BluesStringer
Les Brers
Just as we have the right to defend our property against trespassers.
You know, all that stuff about what's good for the goose, is good for the gander......
Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?
- Thread starter HappeScrapn
- Start date
- Status
Just as we have the right to defend our property against trespassers.
You know, all that stuff about what's good for the goose, is good for the gander......
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Following your logic...if you aren't harmed then they haven't infringed on your rights...but not now...which is it?
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
Waffles
Member
YES. Now let me explain. When I go to the VA(as little as possible), it is a 20 mile drive. The VA has big signs posted all over NO WEAPONS ALLOWED. Well, one day I asked a VA cop if it was in the trunk, he stated, rather sarcastically, NO. If we find it , you will be arrested and taken before a Federal Magistrate. Well, I do put t in the trunk and give them no PC to search my vehicle. IF I have to go to the VA, I got other places to go and am not going to drive all the way home to get it. of al the Law Enforcement Officers I have run across, VA Police (and well paid at that) are the least helpful and snotty bunch you will ever meet. My opinion only.
Axeanda45
Banned
I have NEVER, NOT ONE SOLITARY TIME said I had the RIGHT to be ON their property if I was breaking their RULES NOR HAVE I EVER SAID I WOULDNT BE GUILTY OF TRESSPASSING...... I have, however MANY times stated that IF I am on someones property, I STILL HAVE ALL OF MY RIGHTS AND RELINQUISH NONE OF THEM... Please get a clue and STOP arguing without facts..... (stop putting words in my mouth/claiming I have said something I havent)
Axeanda45
Banned
NEITHER, go back to school and learn how to read..... You have made a very big mistake in YOUR LOGIC, you are adding things to an argument that wasnt there.... try again.....
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Again Axe, I don't know why you go so far out of your way to make it so personal. You don't have the right to infringe on anyone else's property rights, and that's exactly what you do if you break any of the rules they put in place in furtherance of those property rights. There could never be a trespassing charge made to stick if the property owner didn't have the right to autonomously say who is allowed to enter their property and under what conditions and/or restrictions. A property owner's rules for their property is not a separate thing than their property rights, they are an extension and/or an expression of those rights.
I changed my "Location" to "Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA." You would be welcome to visit my little fiefdom with your gun(s). I don't drink at all, but you'd be welcome to partake right up to the point that it was obvious that you couldn't remain safe with a gun, at which time I would ask if you had one (or more) on you, and if you answered honestly that you did, I would ask to take it for safe-keeping until the following day after you sobered up. Being aware before you ever got here of your propensity to try to sneak your gun(s) past a property owner's notice, if you answered that you didn't have any guns on you, I would give you a choice; either let me verify that for myself, or hit the road. Any hesitation in agreeing to one or the other of those options would convert you from an invited guest to a trespasser, and only I would retain the legal right to use whatever amount of force necessary to make you comply with one of those choices. In my jurisdiction, as with many others, a property owner has the legal right to assume nefarious intent of any trespasser, and trespassers who refuse to leave after being ordered to by the property owner, virtually cement their fate, in a legal sense, as being a legitimate target of deadly force.
At no time in the above hypothetical scenario did you retain your right to be armed on my property. I simply allowed it at first, and withdrew consent after you got drunk. All my clues are fully researched and intact, Axe. It might be time to take a bit of your own advice.
Blues
Axeanda45
Banned
Property does NOT HAVE RIGHTS..... A person may OWN property, yet any rule they make for that property is still just a RULE.... If someone breaks one of those rules, THEY HAVE IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM INFRINGED ON the property owners RIGHTS...... They have ONLY broken a RULE.... No matter how many times you try to say it, you still cannot prove at all that ANYTHING ELSE HAS OCCURRED BESIDES A RULE BEING BROKEN.... BTW BLUES...... your example has ZERO to do with the argument/discussion at hand... which again proves you just do NOT get it....
Axeanda45
Banned
I swear (yet again) that if these "property righters" were correct at all, then it would be 100% legal to murder/rape/sodomize/enslave/etc.... ANYONE who just happens to wander onto their property..... and there would be no punishment at all, you would do so with impunity...... Yet, these guys try to paint me as the one who knows nothing about "property rights".....
Some people need to learn that there are laws that protect individual's safety and establish personal authority that have nothing to do with rights. They also tend to not be able to understand the difference between a right and authority. A person can illegally trespass on my property and not violate any of my rights - and there are laws that give me the authority to remove them or have them removed from my property, which, again may have nothing to do with rights. And, on top of that, a person who operates a business that is open to the public has even less "authority" (commonly confused with property "rights") than John Smith does over his domicile. The authority is actually authority granted to me by the government certifying that they recognize the legality of the documents that are my claim to that authority such as a lease or deed. For the 100% property rights folks - why don't you go ahead and exercise your "property rights" by accepting a couple million dollars from some company to dump toxic waste on your back 40 and see how far your "property rights" get you when the EPA shows up.
B
Bikenut
Guest
The laws that support the authority of the property owner stem from the right... not the other way around. Those who trespass are infringing upon the property owner's right to deny permission to others to use his property for any reason including just taking a shortcut... and the government has recognized that by giving the owner legal authority to stop those who trespass from trespassing.
As for a property owner doing something so rash as having toxic waste dumped on their land........ yep... they have the right but they will also suffer the legal consequences of putting others at risk. Very similar to the right to free speech means a person has the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater but will suffer the legal consequences if there isn't a fire. And the right to bear arms means a person has the right to carry a gun but will suffer the legal consequences of trespass if they carry a gun where those who carry guns do not have the property owner's permission to do so.
With rights come legal consequences for using those rights in an irresponsible or dangerous manner... but let us not confuse legal consequences with having the right itself.
I have the right to bear arms but I do not have the right to be on/in the private property of others. In fact, I do not have the right to be on/in the private property of others regardless of if I carry a gun or not. What I do have is the owner's permission to be in/on his property subject to abiding by any conditions (rules) the property owner has attached to gaining his permission. Which simply means if the property owner says no guns are allowed in/on his property then any person with a gun is not allowed to be there. The entire person, including his clothing.. his guns... his thoughts...and his entire body.. and all of the rights that go with his body/person, is not allowed to be in/on that property because he has not met the owner's condition (rule) in order to gain the owner's permission.
Plainly put... I have the authority, recognized by law (the government), to grant or deny permission to be on/in my property. If someone does not have my permission then their physical presence... and the rights that go along with that presence... are not allowed to be there and there are laws to assess penalties to them if they are there without my permission.
And Blues explained that very well with his example in post #447.
As for a property owner doing something so rash as having toxic waste dumped on their land........ yep... they have the right but they will also suffer the legal consequences of putting others at risk. Very similar to the right to free speech means a person has the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater but will suffer the legal consequences if there isn't a fire. And the right to bear arms means a person has the right to carry a gun but will suffer the legal consequences of trespass if they carry a gun where those who carry guns do not have the property owner's permission to do so.
With rights come legal consequences for using those rights in an irresponsible or dangerous manner... but let us not confuse legal consequences with having the right itself.
I have the right to bear arms but I do not have the right to be on/in the private property of others. In fact, I do not have the right to be on/in the private property of others regardless of if I carry a gun or not. What I do have is the owner's permission to be in/on his property subject to abiding by any conditions (rules) the property owner has attached to gaining his permission. Which simply means if the property owner says no guns are allowed in/on his property then any person with a gun is not allowed to be there. The entire person, including his clothing.. his guns... his thoughts...and his entire body.. and all of the rights that go with his body/person, is not allowed to be in/on that property because he has not met the owner's condition (rule) in order to gain the owner's permission.
Plainly put... I have the authority, recognized by law (the government), to grant or deny permission to be on/in my property. If someone does not have my permission then their physical presence... and the rights that go along with that presence... are not allowed to be there and there are laws to assess penalties to them if they are there without my permission.
And Blues explained that very well with his example in post #447.
Axeanda45
Banned
You finally ADMIT IT!!!! The ONLY LEGAL recourse you have is the "laws to assess penalties to them if they are there without my permission.", YOU DO NOT HAVE THE POWER OR RIGHT TO DENY THEM THEIR RIGHTS.....
B
Bikenut
Guest
It is the "legal recourse" that recognizes the right of the property owner to deny permission to enter because of exercising the right to bear arms. And it is the "legal recourse" that gives the property owner the force of law to back up his denial of permission.
The property owner has the right to not allow a person... AND HIS RIGHTS right along with the person ... permission to be on/in the owner's property. Got that Axe? The entire person ... including his clothing...everything hidden in his clothing.... his thoughts... his flatulence... and his rights... because all of that is part and parcel of his person!
And it is the trespass laws that puts the force of law behind the property owner's right to deny entry to the entire person.
To say it another way... the fact that you have the right to bear arms is moot when I, as a property owner, deny you permission to be on/in my property. I can deny your right to bear arms on/in my property simply by denying YOU the ability to be on/in my property. Which is what Blues explained in the example he gave in post #447.
Axeanda45
Banned
If you could "DENY" me the ability to "be" on your property, then why am I there????????? and IF I AM THERE, WHY is it ONLY my RIGHT to be armed that you claim you have power over? Why as LOGIC would dictate, dont you claim RIGHTS over all my other rights???? is it because in reality, you dont actually HAVE THE RIGHT you keep claiming you do? If you had the right to force me to be disarmed, you would also have the right to enslave me or rape me etc..... wouldnt you? NONE of you property righters have EVER even come close to proving your "RIGHT" to take away ANYONES "RIGHTS" just because they are standing on some dirt that you hold deed to....... ALL YOU HAVE EVER BEEN CORRECT ABOUT IS THE RIGHT TO MAKE RULES.... And time and time again I keep pointing out that rules and rights are 2 different things... and you have NEVER proven they were the same, you just keep going in your failed circle of this "logic" that is actually not logical at all, because you keep stumbling on something that you make up about imaginary powers you have because your name is on some paper somewhere.....
YOU (anyone) CANNOT DENY SOMEONE ELSE ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY ARE STANDING, PERIOD.
YOU (anyone) may make RULES that deny them PERMISSION to be there, and you can use the "law" to punish them for "being there" in a way your RULES forbid, but you do NOT have the "power" to remove one solitary RIGHT that they have......
B
Bikenut
Guest
About that part of your post I put in bold for emphasis Axe....
I, as a property owner who has the right to control my property, have the power to remove YOU from my property. And when I do that I also remove everything about you... including your rights. ALL of your rights because your rights are part and parcel of your entire being. And when I throw your physical body off my property I am throwing your entire being including your rights off my property. I am REMOVING you and your rights.
You still retain your rights.... just not on/in my property because YOU, and everything about you including your rights, are not allowed to be on/in my property.
But I've explained that many times Axe and it is obvious you cannot comprehend the concept of denying the person permission to be there also denies their rights their rights to be there because the person's rights are part of the person.
The funny thing is Axe.... during this discussion I've given cites and links to support my position and all you have given are rants shouted in capitol letters. So Axe.... you got cites and/or links to support your position that the property owner doesn't have the power to deny you and your rights to be on/in his property? And that the property owner doesn't have the right and the power to remove you, and everything about you including your rights, from his property?
Actually Axe... unless you can provide cites and/or links to support your position I am going to consider your postings in this discussion to be on the order of: "Because I said so." and not credible.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Why are you there? Could it be you are... sneaking...in a gun and infringing upon my rights by trespassing?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass
Trespass
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. -snip-
You seem to misunderstand ... property owners don't have the right to force you to disarm but they do have the right, backed up by the power of trespass laws, to deny you the ability to be armed on their property. How do they do that? By throwing you off the property if you are armed. In fact, the property owner has the right to deny your right to free speech.. and your right of freedom of religion. Just try giving a sermon (free speech + freedom of religion) in the produce aisle of a grocery store and see how fast you, and your rights, are denied as you and your rights are thrown out.
The thing that you seem unable to grasp is that when a property owner removes you, as a person from his property... that property owner is removing everything about you from their property... everything Axe...including your rights.
If I caught you... sneaking... in a gun on my property where I had a no guns rule I most certainly can deny your right to bear arms because of where you are standing simply by denying you permission and the ability to stand there.
Axeanda45
Banned
NOTHING you wrote applies to the question/argument at hand.... all you have done is stated AGAIN, things that DO NOT APPLY in the situation I have presented.... you still FAIL MISERABLY... You present a situation that DOES NOT EXIST in my example, and you do it time and time again, trying to get away with ignoring what I have said time and time again... Are you scared to acknowledge what I have said because you cannot refute it????
Here it is one more time... please try and be honest, and man up and make a VALID argument to refute my position this time instead of talking once again about things which do NOT APPLY.....
Humans have rights, you cannot deny this.
Wherever a human is, they retain those rights if they wish to. (they can, if they wish, give them up, it is their choice, not YOURS....) this also, you cannot deny without being delusional, and thereby proving you know NOTHING about rights..
Now, YOUR position is: you, as a "property owner" can make ANY RULE you wish about your property... I have SUPPORTED that FULLY...... no arguments from me... make any rule you wish....
Here is where we differ (and you are 100% wrong) I claim that if I "break one of your "rules" that is all I have done...... Yet YOU CLAIM I HAVE INFRINGED ON YOUR RIGHTS.... I say I have done nothing of the kind,all I have done is break a "rule".... and LOGIC dictates that I am correct.....
If I am the one that is wrong, and you DO have the "power" to take away a RIGHT from someone that is on your property, then you, by default MUST have the same power to deny/take away ANY "right" you wish.... Do you really claim this? There are NO laws to support your claims.... I have asked many times for you to prove you have the RIGHT to deny some other human any of their RIGHTS... yet you havent proven ONCE that you have that power at all, you just repeat the lie you have fabricated that your rules are rights.... If they are the same thing, why are they called by 2 different names?
You have the RIGHT to DENY ANYONE PERMISSION to be on your property for any reason (rule) you want..... Yet, you do NOT have the right to deny anyone their RIGHTS EVEN IF THEY ARE ON YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION, and are breaking your rules..... ALL you have the RIGHT to do is press charges against them/have them arrested...... for whatever LAW they are guilty of breaking, most likely that would be trespassing in this situation....
IF the world was the way YOU SEE IT regarding rights of property owners, then you could, if someone was 'on your property" enslave them, rape them, kill them with absolute impunity.... because you HAVE THAT RIGHT....... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM TO HAVE THE POWER TO DO AS A PROPERTY OWNER...
And that is exactly what I am calling you out on...
B
Bikenut
Guest
Axe.. I have repeatedly given you a cite and a link to a reputable source that supports my claim...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass
Trespass
Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner’s legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership. -snip-
....that violating a property owner's rule is infringing upon their property rights. That means the property owner has more than just a right to make rules... they have the right to control their property. They do that by making rules and those who violate those rules are infringing upon the property owner's right to control his property by trespassing.
And I have said that the property owner can deny a person's rights on/in private property (where they are standing) simply by denying the ability of the person to be on/in that property. If the person is denied to be there then everything about that person, including their rights, is denied to be there. I have even said that the person retains all their rights... somewhere other than on/in the property where they have been forbidden to be simply because when they are thrown out their rights get thrown out with them.
Claiming that I am saying a property owner has some kind of right to inflict harm on others is untrue and has always been your way to sensationalize your argument hoping to deflect from providing cites and/or links to support your position.
Show me... quote MY posts!... where I said anyone had any kind of right to enslave, rape, and kill. I want you to show me where I said those words.
Here is a challenge Axe....instead of providing rants kindly provide cites and/or links that support your position that breaking a property owner's rule does not infringe upon his right to control his property. Failure to do so will result in a total lack of credibility.
Axeanda45
Banned
Your claim to have the RIGHT to take away one of ANY of my rights if I am on your property is 100% false, and you know it... All of us humans, EVERYWHERE WE ARE (yes, there is an exception for jail/prison/mental hospital) have ALL OF OUR RIGHTS INTACT unless we voluntarily give them up..... If I am trespassing on your property, YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER OVER ME THAT CAUSES ME TO LOSE MY RIGHT TO BE ARMED...... I do not see why that is so effing hard for you to understand.....
The ONLY power you would have over me if I was trespassing was to have me charged/arrested for trespassing......
The ONLY power you would have over me if I was trespassing was to have me charged/arrested for trespassing......
B
Bikenut
Guest
Incorrect. Not only do I have the power to have you charged and/or arrested for trespassing I also have the power to throw you, and your rights, off my property. I have the power to deny your physical presence, and along with your physical presence your right to bear arms to boot, on/in my property.
Still no cites and/or links?
- Status
