Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?

[seagullplayer]

In our state signs don't carry the weight of law. So unless its a federal law or metal detectors at the door... (or work)

 

[Rhino]

...although I would not be in favor of gun carriers becoming one of those protected classes since those protected classes laws are just as much an infringement upon property rights as gun control laws are upon the right to keep and bear arms.

I would tend to agree. Our rights are already in the Constitution. They shouldn't need anything as drastic as creating a protected class. Just remove the restrictions they've put in. Preemption on the federal level would be nice too but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Genasi]

Well said Rhino. That is what I've been explaining all along although I would not be in favor of gun carriers becoming one of those protected classes since those protected classes laws are just as much an infringement upon property rights as gun control laws are upon the right to keep and bear arms.

What kind of business do you own?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Well said Rhino. That is what I've been explaining all along although I would not be in favor of gun carriers becoming one of those protected classes since those protected classes laws are just as much an infringement upon property rights as gun control laws are upon the right to keep and bear arms.

What kind of business do you own?

I do not own nor do I work for any business of any kind.

 

[Genasi]

I do not own nor do I work for any business of any kind.

So you have no skin in the game.

 

[Genasi]

I would tend to agree. Our rights are already in the Constitution. They shouldn't need anything as drastic as creating a protected class. Just remove the restrictions they've put in. Preemption on the federal level would be nice too but I'm not holding my breath.

Not to mention these signs undermine the *property owner's* rights when they have force of law. My brother's a cop, he can arrest someone for walking past the sign even if they have the owner's concent, because walking past the sign is an offence against the State even if the owner declines to file Civil charges.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I do not own nor do I work for any business of any kind.

So you have no skin in the game.

Actually I have plenty of skin in the game since I am supporting rights, ALL rights, not just the one's I personally like just because I benefit from them. I am supporting the rights of others that cause me inconvenience and hassle because for me to demand/expect the rights I like be respected while disrespecting the rights of others would make me a hypocrite.

I am very well aware that many men and women have been maimed and killed fighting to protect and preserve ALL the rights of ALL the people including those folks they didn't much care for and the rights they personally disagreed with.

And, at least to my mind, when viewed from that perspective we all have plenty of skin in the game.

 

[Genasi]

Actually I have plenty of skin in the game since I am supporting rights, ALL rights, not just the one's I personally like just because I benefit from them. I am supporting the rights of others that cause me inconvenience and hassle because for me to demand/expect the rights I like be respected while disrespecting the rights of others would make me a hypocrite.

I am very well aware that many men and women have been maimed and killed fighting to protect and preserve ALL the rights of ALL the people including those folks they didn't much care for and the rights they personally disagreed with.

And, at least to my mind, when viewed from that perspective we all have plenty of skin in the game.

"To have "skin in the game" is to have incurred monetary risk by being involved in achieving a goal. In the phrase, "skin" is a synecdoche for the person involved, and "game" is the metaphor for actions on the field of play under discussion."
-wiki

How does a permit-holder's holstered and concealed sidearm you don't even know about cause the price of the product or service you're buying to increase?

I get that you advokate for those who do have skin in that game, for those who are taking a monitary risk, you personaly are taking no monitary risk yourself.

 

[Bikenut]

"

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Actually I have plenty of skin in the game since I am supporting rights, ALL rights, not just the one's I personally like just because I benefit from them. I am supporting the rights of others that cause me inconvenience and hassle because for me to demand/expect the rights I like be respected while disrespecting the rights of others would make me a hypocrite.

I am very well aware that many men and women have been maimed and killed fighting to protect and preserve ALL the rights of ALL the people including those folks they didn't much care for and the rights they personally disagreed with.

And, at least to my mind, when viewed from that perspective we all have plenty of skin in the game.

To have "skin in the game" is to have incurred monetary risk by being involved in achieving a goal. In the phrase, "skin" is a synecdoche for the person involved, and "game" is the metaphor for actions on the field of play under discussion."
-wiki

How does a permit-holder's holstered and concealed sidearm you don't even know about cause the price of the product or service you're buying to increase?

I get that you advokate for those who do have skin in that game, for those who are taking a monitary risk, you personaly are taking no monitary risk yourself.

There may not be any risk of losing money but there is a risk of having private property rights restricted/infringed even more with gun toting folks who think property rights are not important also thinking it would be a good thing to have the government pass laws making gun carriers one of those protected classes.

So while it isn't money that is involved with "skin in the game" in this case it is rights that are involved with the "skin in the game".

What does skin in the game mean?

Wiktionary

skin in the game(Noun)

A stake; something at risk, especially with regard to money and investments.
Bold added by me for emphasis

 

[Genasi]

There may not be any risk of losing money but there is a risk of having private property rights restricted/infringed even more with gun toting folks who think property rights are not important also thinking it would be a good thing to have the government pass laws making gun carriers one of those protected classes.

So while it isn't money that is involved with "skin in the game" in this case it is rights that are involved with the "skin in the game".

What does skin in the game mean?

Wiktionary

skin in the game(Noun)

A stake; something at risk, especially with regard to money and investments.
Bold added by me for emphasis

Suppose one of the guys you've been arguing at-length with here found a majic wand and *poof* force-of-law was removed from no-gun signs everywhere forever.

What would happen?

 

[Bikenut]

Suppose one of the guys you've been arguing at-length with here found a majic wand and *poof* force-of-law was removed from no-gun signs everywhere forever.

What would happen?

What facet of "force-of-law" are you referring to? No guns signs, in some states, have the force of gun law behind them. While some state's no guns signs do not have the force of gun law behind them the signs can still have the force of trespass law behind them. Should we get rid of trespass law also?

The property owner would still have the property right to deny permission to enter to those he doesn't want on/in his property. The property owner would still have the right to deny entry to folks who carry guns and only thing that would change is the property owner would not have the support of the law when he denied entry and the trespasser would not suffer any penalties.

Although there are nuances in the trespass law that vary from state to state for when and how penalties can be assessed trespass law is fairly straightforward and involves the basic concept of:

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.

 

[Genasi]

The property owner would still have the right to deny permission to enter to those he doesn't want on/in his property.

I'm asking you what if someone sprinkled magic dust from Thor's pixy stick and suddenly all the laws and everything were the same exept now buisness owners couldn't eject an invitee simply for having a gun on their person, what would happen?

 

[Genasi]

ProTip: Trespass

Quote this post to see how I cleaned up the code

 

[Bikenut]

I'm asking you what if someone sprinkled magic dust from Thor's pixy stick and suddenly all the laws and everything were the same exept now buisness owners couldn't eject an invitee simply for having a gun on their person, what would happen?

I didn't say the property owner couldn't eject an invitee. I said::

-snip-
The property owner would still have the property right to deny permission to enter to those he doesn't want on/in his property. The property owner would still have the right to deny entry to folks who carry guns and only thing that would change is the property owner would not have the support of the law when he denied entry and the trespasser would not suffer any penalties.-snip-

Denying entry after the person enters without the owner's permission would be .. ejecting the person.

But if you wanted to negate the property owner's right to deny permission and/or eject someone for carrying a gun then you would need laws making gun carriers a protected class. And those laws would be just as much an infringement upon private property rights as gun control laws are infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Bikenut]

ProTip: Trespass

Quote this post to see how I cleaned up the code

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass

Please note how the code I posted shows the name of the reputable source I am referencing. Which is exactly what I wanted to be seen.

 

[Genasi]

I already answered your question in a post above and I didn't say the property owner couldn't eject an invitee.

I didn't say you said the property owner couldn't eject an invitee.

I said something different. I asked of you a question.

I asked you what would happen if the owner no longer could eject an invitee simply for being armed.

 

[Genasi]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass

Please note how the code I posted shows the name of the reputable source I am referencing. Which is exactly what I wanted to be seen.

I used your code. It's the same link. Same page. Same definition.

All I did was clean up the code.

 

[Bikenut]

I didn't say you said the property owner couldn't eject an invitee.

I said something different.

I asked you what would happen if the owner no longer could eject an invitee simply for being armed.

And I said that in order to accomplish that laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to deny entry/eject a person would have to be enacted.

By the way... the only members of the public who are invitees are those who agree to abide by any and all policies/rules the property owner has. Those who do not obey a no guns rule by sneaking their gun in are not invitees because they do not have the owner's permission to be there.

 

[Genasi]

And I said that in order to accomplish that laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to deny entry/eject a person would have to be enacted.

I asked you what would the world look like after such changes were enacted and in force.

Same question in other words: what would happen if the owner no longer could eject an invitee simply for being armed?

Same question in other words: what would happen if a buisness owner could not make a rule against guns and so carrying was not trespassing?

By the way... the only members of the public who are invitees are those who agree to abide by any and all policies/rules the property owner has. Those who do not obey a no guns rule by sneaking their gun in are not invitees because they do not have the owner's permission to be there.

I know.

That's not a point in question.

 

[Bikenut]

I asked you what would the world look like after such changes were enacted and in force.

Same question in other words: what would happen if the owner no longer could eject an invitee simply for being armed?

Same question in other words: what would happen if a buisness owner could not make a rule against guns and so carrying was not trespassing?

-snip-

And I answered:

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And I said that in order to accomplish that laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to deny entry/eject a person would have to be enacted.

Said another way:
Property owner's rights would be infringed.

The world would have yet another right infringed that not only restricts the property owner's rights but also sets the precedent for even more restrictions/infringements in the future to the delight of those who would benefit from that infringement. And the only difference between the gun carriers rejoicing that property owner's rights were being infringed and anti gunners rejoicing when the right to keep and bear arms is infringed is .... who is doing the rejoicing. Yet both share the same idea that it is OK to infringe upon someone else's rights as long as they stand to benefit from doing so.