So much for "law-abiding".
Do you pay attention to the signs? Follow the law?
- Thread starter Timothy2001
- Start date
So much for "law-abiding".
snatale42
New member
Here in VA the signs hold no weight of law, while I always try not to support people who don't support me, when I do have to I walk right by them. Concealed means Concealed. If I am asked to leave I will because then it becomes a legal issue. If it were a persons home however, and I HAD to go in, I would respect their wishes.
Rhino
New member
I assume you just mean the last part, because I find it hard to believe you've never seen one and the law in Ohio says you have to obey them.
Axeanda45
Banned
How some of you can S T R E T C H a Non-existent "right" into something that trumps a Constitutional Right is beyond me....
I have said it MANY times before and have NEVER been successfully refuted ( because it is true, no matter how much you dont like it)
Once a BUSINESS INVITES the PUBLIC, they cannot then legally (Constitutionally) deny entry to someone who comes in exercising one of their rights ....
Crossing a property line I have been INVITED onto as a member of the PUBLIC does NOT erase ANY of my rights, period, end of ALL discussion....
I have said it MANY times before and have NEVER been successfully refuted ( because it is true, no matter how much you dont like it)
Once a BUSINESS INVITES the PUBLIC, they cannot then legally (Constitutionally) deny entry to someone who comes in exercising one of their rights ....
Crossing a property line I have been INVITED onto as a member of the PUBLIC does NOT erase ANY of my rights, period, end of ALL discussion....
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
True, but if the invitation says, "you can come in if you have no guns" then you have not been invited.
B
Bikenut
Guest
And therein lies the truth of it.
A "no guns" rule is similar to a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" rule. If you aren't wearing a shirt, not wearing shoes, or are carrying a gun... then you get "no service" and are tossed out. And the property owner has every right to make the rule... and to toss out anyone who does not abide by it.
Which means... only those who wear shirts and shoes and are not carrying a gun are invited in to be given service.
B
Bikenut
Guest
IF what you say is true then why can a business (private property) that has a "no guns" rule throw you out of the business/off the property if you exercise your Constitutional right to carry a gun into that business?
Here is a hint (because it is true, no matter how much you dont like it)... the Constitution only protects our rights from the government... NOT from the citizen(s) who own private property. So... on private property our rights are NOT protected by the Constitution.
And if you think the right of the property owner to have control over his property isn't a right? Please start researching here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-34.pdf
Axeanda45
Banned
*Sigh*
The tired "no shirt/shoes/infinity" argument is about the Health of the "public" that was INVITED into the property.... Please, you know-it-alls, explain HOW my carrying an inanimate object that emits no germs and harms NO-ONE can be harmful to the publics HEALTH?
You have in the past (and now continue) to say that if a Person carries a firearm onto business property when that business has posted a sign prohibiting it, that that person carrying the firearm has "committed a crime" I submit the FACT that ANY LAW that has ANYTHING to do with firearms is UnConstitutional, and therefore NOT a valid "Law" to begin with....
The ONLY "Law" (valid/Constitutional) you could possibly "break" is refusing to leave if asked to do so, for whatever reason the owner of the property wants to use..... and that is called trespassing, not "unlawfully carrying a firearm" (which is NOT possible, according to the highest LAW of the land)
The tired "no shirt/shoes/infinity" argument is about the Health of the "public" that was INVITED into the property.... Please, you know-it-alls, explain HOW my carrying an inanimate object that emits no germs and harms NO-ONE can be harmful to the publics HEALTH?
You have in the past (and now continue) to say that if a Person carries a firearm onto business property when that business has posted a sign prohibiting it, that that person carrying the firearm has "committed a crime" I submit the FACT that ANY LAW that has ANYTHING to do with firearms is UnConstitutional, and therefore NOT a valid "Law" to begin with....
The ONLY "Law" (valid/Constitutional) you could possibly "break" is refusing to leave if asked to do so, for whatever reason the owner of the property wants to use..... and that is called trespassing, not "unlawfully carrying a firearm" (which is NOT possible, according to the highest LAW of the land)
Rhino
New member
No shirt, no shoes, no service is not part of the health code, with the possible exception of some food establishments. And even those are questionable when you see how people in bathing suits are allowed to eat in restaurants in vacation areas. Regardless, the no shirt, no shoes, no service is not rooted in law, health or otherwise. it's the owner exercising his rights to control his property. Claiming your desires can overrule that would be stretching a non-existent right into something that trumps his rights. And your desire to enter someone else's property, invited or not, under conditions that they have expressly forbidden, is not your constitutional right.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I do not believe I ever said it was a crime...but I can't speak for anyone else. I said, it was a matter of respect for the person who owns the business.
And the no shirt no shoes policy is the same thing, they are rules set by an establishment that limits it's invitations. No agency enforces the no shirt no shoes no service policy due to "health" reasons. I have been in plenty of stores with people who came right off the beach with no shirts or shoes. But those stores that do have the no shirt no shoes no service sign, are limiting their invitation to the public just like a no gun sign limits the invitations.
And the no shirt no shoes policy is the same thing, they are rules set by an establishment that limits it's invitations. No agency enforces the no shirt no shoes no service policy due to "health" reasons. I have been in plenty of stores with people who came right off the beach with no shirts or shoes. But those stores that do have the no shirt no shoes no service sign, are limiting their invitation to the public just like a no gun sign limits the invitations.
The_Outlaw
~The Dude Abides~
Well Officer Timothy.....err...ummm...I meant to say... 'Timothy2001'.....
'I always obey the federal & state laws' of properly posted 'no firearms signage'. :victory:
B
Bikenut
Guest
So you will demand the property owner respect your right to bear arms... even if the property owner is NOT Constitutionally required to do so.... while disrespecting the property owner's right to control who does what on/in his property.
One thing you are missing in this whole thing... no one is forcing you to go on/in property that has a "no guns" rule. You can just as easily not enter and you get to keep exercising your right to bear arms and the property owner gets to exercise his right to make the rules. It's a win for both of you.
However, if you think that just because private property is opened to the public that your rights trump the private property owner's right to say "no guns are allowed"... well...
Guess what? When the businessman throws you out of his property and into the street because you disobeyed his "no guns" rule (exactly like he would do to someone who disobeyed his "no shirt, no shoes, no service rule) he will have absolutely no respect for anyone who thinks they are so important their rights trump his.
And the trespass law is NOT a gun control law... it is a people control law because it is there to help the private property owner keep out undesirable people... you know... those who don't wear shirts, don't wear shoes, and those who carry guns despite a "no guns" rule.
I strongly suggest that you might want to do some research into what private property rights really are... that just might shed some light on the idea some folks have that just because the public is invited the rights of the public trump the rights of the property owner.
You can begin your research here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-34.pdf
Rhino
New member
Braille. Gotta comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. :lol:
Axeanda45
Banned
I suggest you look into what "Rights" really are, and how they absolutely do NOT disappear when you go where EVERYONE has been invited to go.... Do you know what the definition of invite and public are?
B
Bikenut
Guest
I suggest that you understand that the definition of "public property" means property owned by the public... NOT private property the public is "allowed" to use.
And that private property means property owned by a citizen or group of citizens (such as a corporation) and that private property is any property NOT owned by the government.
And I suggest that you try to understand that it isn't the use of the property that decides who's rights are paramount... but that it is the ownership of that property that does the deciding. And the owner has the right to control his private property.
And I suggest that you understand the difference between "ownership" and an "invitation to be allowed to use"..................
And make no mistake.. a property owner only invites those persons who are members of the public that meet his criteria as being "acceptable". And that means anyone who doesn't wear a shirt, doesn't wear shoes, and carries a gun... is NOT "acceptable" to be ... "invited".
Got that? If you do not meet the criteria the property owner sets as acceptable members of the public that goes with the invitation then... you are NOT invited.
Naybor
New member
Who is on first? No, Who is on second.
Man, trying to reason with some is like reasoning with a ***** ~ no excuse me, that's on the political forum.
But, the thread is truly interesting. GO BIKENUT!!!!!!!! (I'd like some popcorn and a coke, please.)
Seriously tho, the CCW community must always try to be on the "politically correct" (as much as we hate the term) list to avoid controversy with society as a whole. The anti's will use anything to point at us whether real or imagined errors are made by us.
Man, trying to reason with some is like reasoning with a ***** ~ no excuse me, that's on the political forum.
But, the thread is truly interesting. GO BIKENUT!!!!!!!! (I'd like some popcorn and a coke, please.)
Seriously tho, the CCW community must always try to be on the "politically correct" (as much as we hate the term) list to avoid controversy with society as a whole. The anti's will use anything to point at us whether real or imagined errors are made by us.
Axeanda45
Banned
Bikenut, We have had this discussion before, and you failed then and now to understand and adhere to the definition of words... you keep changing them to suit your argument.... If someone invites the public onto his property, he has NOT invited only those he wants, he has invited them ALL....
You seem to not be able to understand that very simple concept, and go off on some tangent that totally ignores the actual meaning of the words you are using..
If , as in your argument, he only wants those who meet certain requirements or prerequisites on his property, he NO LONGER is a "Business" open to the "PUBLIC"....
Also, you most certainly are talking out of your backside accusing me of confusing public property with business property, you are 100% making things up because I never even remotely hinted anything like that at all....
You seem to not be able to understand that very simple concept, and go off on some tangent that totally ignores the actual meaning of the words you are using..
If , as in your argument, he only wants those who meet certain requirements or prerequisites on his property, he NO LONGER is a "Business" open to the "PUBLIC"....
Also, you most certainly are talking out of your backside accusing me of confusing public property with business property, you are 100% making things up because I never even remotely hinted anything like that at all....
