Steve Chapman is incensed that defenders of the second amendment and gun rights in general, tend to support a law in Florida which requires employers to allow those with concealed carry permits to leave their weapons locked up in their vehicles. I think it's a good law, because there is a natural obligation to provide for the security of others, regardless of the wishes of property owners.
Perhaps this is just my conservative side showing, but I have no sympathy for the radical property rights defense here. Not only do most businesses provide no effective, armed security for their employees and customers, but they prohibit the same from carrying their own weapons. It is true that their property rights run deep, but the right to life runs deeper than property rights, and any property owner who refuses to take full responsibility for those that he or she would disarm on their property deserves to have their property rights infringed in this matter.
The natural libertarian objection is that one could find a new employer that is amenable to armed employees, or shop at places that don't prohibit firearms. This is true, but it doesn't acknowledge the fact that if this line of thought were taken seriously, that property owners could put all sorts of intrusive regulations on their employees and customers, only limited by the maximum that people would stomach. Under this model, property rights become a cudgel in the hands of petty tyrants who can act out their most oppressive fantasies under the guise of liberty, without respecting any boundaries, social obligations or the liberties of others--not the least of which is others' right to self-defense and life.
The one thing that Chapman observed that is even remotely a good argument for allowing employers to keep weapons off of their premises, fails under closer scrutiny. The average employee who might shoot up an office after being terminated is the sort of person who is likely to bring a weapon to the office anyway, even without the legal permits. Crime and violence by those who take the time to get a concealed carry permit are exceptionally low because it takes a very law-abiding person to seek the permit in the first place.
Libertarians tend to focus too much on individual rights, and not on individual responsibilities. Liberty exists in both. Property rights carry with them a responsibility to respect them by not stealing or damaging them; the right to life carries with it a responsibility in others to not infringe upon it with violence or deny others a reasonable means of self-defense. It would be easier to argue this libertarian point of view here if the law recognized an obligation to defend those that an employer or store has disarmed. However, neither the law nor most libertarians recognize this responsibility, which is a key part of why the problem exists in the first place.
Perhaps this is just my conservative side showing, but I have no sympathy for the radical property rights defense here. Not only do most businesses provide no effective, armed security for their employees and customers, but they prohibit the same from carrying their own weapons. It is true that their property rights run deep, but the right to life runs deeper than property rights, and any property owner who refuses to take full responsibility for those that he or she would disarm on their property deserves to have their property rights infringed in this matter.
The natural libertarian objection is that one could find a new employer that is amenable to armed employees, or shop at places that don't prohibit firearms. This is true, but it doesn't acknowledge the fact that if this line of thought were taken seriously, that property owners could put all sorts of intrusive regulations on their employees and customers, only limited by the maximum that people would stomach. Under this model, property rights become a cudgel in the hands of petty tyrants who can act out their most oppressive fantasies under the guise of liberty, without respecting any boundaries, social obligations or the liberties of others--not the least of which is others' right to self-defense and life.
The one thing that Chapman observed that is even remotely a good argument for allowing employers to keep weapons off of their premises, fails under closer scrutiny. The average employee who might shoot up an office after being terminated is the sort of person who is likely to bring a weapon to the office anyway, even without the legal permits. Crime and violence by those who take the time to get a concealed carry permit are exceptionally low because it takes a very law-abiding person to seek the permit in the first place.
Libertarians tend to focus too much on individual rights, and not on individual responsibilities. Liberty exists in both. Property rights carry with them a responsibility to respect them by not stealing or damaging them; the right to life carries with it a responsibility in others to not infringe upon it with violence or deny others a reasonable means of self-defense. It would be easier to argue this libertarian point of view here if the law recognized an obligation to defend those that an employer or store has disarmed. However, neither the law nor most libertarians recognize this responsibility, which is a key part of why the problem exists in the first place.
What rights are we talking about? People have Natural Rights (including a Right to self defense.) Corporations, by definition, have no such similar rights at all. A corporation is nothing more than a legal fiction which has protection granted to it by the State and has only "rights"/privileges that are granted to it by the State. One set of Rights is by birth, and natural, the other set of "rights" is by fiat of the State, and both changeable and revocable. From my Libertarian viewpoint there is no need for conflict as the individual Right trumps that of a corporation every time.
WRT corporations you are absolutely right. However, where do you stand on cases where the property owner is an individual? In that sense, I say that the right to life trumps the property rights of the individual. It's no infringement on their rights for me to carry a concealed firearm on my person, that I have no intention of using to harm anyone or their property. Furthermore, odds are, those who are against people having a gun on their property are also the sort of people who will wring their hands and passionately deny any moral responsibility to provide security for those that can no longer provide their own armed security via a personal firearm while on their property.
I think part of the critical problem here is that many libertarians are reluctant to recognize a right to life because if they did that, then they couldn't support abortion rights.
The Right to Life is really just the ultimate property Right. If you don't have the Right to fight for and defend that life, all other property Rights are irrelevant. So I would completely agree with an individual's Right to self-defense trumps that of Rights concerning land.
I also agree with the point you make about others not even attempting to provide for the security of others. Its impractical at best and impossible at worst, but it is rarely even attempted. My workplace has, during the more regular business hours, two unarmed security guards for a building that houses between 250-400 people. What possible good can they do? I am sure they are a deterrent to vandalism in the parking lot, but there is no chance they would be able to stop someone who has come there to commit a crime. And this is not just my workplace, this attitude of lax security prevails across the nation and undoubtedly worldwide. I am sure the inability* to sue your employer over lax security is a leading factor in this practice.
* I say inability because we all know that "troublemakers" get canned/let-go at first opportunity, and someone that wants the security outlay to be tripled or greater is certainly not going to be with the employer long.
My thoughts on this subject are as follows: basically, once you leave your own home and step out into the world, you are on your own regarding physical protection. You alone make the decision as to where you will place yourself, and should not expect others to provide protection for you. Self defense is just that, and nothing more. Being on private property does not ethically, or morally, make the property owner responsible for your personal safety. In law it's known as the "Assuption of Risk."
If you believe carrying a weapon is the best course for you, then do so. But, don't think that automatically gives you a right to do it on private property without permission. Would you give free access to your home to anybody with a gun simply because they wanted to exercise their right of self protection? There are always limits to freedom of expression, even in self defense. Your absolute lawfull right to self defense changes when you leave the security of your home. You may try looking at this situation from another view point.
There is another way of looking at it. If someone prohibits firearms and such on their property, especially when it's a public accommodation, they are usually creating a security-free zone. Let's cut through all of the hypothetical legal crap, and get right down to it. When you prohibit law-abiding weapons owners from carrying a weapon your property, and you don't provide your own security for the property, you are creating an environment in which criminals may freely attack without effective fear of personal harm.
Furthermore, I would submit that this issue is unique, since asking someone to not exercise this right can result in their death. You could take a hard line that says that that's fair and a right for property owners, but that would lead to a crueler society in which people take absolutely no responsibility for how the exercise of their rights can have serious ramifications for others.