quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
What if property rights and civil rights clash?

A compromise is worked out, one way or the other.

That is what the carry law in Texas is, a compromise between the perceived rights of property owners, and firearm carriers. Each state has a compromise to adjust what it perceives as the needs of various interests.

In the case of civil rights I've only seen it worked out one way.......and rightfully so. In the case of 2a it seems to get compromised the other way. That inconsistency is troublesome.

Compromises go all different directions, and not everyone lives happily everafter. That’s why they work. Always imperfect.

I don't mean to try your patience JALLEN, but I can not think of one civil rights compromise that allowed a private business to violate those rights. Is it that no one wants to segregate anymore or that the legal consequences would be overwhelming in support of those rights? I think any argument or behavior to attenuate 2a rights looks as tyrannical as it is if civil rights are superimposed for perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't mean to try your patience JALLEN, but I can not think of one civil rights compromise that allowed a private business to violate those rights. Is it that no one wants to segregate anymore or that the legal consequences would be overwhelming in support of those rights? I think any argument or behavior to attenuate 2a rights looks as tyrannical as it is if civil rights are superimposed for perspective.

Well - there are actually only a few bases on which business cannot discriminate. Race, gender, national origin, age (old age in particular), and a few others. There are still tons on which they may discriminate. For example, it isn't clear yet whether employers can discriminate against gays. Until Obergfell, it was absolutely clear that they could. I can discriminate against short people, just to name a silly example. Of course, the "big" targets of discrimination have been protected.

But, as I said, I think that constitutional argument is wrong, and we shouldn't apply it to force property owners to allow gun carry against their wishes even though the result would suit us. Two wrongs don't make a right, and allowing the constitution to be twisted that much just makes it that much easier to make it mean anything anyone with enough votes wants it to mean.

That makes sense on principle.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't mean to try your patience JALLEN, but I can not think of one civil rights compromise that allowed a private business to violate those rights. Is it that no one wants to segregate anymore or that the legal consequences would be overwhelming in support of those rights? I think any argument or behavior to attenuate 2a rights looks as tyrannical as it is if civil rights are superimposed for perspective.

It may be that you are using “civil rights” and “segregation” in a narrower sense.

I use the term “civil rights” to include all the rights, mentioned in the so-called Bill of Rights and others, maybe found in penumbras formed by emanations around zones of privacy.

As I alluded to earlier, Texans have historically been sensitive to the rights of property owners, anxious to protect those. The rights of property owners to use and enjoy their property collide with the right of others to keep and bear arms in carrying a weapon. The concealed and open carry laws represent a compromise between those “rights.”

Ah, penumbras and emanations. Substantive due process.

All things that do not exist, but which have found a home in the thinking of activist and left-leaning courts.

(This is not to say the right-leaning courts have not also engaged in judicial activism, but I think they do it far less often.)

Oy

The kid saw the badge and the manager saw the badge. I don't need to pass the Bar to figure this out, but don't let me stop yer fancy lawyerin', fellas.

Oh, and by the way, jhe- conclusion-jumping is one of the reasons the human race has thrived.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:


Oh, and by the way, jhe- conclusion-jumping is one of the reasons the human race has thrived.

And lawyering, too.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

(This is not to say the right-leaning courts have not also engaged in judicial activism, but I think they do it far less often.)

Less active, perhaps?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Oh, and by the way, jhe- conclusion-jumping is one of the reasons the human race has thrived.

And lawyering, too.

Only if suspenders are involved:

"Now, I'm just an old country lawyer..."