The 'bubble' of personal property
Kent McManigal - a novel idea about carrying weapons on other people's property: if someone allows you, or your vehicle, on their property, then they are allowing whatever you carry on your person or in your vehicle, and they have no right or authority to deny anything in the "bubble of property" that includes your body and anything else inside your clothing, or your vehicle. I like it.
I believe we each carry with us a "me-shaped bubble" of our own personal property. That personal property bubble remains intact no matter where we are. It consists of your body, your clothing, and the space between the two. No one can claim ownership of me and eliminate my property by posting a sign. Property rights don't overlap, and no one, under any circumstance, can trump your right to your own body, and that includes what is inside your clothing, as long as it doesn't make an appearance or "leak" out (like radiation or viruses).
I am not going to, nor should I, ask every property owner if I am allowed to enter his property "whole" when the property is open to the public or if I get an invitation. Do I also need to ask if my private thoughts are acceptable? My underwear? My brand of deodorant? Not one of those things is any less dangerous to someone who is not attacking the innocent than is my gun. It is a dangerous precedent to single out guns as the only thing that we need to declare to everyone, everywhere we go, every time we step out our front door. This is what hoplophobes would like us to do: think about guns differently than any other object.
If you have no "bubble" of personal property when you leave your home, on your body or in your vehicle, then the real-world implication is that you have no property at all except when you stay home. Anywhere you go, the property owner can demand that you hand over your money, your clothing, or your life. After all, someone claims every square inch of land you must traverse as you go about your day.
I posted the following comment:
Interesting idea. I like it. It implies that the government has no authority to require us to be disarmed in government buildings, in courtrooms, on airplanes, or even while visiting prisons. That pushes even MY crypto-anarcho-libertarian worldview. But it's a push in the right direction. Thank you, sir.
So what?
Talk of "rights" without context is pointless. The question is, what does it mean, operationally? For example: I go to a "public" but privately owned venue such as a restaurant where there is a sign that says "no guns allowed on these premises." The question is, how do they know if a I'm wearing a gun? Maybe they have machines that can scan for hidden guns, they detect the gun, and the staff ask me to leave. No problem. Maybe I will go to the place that swears that they don't have such scanning machines, and maybe not, since I don't like their prices and standard of service.
Previous Posts:
The Kim and Connie Show
The Only Question a Politician Should Be Required to Answer
Snickers: A Basic Human Right
G20 Protest Coverage reimagined
Quote
A Stick Figure Guide to the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
The Next Civil War is About to Begin
WaPo writer unsuccessfully attempts to set the rules of debate with the wolverine
Using Waste To Recover Waste Uranium
Standing in Blood...
Here is a follow-up comment I posted
I think the mistake in thinking "real estate rights" can trump "bodily property rights" comes from the noble desire to be "nice". But since "real estate rights" can't even exist without "bodily property rights" I think this is a false notion. If only our society were free enough to make this an issue.
Edit comment