Can corporations bear arms?

[Plyco678]

Being that "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members" and "can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations" (Wikipedia: Corporation), a corporation is a legal person with all the rights of a person. So doesn't this mean that their right to "keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

I only ask this because I am part of a soon-to-be corporation, and there is a running argument among us as to whether or not we can act as a militia once we are incorporated.

[Matthias]

Being that "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members" and "can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations" (Wikipedia: Corporation), a corporation is a legal person with all the rights of a person. So doesn't this mean that their right to "keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

I only ask this because I am part of a soon-to-be corporation, and there is a running argument among us as to whether or not we can act as a militia once we are incorporated.

Aren't there already mercenary employing corporations out there? Anyways, you don't have to act like a militia to bear arms. Apparantly, the SC recently ruled the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with militias, it's really just about being able to own guns in general. Hell, you don't have to incorporate to start a militia. Just aske the Hutaree. I'm guessing it would be better to keep your militia and your corporations seperate.

[Exarch]

Being that "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members" and "can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations" (Wikipedia: Corporation), a corporation is a legal person with all the rights of a person. So doesn't this mean that their right to "keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

I only ask this because I am part of a soon-to-be corporation, and there is a running argument among us as to whether or not we can act as a militia once we are incorporated.

there is a precedent in the form of the East India Company having its own armed forces and mercenaries, just as Blackwater/Xe etc have their own private armies, so yeah, i can see how corporations who already now have legal rights as a person and are able to censor the internet, may now have guns to enforce it

[Kanaric]

there is a precedent in the form of the East India Company having its own armed forces and mercenaries, just as Blackwater/Xe etc have their own private armies, so yeah, i can see how corporations who already now have legal rights as a person and are able to censor the internet, may now have guns to enforce it

Sensible argument until the end.

[LSJ]

Technically a corporation is a non-physical entity and can not itself bear arms. However, a corporation can apply for a license to allow certified employees to bear arms on its behalf, as in the case of security companies or the army.

You could create a private militia legally, but you would not have any authority, and the use of the organization would be extremely limited. You could not stop traffic, arrest anyone, or shoot anyone without official sanction. Xe/Blackwater/Academi is basically a private militia. Normally, inside the US they can't do squat. They only get to drive around the streets with machine guns when the US gov't hires them to do that. Otherwise, any hostile action is responded to the same way as a drug gang, corporation or not.

So really, creating a private militia would be pointless unless you intend to serve overseas protecting officials. Within the US you would have no hope of gaining any authority because the US already has the police and military for homeland defense. You'd in effect be a corporation whose employees all happen to have guns, nothing more.

[saglam2000]

Base said corporation in null sec. I mean africa and get money.

[The excited one]

it can in some ed up countries (you know what is it) to "protect" themselves

[Claudius Gothicus]

Yes, corporations(as in collective entities dedicated to economic functions and trades that are not a legally enforced monopoly of the state) can in some cases arm their personnel. Just take a look at private contractors like Blackwater or security agencies that provide transportation services to banks and the like.

In reality a non-State institution or corporation can bear arms as long as it is not perceived as a threat to the Legitimate Monopoly on Violence by it's official enforder, the State. Once a Corp. is publicly perceived as dangerous if bearing arms the State(if living on a representative demoracy where public opinion matters) will either dismantle or try to dismantle it.

[Enemy of the State]

I do not believe a corporation has arms to wield weapons with.This whole issue is silly. Corporations aren't people. People are people. Only individuals have rights.

[motiv-8]

I do not believe a corporation has arms to wield weapons with.This whole issue is silly. Corporations aren't people. People are people. Only individuals have rights.

Thanks to the Supreme Court a corporation in the US IS treated legally as a person. It's not silly, it's topical...

Well, I take that back. It's silly that it IS topical because of a terrible decision.

[xcorps]

This is an interesting read.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corp...t_bellotti.php


It addresses corporate personhood in regard to free speech.

Specifically interesting is the position that the charter for a corporation creates that corporation under specific and certain conditions. I need to revise my opinion on this matter.

[Sphere]

This is an interesting read.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corp...t_bellotti.php


It addresses corporate personhood in regard to free speech.

Specifically interesting is the position that the charter for a corporation creates that corporation under specific and certain conditions. I need to revise my opinion on this matter.

I think Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens united is also very good.

I actually think civil libertarians should be strongly agaisnt the Citizens United ruling. Granting corporations and unions Constitutional freedom of speech rights equal to that of an actual person not just allows, but enshrines the right of corporate boards, union leaders etc. to use the money of stockholders, union members, or even just plain customers, for political electioneering, lobbying and political donations, without any sort of consent from the stockholders/union members/customers.

For an example; almost all utility companies have a local monopoly. That means they can essentially force you to give them money, which they then have the Consitutional right to use for whatever political purpose they want, which might (and often does) include lobbying the state or national Congress for subsidies.

How does a ultility company taking your money in the form of utility bill, and then using it politcally to try and take you tax dollars fit within the spirit of personal freedom and political choice? It seems to me to be a form of coersion, which the people through the legislature should be allowed to curtail if they wish.

Libertarianism is supposed to be about protecting the individual from the powers of organizations. Forcing individuals to directly or indirectly contribute to political causes agaisnt their will is a direct afront to libertarianism, and runs quite counter to the spirit of the Amendment in my humble opinion.

[motiv-8]

Well, historically a corporation WAS designed for a very specific means -- accumulating capital for a specified objective, like an overseas expedition or the opening of a factory.