E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, March 8, 2010

Gun rights vs. private property rights

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

I believe the Constitution means what it says in the Second Amendment, which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The framers intended the Bill of Rights to be a list of "negative" rights, meaning it is a list of things the government may not do to infringe on the rights that they assumed free men automatically have. It is not meant to be a list of what private citizens and businesses may or may not do.

While I am an avid supporter of Second Amendment rights, and I have been critical of the National Rifle Association for a lack of commitment to the Second Amendment, I am opposed to House Bill 1065. This bill passed by a huge margin in both chambers of the Indiana state legislature, passing by 74-20 in the House and 41-9 in the Senate. HB 1065 would make it illegal for employers to prohibit employees from taking a gun to work and leaving it in a locked vehicle out of plain sight. Some employers, such as schools, are exempt from this law.

Once again, state government is restricting private property rights for political gain. This is, after all, an election year. One of the bill's authors, Trent Van Haaften, is the presumptive Democratic nominee for Congress in the Eighth District and will be facing a difficult challenge in November from the eventual Republican nominee. Therefore, Van Haaften is attempting to shore up support with the gun owners who will be critical to winning the seat.

Simply put, state government has absolutely no business telling employers whether or not their private property will be a gun-free zone. If an employer, from a retail store to a factory or an accounting firm, wishes to prohibit employees from bringing firearms to work, they should have the right to do so. It is the business that owns or leases the property, not state government. Hoosier employers do not need interference from 150 state legislators in Indianapolis on how to run their business. What they need is to be left alone.

Van Haaften simply does not get it. Apparently he has missed the tea parties and the town hall meetings for the last year, where people told government to stop the excessive taxation and regulation of our lives and our businesses. Supporters of HB 1065 argue that this enhances individual rights, but you cannot expand rights for one person by restricting the rights of another. Voters in the Eighth District should see through Van Haaften's smokescreen and recognize this legislation for what it is: more unnecessary legislation restricting private property rights.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.