49ers frisking policy going to CA S.C.

[Garys]

I never said otherwise. The Constitution establishes a three-branch government. When I was referencing "government" read "court".

So you want a court that creates rights where none exist? Such as a right to enter another's property without their being able to set the conditions thereof? So, if I want to come over to your house and eat your food, is that OK?

Fair enough. But it also serves as the crux of the Declaration of Independence. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are among the "inalienable rights" that are bestowed at our instantiation.

People seem to forget that the Declaration of Independence predates the US and is not law.

[/QUOTE]
No I'm not.

Using your flawed methodology, a man can beat his wife or his children provided he only does so on his property. [/QUOTE]

Not at all. That is the crime of battery, which is a matter of public safety. I don't have the right to strike anyone other than in defense of myself. It doesn't matter where that crime occurs. It's not my methodology which is flawed, it's your logic and understanding.

 

[mikem317]

So you want a court that creates rights where none exist? Such as a right to enter another's property without their being able to set the conditions thereof? So, if I want to come over to your house and eat your food, is that OK?

What rights that don't exist?

People seem to forget that the Declaration of Independence predates the US and is not law.

Yeah. Never mind. Just like the Constitution. As our much beloved Presidnet Bush once marginalized it, "It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" That's all they really are, right?

Not at all. That is the crime of battery, which is a matter of public safety. I don't have the right to strike anyone other than in defense of myself. It doesn't matter where that crime occurs. It's not my methodology which is flawed, it's your logic and understanding.

Back peddling much? What ever happened to "It's my damned property and I'm going to do whatever I want with it!"

 

[mikem317]

What would certainly be interesting is relevant case law.

I wonder how it would pan out if a patron was denied entry with a firearm, who complied, and then was subsequently assaulted.