Posted: 11/19/2007 9:22:35 AM EDT
|
I keep hearing about how "Property Rights" superceed the second amendment. The constitution is the highest law in the land. It superceeds all others, unless they fall under powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. So, things mentioned in the constitution superceed all others - at least on a federal level. The 14th amendment ensures that the bill of rights amendments apply to the states. So they superceed all state laws. So, the ONLY thing which can superceed the second amendment is a clause in the constitution itself which guarantees property rights supremacy over all others mentioned in the constitution. Where does it say that? |
|
I guess I'm not exactly sure what you mean by property rights supercedeing the second amendment. are you referring to ccw and "gun free zones"? this doesn't really mean that the property rights supercedes anything. The owner of the property has the right to ask anyone to leave. If they refuse leave once they are asked, they are trespassing. A gun free zone simply asks you to leave before you even enter the property. is that what you were referring to? |
|
Well, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights restrict what the government can do and don't apply to private entities, I don't see where the Constitution would come into play. If you are on my private property and I tell you to get lost, that isn't a constitutional matter. I'm not an agent of the government trying to infringe on your rights. If you happen to have a gun, that is irrelevant to me telling you to pound sand and get off my property. It becomes a simple matter of trespassing, which is a legal concept upheld over and over by the courts. If you are hunting and you hop a fence to get on my land and shoot ducks in my pond, are you exercising your 2nd amendment rights? or are you trespassing? Me telling you that you can't have a firearm on my property isn't any more invasive than me telling you that you can't come on my property and talk to me about your choice in political candidate. If I tell you to get off my porch because I don't want to hear about your politics, am I infringing on your 1st amendment rights? However, from a historical perspective, if you were looking for the framers state of mind: "Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness" was originally "Life, Liberty, and Property". The 4th, 5th and 14th amendments may be applicable. All reference private property rights and establish restrictions on the government. However, again, these are restrictions placed on the state, not private persons. Also, check out Executive Order 12630 pertaining to protection of private property. Another interesting ruling, O'Connor v. Ortega, the 4th amendment of the Constitution doesn't apply to government entities when searching for workplace misconduct - in that case the government entity has the same rights a private employer would over an employee's work space and papers. 
|
Yes. As far as it goes. But the government has decided that constitutional rights do override the individual. They have successfully prosecuted individuals for depriving people of their constitutional rights. They seem to want their cake and eat it. |
For one.... |
Yes ... I know. Its just that I keep hearing this "property rights trump the constitution" stuff, and there is no way that can be true, or ever have been intended to be true. Just another "Big Lie". |
Hmmm... I see what you're saying. That law seems to apply to people who are acting under "color of law" which would, to me, only apply to agents of the government acting outside their scope or using/abusing their position of authority. That law is there to protect citizens from abuse from agents of the government. I think that is what the LA PD Officers were convicted of in the Rodney King case. If I, as Joe citizen, grab you and restrict your constitutional rights... I think they call it kidnapping.  |