Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Gun Possession In Capital Parking Lot
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 4 months ago
Via David Codrea, this decision.
The Supreme Court has been careful to note that “longstanding prohibitions” like “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” remain “presumptively lawful.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 626, 627 n.26…. [T]he same security interests which permit regulation of firearms “in” government buildings permit regulation of firearms on the property surrounding those buildings as well…
Second, the lot is close to the Capitol and legislative office buildings. Class possessed a firearm less than 1,000 feet away from the entrance to the Capitol, and a block away from the Rayburn House Office Building. Although there is surely some outer bound on the distance Congress could extend the area of protection around the Capitol without raising Second Amendment concerns, Congress has not exceeded it here.
Finally, as the owner of the Maryland Avenue lot, the government—like private property owners—has the power to regulate conduct on its property. See [Adderley] v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47 (1966) (observing in the free-speech context that the government, “no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated”); cf. Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015) (observing that when the U.S. Postal Service acts “as a proprietor rather than as a sovereign, [it] has broad discretion to govern its business operations according to the rules it deems appropriate”).
There are no interests in the regulation of firearms in government buildings or “sensitive” places. That’s a figment of the imagination. Criminals don’t obey the law, so a regulation won’t be enough to stop someone bent on evil. Anyone intent on violating the prohibition on murder will gladly violate a prohibition on firearms possession.
So the first two paragraphs are pure mythology. As for the third paragraph, I find myself in agreement. Property rights supersede the RKBA on private property unless the government forces our presence on that private property. For patrons of that parking deck, they should find another place to park.
EDIT: I see that by posting late and mis-reading the text I feel into their trap. I still support property rights above everything, but in fact the FedGov does not have property rights. They shouldn’t even own property. My initial reading of the text indicated to me that a private corporation owned the parking deck. That isn’t the case.
On July 23, 2019 at 1:04 am, Dan said:
Sorry but you are wrong about the third paragraph. The Second Amendment was written EXPRESSLY to prohibit THE GOVERNMENT
at ANY AND ALL LEVELS from passing ANY LAWS that interfere with
a citizens right to keep and bear arms. The fact that 20K laws have
been passed IN VIOLATION of the Amendment in no way nullifies
that right OR the fact that said laws are ALL unconstitutional. This
is just ONE MORE INSTANCE among countless where a criminal in
black robes issued an opinion that violates an express Right in service
to the government agenda of control and nullifying our rights. The
judge should be strung up.
On July 23, 2019 at 7:58 am, Herschel Smith said:
I think I misread the final paragraph. I see that they said “LIKE private property owners.”
But they’re not. Not even nearly.
So I disagree with their final paragraph.
On July 23, 2019 at 11:53 am, Fred said:
The Second Amendment doesn’t “protect” anything. (Not Mr. Herschel’s headline, FYI.) Far be it from me to sling grammar around but the Second Amendment is a Proper Name, a noun, and neither is it sentient. The 2A attempts to communicate an idea to a receiver, which, without a receiver, as all comms require a sender AND a receiver, that then takes the action. The 2A is merely a piece of paper and by outsourcing, as a form a belief system, that the 2A DOES something, or anything at all, is not only absurd but it’s harmful. Further, and this is critical if we are to win, this notion of the 2A ‘doing something’ is damaging in that it can set ones mind to the notion that they are absolved of responsibility for their duties unto Holy God and thereby those blessings as rights, ostensibly, because the 2A does or has that responsibility. God assigns duties unto men from which the blessings, including Rights, flow.
This is why compromise by supposed Pro Gun people is sin. Every last gun law is YOUR OWN PERSONAL FAULT. OWN IT. Where you don’t sound the trumpet, the blood is on your head. Now proceed with purpose.
On July 23, 2019 at 4:24 pm, Sanders said:
“Government owns the parking lot.”
Who is the Government? Is it not the whole of the people? Do the People not have the right to keep and bear arms upon their own property?