Havik wrote:So if Hansen v AOL establishes that private property rights are a significant enough constitutional right that they cannot be, at least under current legislation, diminished by the equally important constitutional right to keep and bare arms, then the following question stands to reason (at least in my non-attorney mind)...If a private business decides to exercise their private property rights and impose a "gun free zone" in their business, then do they take on any responsability to provide a reasonable amount of security to make up for the individual security they are restricting an employee/patron from providing for themselves (limitation of the employee's constitutional right to keep and bare arms)? Court houses, airports, the DMV, etc all provide this security presence, and they limit a persons rights.
The Aurora, Colorado theater shooting comes to mind where individuals (employees and patrons) are restricted from excercising their constitutional right to protect themselves, and yet the employer does almost nothing...no, nothing, to provide for their security (no security presence, no access control on back of house doors to ensure they are secured, etc.). Do they have any liability in your mind?
And yes I realize that we as employees and patrons can simply choose to work or not work, or patronize or not patronize businesses that limit our freedoms, but I still wonder if companies don't assume some liability nonetheless when they limit our ability to exercise our own personal constitutional rights.
I'm interested in your thoughts...
Snaggle wrote:As it has already been pointed out, the constitution, bill of rights and our state constitution do not apply to private entities.
Likewise, anyone bringing action against a private party will have to show a fundamental responsibility of a private property owner to be responsible for anyone's safety. As outlined in Warren v. D.C. Columbia, even law enforcement do not even have that responsibility.
It would be a stretch to bring suit against, say that Colorado theatre unless you could show gross negligence or intentional indifference on the part of the theatre.
Doesn't mean you can not try, but it would be an uphill battle to win.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
gravedancer wrote:I can even post a sign that says no blacks or gays allowed, and there's nothing you could legally do about it.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests