A good day in State legislatures

While it may seem like a positive advancement at face value, the Texas Senate bill is an unjust effort - as are all similar measures.

Any law that trumps property rights can only lead to the inevitable erosion of self-defense rights, since firearms are, in fact, a specific type of property.

When employees are hired they voluntarily agree to a specific set of terms set forth by the employer. Unfortunately, many employers include irrational guidelines pertaining to firearms on their premises, however, the sanctity of property rights demand that we respect those guidelines.

As an individual in a free society, we can accept those tenets or refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

For government to encroach upon a property owners wishes, within the context of a voluntary relationship according to voluntary terms, is an unjust trampling of the American essence. To tell a property owner that he must allow weapons on his property is no different in principle than telling a restaurant owner he must not allow them - both destroy property rights.

Such bills are short-sided attempts which in effect chop down the tree to get to the apple.

I urge any freedom loving individual who values his right to self-defense to strongly oppose any legality that disrespects our rights to life, liberty or property.

QUOTATION: "We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts." - Harold McMillan

FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 70

"Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail the supreme executive magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy."

"Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character."

MY COMMENTARY:

USA is doomed to be overthrown from INSIDE the stagnant two-party (which is in reality only a one-party system when nothing every really changes. Corruption and betrayals to the Constitution remains constant.)

The factional special interest groups, (i.e., NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAS, new Tea Party movement, new Open Carry Movement, new Tenth Amendment Movement, new Article V Convention Movement, and all other special interest groups championing one of the individual amendments of the Bill of Rights) do not see or refuse to see a need to form an alliance with all individual rights advocacy groups to champion the the Bill of Rights in its entirety to combat the Federal Government's War against the Bill of Rights.

No individual advocacy rights group will win the war for freedom. The NRA, Gun Owner's of America, Second Amendment Foundation and all the other groups offer nothing more that a pipe dream. The King of the Hill's self-interest mentality of individual rights advocacy groups will continue to stir factionalist agendas from now to eternity without success because all there actions are symbolic. They dare not consider civil disobedience for it is too inconvenient for their own immediate freedom. Without an alliance actual freedom remains a pipe dream for the disillusioned.

Citing Douglass, Frederick. [1857] (1985). "The Significance of Emancipation in the West Indies," Speech, Canandaigua, New York, August 3, 1857; collected in pamphlet by author. In The Frederick Douglass Papers. Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Volume 3: 1855-63. Edited by John W. Blassingame. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 204.

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."

"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others."

The defeat in Illinois of HB48 is far more important than the bill's actual content would suggest.
The anti-gun coalition in Chicago, orchestrated by Mayor Richard Daley and championed by Joyce Foundation fronts like the Illinois Council to Prevent Handgun Violence, Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabinas Catholic Church, and Jesse Jackson-hired semi-professional protesters, not to mention active involvement on the part of the Chicago Public School system, had vowed that they would enact one major anti-gun-rights law this year, and it would be HB48.
The stated purpose of 48 was to force handgun transfers into the FFL system. The real reason was to crash the system. The law would have limited dealers' fees on transfers to $10, well below what retail dealers could endure.
The follow-on part of this plan though was much more important: Daley, the ultimate boss bureaucrat, has another bill in the hopper to put the licensing of FFLs in the state into, in effect, Daley's hands, via the state government. That way he could harass and close down dealers with relative ease, and with transfers stuck in the hoped-for choked-off network, guns would be dried up.
What's even more surprising is that this bill was also voted on last year in the House and lost 58-58. This years' vote swung harder against it, 55-60-1. As a trend, that's strong, and a good sign that the "assault weapons" ban in the wings, HB165, might even be held back, given the defeat of HB48.
Here in Illinois, many think that the arrival at the state capitol of 5000 marcher/lobbyists during the Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day on March 11th, only two weeks before this vote, may well have had an effect on borderline legislators.
Certainly, this also shows the power of alternative media to get around the gatekeepers; the Chicago Tribune, pre-eminent anti-gun media outlet in the region, carried not one word of this bill's defeat (in their print editions), nor of the Lobby Day.
They lost, too.

The Texas bill prevents employers from unjustly expanding their "property rights" onto employees' property (namely, their vehicles) and prevents employers from also denying employees ability to defend themselves with firearms during their commutes. Vehicles are generally treated, in Texas at least, as the near-equivalent to a person's home. One does not even need a CHL to have a loaded gun in one's vehicle, as long as you are otherwise eligible to have a gun and are not engaged in criminal activity (traffic violations don't count) or gang membership.

This is small curtailment of the employer's theoretical "property rights" in a situation where the employer has invited in others, versus a big step forward for the employees' effectively exercising their rights to life and self-defense.

Establishing a place of work and hiring people to work their does not confer the same rights as for a private home. You can invite or bar anyone you please onto into your home for any reason, including unreasonable ones. The same is not true for who you can hire, and what you can require of them do. Business arguments against the parking lot carry general revolve around "safety" and liability, (and liability is addressed in this bill). Of course, the businesses never seem to accept any liability for what happens to their unarmed employees on or off the premises...

I don't think the business interests bothered to try to make this a property rights issue this time around -- they apparently went for "safety" at the hearing and got their rears handed to them.

It is worth noting that even the NRA F-rated senator on the Criminal Justice Committee voted to move this measure out of committee to the senate floor, and then voted for it again with the Senate vote.

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT
www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d26-Erasing-the-Second-Amendment

Tonight, (Thursday, March 26) WGN Radio AM 720 in Chicago will be hosting a debate about whether or not the Second Amendment should be repealed. Per the Illinois State Rifle Association:

ANTI-GUN RADIO DEBATE – MARCH 26TH

Anti-gun Chicago talk show host Milt Rosenberg will be hosting a radio debate on the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution on WGN Radio, AM 720, on Thursday March 26th.

Defending our Constitution will be Bob Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute.

The debater who will be attacking our Constitution has not been named as of yet.
1. Mark your calendar to listen to WGN Radio, AM 720, on Thursday, March 26, 2009 beginning at 9 PM. If you cannot receive WGN in your area, you can listen to the program live on the Internet at wgnradio.com

2. No matter where you live, please be sure to call the radio station's call in line at (312) 591-7200 and ask to speak your opinion on what has been said. It would be best if you voice support for the 2nd Amendment and Mr. Levy's statements rather than personally attacking whoever the antigunner is.

Rethinking Original Intent
The debate over the Constitution's meaning takes a surprising turn; a pivotal gun-rights case.
by James Bravin
Wall Street Journal
March 14, 2009
online.wsj.com/article/SB123699111292226669.html

REBUTTAL:

Privileges, Immunities and Our Constitutional Rights
by Ronald D. Rotunda
Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence
Chapman University School of Law
Orange, Calif.
LETTERS
Wall Street Journal
March 25, 2009
online.wsj.com/article/SB123802737048442933.html

(STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE PUSSIES AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN PASSING SYMBOLIC JOINT RESOLUTIONS ON THE TENTH AMENDMENT! WHEN THE TENTH AMENDMENT MOVEMENT AND THE ARTICLE V MOVEMENT FAILS WILL THE STATES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TAKE UP ARMS IN A NEW CIVIL WAR? OR IS ACTUAL FREEDOM JUST A LOT OF TALK? {THE LAW OF INTERNAL ARMED CONFLICT APPLIES WITH THE UNITED STATES BECOMES A BELLIGERENT AGAINST THE STATES AND AGAINST THE PEOPLE!} MY COMMENT)

The Tenth Amendment Movement: A Prequel To An Article V Convention?
By Bill Walker
March 23, 2009
exceptionmag.com/politics/american/000475/tenth-amendment-movement-prequel-article-v-convention

See my comment at:

NRA Files 2nd Amendment Complaint in Heller v. D.C. Gun Case
By NRA
March 25, 2009
www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-nra-files-2nd-amendment-complaint-in-heller-v-dc-gun-case

The Texas bill prevents employers from unjustly expanding their "property rights" onto employees' property (namely, their vehicles) and prevents employers from also denying employees ability to defend themselves with firearms during their commutes.

If their policy states that no firearms are allowed on premises, then it’s irrelevant whether the firearm is in a bag, box, car, truck, tank or any other container.

Vehicles are generally treated, in Texas at least, as the near-equivalent to a person's home.

With the very distinct difference that one’s home is typically on his property, not someone else’s. Would you also contend that any action should be legal on the property of others, and regardless of the owner's discretion, as long as you are in the privacy of your car? Should they not be able to tow your car off their parking lot because it's yours? Of course not.

One does not even need a CHL to have a loaded gun in one's vehicle, as long as you are otherwise eligible to have a gun and are not engaged in criminal activity (traffic violations don't count) or gang membership.

This point becomes irrelevant the instant you’re on property where the owner has explicitly restricted them, in which case you are breaking the law.

This is small curtailment of the employer's theoretical "property rights" in a situation where the employer has invited in others, versus a big step forward for the employees' effectively exercising their rights to life and self-defense.
Any curtailment of property rights is unjust and undermines a proper free society. An individual that owns or leases a specific area denoted by a geographical boundary has the absolute right to set terms for other individuals (non-owners) to exist on his property – how is merely theoretical?

Telling an individual his discretion pertaining to who can do and possess what on his property is no smaller curtailment than denying you the same right in the context of your home.

It does enable enhanced self-defense for employees, but at what cost? It does so by violating the employer’s sovereign right, i.e., by sacrificing the rights of one individual to serve another. This is the same pragmatic altruist-collectivist mindset that supports income redistribution, the welfare state, affirmative action and all other causes that lead to totalitarianism.

Establishing a place of work and hiring people to work their does not confer the same rights as for a private home. You can invite or bar anyone you please onto into your home for any reason, including unreasonable ones. The same is not true for who you can hire, and what you can require of them do.

They are free to accept or refuse any stipulations, so to refer to it as a requirement is inaccurate. It's a contract that they can agree to, or not. This leads to the real solution to this issue. If enough employees refused employment because their self-defense capacity were so limited, then employers would loosen their policies. Instead, the "New American Way" is to avoid reason, persuasion and choice in favor of violating rights with the help of illegitimate government force.

Business arguments against the parking lot carry general revolve around "safety" and liability, (and liability is addressed in this bill). Of course, the businesses never seem to accept any liability for what happens to their unarmed employees on or off the premises...

Why should they? Again, we’re talking voluntary contracts amongst free individuals.

It is worth noting that even the NRA F-rated senator on the Criminal Justice Committee voted to move this measure out of committee to the senate floor, and then voted for it again with the Senate vote.

Should we be surprised that one of our esteemed congressmen would support a measure that violates individual rights? They make careers out of trampling rights to buy votes.

Brad Harper at March 25, 2009 07:54 PM
"When employees are hired they voluntarily agree to a specific set of terms set forth by the employer. Unfortunately, many employers include irrational guidelines pertaining to firearms on their premises, however, the sanctity of property rights demand that we respect those guidelines...."

Bull, your property rights end at my car doors. That car is MY property, not yours.

Bull, your property rights end at my car doors. That car is MY property, not yours.

It is your property, but it's subject to my terms when you're on my property. You are free to accept and accommodate (or violate, as I've done for the past 5 years), or you may refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

To instead opt for hiring government-thugs to enforce your wishes on an employer is anti-American.

If you don't want to chance what could be in your employee's cars on your property, you have a remedy. Don't allow any parking on your property. However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

You may quote me on these:

"There ain't no good intentions clause in the Constitution!"

"The Bill of Rights is not a buffet!"

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Just another example of the stupidity of the gun-grabbers. The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHT. I believe US V Cruikschank (1876) covers this aspect. The Right existed before the 2nd. The Right exists without the 2nd. Congress could not be given authority to infringe on it because the Right is one of those inalienable (cannot be taken away, cannot be given up) endowed by the Creator.

However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

In NM, the university where I work has signs saying firearms are prohibited on campus. BUT under state law, your car is an extension of your home and the university cannot stop you from keeping a firearm in your vehicle.

"Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam"
pronounced
"teer gon chong-ga, teer gon on-um"
meaning
A country without a language, a country without a soul

Dr. Bill

If you don't want to chance what could be in your employee's cars on your property, you have a remedy. Don't allow any parking on your property.

That's certainly one option. Or, you could rely on contract law and property rights by simply specifying restrictive covenants in an employment contract.

However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

Like I said above, if the restriction is "no firearms", then the context is irrelevant. "No firarms" doesn't mean "no firearms except for where you have an emotional (or even practical) justification for them", it means "no firearms", regardless of how you rationalize it.

Keep in mind, I disagree with these types of restrictions, but I' much more adamantly opposed to using government force to counter them in a way that can only injure the cause of freedom.

Property rights must adhere to a hierarchy to some degree - a chain of command amongst voluntary participants - where each link (acting as a host) possess the right to impose restrictions on the next (acting as the guest).

An example of the same principle taking place one step down the chain could entail you and a co-worker driving to lunch in your car. You would be fully justified in restricting him from getting in your car with a bag of cocaine (or a copy of The Communist Manifesto) in his pocket despite the fact that the coat he's wearing is his property. He can either choose to accept your rules, or abstain from the ride or even the relationship. What he can't do however, is hire government to force you to allow him in your car with whatever he chooses, just because he chooses it.

@Brad,

You make great points. In a similar situation, a couple years ago, the Illinois general assembly prohibited smoking indoors, to include businesses, restaurants and bars. On the one hand, I dislike the smell of cigarette smoke, so not having to deal with that was a nice change. On the other, I believe that a private business owner should have the final say to allow smoking within their establishment.

Generalizing more, if an organization is an entity created by statue (incorporation, limited liability company) to protect the owners and shareholders from unlimited liability, they agree to meet certain requirements to maintain their existence and be afforded some of the rights of a natural person. I don't believe there is any law or statute to back this opinion up, but I think that one of the compromises business entities need to make to maintain liability protection for their owners & shareholders is to not infringe upon the natural rights of natural persons, and the government should be the one to enforce that (see the Declaration of Independence).

Back to specifics, can smoking be argued to be a natural right? I don't smoke, so I haven't considered the question at length. Clearly, the People's right to keep and bear arms is protected (in theory) by the Constitution. So the Texas law to allow people to keep their firearms in their car regardless of business policy can be seen as an acceptable compromise of the property rights of artificial persons (businesses).

@CKM

We've approached the extent of my legal knowledge regarding corporate/commercial property rights, but in principle, such rights shouldn't be neutered by the corporate structure - the discretion should just fall to the board, or majority shareholders. They still hold the prerogative to set the guiding policies for corporate assets, and I can't think of any reason that would justify this particular exception, i.e., that they have all the rights that an individual holds except as they pertain to firearms.

In other words, this may be the way it is, but it's not how it ought to be.

I'm glad you mentioned the smoking-ban controversy which rests on the exact same principles. I too enjoy a smoke-free meal, but would rather endure hazy dining for the rest of my life before I'd encroach on a property owner's rights to set their own smoking policies.

Again, the market can do anything government can do (with the obvious exceptions of courts, police, and military), but without resorting to force.

Sacred property rights, guys? Really?

In the name of public safety and other causes the government has negated property rights for every cause imaginable, from OSHA, lighting laws, health inspections, ADA, Union Organizing activities, building codes, etc.

In your private home you still have some pretty good rights (unless the local government decides they need your property for a shopping mall or public road or whatever) but property rights for a business property as being sacred ... that's a joke. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.

So if the government can enforce safety regulations, then allowing people to at least safely keep their handguns in their own cars on your property is no violation of anything by the standards we hold today.

Shut down a few dozen of those other violations, and then we can talk about sacred property and the right to exclude safety items in one's car. Until then, I'm on the board for the right of self defense.

@Steve,

Believe me sir... I understand where you're coming from. Every single item in your list is valid and they're only a fraction of the examples we could name. But, we'll never reverse the trend if we condone yet another encroachment.

Each legislative action counts and some set far more damaging precedence than others. If you say you're fine with just one more violation, how can you ever justify opposition to any other? At some point we have to stop if this country is going to survive. My fear is that our culture has gotten so desensitized to voting away real rights (be it out of anger, frustration or stupidity) and voting for phony ones that we're beyond the point of return.

There is no right to carry on the property of others regardless of their consent. To prop one up is to perpetuate as phony a right as our supposed ones to health-care, living wage, free-lunch, or any other statist perk.

The only way we have a chance is to understand freedom, rights and Capitalism and voice our opinions as loudly and clearly as we can.

sorry Brad, I have read every word you wrote and i can't help but think you are not in favor of rights. You are in favor of power. I do not care how powerful any company or person thinks itself to be they do not get to tell me what I may do in and/or on with my property. At good fortune, they will just be ignored. At force applied to deny me my rights they will be met with force. I cannot bring to bear as much force as such opposition might, but I guarantee I can bring as high an intensity of it.

If what you say were to be followed strictly as regards property rights, murder would unpunishable and in fact legal as long as it takes place on private property. When you can make a coherent argument why the right to life can be suspended at the whim of an employer because it takes place on private property, perhaps I will be able to see why other rights can be thusly suspended for the same reason.

Until then, I think I would not want you at my back.

@straightarrow

You are in favor of power. I do not care how powerful any company or person thinks itself to be they do not get to tell me what I may do in and/or on with my property.

Actually, they do... if you choose to work there, and accept their terms of employment.

Power??? If that's really all you've gotten from my opinion then you should go read it all again. In the same manner as all mooching and looting, you're the one pointing the government's gun at other individuals with the underlying implication that "because you feel like it", you're entitled to trample their rights. I'm merely advocating a consistent and just application of principles.

An employer's restrictions don't suspend your right to life by force. You choose to be there under those terms, in which case you would be responsible for subjecting yourself to a situation whereby your ability to defend yourself is suspended.

I get it... you don't like the fact that an employer can tell you to leave 'em at home - I don't blame you. As I alluded to above, I've violated such restrictions in the past because I valued my well-being above the slight risk that I'd ever get caught. In the event that I ever had to use it, then any work related repercussions are of only marginal concern. Regardless of my thoughts or emotions though, it's their property, and they set the rules.

You can attempt to rationalize it any way you see fit, but for any property owner to be told their opinion is irrelevant is an injustice. Our founders would be appalled to think the American consensus implies that might trumps right - which is exactly what you're condoning by hiring GovCo. to swoop in and band-aid any little slice of freedom that you don't agree with.

My explanation of rights isn't anything extraordinary, it's just, consistent, and rational.

@Brad

Well spoken, Brad. It reminds me of when I was sitting in economy on a plane (a frequent place for me) and the person in front of me put their seat back right after take off. So I put my seat back so I'd have some room (I generally leave my seat up on daylight flights).

The person behind me, perturbed, asked me if I really needed to put my seat back. I said I did, just because of the seat in front of me. He said, "but this has to stop somewhere."

"Yup," I said, "And I guess you're elected."

Bottom line is, I'm not going to draw the line as an infraction which protects my personal ability to do something when the line has been crossed in so many other ways.

And to be honest ... there are reasons why the law has crossed in those other ways and they're not going to be done anytime soon.

I respect your opinion, sir, and I hope you will respect mine.

I'm perfectly alright with keeping government out of it, if we keep them out of it when I address the policy in a personal manner which would take place on private property. Wanna go with that?

I didn't think so.

The might makes right is your position, not mine. And I notice you did not have a problem with them taking life by force if one goes there on their property.

If might and force and coercion is to be used as you suggest is proper, why would you not approve of a level playing field? My car is mine. That's enough. I will not submit. If you think I should as you say you do, I will never trust you in any matter of principle.

"Actually, they do... if you choose to work there, and accept their terms of employment."

This is exactly the attitude that was responsible for the company coal mine (and other) towns in the 1900s. The company could dictate whatever rules they wanted and if the employee wanted to continue working they had to agree. Of course the company also insured through those rules that the employee always "owed" the company more than the company paid them. Where do you think the unions and Molly McGuires got their start?

My property rights will not be given away by blackmail!

Brad,
Also, your disarmament policies have an effect beyond the borders of your property. You effectively prohibit firearms to employees traveling all the way from and to their home - In their personal property. You simply do not and should not have that right.

On the otherhand, if you complied with AZ law like the court houses and other public buildings in AZ that prohibit firearms do and provide a secure place for the employee to store their firearm, you would have a much stronger case.

But of course the employer(s) don't want that responsibility, they just want to deprive the employee of their ability to protect themselves to and from work.

You effectively prohibit firearms to employees traveling all the way from and to their home - In their personal property. You simply do not and should not have that right.

Only if the employee voluntarily accepts the provisions set forth by the employer. There is no force initiated against the employee.

And yes, as a property owner, I should and do have that right - at least until consensus obliterates it.

But of course the employer(s) don't want that responsibility, they just want to deprive the employee of their ability to protect themselves to and from work.

I think it's irrational to toss out that generalization, but regardless of their reasoning, it's their right.

I think it's really easy for folks to envision some wealthy, snotty, leftist business owner when they condone the lynch mob, but how about swapping that image with that of any small-business owner – perhaps a friend of yours. With that in mind, do you still contend that small-business Joe, that owns the local hardware store down the street, should be denied the right to tell his employees to keep 'em at home?

If so, you don't understand or deserve rights. If not, your contradiction should ring a bell.

"And yes, as a property owner, I should and do have that right -"

And so do I. Therefore, that only leaves combat as a way to solve the issue, since you would insist on extending your reach into my property all the way to my home or anywhere else i might be to and fro. I mean if you really want to keep government out of it. Why do I think you wouldn't mean it then,and would call the cops to come protect you from that combat?

Because you don't really mean it?????

@straightarrow

I admire your determination, but you're missing the point. In a rational, free society, men should avoid voluntary relationships conducive to disagreement. The way to avoid armed combat is for you to seek employment elsewhere.

No one is initiating force against you, no one is forcing you to be there, none of your rights are being violated.