journal:

Property Rights and The NRA

By Jonathan Feaster

2008-01-17

It's so funny how some people can accuse others of "taking away rights" while these same people advocate "taking away rights" themselves. Often times, this is just a symptom of the failure of understanding the very nature of rights, especially property rights.

Recently the NRA has been pushing for a law through the Georgia legislature to prohibit businesses from forbidding employees from keeping firearms in their cars. Fortunately for property owners it was defeated after the Virginia Tech shootings but, not going down without a fight, the NRA has vowed to retaliate by giving NRA "F" ratings to anyone who voted against this bill.

Now I'm someone who believes in the inalienable right to bear arms and self-defense. I believe in the Second Amendment wholeheartedly. I actually believe , like many other parts of the Bill of Rights, that the Second Amendment is (in many ways) tautologous because the right to self-defense is a natural right and if you aren't initiating violence with your arms then you should be left alone.

Yes, the right to self-defense is a natural right, however, self- defense is not the only right.

What is happening to the regard for property rights?

Actually, when you look at any right it's always about property rights. Regarding the right to self-defense, isn't this right really just the right to protect one's most valuable property-one's self? In the case of employers banning firearms on their property it could be argued that they are violating an employee's right to bear arms. On the surface this argument may seem sound but the truth can be found if you examine the issue in terms of property rights. Sure an employee does have the "property" right to self-defense (just like anyone else) but doesn't the employer have any right to his property? People have a right to self-defense but though rights are inalienable they are not unlimited and the only limit to one's rights is when they initiate a violation of someone else's rights. The NRA doesn't seem to understand that people do not have a right to carry arms on anyone's property if the property owner doesn't allow it. If the government were to be allowed to prohibit businesses from forbidding employees from keeping firearms it would be an unjust violation of the business owner's property rights and (with the government involved) who knows what kinds of abominations would come about if you give them the license to say what someone can and can't do with their property. Actually, government's violation of property rights happens every day and, in supporting a law that prohibits businesses from forbidding employees from keeping firearms the NRA has become a part of the problem. If the NRA could justify government violating business property rights wouldn't it also have to logically justify violating homeowner property rights too?

Fortunately for me, my employer doesn't prohibit firearms at the office at this time and I think that it's a good idea. I don't think that it'll happen anytime soon but if some disgruntled colleague were to try to shoot the office up, I'm sure that the incident would be stopped in no time if not altogether and who knows if it's actually been prevented! Yeah, I think that it's a good idea and even if I thought otherwise it wouldn't matter because it's still my employer's choice-it's his property.

People should be careful not to judge a rights issue without looking at the issue in terms of property rights first.