Do you pay attention to the signs? Follow the law?

[Rhino]

I'm wasting my time with those who do not understand what private property rights are... but by countering the misinformation I am presenting the truth for other people to see how wrong those who think their rights are more important than the rights of others are.

And if we don't respond to the BS crap with the truth then the BS crap can be thought to be the truth.... and that is how freedom is destroyed slowly over time with little bits of misinformation and/or twisted logic that goes uncontested.

Unfortunately many of us who know the truth and can present the truth get discouraged and give up thinking there isn't any point in trying to change the minds of those talking BS. But the one's talking BS aren't the important ones... it is those who hear and read that BS without seeing or hearing the actual truth ... are the important ones because if they don't hear the truth they become just another one spreading BS they think is the truth.

No argument here, but my point was that I think you've more than stated your case. You've put forth the obvious truth in a well presented and eloquent argument. Sooner or later it becomes pointless to beat the dead horse any further. I just thought you'd reached that point. But if you don't think so, by all means, don't let me dissuade you.

 

[Bikenut]

No argument here, but my point was that I think you've more than stated your case. You've put forth the obvious truth in a well presented and eloquent argument. Sooner or later it becomes pointless to beat the dead horse any further. I just thought you'd reached that point. But if you don't think so, by all means, don't let me dissuade you.

When folks quit resurrecting that dead horse... then I'll quit. But it seems that dead horse never stays dead.

 

[tattedupboy]

Again, if they don't check me, and the place isn't otherwise off limits under the law, then here in Indiana I'm not breaking the law. Only if I'm caught, asked to leave, and refuse am I breaking the law. If nobody knows I'm carrying then it's a moot issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Axeanda45]

Following Firefighterchen's lead, may I change the wording a little?

USA CARRY IS private property and the public being invited does NOT mean the property owner cannot make the rules. This has been explained to you over and over but you simply refuse to believe it.

Now... again... please provide cites and/or links to verifiable sources to prove your assertion that USA CARRY isn't private property. You saying it doesn't make it so.. facts make it so.. and if you have facts that back up your assertions... facts that can be verified in actual law... then..

show us the facts.

Failure to provide cites and/or links to actual verifiable facts equals... failure to prove what you say is true.

And insults do not equate to facts...

Please cite the law that proves the MODERATORS (The property owners or the agents of the property owner) cannot ban you OR control what you do or say while you are here. Signs are signs ~ just like no guns signs ~giving the rules of the individual business (PRIVATE PROPERTY).

Remember ignorance can be cured ~ stupid is forever.

100% irrelevant to the issue at hand......

This forum, like probably all online forums require you to read and agree to some rules BEFORE you are allowed to become a member.... That would NOT be like a Business that is open to the general public....

Your example would be like a Private Club like Sams Club for example, which is NOT open to the "general public" But, none here can seem to fathom that FACT...

 

[Bikenut]

Again, if they don't check me, and the place isn't otherwise off limits under the law, then here in Indiana I'm not breaking the law. Only if I'm caught, asked to leave, and refuse am I breaking the law. If nobody knows I'm carrying then it's a moot issue as far as I'm concerned.

That is correct.. you are not breaking the law as long as you don't get caught disrespecting the property owner's right to make a no gun rule and the owner doesn't require you to leave.

But whether you are breaking the law or not you are still disrespecting the property owner's no guns rule. And that property owner has the private property right to make that rule.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Following Firefighterchen's lead, may I change the wording a little?

USA CARRY IS private property and the public being invited does NOT mean the property owner cannot make the rules. This has been explained to you over and over but you simply refuse to believe it.

Now... again... please provide cites and/or links to verifiable sources to prove your assertion that USA CARRY isn't private property. You saying it doesn't make it so.. facts make it so.. and if you have facts that back up your assertions... facts that can be verified in actual law... then..

show us the facts.

Failure to provide cites and/or links to actual verifiable facts equals... failure to prove what you say is true.

And insults do not equate to facts...

Please cite the law that proves the MODERATORS (The property owners or the agents of the property owner) cannot ban you OR control what you do or say while you are here. Signs are signs ~ just like no guns signs ~giving the rules of the individual business (PRIVATE PROPERTY).

Remember ignorance can be cured ~ stupid is forever.

100% irrelevant to the issue at hand......

This forum, like probably all online forums require you to read and agree to some rules BEFORE you are allowed to become a member.... That would NOT be like a Business that is open to the general public....

Your example would be like a Private Club like Sams Club for example, which is NOT open to the "general public" But, none here can seem to fathom that FACT...

You brought up this forum being property being open to the public. Why is it irrelevant now and not when you brought it up?

This forum like all other private properties, have a set of rules before you enter, if you don't want to follow the rules, you're not invited in.

 

[Bikenut]

100% irrelevant to the issue at hand......

This forum, like probably all online forums require you to read and agree to some rules BEFORE you are allowed to become a member.... That would NOT be like a Business that is open to the general public....

Your example would be like a Private Club like Sams Club for example, which is NOT open to the "general public" But, none here can seem to fathom that FACT...

It isn't necessary for a person to sign anything, or even agree to any rules because if a person carrying a gun steps into the business that has a "no guns" rule the businessman throws them out because they disobeyed the rule. Your agreement or disagreement is immaterial... the property owner's private property right to make that rule trumps your right to bear arms AND your disagreement.

Show us all some cites and/or links to laws that make a private property that is "open to the public" any different from any other private property when it comes to the property owner having the right to make rules that restrict the right of "the public" to bear arms as a condition for allowing the public to have access.

Know this... everyone that is reading this conversation is now looking to you to provide proof that what you say is factual. Failure to provide actual cites and/or links to substantive and verifiable proof in support of your statements will show to all and sundry that your arguments have no basis in fact.

Your move ........... Sir.

 

[Naybor]

Unbelievable!!!! How many think a wolverine isn't a very smart but vicious animal?

(I'll have ANOTHER popcorn and a diet Coke, please.)

Edit: Axeanda45, I and a few others do think it is time for you to stop your rude allegations and supply a few facts proving your claims/ideas so we all can gain knowledge of the truth, if that is what you are actually trying to convey. It is coming to the point of being embarrassed for you. I commend the ones who are diligently trying to explain the actual reality to you.

I am NOT trying to belittle you in any way, but hope you will meditate on all that has been said.

 

[Farmhood]

Originally Posted by Axeanda45
100% irrelevant to the issue at hand......

This forum, like probably all online forums require you to read and agree to some rules BEFORE you are allowed to become a member.... That would NOT be like a Business that is open to the general public....

Your example would be like a Private Club like Sams Club for example, which is NOT open to the "general public" But, none here can seem to fathom that FACT...

It isn't necessary for a person to sign anything, or even agree to any rules because if a person carrying a gun steps into the business that has a "no guns" rule the businessman throws them out because they disobeyed the rule. Your agreement or disagreement is immaterial... the property owner's private property right to make that rule trumps your right to bear arms AND your disagreement.

Show us all some cites and/or links to laws that make a private property that is "open to the public" any different from any other private property when it comes to the property owner having the right to make rules that restrict the right of "the public" to bear arms as a condition for allowing the public to have access.

We have a state police certified private security firm that conducts our approved firearm certification and training program for our small business. We are advised that our small business is private property open to the general public. If ANYONE on our private property is reasonably believed threatening or dangerous...they are immediately instructed to PLEASE leave. If they do not, call 911 and report a trespassing. At this point they are breaking the law.

In MD, an inn keeper can eject a carrier as a matter of right. See MD Code Business Regulations Title 15 Subtitle 2 § 15-203. Providing of Lodging and Services
(a) Refusal. -- An innkeeper may refuse to provide lodging or services to or may remove from a lodging establishment an individual who: (b) the innkeeper reasonably believes possesses property that may be dangerous to other individuals, such as firearms or explosives;
The trespass statute can be found at MD Code, Criminal Law, § 6-403:
Section§ 6-403. Wanton trespass on private property

 

[Axeanda45]

You brought up this forum being property being open to the public. Why is it irrelevant now and not when you brought it up?

This forum like all other private properties, have a set of rules before you enter, if you don't want to follow the rules, you're not invited in.

I didnt bring it up... I quoted someone else... I pointed out the difference between the 2...

Actually, after looking back in this thread..it was YOU Firefighter that originally brought up this forum as an example.... And I have shown you how it does not apply as a valid example..

 

[Axeanda45]

It isn't necessary for a person to sign anything, or even agree to any rules because if a person carrying a gun steps into the business that has a "no guns" rule the businessman throws them out because they disobeyed the rule. Your agreement or disagreement is immaterial... the property owner's private property right to make that rule trumps your right to bear arms AND your disagreement.

Show us all some cites and/or links to laws that make a private property that is "open to the public" any different from any other private property when it comes to the property owner having the right to make rules that restrict the right of "the public" to bear arms as a condition for allowing the public to have access.

Know this... everyone that is reading this conversation is now looking to you to provide proof that what you say is factual. Failure to provide actual cites and/or links to substantive and verifiable proof in support of your statements will show to all and sundry that your arguments have no basis in fact.

Your move ........... Sir.

I see you have now changed your stance from it being a "right" that you have claimed in all the other posts to a "rule" I would be breaking if I showed up to some Business that bans firearms while armed.... In fact, that is what I have said in the past (I believe only in other threads of this subject,not this particular one) SO, you now agree with me? Why? is it because you cannot prove the owners "RIGHTS" will be infringed upon?

I have said many times they can kick you off their property for ANY REASON THEY WANT!!! My stance has always been that my being armed if they dont want me to be would not infringe on any of their "rights" ESPECIALLY if I keep the firearm concealed! How can something they dont know is there infringing on anyones rights? Is it giving off radiation?? Is it emitting a disrupting smell that chases off the other customers???

What is it that could possibly be infringing on these "rights" you are so darn insistent I would be infringing on? Or has the truth FINALLY come out that what you really meant to say this whole entire time is that it is their RULES that I would be breaking, but not infringing on some imaginary rights?

 

[Bikenut]

I see you have now changed your stance from it being a "right" that you have claimed in all the other posts to a "rule" I would be breaking if I showed up to some Business that bans firearms while armed.... In fact, that is what I have said in the past (I believe only in other threads of this subject,not this particular one) SO, you now agree with me? Why? is it because you cannot prove the owners "RIGHTS" will be infringed upon?

I have said many times they can kick you off their property for ANY REASON THEY WANT!!! My stance has always been that my being armed if they dont want me to be would not infringe on any of their "rights" ESPECIALLY if I keep the firearm concealed! How can something they dont know is there infringing on anyones rights? Is it giving off radiation?? Is it emitting a disrupting smell that chases off the other customers???

What is it that could possibly be infringing on these "rights" you are so darn insistent I would be infringing on? Or has the truth FINALLY come out that what you really meant to say this whole entire time is that it is their RULES that I would be breaking, but not infringing on some imaginary rights?

I have changed nothing! It is you who is trying to put a spin on what I have said and it won't work.

The private property owner has the right to make the rule! And the property owner has the right to make a rule that says you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN ON/IN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY!

Now you keep saying you do have the right to carry a gun on/in private property that is "open to the public" and I keep saying to you... Man up and prove it!

You can't prove it and you know it so you keep using the typical leftist weenie argument tactics of deflecting and avoiding manning up and providing proof.

Provide proof that the private property owner's right to restrict the right to bear arms on/in his property, even private property that is "open to the public", ... in your words... is "imaginary".

You can't. You know you can't. I know you can't. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't. Yet you continue to spew garbage hoping folks won't notice you can't provide any proof. Not one shred of proof.

You, and your arguments, have utterly and abjectly....... failed.

Everyone, even you, understand that the private property owner can kick you out if he wishes... and anyone with half a brain understands that his ability to boot your arrogant arse to the curb comes from... the private property right to make the rules (even rules that make your right to bear arms non existent on/in private property) rules that control the behavior of those members of the public who were invited on/in the property that is "open to the public".

If you have even one cite and/or link to anything... anything at all... that supports your claim that private property owners cannot ban guns on/in their private property even if it is "open to the public" now would be the time to present it.

I won't hold my breath because if you had even a shred of actual factual evidence your claims were based in reality we would surely be inundated with cites and/or links up the wazoo by now. And since you cannot provide such cites and/or links I can only surmise that what you have is absolutely no proof but a great deal of... wazoo.

And if you are basing your argument on the idea that sneaking in a gun where a gun is not allowed doesn't violate anyone's right to not allow guns... just because they don't know you are sneakily violating their rights... then Sir... I question your personal integrity. You do know that personal integrity means doing the right thing even if you won't get caught doing the wrong thing.. correct?

Or does personal integrity take a back seat to a feeling of "getting over" on someone because you didn't get caught?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I see you have now changed your stance from it being a "right" that you have claimed in all the other posts to a "rule" I would be breaking if I showed up to some Business that bans firearms while armed.... In fact, that is what I have said in the past (I believe only in other threads of this subject,not this particular one) SO, you now agree with me? Why? is it because you cannot prove the owners "RIGHTS" will be infringed upon?

I have said many times they can kick you off their property for ANY REASON THEY WANT!!! My stance has always been that my being armed if they dont want me to be would not infringe on any of their "rights" ESPECIALLY if I keep the firearm concealed! How can something they dont know is there infringing on anyones rights? Is it giving off radiation?? Is it emitting a disrupting smell that chases off the other customers???

What is it that could possibly be infringing on these "rights" you are so darn insistent I would be infringing on? Or has the truth FINALLY come out that what you really meant to say this whole entire time is that it is their RULES that I would be breaking, but not infringing on some imaginary rights?

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING TO THIS GUY? I am very sorry that I am forced to use that term but it is obvious that he is a TROLL looking only to flame this thread with monstrous stupidity. I have known bricks with more common sense than this guy(?). Lukem is going to give me a warning or maybe flat out ban me, which i hope he wont but this guy has got to go. He is ignorant of the facts posted and is obviously in his own little world. I do not know why people are still beating there heads against the wall trying to get him to understand he is wrong!
Everyone needs to call it a day and let this guy fade into the wood work. I mean read his signature, that tells you all you need to know about his personality.
Please.... for the love of God... let this thread DIE! Seal this thread, never to be looked upon again with pain of banishment the penalty for the offense.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I am sorry but I had to put Axeanda45 on my ignore list. I just cant take him and his posts.

"I am loathe to suffer the ignorant or the insane". I dont recall who said that but I will use it

 

[kerb]

I don't claim to be a Constitutional lawyer so I would appreciate anyone here to explain to me how me exercising my Constitutionally protected right to carry a firearm into a private business is trumped by some non existant property "right".

The key word there is "private". Exercising your right to go elsewhere would be the more honorable course of action.
Why would you want to support such a business anyway?



Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[jg1967]

And on and on we go about how sacrosanct property rights are all the while banks foreclose homes on people while telling them they are in the process of modifying their loans, properties get seized via imminent domain and the list goes on and on. All very legally, of course.

Some jurisdictions give those signs the weight of the law and some don't. That shows the subject is considered quite debatable across the country.

I sense that some people here would happily ban guns on their property just because they can and for no better reason than to be King of the Hill which does not seem very mature. "Just because I can!" is an attitude I remember from Kindergarden not a good argument in a discussion. Some people have genuine concerns it seems.

 

[Bikenut]

And on and on we go about how sacrosanct property rights are all the while banks foreclose homes on people while telling them they are in the process of modifying their loans, properties get seized via imminent domain and the list goes on and on. All very legally, of course.

Some jurisdictions give those signs the weight of the law and some don't. That shows the subject is considered quite debatable across the country.

I sense that some people here would happily ban guns on their property just because they can and for no better reason than to be King of the Hill which does not seem very mature. "Just because I can!" is an attitude I remember from Kindergarden not a good argument in a discussion. Some people have genuine concerns it seems.

And there have been some folks who say they will happily disrespect the property owner's right to ban guns as long as no one catches them sneaking their gun in "just because they can". And they say that the private property right to ban guns doesn't exist... yet they make a big deal out of the excuse that if they sneak the gun in and no one knows then no rights were disrespected. That doesn't seem very mature.. does it?

 

[jg1967]

And there have been some folks who say they will happily disrespect the property owner's right to ban guns as long as no one catches them sneaking their gun in "just because they can". And they say that the private property right to ban guns doesn't exist... yet they make a big deal out of the excuse that if they sneak the gun in and no one knows then no rights were disrespected. That doesn't seem very mature.. does it?

Never said that was any better.

But at the end of the day what have we accomplished by banning you and me from carrying? Does it or can it ever prevent anything? So why do we focus so much time and attention on fiddling with who can carry what where and when instead of focussing on punishing those that use guns for illicit purposes? Just food for thought.

 

[donaldoneill]

My problem is that regardless of signs, daycare and churches are off-limits to ccw.

 

[Farmhood]

My problem is that regardless of signs, daycare and churches are off-limits to ccw.

I feel safer when the ccw holder is armed. Bad men have no off limits.