Response From (and reply to) The NRA
I recently received a response to my letter from Erik Eckberg of NRA-ILA, the lobbying function of the National Rifle Association.
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. We appreciate your comments but must respectfully disagree. The ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is a fundamental right. In fact it is as important as any other right since it is a right that can defend all other rights.
This issue is partly about property rights. The gun owner who is only leaving his firearm in his vehicle is the property owner of that vehicle. The NRA does not believe that that a business’s property rights supersede the property rights of the vehicle owner.
The reality is that the business owners who want to take away your Second Amendment rights are doing it because they have bought into the anti-gun argument that the mere presence of firearms is a danger and that law-abiding individuals who have access to firearms are a threat. That ignorance has not only been disproven but it is what the NRA is fighting everyday.
We do agree with you that the notion that a law abiding concealed carry permit holder somehow becomes dangerous because they step foot in an establishment that serves alcohol is wrong. And we will continue to work to change those laws in states that do have them.
Here is a link that further explains our position. We appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA
To which I responded:
Hi Erik, thanks for the response. Keep in mind, if the goals are freedom and justice, you and I are on the same page. I know the association has firmly decided it’s stance on this, so this conversation may be of no other use than constructive thought.
The NRA does not believe that that a business’s property rights supersede the property rights of the vehicle owner.
They must to some degree, for example, when an employer needed (for whatever reason) to tow an employees car off of their premises. Should they not be legally enabled to do so because the car is someone else’s property? Additionally, most employment contracts would contain a clause relating to their weapons policy. In this regard, the measure in Florida would also invalidate contractual law. An employee chooses to become so by agreeing to the terms set by an employer. If such terms indicate a ban on weapons, the employee can either accept the terms and comply (or risk the consequences of violation), or not.
In principle, this is no different than a government mandated smoking ban on a private establishment, where the rights of the owner to determine their own policies are clobbered. The owner of the establishment has the right to set the terms of patrons or employees.
We do have a right to life, and property. When we enter anther’s property on contractual terms, the terms may include a limitation to those rights. We can accept them or walk away.
For what it’s worth, my former employer bans weapons on premises, and I chose to carry (and left in my car) most every day. I worked in a rough area, and to me the security was worth the risk of any consequences I would’ve reaped if my violation of their terms were revealed.
For the government to tell them their opinion on the matter is irrelevant is a gross injustice, and goes against a fundamental premise of this country. Rights are violated when an entity initiates force against another. The role of government is to protect the rights of it’s citizens, not to violate them, regardless of the cause. Since employment is a contractual relationship of volition, there is no force. This measure is initiating force against an individual (the business owner) who is violating no other’s right to life, liberty or property - he’s only setting contractual terms with another individual, who’s free to choose to accept them or not. The only force being initiated here is by government - a complete inversion of of it’s purpose.
The reality is that the business owners who want to take away your Second Amendment rights are doing it because they have bought into the anti-gun argument that the mere presence of firearms is a danger and that law-abiding individuals who have access to firearms are a threat.
I agree their premises, as well as most all anti-gun arguments are illogical, emotion-driven nonsense. Regardless, by simply setting contractual terms which can be accepted or not, they’re not taking away anything from anyone. As long as individuals are free to choose their place of employment, no rights are in jeopardy.
Again, I appreciate the response and all that your organization does. In any war, there are battles that must be “picked and chosen”. I wish the NRA would’ve seen the potential damage from signing up for this one.
