![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rights versus Options
So, over on ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
dragoncon, a fellah suggested that his protected right to do something in public is not legally restrictable on private property.
Crossposted from the thread, because for all that work I would like to save it in case it's someday of use.
dragoncon, a fellah suggested that his protected right to do something in public is not legally restrictable on private property.Actually, since you put it that way:
( Bear in mind, first, that I am not a lawyer, nor an officer of the law. The following is my opinion solely as an amateur student of legal theory. I have no certification, and neither more nor less weight to my opinion than any other taxpayer. )
It is not illegal, and it is, in fact, that simple, for a property owner to state, "I do not want that on my property." Out on the street, you're in a public area, and can carry anything not specifically prohibited by law; inside the limitations of private property -- within my fenced yard, for example, or in my house or store, or in my place of business -- I can set all sorts of interesting restrictions.
Instead of a firearm, look at the same situation with either of two other items: cologne, or fandom jewelry. A citizen has the Constitutional fundamental right to have and use either item (provided they aren't commmitting some tangential crime such as copyright violation), as said ownership and use are not forbidden by Constitutional amendment. Furthermore, I'm aware of no local statute in Atlanta, GA that makes either one contraband.
However, if Mrs. Grundy is throwing a party at her apartment, or running a gourmet lemonade boutique, or showing off her brand new lawn gnome to the neighborhood, she has the Constitutional right to decide that anyone with certain items is unwelcome within her property lines and is considered a trespasser if they try to walk in with said item. After all, there's nothing in the Constitution that says she *has* to let onto her property anybody who decides to walk up: she's merely unable to legally forbid access based on purely physical traits.*
The concept that frequently trips us up here is the difference between a "fundamental right" versus an "option". We have the _right_ to go to Atlanta; we have the right to breathe; we have the right to consult with a legal expert if an officer of the law says our rights are not what we think they are; we have the right to defend ourselves from ninnies and twits, drunken or otherwise, within a reasonable limit based on exactly how the given ninny or twit is being a problem. We have the _option_ of offering D*C our shiny money in return for specifically-defined access to the fruit of their works. We have the option of marching in a nifty parade, and thumbing our noses at the Bob Eubanks of the world, thanks to the City of Atlanta licensing D*C to run a parade and paying some of the wonderful APD officers to block traffic for us. If attending D*C was a _right_, there'd be no legal grounds for saying that someone has violated Rule 7 (by, say, burping the Zhuyin alphabet in the middle of the Meditation Workshop**) and may therefore no longer attend the convention.
All of which is a long way 'round of saying that a gentleman conducts himself according to the etiquette preferences of his hosts, even in a business relationship: a boor tries to bully others into letting him behave in any way he pleases, and is often startled when his presence is rejected. I know just enough about you, in particular, to take for granted that you're not a boor -- but it's the boors out there who can't be trusted with a weapon in a crowd anyhow, legal or otherwise.
* Technically, Mrs. Grundy could forbid entry *to her store* on the basis of her revulsion against green eyes or crooked teeth or bushy eyebrows. But she can't forbid based on nearsightedness, number of toes on left foot, or physical similarity to archetypal Italianness.
** I'm not aware of this ever having actually happened. It's not technically illegal in and of itself, but it's definitely a jerktastic thing to do.
( Bear in mind, first, that I am not a lawyer, nor an officer of the law. The following is my opinion solely as an amateur student of legal theory. I have no certification, and neither more nor less weight to my opinion than any other taxpayer. )
It is not illegal, and it is, in fact, that simple, for a property owner to state, "I do not want that on my property." Out on the street, you're in a public area, and can carry anything not specifically prohibited by law; inside the limitations of private property -- within my fenced yard, for example, or in my house or store, or in my place of business -- I can set all sorts of interesting restrictions.
Instead of a firearm, look at the same situation with either of two other items: cologne, or fandom jewelry. A citizen has the Constitutional fundamental right to have and use either item (provided they aren't commmitting some tangential crime such as copyright violation), as said ownership and use are not forbidden by Constitutional amendment. Furthermore, I'm aware of no local statute in Atlanta, GA that makes either one contraband.
However, if Mrs. Grundy is throwing a party at her apartment, or running a gourmet lemonade boutique, or showing off her brand new lawn gnome to the neighborhood, she has the Constitutional right to decide that anyone with certain items is unwelcome within her property lines and is considered a trespasser if they try to walk in with said item. After all, there's nothing in the Constitution that says she *has* to let onto her property anybody who decides to walk up: she's merely unable to legally forbid access based on purely physical traits.*
The concept that frequently trips us up here is the difference between a "fundamental right" versus an "option". We have the _right_ to go to Atlanta; we have the right to breathe; we have the right to consult with a legal expert if an officer of the law says our rights are not what we think they are; we have the right to defend ourselves from ninnies and twits, drunken or otherwise, within a reasonable limit based on exactly how the given ninny or twit is being a problem. We have the _option_ of offering D*C our shiny money in return for specifically-defined access to the fruit of their works. We have the option of marching in a nifty parade, and thumbing our noses at the Bob Eubanks of the world, thanks to the City of Atlanta licensing D*C to run a parade and paying some of the wonderful APD officers to block traffic for us. If attending D*C was a _right_, there'd be no legal grounds for saying that someone has violated Rule 7 (by, say, burping the Zhuyin alphabet in the middle of the Meditation Workshop**) and may therefore no longer attend the convention.
All of which is a long way 'round of saying that a gentleman conducts himself according to the etiquette preferences of his hosts, even in a business relationship: a boor tries to bully others into letting him behave in any way he pleases, and is often startled when his presence is rejected. I know just enough about you, in particular, to take for granted that you're not a boor -- but it's the boors out there who can't be trusted with a weapon in a crowd anyhow, legal or otherwise.
* Technically, Mrs. Grundy could forbid entry *to her store* on the basis of her revulsion against green eyes or crooked teeth or bushy eyebrows. But she can't forbid based on nearsightedness, number of toes on left foot, or physical similarity to archetypal Italianness.
** I'm not aware of this ever having actually happened. It's not technically illegal in and of itself, but it's definitely a jerktastic thing to do.
Crossposted from the thread, because for all that work I would like to save it in case it's someday of use.