PART of your statement is correct, and part smells very bad...... think about it awhile and you might just see where you went wrong.....
and BTW... I have NEVER stated that a business owner could not ask anyone for any reason whatsoever to leave his or her property. I have simply stated the FACT that Rules are NOT RIGHTS... and breaking a RULE does not in any way fashion or form INFRINGE on a RIGHT....
If I was wrong and you were right in this, then as a property owner, I could make a rule that anyone with purple skin could not breathe while on my property..... My property, my rules, right? and IF they did have the utter gall to breathe on my property, they just infringed on my RIGHTS according to YOUR FAILED LOGIC!
Let me see.... a private property owner has the right to deny access to people and/or to require them to leave if they are already there... because the private property owner has the private property right to control who uses his property in what way.
Guess what? A no guns rule is the expression of the private property owner exercising his private property right to deny access to people who carry guns.
And, as a private property owner you can make any rule you want.... "No shoes, No shirt, No service" ring a bell?
Hence... those who violate the property owner's no guns rule and carry their gun on/in the property anyway are DISRESPECTING the property owner's right.
Now... I went back and reread my postings in this thread (twice!!) and I can't find anywhere that I said anything about sneaking a gun in where there is a no guns rule "infringing"
in reference to private property owner's rights but there are many posts where I mentioned "disrespecting" the private property owner's rights. You are aware that "disrespecting" and "infringing" are two entirely different things so could you please direct me to where I said anything in this discussion about "infringing" in reference to private property rights?
In reference to "infringing"... the government "infringes" on private property rights with laws that decree that a
private property owner who uses his private property to conduct business * cannot deny access to the business to certain groups of people. Those laws are based in not allowing the business owner to "discriminate"... yet any law that tells a person how they are NOT ALLOWED to exercise a right (any right regardless of which right it may be) IS an "infringement".
And there is one State that recognizes private property rights trump even the right to life itself:
Link Removed
Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; -snip-
And you have still FAILED! to prove there is a difference between a businesses private property rights and a homeowner's private property rights ...actually you have failed to even attempt to begin to offer any proof! relying instead on stupid fish (dum bass) arguments about purple skinned people breathing and pink panties. Didn't you give the example of a thong in a previous discussion about this issue? What is it with you and underwear?
GIVE ME CITES AND/OR LINKS TO ACTUAL FACTS!... that private property used for a business is different than private property used for a home. In fact it would appear that you are intentionally avoiding presenting any actual facts complete with cites and/or links to those facts as proof. And please do not refer to the oft posted video of Judge Napalitano offering his
opinion about "public accommodations" unless you can also cite and/or link to where his opinion is actual law in reference to carrying guns.
* please note the distinction I referenced when I said
private property owner who uses his private property to conduct business * above because the only real difference between a homeowner and a business owner is what is happening on/in ...................... PRIVATE PROPERTY.
GIVE ME CITES AND/OR LINKS TO ACTUAL FACTUAL LAWS!... If you can't then you got nothing... nothing at all... to uphold your argument that a businesses private property rights... are different than a homeowner's private property rights.
No cites? No links? Equals epic fail.
