To All,
I believe that each and every person should be able to exercise all of their rights in the following places:
#1) Public property - owned by the govt;
#2) Their own private property - Duh!;
#3) Private property owned by a corporation that is open to the public during normal hours of operation that is not theirs;
#4) Private / Public mix.
A person should not have their rights oppressed save in extremis. This means on another persons property. Then, the right still exists in an oppressed state.
My argument against a corporation is that it is not a sentient person, ergo a corporation should have NO righits! It has no soul, no conscience, no moral compass. It does have a self serving agenda to make a profit. (I know I am swimming against both statutes and case law, but it is what I believe.)
If a corporation can deny the right to carry by someone in Indiana who has their LTCH, what is to prevent them from not allowing someone with an Indiana Drivers License to drive on their property? Could a college not issue their own DL and thus order all people to get their own or not drive on their streets or parking lots?
Whether we agree or disagree on an issue I hope most folks agree the highest law of Indiana is the US Federal Constitution FIRST and the Indiana Constitution SECOND. Each should apply to every square inch of the particular States territory!
Corporations will complain that we are trampling on their rights. Number one, corporations should not have rights and in my mind have no rights. Even if they do, they, and all businesses, agree to follow the law of the land. The Federal Law says you cannot refuse to serve someone due to them being white or black or Hispanic or Lutheran or Catholic or male or female. That is NOT legally acceptable differentiation! A business agrees by default to acknowledge these differences as a non reason for refusal to serve. What is the problem with saying a business cannot refuse service to someone who is, without causing an overt distraction, exercising their right to carry a tool (ie. a firearm) that they may use to defend themselves?
As a college is a corporation they should have zero authority to limit the carrying of a tool that may, if necessary, save dozens of lives.
Regards,
Doug
I believe that each and every person should be able to exercise all of their rights in the following places:
#1) Public property - owned by the govt;
#2) Their own private property - Duh!;
#3) Private property owned by a corporation that is open to the public during normal hours of operation that is not theirs;
#4) Private / Public mix.
A person should not have their rights oppressed save in extremis. This means on another persons property. Then, the right still exists in an oppressed state.
My argument against a corporation is that it is not a sentient person, ergo a corporation should have NO righits! It has no soul, no conscience, no moral compass. It does have a self serving agenda to make a profit. (I know I am swimming against both statutes and case law, but it is what I believe.)
If a corporation can deny the right to carry by someone in Indiana who has their LTCH, what is to prevent them from not allowing someone with an Indiana Drivers License to drive on their property? Could a college not issue their own DL and thus order all people to get their own or not drive on their streets or parking lots?
Whether we agree or disagree on an issue I hope most folks agree the highest law of Indiana is the US Federal Constitution FIRST and the Indiana Constitution SECOND. Each should apply to every square inch of the particular States territory!
Corporations will complain that we are trampling on their rights. Number one, corporations should not have rights and in my mind have no rights. Even if they do, they, and all businesses, agree to follow the law of the land. The Federal Law says you cannot refuse to serve someone due to them being white or black or Hispanic or Lutheran or Catholic or male or female. That is NOT legally acceptable differentiation! A business agrees by default to acknowledge these differences as a non reason for refusal to serve. What is the problem with saying a business cannot refuse service to someone who is, without causing an overt distraction, exercising their right to carry a tool (ie. a firearm) that they may use to defend themselves?
As a college is a corporation they should have zero authority to limit the carrying of a tool that may, if necessary, save dozens of lives.
Regards,
Doug