Constitutional Gun Control

I saw an article on The Hill the other day with (to me) a novel approach to gun control which should avoid running afoul of the 2nd Amendment, even by very conservative interpretations.

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...o-carry-gun-defaults-on-private-property/amp/

It’s not a long read and worth the time, but the gist is this:

• Private property owners have the right to decide whether someone can bring a gun onto their property. IE Your 2A rights end at my property line.

• At present, the law assumes that property owners have granted this permission unless they have explicitly made a point of denying it. EG “Gun free zone” signs and the like.

• The legislatures could reverse this assumption, such that it is assumed all private property owners have denied outsiders the right to bring guns onto thier property unless they’ve explicitly said so. EG “Guns welcome here!” signs etc.

In short, it makes no impact on anyones right to carry a gun on public property, nor does it prevent private property owners from allowing guns onto their property, it merely changes the state’s assumption about property owner desires. And, really, I think most people DON’T want strangers carrying guns onto their property without explicit permission, so it would also align with reality.

 

You already have to leave private property if you have a firearm and the owner doesn’t want you there. That’s called trespassing.

BTW how you going to know if I’m concealed carrying? Or the criminal beside me is?

 

This is indeed something I disagree with a lot of my conservative colleagues on. It should definitely be up to the property owner.

Several states have laws requiring property owners to allow individuals who legally carry to do so in their parking lots. I oppose this on property rights grounds.

If you want to prohibit guns on your property and are willing to erect appropriate signage to notify people of this, you should absolutely be able to evict people not following your policy, and charge them with trespassing if they persist.

All of this said, as a business owner I would absolutely like licensed armed citizens on my property. Not that it's a possibility anyway in Australia, which I am doing my best to flee within the decade.

 

Exactly, the only change is whether you can just assume the property owner if fine with you bringing a gun into their house/store/whatever or whether you have to assume they’re not unless they say otherwise.

 

Wouldn't it be 'armed trespass'?

 

As a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, I could go along with what you posted.

 

That indeed does appear to be constitutional.

It also appears empty, petty and pointless- anyone who doesnt want guns on their property would already have a 'no firearms allowed' posted, so whats the purpose of the law?

Are we also going to reverse presumption of allowance for skateboards, backpacks, gang colors, dress codes, foul language, religious symbolism and other things people commonly dissalow on their private property? Hopefully not (though this precedent can lead to that), but if not, why only guns?

 

Also I’m curious. What does this purport to solve? I don’t see how it stops any crime?

The

oh hell yeah Libs are to be assumed not to be allowed on my private property. I don’t want to have to put up a sign before I have you arrested.

 

You are probably correct -- it won't stop crime, as neither will any of the other gun control schemes proposed. Stopping crime is just camouflage window dressing for the real purpose of gun control proposals and legislation.

 

Yeah, that’ll stop armed bad guys no doubt.

 

And yet none of the country's that have gun control like Australia, etc have problems like we do.

 

No crime???

 

Where in my post does it say that?

 

The entire point of this is to further prosecute legal gun owners. Right now if you are trespassed from property that is it, you're trespassed. However trespassing while armed is a much more serious offense. Often a felony. It also changes the 2nd Amendment from one of a Negative Right ((in reference to what is being talked about here) meaning the government cannot do anything to interfere with your right to carry), to a Positive Right ((in reference to what is being talked about here) meaning the government will only acknowledge the right to carry if someone has affirmatively announced that a person has that right on their property).

 

How do you explain the recent mass shooting in Norway?

After all all these gun laws prevent them from having problems like we do.

 

Just another liberal reach around to violate the constitution.... If not the letter of it certainly the spirit

 

And also good luck searching private people who have their own personal property concealed on their person.

 

That's one, how many have we had this year.

 

I can think of two potential purposes, though of course people may disagree on if they're worth it.

First, it just better aligns the law with expectations. I think most people assume that when someone shows up to mow your grass or fix your dishwater or babysit your kids or whatever, they shouldn't walk in with a pistol hidden under their shirt and not mention it to you. But that's not the case. Presently, if you don't want someone carrying a loaded firearm in your house, it's up to you to explicitly say, "Hey, just in case you happen to have a gun stashed on you somewhere, I want you to know that I don't allow guns here." This would flip it so that it's up the lawn-guy/plumber/babysitter to take the initiative of saying, "Hey, I'm carrying a loaded a weapon into your house, is that cool with you?"

Requiring that people inform me when they carry guns on my property would certainly be my preference and, again, I think most people already assume this is required. But it isn't.

Second, as to crime, it obviously wouldn't stop the high-profile, pre-planned shootings, but could make a difference in the much more common, small scale, 2nd-degree crimes. Rage rage shootings, are the ones that immediately jump to my mind.

Here's the idea: If most private properties and businesses decide not to go out of their way to explicitly welcome strangers to walk around their premises with loaded guns, the social norm will shift toward "Yes, you can carry your gun with you in public, but you'll have to leave it behind whenever you go into a store/house." In which case people will simply be less likely to take a firearm with them unless they have some particular need to. Meaning that there are fewer instances where a person, in a fit of rage, has the option to reach for a readily accessible gun. So the guy who gets really angry at being cut off or the guy in Subway who gets too much mayonnaise and just loses it is less likely to blow someone away.

 

Great excuse.

 

Can you please cite for us any statistics of recent instances of people who are legally concealing firearms who did that?

 

The closest I get with a quick Google search is that we had 552 road rage shooting victims last year, though I'm not sure if there's readily available data on what percentage of them had concealed carry permits. If you can find that figures somewhere, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/road-rage-shootings-guns-2021/

 

The government can't make private property an automatic no gun zone.

 

Most people wouldn't think of it one way or the other. Why? Because most people don't go through life thinking about guns 24/7.

False. Most don't already assume that is how it is. Quite the opposite in fact. Its why people are so aware of "no gun zone" signs. "no trespassing signs" etc etc.

In other words it is an attempt to portray guns as not being accepted by society and should be an anathema to society. IE: You want to shape society to view guns from a particular point of view rather than letting people decide for themselves.

 

If the property owner doesn't want someone carrying a gun on his property, it's up to him to post his property as a gun free zone.

What you're suggesting would allow LEOs to enforce a law that the property owner didn't ask for. Just like laws making it illegal to carry on church property. Churches are private property. The government can't create that kind of legislation. Guns, or no guns is up to the church to decide, not the government.,