Cars and Coffee vs. the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

[jhammons01]

Maybe you are correct....I'm no lawyer

[DarkPath]

It not often one finds the opportunity to read a lucid well written reply during a forum debate... Red letter day... This Are One....

Originally Posted by Mark C5

I have only quoted this one post but I have read all your posts in this thread. It sounds to me like you have a few misconceptions which you could easily rectify with a little study.

It sounds like you believe if a certain private property is open to the public somehow the laws and statutes change. They do not. A private property owner, whether it be an individual, group of individuals or a company, always retains the right to set rules of conduct on their property as long as those rules do not violate law. They have the right to deny access to anyone they deem not in compliance with those rules. The only difference posting signs, notifying in writing or orally makes is when a violation of the owners' rules becomes a civil or criminal offense. If notified in advance of the rules and you enter in violation then you are trespassing as soon as you set foot on the property and subject to arrest. Otherwise you are trespassing once you have been asked to leave because you are in violation of the rules and you refuse to do so.

You also seem to believe the US Constitution protects individuals from each other. It does not. The Constitution outlines the structure of our government, specifies the powers of the government (both Federal and State) and places limits on that power. Nowhere in the Constitution are the actions of one individual toward another addressed.

I think what you are doing is confusing Constitutional rights and Civil rights. As I said, the Constitution protects us from the Government but it is Civil Law which protects us from each other. You implied in one of your posts that an individual could violate your Constitutional rights. This is not correct. An individual could only violate your constitutional rights if he or she were a government employee or official acting on behalf of the government which would make the violation a government matter.

In short, any property owner is well within their rights to deny access to any individual carrying a weapon of any kind unless that individual is required by law to be armed and is there in performance of their duties.

[RetiredSFC 97]

I think we should go shoot the place up!













Fore the WTF crowd, it was a joke!

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by Mark C5

I have only quoted this one post but I have read all your posts in this thread. It sounds to me like you have a few misconceptions which you could easily rectify with a little study.

It sounds like you believe if a certain private property is open to the public somehow the laws and statutes change. They do not. A private property owner, whether it be an individual, group of individuals or a company, always retains the right to set rules of conduct on their property as long as those rules do not violate law. They have the right to deny access to anyone they deem not in compliance with those rules. The only difference posting signs, notifying in writing or orally makes is when a violation of the owners' rules becomes a civil or criminal offense. If notified in advance of the rules and you enter in violation then you are trespassing as soon as you set foot on the property and subject to arrest. Otherwise you are trespassing once you have been asked to leave because you are in violation of the rules and you refuse to do so.

You also seem to believe the US Constitution protects individuals from each other. It does not. The Constitution outlines the structure of our government, specifies the powers of the government (both Federal and State) and places limits on that power. Nowhere in the Constitution are the actions of one individual toward another addressed.

I think what you are doing is confusing Constitutional rights and Civil rights. As I said, the Constitution protects us from the Government but it is Civil Law which protects us from each other. You implied in one of your posts that an individual could violate your Constitutional rights. This is not correct. An individual could only violate your constitutional rights if he or she were a government employee or official acting on behalf of the government which would make the violation a government matter.

In short, any property owner is well within their rights to deny access to any individual carrying a weapon of any kind unless that individual is required by law to be armed and is there in performance of their duties.

This is extremely well-stated.

[Norm]

Originally Posted by Norm

The below in a previous post, just wondering.

"I wonder why this subject was even posted in the first place on this forum. Was someone on this forum in violation of the rules the last time the event was held?"

"Was there an incident involving a firearm?"

Just curious, can anyone answer the above?

[Will]

In short, any property owner is well within their rights to deny access to any individual carrying a weapon of any kind unless that individual is required by law to be armed and is there in performance of their duties.

Great post, but this last part needs slight modification:


"In short, any property owner is well within their rights to deny access to any individual carrying a weapon of any kind unless that individual is required by law to be armed and is there in performance of their duties OR the law requires the property owner to allow some level of access to those possessing firearms"


In order to address the clash between private property rights and 2nd amendment rights, many jurisdictions have passed compromise laws. For example, laws requiring employers, who otherwise bar weapons on the premises, to allow employees to bring their firearms to work and keep them locked in their car in the parking area. This way employers still mostly get their wishes, while employees are not prevented from exercising their second amendment rights to and from work, which they would be otherwise.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Scissors

This is extremely well-stated.

[Mark C5]

Originally Posted by Will

Great post, but this last part needs slight modification:


"In short, any property owner is well within their rights to deny access to any individual carrying a weapon of any kind unless that individual is required by law to be armed and is there in performance of their duties OR the law requires the property owner to allow some level of access to those possessing firearms"


In order to address the clash between private property rights and 2nd amendment rights, many jurisdictions have passed compromise laws. For example, laws requiring employers, who otherwise bar weapons on the premises, to allow employees to bring their firearms to work and keep them locked in their car in the parking area. This way employers still mostly get their wishes, while employees are not prevented from exercising their second amendment rights to and from work, which they would be otherwise.

I guess you missed this part:

Originally Posted by Mark C5

A private property owner, whether it be an individual, group of individuals or a company, always retains the right to set rules of conduct on their property as long as those rules do not violate law.

[DarkPath]

To those who've shown interest in Cars & Coffee Williamsburg in the past - you may have noticed on Facebook yesterday that I posted the November event location as: To be Announced. Effective Oct 17th with the concurrence of Jose and Russ - I sent an email terminating our association with our now previous Host. While in the beginning it was for the most part - cool to hold our event there, we've since learned that it had significant drawbacks... Waivers, Tall grass, Uneven terrain & Soft ground, among other concerns some of which are illuminated in this thread. We parted amicably.

At this point it has yet to be determined where the November event may be located. We are currently in communication with 2 different venues, possibly a 3rd. I learned much about the needs of our patrons during our short stint at TWW. A decent cup of coffee with a place to rest indoors, paved parking, and easier access and lets not forget the other less restrictive facets. Rest assured our new location will include things made more obvious to me as important to our patrons - not so clear before our move there. All these things and numerous others made me take a hard look at how much our little gathering has changed since our humble beginning. Such a disparity made the need for a move too stark to be ignored..

Cars & Coffee Williamsburg wishes to thank all those who have joined us for a morning or two in the past... for your patience and continued support during this time of transition. Please look for us on Facebook & at our website: www.carsandcoffeewilliamsburg.com for information in the coming weeks as to our new location. We hope to see you all again real soon.

For those with lowered vehicles - or other misgivings regarding our event - this move was primarily made with you in mind. I appreciate that many of you were making a valiant effort to join us, some even against their principles, and wish to say I appreciate your efforts. After the move is complete we hope to see your turning into our lot some fine Saturday morning in the not too distant future. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards
Sam Stevens Cars & Coffee Williamsburg

Originally Posted by PortDawg

Since the C&C Event coordinator has chosen to censor the comments made on the Facebook site for C&C Williamsburg, I've decided to move this post to a more prominent position since we can have a debate here and it will not be removed in violation of the first amendment right to free speech.

I will no longer attend or have any ties with C&C - Williamsburg. Link

Their choice of a venue that disallows my 2nd amendment right to bear arms lawfully is against my beliefs.

I rarely carry, but, having my RIGHT taken away from me, just because, goes against everything I served and sacrificed for.

Respectfully,
PortDawg

[AC54ME]

In an astonishing admission, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress that a lack of gun control was to blame for the government selling guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Holder sent a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, regarding recent revelations he was briefed on Operation Fast and Furious much earlier than he told Congress.

Operation Fast and Furious was a plan by government officials to permit illegal aliens to purchase and take weapons across the border. Once the guns crossed the border, agents often lost track of them. The guns have since been found to have been used in several crimes in the U.S., resulting in at least one death, border patrol agent Brian Terry.

In May, Holder appeared before Congress. At that time he was asked specifically when he first heard about Fast and Furious. Holder responded, “I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

Recently released documents reveal that Holder received memos referring to the program in July, 2010. A July 5 memo said, “Operation Fast and Furious” involved a “firearms trafficking ring.”

Holder downplayed his Congressional testimony and claimed he misunderstood the question.

After being challenged by Issa for his answer, Holder fired off a letter to Congress claiming that he had never read the memos, and it was the responsibility of his staff to brief him on what they considered important.

Holder then went on to say that the reason the ATF was unable to prevent the weapons from being sold to the cartels was a lack of gun control and registration.

“ATF witnesses testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the agency’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico is severely impaired by a lack of effective law enforcement tools.” Holder said, “For example, a number of witnesses indicated that current penalties for illegal straw purchases are inadequate to deter such activity or to include cooperation with law enforcement authorities after a violation is detected. Likewise, the lack of reporting requirements for multiple long gun purchases in a short period of time hindered law enforcement efforts to combat gun trafficking.”

During the operation, gun dealers contacted government officials with concerns over the number of purchases some illegals were making. They were told by ATF officials to let the sales go through.

Luke O’Dell, Director of Operations for the National Association for Gun rights, said Holder’s statement reveals the real reason the DOJ approved of Fast and Furious.

“That is the ultimate purpose of the Fast and Furious program. Obama’s Justice Department is pursuing its own political agenda rather than protect the American people.” O’Dell said, “That agenda is to restrict access and ultimately ban civilian access to all types of firearms. Remember, the administration has said ‘never let a crisis go to waste.’”

Responding to Holder’s letter, Issa fired off a terse response. While many times officials will try to be polite, using terms such as "mislead," Issa said the DOJ lied. ‘The Department of Justice has been lying to Congress ever since the inquiry into Fast and Furious began. On Feb 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald Weich, wrote that ‘ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transport into Mexico. This letter, vetted by both the senior ranks of ATF as well as the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, is a flat-out lie.”

Issa also made it plain that he did not believe Holder’s statement about not knowing about the program.

“The facts simply do not support any claim that Fast and Furious did not reach the highest levels of the Justice Department. Actually, Fast and Furious did reach the ultimate authority in the Department - you.”

Issa concluded saying, “Whether you realize it or not, you own Fast and Furious. It is your responsibility.”

Issa’s office told the Gazette that during the course of the investigation, many of the documents released by the Justice Department were heavily redacted, some to the point of being useless.

On Oct. 12, the Gazette received a copy of a subpoena sent to Holder by Issa asking for unredacted documents for Fast and Furious or any Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) firearms trafficking case based in Phoenix, Arizona; to or from fifteen members of the Justice department, including Holder. Holder was also told to produce every single memo he received on any topic over a nearly two-year period.

For the first time, Congress is asking for information that reaches into the White House itself. The subpoena sent by Issa also demands “All communications between and among Department of Justice (DOJ) employees and Executive Office of the President employees, including, but not limited to, Associate Communications Director, Eric Schultz, referring or relating to Operation Fast and Furious or any other firearms trafficking cases.”

Roll Call reported a GOP source familiar with the investigation said there was more to the request than a routine inquiry. The source said, “The question is whether the White House has been instructing the Justice Department on what [documents] to release.”

Fast and Furious has become a sore spot for the administration. A CBS reporter claimed Holder had yelled at her for daring to ask a question about the operation.

AG: Gun control would have stopped Fast and Furious | Greeley Gazette