Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

So I was thinking this morning, can the state constitutionally allow private property owners to "legally" post? They only have the power to regulate carry with a "view to prevent crime." So where do they get the power to let private property owners have power? I don't see private posting preventing crime and I believe it gives private property owners legal power that they aren't supposed to have.

Can you think of any other law that allows legal power like this? There's general trespassing laws, but I believe that constitutionally you have the right for that.

Just thinking of a way to attack unconstitutional laws.

Matthew

"a view to prevent crime" is very broad. It pretty much enables them to make any carry law they want (although I would wager its original writing was to keep a certain racial group disarmed).

As a property owner, you have the right to control what happens on your property, at least to a certain extent. You alluded to that right in addressing "trespassing"--unauthorized access or use of your property.

You can set conditions as to who comes onto your property. If you do not want certain behaviors occuring, you are free to prohibit them. Don't want cars parked on your vacant lot? Post a "No Parking" sign. Don't want people knocking on the door, trying to sell you something or proselytize for their religion? Post a "No Soliciting" sign. Don't want deliveries from 10-12? Post a sign prohibiting them.

The same principle applies if you don't want people carrying guns on your property. As the property owner (and that's extended to manager, i.e., the person in charge of the property), you do have that right. It's not being granted by any law--it's inherent in the ownership.

David

Its like Obamacare. Most legislators will give lip service to the Constitution (not all of them) but ultimately they will pass and support unconstitutional laws that seem like a good idea at the time. It puts the burdens on the citizens to be vigilant, to remove from office those who disregard the constitutional limits, to remove those from office who take a minimalist interpretation of the constitutional protections of individual rights and to be prepared to stand up with funds and dedication of resources when necessary to protect our rights in the courts, in the streets and in the halls of debate.

I agree with you John, you either sit on the bench and whine, or you go put your face in the umpires face,, you either grow a set or get use to the abuse.evil never rests.you can work for something,but don't ever think the fight is over,too many dirt bag opportunists sitting on the bench waiting to get in the game

I fully agree!!!

Now, I'm no Constitutional scholar, but when I read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I find it hard to see where the Feds can prohibit the saying of prayers or display of the Ten Commandments. Isn't THAT prohibiting the 'free exercise thereof'?

Likewise, I'd have to say that a $200 tax, fingerprint cards, and 3-6 month delay is an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

If we have the right of 'free association', does that not, by necessity, also mean that we have the right to NOT associate? As private property owners, you have the right to forbid any person from being on your property (except officers of the law in the course of their lawful duties). But, it seems to me that the law is saying that unless a property owner gives advance warning of his desire to prohibit a person with a firearm from being on his property, he has no recourse against said person except to ask him to leave.

This is akin to the years of segregation. If a black person was not welcome, there were signs to that effect. And that is a nice way to form this argument in our favor. A sign against Concealed Carry is exactly the same as a sign saying "No Negroes"!