Reality sets in

[AI Wessex]

The Trump campaign, which has declared its full support for the 2nd Amendment, has asked Gov. Kasich to suspend 2A rights during the GOP convention out of a concern that the presence of guns could lead to violence.  The Governor responded that he doesn't have the authority to suspend state laws or federal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  But a few "bad guys" with guns could be overwhelmed by a large number of "good guys" with guns, so if as many people as possible are armed, wouldn't that lead to a safer and more polite environment for everyone?  Is Trump being hypocritical?

[Edit to add a clarification: Some people on Trump's campaign are agreeing with the police union that guns should be prohibited, but the Trump campaign itself is not making the request.]

[Lloyd Perna]

What's your source?  The only comments on the police union request from the trump campaign I can find are in support of the 2nd Amendment.

[DJQuag]

My bad, misread your question.

[AI Wessex]

Here's a list of banned items from the Convention "event zone" . The gun ban is standard policy by the Convention center and was reinforced by the Secret Service.  A petition signed by 41000 people to allow guns is circulating.  Trump has said he is undecided about it and wants to "read the fine print":

On ABC’s “This Week,’’ Trump declined to take an immediate position on an online petition to allow guns, but he said delegates at the high-security event risk being “sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers and criminals.”

Is he 100% for the 2nd Amendment or not?

[rightleft22]

Trump is in way over his head

[Seriati]

Not sure what your question is, I'm 100% for the second amendment, but would not allow open carry at a political rally.  I'm also 100% for the first amendment and would bar protesters from disrupting a political rally.

[NobleHunter]

What's the logic behind forbidding open carry at a political rally? It doesn't seem compatible with some of the more expansive interpretations of the 2nd Amendment (not to imply you hold such a view).

[AI Wessex]

Not sure what your question is, I'm 100% for the second amendment, but would not allow open carry at a political rally.  I'm also 100% for the first amendment and would bar protesters from disrupting a political rally.

Do you support it 100% in theory, but not in practice?  If so, there are probably plenty of other places you would agree they shouldn't be allowed and plenty of people who shouldn't be allowed to own or carry them, and probably plenty of types of "arms" people shouldn't be allowed to own or carry, right?

[Seriati]

People are always allowed to open carry, what they are not always allowed to do is enter a space with their fire arm.  I have no problem with a bar requiring fire arms to be checked either.  You're confusing yourself when you act as if a right can never be fettered in any context and still be a right.  I also believe 100% in the right of freedom of movement, but would support medical necessary quarantines of individuals with highly communicable fatal diseases.

All rights are balanced and when they directly conflict we have to make choices.  There is a proven history of assassination attempts on politicians, and I have no issues with requiring that firearms be checked at a political rally.  I also have no issue with them being permitted if the organizers so choose.  I would not support a law making it illegal to carry a political rally, but that has nothing to do with what the organizers decide for themselves.

[Pete at Home]

Not sure what your question is, I'm 100% for the second amendment, but would not allow open carry at a political rally.  I'm also 100% for the first amendment and would bar protesters from disrupting a political rally.

Do you support it 100% in theory, but not in practice?  If so, there are probably plenty of other places you would agree they shouldn't be allowed and plenty of people who shouldn't be allowed to own or carry them, and probably plenty of types of "arms" people shouldn't be allowed to own or carry, right?

This is news to you?  Has anyone here said you should be able to bring guns into a courthouse or airplane?  Has anyone here claimed a right to own nukes, or dirty bombs, or biological warfare?

[Pete at Home]

What's the logic behind forbidding open carry at a political rally?

Where people press together, open carry makes it easy for someone to steal a weapon.  It's common sense to ban open carry but not concealed carry at a big Republican convention, particularly given recent news history.  Just recently someone snatched a cop's gun and started shooting.

It doesn't seem compatible with some of the more expansive interpretations of the 2nd Amendment (not to imply you hold such a view).

agreed that such views are out there.  and agreed that no one on Ornery has spoken of holding such a view.

[AI Wessex]

You're confusing yourself when you act as if a right can never be fettered in any context and still be a right.

Rights can because they are neither absolute nor unlimited.  But that's not what the 2A fanatics believe.  For them the right is inviolable and unrestricted.  It shall not be infringed.  The definition of infringed meant in 1790 what it means today, so not allowing guns into certain venues is indeed an infringement, as are laws that restrict who can own them.  You clearly don't support the 2A 100%, though I get that you are generally in favor of people having guns.

[TheDeamon]

You're confusng private property rights with governmental abilities. Just because the government cannot do something does not mean a private citizen cannot do that same thing on their own property.

The amendments were restrictions on what the government could do/recognize/enforce, they weren't intended as being restrictions on the individual citizens themselves.

So if I don't want people to bring guns into my business/property, then I am within my rights to ask people to leave if they don't want to part with their weapons.

[AI Wessex]

I think you're saying that my right to restrict guns in my business trumps your right that shall not be infringed.  Only some jurisdictions allow a business to do that, so the government has some discretion over the rights of business owners to allow them to deny you the right to carry them, whether or not they own the property where their business is located.  Government also infringes your right by not allowing you to own some guns, and by not allowing some people to own or buy them, or that you can only buy and own them based on government restrictions.  In many states, private citizens have to apply to their local government for the right to carry a gun, which seems like yet another infringement.  Also consider that the Cleveland Convention Center is owned by Cuyahoga County, which is a government entity, and the Center doesn't allow guns.  It seems like your right is infringed by both government and businesses all over the place.

[Pete at Home]

I think you're saying that my right to restrict guns in my business trumps your right that shall not be infringed. 

Al is assuming that the constitution "shall not be infringed" applies to infringement by private parties, rather than just to the government.  There are probably radicals that actually believe that crap, the sort that say that a company needs to try you by a jury of your peers before firing you, or the ACLU's position that haters have the right to "assemble" on their enemies' private property.  It's a rather cheap rhetorical trick, to dismiss 10% of the bill of rights through a straw man argument. If it doesn't mean everything, it means nothing.  Yawn

there is no "trumping" going on. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed by law or color of law.

[TheDeamon]

I think you're saying that my right to restrict guns in my business trumps your right that shall not be infringed.  Only some jurisdictions allow a business to do that, so the government has some discretion over the rights of business owners to allow them to deny you the right to carry them, whether or not they own the property where their business is located.  Government also infringes your right by not allowing you to own some guns, and by not allowing some people to own or buy them, or that you can only buy and own them based on government restrictions.  In many states, private citizens have to apply to their local government for the right to carry a gun, which seems like yet another infringement.  Also consider that the Cleveland Convention Center is owned by Cuyahoga County, which is a government entity, and the Center doesn't allow guns.  It seems like your right is infringed by both government and businesses all over the place.

Well, if you to go all out originalist on it, the Constitution initially only applied to the Federal Government, it wasn't until some time later that the restrictions on the Federal Government evolved into becoming restrictions on state and local governments. So in that respect, the Founding fathers would probably have had few issues with the City of Chicago banning guns in and of itself. They might have other things to say about it in general, but not to their ability to do so, at least so long as the State of Illinois was agreeable to said ban.

[TheDeamon]

I think you're saying that my right to restrict guns in my business trumps your right that shall not be infringed. 

Al is assuming that the constitution "shall not be infringed" applies to infringement by private parties, rather than just to the government.  There are probably radicals that actually believe that crap, the sort that say that a company needs to try you by a jury of your peers before firing you, or the ACLU's position that haters have the right to "assemble" on their enemies' private property.  It's a rather cheap rhetorical trick, to dismiss 10% of the bill of rights through a straw man argument. If it doesn't mean everything, it means nothing.  Yawn

there is no "trumping" going on. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed by law or color of law.

Sadly, the "Living Constitution" seems to be slowly evolving into becoming all encompassing and applicable to private citizens interacting with other private citizens as time goes on. Assuming we don't have another civil war first, I expect I'll probably be alive when that day arrives.

It'll be a sad day when the courts agree with the internet trolls about their 1st amendment freedom of expression extends to internet forums operated by private entities.

[TheDeamon]

I think you're saying that my right to restrict guns in my business trumps your right that shall not be infringed.

Almost need to draw a picture, the Constitution protects "public" rights. Nominally, a private landowner is king of their domain, modern practices have added hundreds of footnotes and addendums to that, but it is the original premise. As "king"(sovereign) of said (private) domain, their word is law(so long as it doesn't conflict with those addenda and footnotes) and their natural rights trump the "natural rights" of any others who enter his land.

You also need to remember the premise of the U.S. legal system is that each citizen is a sovereign entity unto itself. In that respect the U.S. Government is supposed to be along the lines of U.N. in a modern sense.

Or to frame another way: Your natural rights end where my natural rights begin. (Original form being along the lines of "Your freedom of expression ends where my nose begins." IIRC)

[Pete at Home]

I think you're saying that my right to restrict guns in my business trumps your right that shall not be infringed.  Only some jurisdictions allow a business to do that, so the government has some discretion over the rights of business owners to allow them to deny you the right to carry them, whether or not they own the property where their business is located.  Government also infringes your right by not allowing you to own some guns, and by not allowing some people to own or buy them, or that you can only buy and own them based on government restrictions.  In many states, private citizens have to apply to their local government for the right to carry a gun, which seems like yet another infringement.  Also consider that the Cleveland Convention Center is owned by Cuyahoga County, which is a government entity, and the Center doesn't allow guns.  It seems like your right is infringed by both government and businesses all over the place.

Well, if you to go all out originalist on it, the Constitution initially only applied to the Federal Government, it wasn't until some time later that the restrictions on the Federal Government evolved into becoming restrictions on state and local governments.

The restrictions didn't evolve on their own, but rather they were applied to states through the 14th Amendment.  just how much of it applies to states has been a matter of argument among the courts. But everyone agrees that it doesn't apply to private actors unless they somehow become state actors, like those crazy privately owned appelachian coal company towns.

[Seriati]

You're confusing yourself when you act as if a right can never be fettered in any context and still be a right.

Rights can because they are neither absolute nor unlimited.  But that's not what the 2A fanatics believe.  For them the right is inviolable and unrestricted.  It shall not be infringed.  The definition of infringed meant in 1790 what it means today, so not allowing guns into certain venues is indeed an infringement, as are laws that restrict who can own them.  You clearly don't support the 2A 100%, though I get that you are generally in favor of people having guns.

AI please read a grown up book on the Constitution.  You have a very confused understanding of what it actually protects, you seem to believe that constraints on the government also are constraints on private citizens (without any conception of how such an interpretation would take all rights away from the citizens themselves).  I don't believe your capable of a productive conversation without learning more about how the Constitution works.  That said I may continue to choose to correct you so that others who don't know any more than you do, aren't left thinking what you are saying is correct by absence of reasoned contradiction.

In this case, you have no idea what 2A advocates believe.  When you can't correctly articulate even the basis of their argument it just demonstrates how flawed your interpretation is.

[AI Wessex]

Nominally, a private landowner is king of their domain, modern practices have added hundreds of footnotes and addendums to that, but it is the original premise.

It's a rare business that owns the premises on which they operate, and a business is not a domain in any case.

Well, if you to go all out originalist on it, the Constitution initially only applied to the Federal Government, it wasn't until some time later that the restrictions on the Federal Government evolved into becoming restrictions on state and local governments.

The Bill of Rights applied to both states and individuals.  Here's the text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The part about the "well regulated militia" does apply to the states, but 2A advocates insist that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" applies to individuals.

But even if you can smooth over the obvious contradiction between interpretations of those two simple clauses, you still have to explain how "shall not be infringed" allows government at federal, state, county and local levels to all apply their own restrictions (aka infringements) on your unfettered right to "keep and bear arms".

Listening to 2A hard-core advocates navigate through all the contradictions is like watching kayakers try to go through rapids without a paddle.

In this case, you have no idea what 2A advocates believe.  When you can't correctly articulate even the basis of their argument it just demonstrates how flawed your interpretation is.

I've actually read a few entire books on the topic, and I rely on what I have learned from them.  If you think I'm completely wrong in my interpretations, please navigate through my questions above. Don't forget the paddle.

[TheDeamon]

Nominally, a private landowner is king of their domain, modern practices have added hundreds of footnotes and addendums to that, but it is the original premise.

It's a rare business that owns the premises on which they operate, and a business is not a domain in any case.

Which add multiple layers for the various parties involved to add their own list of expectations as to what may or may not occur on a particular piece of property. If the land owner stipulates certain things must be allowed under terms of the lease/rental, than the other party must honor those terms. If the renter wants to place further restrictions that are not proscribed under terms of their rental/lease agreement, then they're within their rights to do so.

Well, if you to go all out originalist on it, the Constitution initially only applied to the Federal Government, it wasn't until some time later that the restrictions on the Federal Government evolved into becoming restrictions on state and local governments.

The Bill of Rights applied to both states and individuals.  Here's the text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The part about the "well regulated militia" does apply to the states, but 2A advocates insist that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" applies to individuals.

And "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" clearly does refer to an individuals right to personal firearms.

You'd have to try rather hard to read it any other way. Historical context also factors in here, when you consider the Revolutionary War and the effectiveness of the snipers and marksmen among the Revolutionaries in particular. Those marksmen and snipers didn't become frightening effective at their job due to military training, they were frightening effective shooters due to their activities within the context of their regular (civilian) lives.

The phrasing is ambiguous, and leaves an ocean worth of wiggle room, but the direct reference to the people in ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it very difficult to think the founders considered any scenario where disarming the individuals who comprise the population referenced as "the people" unilaterally was considered to be a good idea. What we have of their own writings likewise reflect this.

What exactly they meant by "well regulated militia" is one of those things we can only wish they were more clear on, but I highly doubt it was intended to be used as a lever to justify the unilateral removal of firearms from the (civilian) population as a whole.

But even if you can smooth over the obvious contradiction between interpretations of those two simple clauses, you still have to explain how "shall not be infringed" allows government at federal, state, county and local levels to all apply their own restrictions (aka infringements) on your unfettered right to "keep and bear arms".

From a strict originalist perspective, I agree, the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in firearms restrictions when it comes to private citizens. The second amendment is quite clear on that. What is much more grey is whether or not a strict originalist interpretation allows for states and cities to place those restrictions. I'm not going to try to argue to mental hoops others are jumping through to stake out any position they may or may not have. I'm just stating that from my perspective, the Constitution clearly states that possession of a firearm is an individual right, and the federal government is not to infringe upon it, as the Constitution initially only restricted the Federal Level.

Listening to 2A hard-core advocates navigate through all the contradictions is like watching kayakers try to go through rapids without a paddle.

Not going to disagree.

[AI Wessex]

What exactly they meant by "well regulated militia" is one of those things we can only wish they were more clear on, but I highly doubt it was intended to be used as a lever to justify the unilateral removal of firearms from the (civilian) population as a whole.

Unfortunately my books are in storage as I'm between houses at the moment, so I can't quote specific passages.  I don't think the "well regulated militia" is all that ambiguous.  Citing Webster's Dictionary from 1828 (online), the meaning of militia is very well-defined:

The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

Thus, for the purposes of serving their role responsibly in the militia, men were required to have a suitable weapon (flint pistol or long gun, but not a saber).  This meant free men, as opposed to all men (i.e., slaves).  It did not talk about weapons for personal use.  Although never spelled out, there was an assumption that rifles were needed for hunting (in rural areas) and that pistols could make sense for personal protection in communities.  In other words, states and local municipalities had the authority to regulate "personal weapons", since their oversight was absent from the Constitution.  A personal privilege to carry an "arm" to defend against government tyranny was not included in the 2A except as an element of the well regulated militial use.

That is the matter that was left undefined, but even when it came to arms to be used when mustering for militia service, many states wanted military weapons collected and held in armories.  Shays rebellion in Massachusetts (1786-87) tried to take weapons from a US armory.  The uprising and defeat of Shays forces led to Washington returning to public life and eventually becoming President with the argument that the federal government needed to take a stronger hand to put down civilian rebellions.  That in turn led to the Constitutional Convention and later to the 2nd Amendment, which attempted to balance a number of things including federal vs. state authority and responsibility for military action for defensive purposes at both levels.  States ended up with the power to call the militia, which eventually became the National Guard.  They were more focused on defending themselves against further uprisings and Indian attacks than they were focused on a takeover by a standing army of federal forces, which was only minimally funded and far undermanned to take over much of anything.

[Pete at Home]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The part about the "well regulated militia" does apply to the states, but 2A advocates insist that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" applies to individuals.

He's been refuted by two different people on this thread but still he continues to text-proof out of context.

Yes, Al, if we read 2a out of context of the rest of the freaking constitution, like a total legal illiterate, it means what you pretend to believe that it means.  we all know you don't believe that because of other things you've said on this forum.  And being literate people, we all know that 2a like the rest of the bill of rights was written originally just to restrict action by the federal government, and only could reasonably applied to states and local government after passage of 14a.

The ONLY way that any constitutional amendment can apply to private individuals acting in private capacity is if there's specific enabling language making that clear, as there is in 13a and 21a.

Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

and

21st Amendment

“Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into every State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission here of to the States by the Congress.”

the bolded part of 13a enables Congress to enact laws that enforce 13a provisions against private individuals.

the bolded part of 21a enables both Congress and State legislatures to pass restrictions with regard to alcohol which apply to private individuals.

2A advocates insist that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" applies to individuals.

Grossly misleading.  Most 2a advocates today insist that it applies to federal state and local government.  Al knows very well that none of the 2a advocates on this board advocate the straw man position he is foisting on us.  Yes there are clowns that take that position, but it is not the position of most 2a supporters.

[AI Wessex]

Which add multiple layers for the various parties involved to add their own list of expectations as to what may or may not occur on a particular piece of property. If the land owner stipulates certain things must be allowed under terms of the lease/rental, than the other party must honor those terms. If the renter wants to place further restrictions that are not proscribed under terms of their rental/lease agreement, then they're within their rights to do so.

To your bolded part, that's not always true (and I'd like to see some evidence to a landlord's requirement that guns MUST be allowed).  Kansas, for instance, addresses the employer's right to ban guns.  The law does not mention the landlord.

And "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" clearly does refer to an individuals right to personal firearms.

So you also are ignoring the context provided by the first clause of that sentence.  If I went into a restaurant with a sign on the door that said, "In order to maintain order while in line, customers shall not use cell phones," would you interpret that to mean that I could not use my cell phone while in the restaurant?

What exactly they meant by "well regulated militia" is one of those things we can only wish they were more clear on, but I highly doubt it was intended to be used as a lever to justify the unilateral removal of firearms from the (civilian) population as a whole.

First, I don't think the phrase is ambiguous; see the contemporaneous dictionary definition I provided earlier in this thread.  Second, the opposite of the "infringed" is not to be denied the right altogether.  There really is no opposite to that usage in this case, as it was intended to reinforce the necessity to guarantee that all potential members of the militia had access to suitable arms.  This was later clarified to require able-bodied men to bring their arms when called into the militia, since the states didn't have the means to provide weapons to its militia at that time, and the requirement for the states to store (and protect) them in an armory in the meantime would not have been feasible.

[Seriati]

AI, I know you don't get, but the arguments you're making are the equivalent of telling a computer programmer that he's completely in error on a complex programming issue because of something you remember because you once finished a program in BASIC on a Commodore 64.  Flat out your Constitutional interpretations are no where close to the actual concepts that are settled, and they're not even close to the actual disputes that occur on the issue.

You also seem to be confused by basic concepts of property law.  Pete's absolutely correct that a landlord can restrict the uses to which a tenant can put a property and provide conditions and limitations on what, otherwise, would be the tenant's rights to act as the owner of the leased property during the term of the lease.  There are of course legal constraints, imposed both statute and the courts, but very of little of it is a mystery or in dispute.  The tenant's decision on many of these points is to NOT SIGN THE LEASE.  There's an endless amount of case law that you could find with simple searches that demonstrate what happens when a tenant signs a lease with a restrictive covenant and then attempts to ignore the covenant.

[TheDeamon]

Which add multiple layers for the various parties involved to add their own list of expectations as to what may or may not occur on a particular piece of property. If the land owner stipulates certain things must be allowed under terms of the lease/rental, than the other party must honor those terms. If the renter wants to place further restrictions that are not proscribed under terms of their rental/lease agreement, then they're within their rights to do so.

To your bolded part, that's not always true (and I'd like to see some evidence to a landlord's requirement that guns MUST be allowed).  Kansas, for instance, addresses the employer's right to ban guns.  The law does not mention the landlord.

I don't think it has ever been disputed in case law that in the instance of private property, that the property owner has the right to ban firearms(so no need to write a law about it). Semi-public venues get more ambiguous, mostly due to various layers of local, state, and federal laws that may enter into play as spaces move more towards "public" rather than "private."

Further, if the employer signed a lease stating they agreed to the land owners desire to ban firearms on the property, then that restriction would become a policy the employer would need to enforce themselves. Seeing as how you just demonstrated that Kansas allows employers to ban guns, it seems to me that is within the realm of being legally possible.

Now if you had demonstrated that employers could not require their employees to disarm while at work, you might have had a case. As that would have left the renter in the position of holding a contractual obligation they could not legally fulfill.

[Pete at Home]

If I went into a restaurant with a sign on the door that said, "In order to maintain order while in line, customers shall not use cell phones," would you interpret that to mean that I could not use my cell phone while in the restaurant?

a sign on the door is not law and is not interpreted through the canon of rules which apply to anglo-american law.

Furthermore, the half-baked anti-2a "militia" argument presumes that the word militia means the same thing today as it was in 1789.  Wrong again.

[AI Wessex]

I don't think it has ever been disputed in case law that in the instance of private property, that the property owner has the right to ban firearms(so no need to write a law about it). Semi-public venues get more ambiguous, mostly due to various layers of local, state, and federal laws that may enter into play as spaces move more towards "public" rather than "private."

I was making the opposite case:

I'd like to see some evidence to a landlord's requirement that guns MUST be allowed

Clearly a landlord can say you can't have pets or loud parties, etc., but are you saying that a landlord can REQUIRE a business it rents to to allow guns on the premises?  As I said, I'd like to see some evidence that that has happened somewhere.

You also seem to be confused by basic concepts of property law.  Pete's absolutely correct that a landlord can restrict the uses to which a tenant can put a property and provide conditions and limitations on what, otherwise, would be the tenant's rights to act as the owner of the leased property during the term of the lease.  There are of course legal constraints, imposed both statute and the courts, but very of little of it is a mystery or in dispute.  The tenant's decision on many of these points is to NOT SIGN THE LEASE.  There's an endless amount of case law that you could find with simple searches that demonstrate what happens when a tenant signs a lease with a restrictive covenant and then attempts to ignore the covenant.

Same here, you seem to be talking about RESTRICTIONS, not the opposite case where the tenant (employer) must allow guns.  Show me an example.

[Pete at Home]

I'd like to see some evidence to a landlord's requirement that guns MUST be allowed

Clearly a landlord can say you can't have pets or loud parties, etc., but are you saying that a landlord can REQUIRE a business it rents to to allow guns on the premises?

No, I don't think he's saying that.  As to the question of whether a landlord can make such a requirement, that's not a second amendment issue so long as both parties are non-government.  Your answer depends in an argument of local property law, contract interpretation, etc.

[Seriati]

You're also confusing a "restrictive covenant" with a requirement that it be a prohibition, it can be a restrictive covenant if you're required to allow guns as much as if you're required to ban them.  As Pete said, whether it would be enforceable is a matter of local law.

[Pete at Home]

You're also confusing a "restrictive covenant" with a requirement that it be a prohibition, it can be a restrictive covenant if you're required to allow guns as much as if you're required to ban them.  As Pete said, whether it would be enforceable is a matter of local law.

"restrictive covenant!"  That was the term.  Real Estate law always was my worst subject. 

[AI Wessex]

You're also confusing a "restrictive covenant" with a requirement that it be a prohibition, it can be a restrictive covenant if you're required to allow guns as much as if you're required to ban them.

I can only find laws that establish general rights to carry guns with provisions that allow guns to be prohibited in different venues.  I see nothing that suggests that a commercial tenant can be *required* to allow guns into their business.  I'm asking again if you can find any evidence such laws or "restrictive covenants" between landlord-tenant exist and would be legal.  Saying it's true "in theory" doesn't mean anything.

[Pete at Home]

You're also confusing a "restrictive covenant" with a requirement that it be a prohibition, it can be a restrictive covenant if you're required to allow guns as much as if you're required to ban them.

I can only find laws that establish general rights to carry guns with provisions that allow guns to be prohibited in different venues.  I see nothing that suggests that a commercial tenant can be *required* to allow guns into their business.  I'm asking again if you can find any evidence such laws or "restrictive covenants" between landlord-tenant exist and would be legal.  Saying it's true "in theory" doesn't mean anything.

Note this is from the guy who accuses you of trying to get him to do your homework for you if you ask him to provide evidence for his factual assertions.  But to be fair, I'm not sure that he grasps that he's asked you to scurry off and do research on landlord-tenant law in hundreds of different US jurisdictions. Or to prove the absence of second amendment effect on something that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.  That's like asking you to prove definitively that the right to a jury doesn't affect the color of chewing gum in any US city.

[TheDeamon]

You're also confusing a "restrictive covenant" with a requirement that it be a prohibition, it can be a restrictive covenant if you're required to allow guns as much as if you're required to ban them.

I can only find laws that establish general rights to carry guns with provisions that allow guns to be prohibited in different venues.  I see nothing that suggests that a commercial tenant can be *required* to allow guns into their business.  I'm asking again if you can find any evidence such laws or "restrictive covenants" between landlord-tenant exist and would be legal.  Saying it's true "in theory" doesn't mean anything.

It probably is only going to be a theoretical discussion of that scenario because nobody has tried to fight it out. I doubt there are many landlords around who are both so adamantly pro-guns as to make THAT (pro-gun) stipulation and owns land someone decided they MUST rent or lease at the location.

Meaning that the organizations where they don't want guns on their premises when looking for a potential location would simply decide to look elsewhere upon learning about that particular clause if they site their operations there. In other words, they decided it was worth fighting it out in court, it was more cost effective for them to look elsewhere.

[AI Wessex]

Possibly so, which means it's an untested proposition.

[Seriati]

Lol, no it's not untested.  Law is not a scientific process, there's generally a right answer for any locale.  You're just ignorant of what that answer is for any specific location.

Or to put it more simple, here's the water horse, the rest is up to you.

[AI Wessex]

Lol, no it's not untested.  Law is not a scientific process, there's generally a right answer for any locale.  You're just ignorant of what that answer is for any specific location.

Or to put it more simple, here's the water horse, the rest is up to you.

In other words, you can't come up with anything.  Since you made the assertion I would hope you would at least try to back it up.  To repeat so there is no ambiguity: Show me an example of a landlord requiring a commercial tenant to permit guns on their premises.  Or do the honorable thing and just say, well, it could happen maybe.

[Seriati]

No.  In "other words" you have no idea what you're talking about.  Show me any evidence you even comprehend the laws in question, make a rationale argument as to how they apply and I'll be happy to respond.  Heck, you could go get yourself a first Property Law text book and answer this question for yourself.

[TheDeamon]

Lol, no it's not untested.  Law is not a scientific process, there's generally a right answer for any locale.  You're just ignorant of what that answer is for any specific location.

Until someone brings it in front a judge, it IS untested. The legal theory is sound enough, IMO, but again, until a Judge is presented with such a situation and rules in support of it, there is no "precedent" within the court system to directly compare it. There probably are a lot of close comparisons that could be made, but nothing that matches up directly.

The legal patchwork spread across the nation just further complicates things, as there may be communities where a landlord may have been inclined to make such stipulations, but local laws prevented them from being viable.

[Pete at Home]

No.  In "other words" you have no idea what you're talking about.  Show me any evidence you even comprehend the laws in question, make a rationale argument as to how they apply and I'll be happy to respond.  Heck, you could go get yourself a first Property Law text book and answer this question for yourself.

(snort).  be careful in there.  Some aspects of property law are like a bad acid trip.  Some state supreme court has even ruled that it's not "negligence" for an experienced property attorney to lose his client's property by fouling up the Rule Against Perpetuities.  But you should be able to wrap your brain around restrictive covenants, if you try.

[Seriati]

Lol, no it's not untested.  Law is not a scientific process, there's generally a right answer for any locale.  You're just ignorant of what that answer is for any specific location.

Until someone brings it in front a judge, it IS untested. The legal theory is sound enough, IMO, but again, until a Judge is presented with such a situation and rules in support of it, there is no "precedent" within the court system to directly compare it. There probably are a lot of close comparisons that could be made, but nothing that matches up directly.

It depends.  I guaranty there are jurisdictions where the specific facts have not come before the local magistrate, that doesn't however equate to it being "untested" in those jurisdictions.  Even in such a jurisdiction it would not be "untested" in any type of scientific sense, as this isn't a scientific exercise.  It would just be unchallenged or unconsidered more than anything else.  There may be a clear answer in those jurisdictions for any number of reasons, including the existence of binding precedents on restrictive covenants with other fact patterns or express statutes that decide the issue.

Even if there is a clear answer and it has been tested, local cases are often handled in front of magistrates who may have been elected and not required to have any legal background, which can lead to inconsistent results.  An awful lot of those decisions are not even published.

As to whether you could make a legal challenge of such a covenant's enforceability, again it depends on the state of the law in a jurisdiction.  Assuming you had a blank slate somewhere, where restrictive covenants are generally enforceable and there's no specific case or statutory law on point (to be on point does not require identical facts by the way), you could certainly argue for its invalidity for a number of reasons (like for example that it's unenforceable because such a constraint is against public policy).  The success of such efforts is of course variable.  My complaint on this thread is that AI doesn't actually know how to make a reasoned argument on the point and that the arguments he does make generally have no validity, not that a reasoned argument couldn't be made.

[Pete at Home]

if anyone has excess time and either Lexis or Westlaw, Wisconsin is the first place I'd suggest you check to reply to Al's filibuster question.

“A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the
person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.”
- Wisconsin Concealed Carry Act

In other words, Wisconsin property owners are immune from any actions resulting from allowing
concealed carry of firearms on their property. If property owners decide to prohibit concealed carry,
they lose this immunity.

https://www.irem.org/File%20Library/Public%20Policy/ConcealedCarryLaw.pdf

In this light, a property owner leasing a space to a landlord in Wisconsin, would very likely place a restriction against the landlord banning concealed carry, because that could conceivably subject the property owner to liability, or at least to the initial litigation.  Wisconsin insurance companies would be advised to encouraged or even require such metarestrictions.

back to the original question of whether 2a prohibits landlords from restricting handguns (the question that this silly snipe hunt question seems designed to distract us from)

If property managers are seeking to completely ban concealed weapons on their properties, they should
consider revising their lease provisions to include such language, as clearly and specifically as possible.
Most states have no regulations prohibiting landlords from banning firearms on their properties. A 2009
legal opinion from Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper poses the question: “Can a landlord prohibit
tenants who possess valid handgun carry permits from possessing firearms in the apartment if the
tenant has a permit issued by the State?” The opinion states: “A landlord can prohibit tenants, including
those who hold handgun carry permits, from possessing firearms within leased premises. Such a
prohibition may be imposed through a clause in the lease.” The opinion goes on to state that landlords
who prohibit firearms through a lease are not required to post “gun-free” signs.
However, a landlord’s ability to ban tenants from carrying firearms is not perfectly consistent
throughout the country, and some state’s exceptions make it all the more necessary for real estate
managers to stay abreast of specific laws. Minnesota statute, for example, states “A landlord may not
restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.” In Virginia, landlords for
public housing are similarly restricted: “A rental agreement shall not contain provisions that the tenants
agrees […] to a prohibition or restriction of any lawful possession of a firearms within individual dwelling
units.”

...

http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2009/op/op09-170.pdf
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.714
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.9

[Pete at Home]

More on Al's original question.  Ohio is a "shall issue" state meaning that if you pass the requirements, the state MUST give you a concealed carry law.  The issue of restrictions appears unresolved in Ohio from my very limited research, but I'm more certain that there's no statute addressing liability.  Therefore, whether or not the Republican Convention's decision to ban concealed guns was legal in the first place, if someone came in with a gun, persons suffering physical or mental trauma might very well argue at as part of a Tort claim that disallowing legal concealed carry created a special duty at law by the convention to protect its people.  That's a huge assumption of liability.

Your opinion, Seriati?

[TheDeamon]

In the case of the RNC, they get an easy out, the ban on guns was done at the behest of the Secret Service, and Agency of the Federal Government, within the scope of their responsibility to protect the (prospective) President. So they'd get around it by way of the Secret Service being Federal, and thus immune.

[Pete at Home]

In the case of the RNC, they get an easy out, the ban on guns was done at the behest of the Secret Service, and Agency of the Federal Government, within the scope of their responsibility to protect the (prospective) President. So they'd get around it by way of the Secret Service being Federal, and thus immune.

I stand corrected. Thank you.  Excellent catch.