 |
 |
|
||||
|
||||||
|
|
Featured Listener Comments Section: Contents List |
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Listener: Carl
Category: General
Date: 15 Sep 2009
Time: 10:41:47 -0700
Remote Name: 66.140.100.186
Pratt,
I want to chime in about the County Courthouse smoking ban. I've noticed that
governments have changed the meaning of the term "Public Place". In Austin the
ordinance states that smoking is banned in Public Places. The definition of a
Public Place has become a restaurant or office building or anywhere a visitor or
customer may enter.
In my own mind a "public place" is something paid for or funded by the
taxpayers, ie. library, city hall, stadium or courthouse. I find it interesting
that somehow the definition means my place of business. I also wonder if it's
dangerous as it's a direct affront to the spirit of the 4th amendment. The 4th
Amendment states "houses", but is it too much to ask that we get the spirit of
this protection during the day in our places of commerce? I'm sure our courts
today would overturn my assumption here but in the time of the founders their
business and homes were one and the same, so I wonder if my definitions are
really so radical?
Anyway, as mentioned, my own interpretation of "public place" are facilities
that the taxpayers pay for as detailed above. So, it is actually reasonable that
the County Commissioners ban or allow smoking on their own grounds if that be
the will of their voters. It's when they reach into my "private property" that I
get upset. "Public Place" vs "Private Property". The change in definition of
these terms has had me alarmed for some time now.
Curious as to your thoughts on this.
Carl
Pratt responds:
The “public place” problem is key to the
destruction the bedrock of the nation: Private Property. It was screwed up for
the best of intentions, as is always the case, in civil rights legislation. This
is where we defined a place of public convenience to stop segregation at
restaurants and the like which were not public property. In other words,
reaction to institutionalized Democrat racism in the South has helped destroy
the Constitution’s protection of private property rights.
A few of those who opposed the big Civic Rights Act were made out to be racists
but were not (some certainly were - mostly Southern Democrats.) There were a few
who understood what language in the Act would do to property rights. And now we
all pay.
|
|
Join our Listener
Club here. |
||
|
