves (as in bear arms)


Not quite, but very close. This came down to the SCOTUS using the 14th amendment - yes THAT 14th amendment that has been in the news - to assert "equal protection" regardless of what the "States Rights" claims to the contrary were. This was a matter of inclusion of the second amendment and as a federal preemption of state law, and that's what the big change was.

The case - found here - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf - MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

uses to words "natural right" only once, as follows:

"Lysander Spooner championed the popular aboli-
tionist argument that slavery was inconsistent with con-
stitutional principles, citing as evidence the fact that it
deprived black Americans of the “natural right of all men
‘to keep and bear arms’ for their personal defence,” which
he believed the Constitution “prohibit[ed] both Congress
and the State governments from infringing.” L. Spooner,
The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 98 (1860). "


The case was summarized as follows, emphasis mine:

"Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this
Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep
and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a Dis-
trict of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the
home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chi-
cago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by
almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal
suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related ac-
tions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable
to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several re-
lated City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amend-
ments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are un-
constitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously
had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had
explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment
applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow estab-
lished Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on
three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542,
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535—
which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the
Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

In many ways, this case leaves open questions of more interpretation, and it does NOT strike down all possession laws or even licensing requirements. In fact, it may have the opposite effect, as it does include language.

From SCOTUS blog (emphasis mine again):

"Five members of the Supreme Court on Monday assured state, county and city officials not to worry: the new decision protecting a “right to keep and bear arms” against government action at any level — local, state or national — “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” But the Court majority did not have any assurances for judges at every level, that they will be spared the duty of ruling on many forms of gun regulation that a legislature, county board, or city council has chosen to enact. And the Court gave those judges very little guidance, in its ruling in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, on how they are to analyze those laws.
The Court did not even rule on the constitutionality of the one law that was at issue — a handgun ban in Chicago — nor did it tell the Seventh Circuit Court what constitutional standard to apply in judging that law when the case returns there. That particular law’s fate, like that of so many others around the nation, now must await a new round in court."

So, it's not at all a "done deal"
Posted by: haertig

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/10/10 03:52 AM

Originally Posted By: martinfocazio
So, it's not at all a "done deal"

Maybe not on paper, but in practice - yes. Very few places try to ban firearms these days, save a handful of large cities known for corruption and crime (Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City, etc.) States are jumping on the bandwagon to relax firearms restrictions and allow concealed carry. The word is out that more firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens lowers crime, it does not increase it.

Laws designed to put onerous restrictions on firearms have been tumbling down for the last few years, without the Supreme Court telling governing entities that they must do this. There are a few cities/states whose leaders are too self-absorbed to understand what's right, so they will have to be told what they must do. It will take a few more years for the courts to "tell" these primadonnas what they must do, but it will come. Aside from the folks that have to live in such places, it is a "done deal" for the great majority of us who live in normal places.
Posted by: ironraven

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/10/10 10:43 PM

IMHO, Negative.

The right of the property owner to tell you leave you or your sidearm someplace else is still going to take effect.

Warning, I am not a lawyer. Thank the gods.
Posted by: haertig

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/10/10 11:39 PM

Originally Posted By: ironraven
IMHO, Negative.

The right of the property owner to tell you leave you or your sidearm someplace else is still going to take effect.

Of course. And it's not going to take effect, it's already IN effect. Just like the private property owner can tell you to leave your hairbrush someplace else because they don't like your long hair. Nobody is saying that private property owners have to do, or not do, anything they don't want to. This has to do with governments.
Posted by: MartinFocazio

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 12:59 AM

Originally Posted By: haertig
Originally Posted By: ironraven
IMHO, Negative.

The right of the property owner to tell you leave you or your sidearm someplace else is still going to take effect.

Of course. And it's not going to take effect, it's already IN effect. Just like the private property owner can tell you to leave your hairbrush someplace else because they don't like your long hair. Nobody is saying that private property owners have to do, or not do, anything they don't want to. This has to do with governments.


Not quite true. Among other laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act and a list of other laws do - rather specifically - clearly establish laws that tell certain private property owners what they can and can't do with their property. You can't say "No Blacks Allowed at this Gas Station" and you can't say "No Wheelchairs Allowed in this Restaurant" and it's certainly conceivable that we're heading toward a Vermont-style "peaceable person" standard for firearms - meaning that if you're a "peaceable person" that's the only standard you have to meet to posses and carry a firearm, and that's all there is to it.

The cases that led to where we are in terms of firearms laws right now are fascinating to me, not just as a gun owner, but as a civil libertarian, because I really found these last two major SCOTUS decisions on the matter were exactly the kind of "Civil Liberties" issues that get my buddies over there to my right so worked up - except that this time it was the buddies over on my left who are freaking out about applying "equal protection" clauses when they don't quite like what that means this time. That 14th Amendment - it's a neat little bit of work, certainly is a powerful tool.

Anyway, we're deep into the political muck here, we should all know better, so let's try to wind this one down soon, OK?


Posted by: ireckon

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 02:02 AM

Originally Posted By: martinfocazio
...The cases that led to where we are in terms of firearms laws right now are fascinating to me, not just as a gun owner, but as a civil libertarian, because I really found these last two major SCOTUS decisions on the matter were exactly the kind of "Civil Liberties" issues that get my buddies over there to my right so worked up - except that this time it was the buddies over on my left who are freaking out about applying "equal protection" clauses when they don't quite like what that means this time. That 14th Amendment - it's a neat little bit of work, certainly is a powerful tool.

Anyway, we're deep into the political muck here, we should all know better, so let's try to wind this one down soon, OK?


With all due respect, I think you're the only one who brought up politics ("left" and "right"). Everybody else is talking about the law with respect to firearms, and the discussion is good.
Posted by: Susan

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 03:24 AM

"... it's certainly conceivable that we're heading toward a Vermont-style "peaceable person" standard for firearms - meaning that if you're a "peaceable person" that's the only standard you have to meet to posses and carry a firearm, and that's all there is to it."

What a wonderful concept! I had never heard of it before.

Sue
Posted by: DesertFox

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 01:36 PM

Short answer is no. The park doesn't generally have a duty to protect you from anything, short of dangers it creates, or hazards it conceals. As others have mentioned, the government doesn't even have an absolute duty to provide police protection. If you read some of the cases, this is more a practical matter, in that it would be impossible to prevent 100% of the crimes committed.

The distinction is that you are there voluntarily. If you feel a firearm is the only way you would feel safe, and firearms are prohibited, don't go to the park. It's much different in cases where the government compels people to be somewhere (schools, prisons etc.)
Posted by: Susan

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 04:08 PM

(I just can't resist!)

"It's much different in cases where the government compels people to be somewhere (schools, prisons etc.)"

If you're the invitee at either of the examples, you can't have a gun there, either. Mostly. grin

Sue
Posted by: haertig

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 04:16 PM

I thought it was funny that schools and prisons were lumped together in the example.
Posted by: overtaxed

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 08:40 PM

There are many similarities. Both are classic "Skinner Box" designs, and the "rats" are programed to move upon command in designated directions. That they prohibit firearms is a given, else the "rats" may revolt and overthrow the captors.
Posted by: KenK

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 10:23 PM

I like that "peaceable person" idea. That is basically how the great state of Illinois treats knives. There are some types are are specifically illegal (daggers, switchblades), but beyond that so long as its not used in a crime (my words, not the law) you're good to go ... except for places where they are specifically forbidden, such as public schools and courthouses.

If someone uses a gun, knife, or a pitch fork to aid in a crime, I'm OK if they throw the book at them.
Posted by: KenK

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/11/10 10:25 PM

Originally Posted By: haertig
I thought it was funny that schools and prisons were lumped together in the example.


That was funny
Posted by: Susan

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/12/10 02:28 AM

"If someone uses a gun, knife, or a pitch fork to aid in a crime, I'm OK if they throw the book at them."

There you go again! You want the person tried for the crime, rather than the inanimate weapon.

Sue
Posted by: Susan

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/12/10 02:31 AM

"I thought it was funny that schools and prisons were lumped together in the example."

Not so funny... most of the inmates aren't volunteers at either one. Mandatory public school, mandatory prison sentence -- not much difference. In real fact, there is a direct correlation between poor schooling and prison sentences.

Sue
Posted by: ireckon

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/12/10 03:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Susan
"If someone uses a gun, knife, or a pitch fork to aid in a crime, I'm OK if they throw the book at them."

There you go again! You want the person tried for the crime, rather than the inanimate weapon.

Sue


I agree there. All types of weird stuff happens in the courts when the tool makes a huge difference on the severity of the sentence. Plus, there is more room for mistakes in justice.

Keep it simple. Try the person.
Posted by: Susan

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/13/10 02:16 AM

I looked up the Vermont law (okay, I used Wikipedia, so sue me) and it is the most commonsense thing I've seen in a long time (forever, for weapons).

VERMONT

No permit needed to purchase.
No registration unnecessary.
No 'assault weapon' law.
No owner license required.
May carry open or concealed without permit.
No NFA weapons restricted.

State Preemption of local restrictions, yes.

"Vermont has very few gun control laws. Gun dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales. It is illegal to carry a gun on school property or in a courthouse. State law preempts local governments from regulating the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, registration or licensing of firearms.

"The term "Vermont Carry" is used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement. Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry while in Vermont.

"The Vermont constitution of 1793, based partly on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, guarantees certain freedoms and rights to the citizens: 'That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence [defense] of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.'"


"Alaska is the first state to adopt carry laws mimicking Vermont's (normally referred to as 'Vermont Carry'), in which no license is required to carry a handgun either openly or concealed. However, to be in complete compliance with Federal Gun Free School Zone act[citation needed], licenses are still issued to residents who want them for purposes of carrying in other states via reciprocity. The term 'Alaska Carry' has been used to describe laws which require no license to carry handguns openly or concealed but licenses are still available for those who want them. Some city ordinances do not permit concealed carry without a concealed carry license, but these have been invalidated by the recent state preemption statute."

Posted by: DesertFox

Re: An Odd Thought About Places that Prohibit Firearms - 08/16/10 05:08 PM

Wish i could find it, but a few years back I read an article by some well know psychologist about the similarities between prisons and schools, both physically and psychologically.