Perhaps you might finally understand that the question about rights is moot when it is understood the property owner's right to grant, or deny, permission to be on/in his property means that when the property owner denies permission for a person to enter the property owner is denying the person, his clothes, whatever he is trying to ... sneak... in, and even his rights simply because the entire person and everything about that person has been denied entry.
Hmmm...
first off you are conflating a home with a business that is open to public entry.
Please note the part I put in bold paying specific attention to the part I also underlined below...
YOU SIR, are STILL completely confusing a property owners RULES with his RIGHTS.... and this confusion just keeps knotting up in your head and wont let you see the facts in front of you...... to infringe a rule in no way infringes on rights, never has and never will..... (in the context of a firearm in a pocket you do not know about)
The question about whether a person has the right to bear arms by .... sneaking.... a gun onto private property where the property owner has a no guns rule is moot since the person, and everything about that person including ALL of his rights, doesn't have permission to be there.
Without my being a jerk for such is not my intention as I'm honestly curious... do the signs in Georgia serve as notification for trespass purposes? If they do then those signs may not carry the weight of a firearms law but still carry the weight of the trespass law.
I have eight posts in this thread. None have been a response to anything you've posted. One of them you gave a 'like' to. And I haven't twisted anything. The post you responded to was the first time I even addressed a comment by someone else here. None of my previous posts were in response to comments by anyone else, so please don't accuse me of something I haven't done. As for the post I was responding to by apvbguy, it did indeed claim that Bikenut was "just plain old wrong" when he posted that business owners have the right to set whatever conditions they want on access to their property. In other words, it was the position that apvbguy was putting forth that people have not only the ability to infringe on property owner rights, but also the right to infringe on those rights of others. There's no twisting required. You can go back and read it yourself if you want. It's post #164.
Where did I ever say anything even remotely resembling that? Are you sure you're responding to the correct person?
If I break into your house while you're on vacation in Hawaii, you may not know it until you get back. Because you aren't aware of it, does that mean I haven't violated your property rights? I have zero love for businesses that disallow the right to carry. I dislike them immensely. But that doesn't mean I therefore have the ability to infringe the rights of others. Anti-gunners actually use the same argument sometimes when they try to use the small chances of an attack as a reason to deny 2nd amendment rights. The premise is that the right isn't abridged if we're never attacked, just the same as property rights aren't abridged if a gun is never seen. If I live in a state that allows marijuana use, I can't be 100% sure of success if I tell people I don't want them bringing marijuana onto my property, but I'm still well within my rights to set that as a condition for being there. And even if someone does bring marijuana onto my property that I don't know about, that doesn't make it okay because I never see it. They've still violated my property rights and they've still violated the law if I've made it known beforehand that I don't allow marijuana on my property, even though it's perfectly legal for them to have it. My property rights don't disappear just because I can't see something.
