Benefits of carrying concealed and having real priorities.

[Bikenut]

Can someone point out what legal document establishes and describes these "property owner rights". I would like to read the one that explains the property owner right to infringe on another person's 2A right.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...ato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf

34. Property Rights and the Constitution

an exerpt....
-snip-
The Constitution protects property rights mainly through the Fifth
Amendment’s Takings or Just Compensation Clause: ‘‘nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation.’’
-snip-

and another exerpt:
-snip-
Legal Protection for Property Rights

It would be to no avail, however, if property, once acquired, could not
be used and enjoyed—if rights of acquisition, enjoyment, and disposal
were not legally protected. Recognizing that, common-law judges, charged
over the years with settling disputes between neighbors, have drawn upon
principles of reason and efficiency, and upon custom as well, to craft a
law of property that respects, by and large, the equal rights of all.
In a nutshell, the basic rights they have recognized, beyond the rights
of acquisition and disposal, are the right of sole dominion—variously
described as a right to exclude others, a right against trespass
-snip-

Link Removed

trespass (ˈtrɛspəs)
vb (intr)
1. (often foll by: on or upon) to go or intrude (on the property, privacy, or preserves of another) with no right or permission
-snip-

bold added by me for emphasis...

 

[Axeanda45]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...ato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf

34. Property Rights and the Constitution

an exerpt....
-snip-
The Constitution protects property rights mainly through the Fifth
Amendment’s Takings or Just Compensation Clause: ‘‘nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation.’’
-snip-

and another exerpt:
-snip-
Legal Protection for Property Rights

It would be to no avail, however, if property, once acquired, could not
be used and enjoyed—if rights of acquisition, enjoyment, and disposal
were not legally protected. Recognizing that, common-law judges, charged
over the years with settling disputes between neighbors, have drawn upon
principles of reason and efficiency, and upon custom as well, to craft a
law of property that respects, by and large, the equal rights of all.
In a nutshell, the basic rights they have recognized, beyond the rights
of acquisition and disposal, are the right of sole dominion—variously
described as a right to exclude others, a right against trespass
-snip-

Link Removed

trespass (ˈtrɛspəs)
vb (intr)
1. (often foll by: on or upon) to go or intrude (on the property, privacy, or preserves of another) with no right or permission
-snip-

bold added by me for emphasis...

Sorry charlie... he asked for LAWS that point it out, not opinions from some institute that has no power over anyone....

 

[Axeanda45]

Your insisting on quoting trespass laws (which we most certainly are NOT talking about here) prove again that you have NOTHING that actually says one person can negate another persons RIGHTS....

Please show us, by statute, code, etc... where one persons human rights are no longer valid/no longer apply once they cross a property line.... Put up or shut up... I am tired of your petty little arguments I have disproven time and time again....

Do you have the right to life, yes or no?
If you are on someone elses property, do you have the right to Life? Liberty? Freedom to leave if you wish? Freedom to speak your mind? (yes, you can kick me off for speaking it, but you cannot legally silence me by gagging me or cutting out my vocal chords...) oh, and before you bring up the tired and flawed thing about not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater crap, think again.. you most certainly CAN DO SO.... you just cannot use that (your freedom of speech) to immunize yourself from prosecution for causing actual harm to others....

 

[Warbirds]

So you have established what has already been pointed out in other posts here, your "property rights" allows you to set rules of tresspass. That's all, if the person you want to leave is taking no action against you or, in some states like Texas against your property, you can do nothing but call the police to have the trespass law enforced.

And unlike the other backwards states, in Utah the signs that are apparently giving you and others so much grief carry no legal authority. If you want me to leave you can legally do so, you can call the cops to have your rule enforced, but you have no right to my person or what you don't know I am carrying.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

So you have established what has already been pointed out in other posts here, your "property rights" allows you to set rules of tresspass. That's all, if the person you want to leave is taking no action against you or, in some states like Texas against your property, you can do nothing but call the police to have the trespass law enforced.

And unlike the other backwards states, in Utah the signs that are apparently giving you and others so much grief carry no legal authority. If you want me to leave you can legally do so, you can call the cops to have your rule enforced, but you have no right to my person or what you don't know I am carrying.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

And you have no right to have your person on/in my property regardless of what you may or may not be carrying on your person.... unless you have my permission to be there. Correct?

 

[Bikenut]

Your insisting on quoting trespass laws (which we most certainly are NOT talking about here) prove again that you have NOTHING that actually says one person can negate another persons RIGHTS....

Please show us, by statute, code, etc... where one persons human rights are no longer valid/no longer apply once they cross a property line.... Put up or shut up... I am tired of your petty little arguments I have disproven time and time again....

Do you have the right to life, yes or no?
If you are on someone elses property, do you have the right to Life? Liberty? Freedom to leave if you wish? Freedom to speak your mind? (yes, you can kick me off for speaking it, but you cannot legally silence me by gagging me or cutting out my vocal chords...) oh, and before you bring up the tired and flawed thing about not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater crap, think again.. you most certainly CAN DO SO.... you just cannot use that (your freedom of speech) to immunize yourself from prosecution for causing actual harm to others....

I've been discussing trespass laws that support the private property owner's right to deny entry to anyone carrying a gun. It is you who asserts your right to bear arms trumps the private property owner's right to ban guns.

Didn't you say:

Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
What you continue to fail to comprehend is that I do recognize that a property owner has the right to make rules... and he has the right to deny anyone, including me onto his property... while at the same time I also recognize my own rights, and they (in this matter, the right to carry whatever I want on my person) is a right that is higher and it trumps the property owners rights...
-snip-

Please note the part I put in bold for emphasis..

So... got cites and/or links to proof that your right to carry whatever you want trumps the property owner's right to ban something you might be carrying?


As for providing cites and/or links.... I provided a cite from and a link to the CATO institute concerning private property rights that references the Constitution of the United States and case law yet despite my many requests for you to provide cites and/or links to proof that the right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban guns go unanswered.

 

[Axeanda45]

And you have no right to have your person on/in my property regardless of what you may or may not be carrying on your person. Correct?

Remember what this thread is about bikenut... it is about BUSINESSES ..... NOT private property...
2 different words/names, 2 different things.... and yet even then, on private property, you STILL do not have the RIGHT to deny me ANY of the RIGHTS I have/retain just by being a live human...

Man, that just drives you nuts doesnt it? You dont have POWER to deny the RIGHTS of someone just because they happen to be standing on your lawn.....

I am going to be perfectly honest with you here... it kinda irks me too that we cannot deny someone else some of their rights while they are on our property... but that is one of the downsides of rights,.... EVERYONE has them...... whether you or even I like it or not...

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And you have no right to have your person on/in my property regardless of what you may or may not be carrying on your person. Correct?

Remember what this thread is about bikenut... it is about BUSINESSES ..... NOT private property...
2 different words/names, 2 different things.... and yet even then, on private property, you STILL do not have the RIGHT to deny me ANY of the RIGHTS I have/retain just by being a live human...

Man, that just drives you nuts doesnt it? You dont have POWER to deny the RIGHTS of someone just because they happen to be standing on your lawn.....

Please stick to the discussion...

Being "open to the public" does not change the fact that the property is privately owned and therefor is "private property"... correct? And does a business have the private property right to deny entry to individual members of the public who disobey the owner's no guns rule? Yes or no.

Got cites and/or links that show a business "open to the public" is no longer "private property" and as such loses the property right to ban guns?

Got any cites and/or links that prove a member of the public has a right to be on/in a businesses private property?

 

[Axeanda45]

Please stick to the discussion...

Being "open to the public" does not change the fact that the property is privately owned and therefor is "private property"... correct? Actually NO, absolutely NOT correct... it is a BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, therefore it is NOT private property, it is just owned by a private individual(s) And does a business have the private property right to deny entry to individual members of the public who disobey the owner's no guns rule? Yes or no. NO, wow, this is an easy test!

Got cites and/or links that show a business "open to the public" is no longer "private property" and as such loses the property right to ban guns? Have cites/links showing these open to the public businesses have the RIGHT to deny others their RIGHTS?

Got any cites and/or links that prove a member of the public has a right to be on/in a businesses private property? Dont need them, the Business invited the public onto the property... if they dont want the PUBLIC there, make it a private members only business and make all the rules you want! see how easy this is?

You are losing quite badly... do yourself a favor and stop commenting/posting on subjects you know nothing about (you keep proving it here, time after time).

 

[Bikenut]

Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Please stick to the discussion...

Being "open to the public" does not change the fact that the property is privately owned and therefor is "private property"... correct? Actually NO, absolutely NOT correct... it is a BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, therefore it is NOT private property, it is just owned by a private individual(s)

And you have cites and/or links to prove that a business that is open to the public is not private property? Please provide such cites and/or links. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

And does a business have the private property right to deny entry to individual members of the public who disobey the owner's no guns rule? Yes or no. NO, wow, this is an easy test!

Please provide cites and/or links to prove that the private property right of a business owner does not give him the right to deny entry to individual members of the public who disobey his no guns rule. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Got cites and/or links that show a business "open to the public" is no longer "private property" and as such loses the property right to ban guns? Have cites/links showing these open to the public businesses have the RIGHT to deny others their RIGHTS?

I gave a cite and link to a site explaining private property rights and how they came about...
Enough of your evading and avoiding... please provide cites and/or links that show a private property business loses the property right to ban guns just because it is open to the public.

Got any cites and/or links that prove a member of the public has a right to be on/in a businesses private property? Dont need them, the Business invited the public onto the property... if they dont want the PUBLIC there, make it a private members only business and make all the rules you want! see how easy this is?You are losing quite badly... do yourself a favor and stop commenting/posting on subjects you know nothing about (you keep proving it here, time after time).

Part of my response is contained within the quoted post above in blue
Without offering cites and/or links to actual factual evidence your assertions have merit proves nothing more than you expect folks to believe you just because you say so.

Got cites and/or links?

Besides.. this isn't about winning or losing... this is about providing factual information to anyone who might be reading this discussion.

 

[stratsrock]

Axeanda45.... Is it okay if me and a couple of my gay friends hang out in your driveway and pass out some Pro LGBT pamphlets?

 

[Axeanda45]

Axeanda45.... Is it okay if me and a couple of my gay friends hang out in your driveway and pass out some Pro LGBT pamphlets?

Sure, UNTIL I ask them to leave.... no problem (and they better not have pink panties on, cause you know, that breaks my rules... BUT I am smart enough to know that rules are not rights, so I wont go around claiming the faggots have trampled on my rights... just fyi...)

 

[Axeanda45]

Part of my response is contained within the quoted post above in blue
Without offering cites and/or links to actual factual evidence your assertions have merit proves nothing more than you expect folks to believe you just because you say so.

Got cites and/or links?

Besides.. this isn't about winning or losing... this is about providing factual information to anyone who might be reading this discussion.

SO, the very FACT that we all have the SAME RIGHTS, no matter where we happen to be standing isnt good enough for you?

YOU are the one arguing that we do NOT have the same rights.... YOU are the one that must prove that way of thinking......

If we didnt have the same rights everywhere, then I or you could murder anyone anywhere without infringing on their rights, right?

 

[Bikenut]

Really dude? you got nothing but want me to explain it to you yet AGAIN......

Give up, because EVERY TIME you post crap about these non-existent rights you keep harping on, I will be right there showing everyone you are wrong...

I would like for you to provide cites and/or links to facts that support the assertions you made in post #189...

Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Please stick to the discussion...

Being "open to the public" does not change the fact that the property is privately owned and therefor is "private property"... correct? Actually NO, absolutely NOT correct... it is a BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, therefore it is NOT private property, it is just owned by a private individual(s)

And does a business have the private property right to deny entry to individual members of the public who disobey the owner's no guns rule? Yes or no. NO, wow, this is an easy test!

Got cites and/or links that show a business "open to the public" is no longer "private property" and as such loses the property right to ban guns? Have cites/links showing these open to the public businesses have the RIGHT to deny others their RIGHTS?

Got any cites and/or links that prove a member of the public has a right to be on/in a businesses private property? Dont need them, the Business invited the public onto the property... if they dont want the PUBLIC there, make it a private members only business and make all the rules you want! see how easy this is?You are losing quite badly... do yourself a favor and stop commenting/posting on subjects you know nothing about (you keep proving it here, time after time).

You are losing quite badly... do yourself a favor and stop commenting/posting on subjects you know nothing about (you keep proving it here, time after time).

 

[stratsrock]

Sure, UNTIL I ask them to leave.... no problem (and they better not have pink panties on, cause you know, that breaks my rules... BUT I am smart enough to know that rules are not rights, so I wont go around claiming the faggots have trampled on my rights... just fyi...)

But if we have on pink panties they'll be concealed and you won't know it so your rules don't matter to us.

 

[Axeanda45]

But if we have on pink panties they'll be concealed and you won't know it so your rules don't matter to us.

Exactly!!!

And your ignoring them has not harmed me in any way...

 

[Axeanda45]

Got cites and/or links to prove your assertions made in post #189?

Really dude? you got nothing but want me to explain it to you yet AGAIN......

Give up, because EVERY TIME you post crap about these non-existent rights you keep harping on, I will be right there showing everyone you are wrong...

 

[stratsrock]

Exactly!!!

And your ignoring them has not harmed me in any way...

So then... As long as you don't know it you're alright with it.

 

[Bikenut]

SO, the very FACT that we all have the SAME RIGHTS, no matter where we happen to be standing isnt good enough for you?

YOU are the one arguing that we do NOT have the same rights.... YOU are the one that must prove that way of thinking......

If we didnt have the same rights everywhere, then I or you could murder anyone anywhere without infringing on their rights, right?

Again you go off into making sensational claims....

Are you still avoiding and evading providing cites and/or links to support the claims you made in post #189?

By the way.... neither you, nor anyone else, has any right what so ever to be on/in private property even if that property is a business that is open to the public. All anyone has is the property owner's invitation (permission) contingent upon obeying any and all rules/policies concerning behavior (and carrying a gun IS a "behavior") while on/in said property. Failure to obey the rules/policies means the invitation (permission) is rescinded and the person is trespassing.

The trespass starts the moment the rule/policy is violated. Being asked to leave merely means the person was caught already in the act of being on/in the property without permission.

 

[Axeanda45]

So then... As long as you don't know it you're alright with it.

Something I dont know has not harmed me in the least...... whether it broke any of my rules or not.... that is why I have the silly thing on my sig line... to point out the stupidity of thinking breaking someones rules equals infringing on their rights... In order for it to infringe on my rights... it must be shown that it has harmed me.... That I am worse off just because you have something in your possession. Hurting your little feelings is NOT infringing on your rights... You do NOT have the right to not have your feelings hurt just because I broke one of your rules...

You can yell fire when there is none for example, and if no-one believes you or panics and is injured because you yelled that, even if you were lying, you harmed no-one, so their rights were not infringed upon... HOWEVER, if someone WAS injured by running because you yelled fire, you HAVE infringed on their rights...