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

[Rhino]

If they didnt want the public, WHY DID THEY INVITE THEM???? Just another little tidbit you and yours keep ignoring...

Actually you seem to be ignoring that yourself. Opening a business to the public does not represent a blanket invitation to all, with no restrictions, and it never has. That is common knowledge that you are conveniently ignoring here just to advance your argument. Try walking into a nice upscale restaurant wearing nothing but a speedo and see what kind of welcome you get. Now please quit pretending that a business being open to the public means that everyone is welcome without any restrictions or conditions whatsoever, because we all know very well that simply isn't true. Heck, even elementary school students know that.

 

[Aurelius]

Axeanda45

Trespassing does not require proof of damages. If you are not wanted, you are a trespasser.

Have you seen signs on fenced properties that said no trespassing? You certainly can ignore it and if nobody see you, you got away with it. You by simply being on the other side of the fence might not have caused any harm or damage, but that does not mean you did not trespass.

As someone already pointed out, the gun is not the main issue because it could be anything unwanted by the property owner on their premise.

 

[AndeyHall]

It's quite frustrating that I am legally allowed to carry almost anywhere in the country except a federal courthouse and a few other federal buildings, yet my simple little part time job technically doesn't even allow us to have a gun in our vehicles. Now I'll be damned if I'm not gonna have a gun at least in my vehicle.

But to answer the OP's question, if I think I can get away with it, depending on my dress and what I am going to be doing, I carry at least one gun any and everywhere I go whether they want me to or not.

We have a movie theater that has a sign posted (Regal of course), and I don't think I've ever darkened their doorstep without a gun on my side.

 

[Graylon]

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.

Of course I leave my handgun in the car. ;-)

Sent from my LG-VS410PP using Tapatalk 2

Me too!

 

[Jack_shadow]

In sc the signs have to be if a certain type or they have no legal standing. Been carrying for a few months now and have yet to find one legal sign...plenty of others though, which I ignore.

 

[Axeanda45]

Axeanda45

Trespassing does not require proof of damages. If you are not wanted, you are a trespasser.

Have you seen signs on fenced properties that said no trespassing? You certainly can ignore it and if nobody see you, you got away with it. You by simply being on the other side of the fence might not have caused any harm or damage, but that does not mean you did not trespass.

As someone already pointed out, the gun is not the main issue because it could be anything unwanted by the property owner on their premise.

I never said it did, NOR have I ever said I WOULDNT BE TRESPASSING if I did go onto someone elses property unwanted... I just very simply state the FACT that an inanimate object in my pocket does NOT infringe on anyones RIGHTS....... (you and most others here utterly FAIL to comprehend that someones rules are NOT his rights) Anything else you want to point out that I havent said yet you accuse me of?

 

[FTG-05]

"No Guns" = "No Money!"

 

[whodat2710]

I never said it did, NOR have I ever said I WOULDNT BE TRESPASSING if I did go onto someone elses property unwanted... I just very simply state the FACT that an inanimate object in my pocket does NOT infringe on anyones RIGHTS....... (you and most others here utterly FAIL to comprehend that someones rules are NOT his rights) Anything else you want to point out that I havent said yet you accuse me of?

OK, if that inanimate object in your pocket happens to be a gun, and I have expressed my desire that you not bring it into my establishment, you ARE infringing on MY rights. If you having a gun makes me feel like my safety is compromised, you may IN MY OPINION be infringing on my right to life (one of the 3 biggies). You want to stand there and tell me that because my opinion happens to be wrong that I am not allowed to have it? You are stepping right into progressive liberal territory buddy. If you would open your mind and think about that you might find that you agree that we are all allowed to have our own opinions, and that we may also enforce our opinions in our domain.
-
If you bring a Koran (or however you spell it) into my house you will be asked to leave. If it became a problem that happened frequently then I might put up a sign warning you so we don't have to have that discussion.
-
If you do not believe that we each have rights, and that by ignoring someone's rights you infringe on them, then you are hopeless.
-
Which is why many people (including myself) just refuse to fund their opinion which differs from our own. Shop elsewhere, and if you want to make a point don't do it by being covert, tell them to their face why they are losing your business. It might make them reconsider their stupid opinion.

 

[NavyLCDR]

To me it is simple. My right to bear arms does not stop at anyone elses' property line. However, I have no right to cross their property line or remain on their property without their permission. If I am not paying rent, paid for ownership, filed a claim to deed or paying taxes for it, than it ain't my property.

 

[SR9]

Like the guy at the gun counter at my local big box sporting goods store at the(no carry) mall told me...... If your carrying concealed....how would I know you are carrying? Point taken.

 

[BC1]

To me it is simple. My right to bear arms does not stop at anyone elses' property line. However, I have no right to cross their property line or remain on their property without their permission. If I am not paying rent, paid for ownership, filed a claim to deed or paying taxes for it, than it ain't my property.

That sums it up concisely.

 

[Rhino]

I never said it did, NOR have I ever said I WOULDNT BE TRESPASSING if I did go onto someone elses property unwanted... I just very simply state the FACT that an inanimate object in my pocket does NOT infringe on anyones RIGHTS....... (you and most others here utterly FAIL to comprehend that someones rules are NOT his rights)

You utterly FAIL to comprehend that a property owner has the right to set conditions on access to his property, and that you violate his property rights if you break those rules with an object he has prohibited, whether it be inanimate or not. Your 2nd amendment rights don't give you the right to violate someone else's property rights. It's that simple, but you seem unable to comprehend that. What the rules are, or what objects they may involve, make no difference whatsoever. If they want to ban purple paint from their property, then you violate their property rights by taking purple paint there. The fact that you have the right to carry purple paint makes no difference. The fact that he may no know you're carrying the paint makes no difference. You've violated the conditions set for access and that means you've violated his property rights.
.

Anything else you want to point out that I havent said yet you accuse me of?

Sure. If you run a red light and nobody sees you that doesn't make it legal. If you commit murder and no one ever finds out that doesn't make it legal. If you light an open flame next to the alkylation unit in a refinery and it doesn't blow up, that doesn't mean it's okay. You're suffering from some delusion that you aren't violating someone's rights just so long as they don't know about it or because the object involved isn't alive. That's simply ridiculous.

 

[Axeanda45]

To me it is simple. My right to bear arms does not stop at anyone elses' property line. However, I have no right to cross their property line or remain on their property without their permission. If I am not paying rent, paid for ownership, filed a claim to deed or paying taxes for it, than it ain't my property.

Are you a member of the public?

 

[Axeanda45]

You utterly FAIL to comprehend that a property owner has the right to set conditions on access to his property, and that you violate his property rights if you break those rules with an object he has prohibited, whether it be inanimate or not. Your 2nd amendment rights don't give you the right to violate someone else's property rights. It's that simple, but you seem unable to comprehend that. What the rules are, or what objects they may involve, make no difference whatsoever. If they want to ban purple paint from their property, then you violate their property rights by taking purple paint there. The fact that you have the right to carry purple paint makes no difference. The fact that he may no know you're carrying the paint makes no difference. You've violated the conditions set for access and that means you've violated his property rights.
.
Sure. If you run a red light and nobody sees you that doesn't make it legal. If you commit murder and no one ever finds out that doesn't make it legal. If you light an open flame next to the alkylation unit in a refinery and it doesn't blow up, that doesn't mean it's okay. You're suffering from some delusion that you aren't violating someone's rights just so long as they don't know about it or because the object involved isn't alive. That's simply ridiculous.

*sigh*

Will you ever get around to actually comprehending that a persons RULES are NOT the same thing as his/hers RIGHTS?

BTW, your "examples" are some of the most idiotic yet to try and make a comparison of an inanimate object YOU DONT EFFING EVEN KNOW IS THERE into something it very much isnt...

 

[AndeyHall]

You utterly FAIL to comprehend that a property owner has the right to set conditions on access to his property, and that you violate his property rights if you break those rules with an object he has prohibited, whether it be inanimate or not. Your 2nd amendment rights don't give you the right to violate someone else's property rights. It's that simple, but you seem unable to comprehend that. What the rules are, or what objects they may involve, make no difference whatsoever. If they want to ban purple paint from their property, then you violate their property rights by taking purple paint there. The fact that you have the right to carry purple paint makes no difference. The fact that he may no know you're carrying the paint makes no difference. You've violated the conditions set for access and that means you've violated his property rights.
.
Sure. If you run a red light and nobody sees you that doesn't make it legal. If you commit murder and no one ever finds out that doesn't make it legal. If you light an open flame next to the alkylation unit in a refinery and it doesn't blow up, that doesn't mean it's okay. You're suffering from some delusion that you aren't violating someone's rights just so long as they don't know about it or because the object involved isn't alive. That's simply ridiculous.

I somewhat agree, but at the same time, didn't we crucify all the businesses who tried to set those same conditions of access to their property against minority races? How is my right to self defense on their property any less of a civil rights issue?

 

[Bikenut]

*sigh*

Will you ever get around to actually comprehending that a persons RULES are NOT the same thing as his/hers RIGHTS?

BTW, your "examples" are some of the most idiotic yet to try and make a comparison of an inanimate object YOU DONT EFFING EVEN KNOW IS THERE into something it very much isnt...

And of course no one would know that inanimate object is there as long as someone ........... sneaks... it in. Right?

Why do you continue to think that the right of the property owner to control who has his permission to enter his property hinges upon the property owner knowing who is .... sneaking... in an inanimate object the property owner has said (using a rule) that those who have that particular inanimate object do not have his permission to enter?

After all.... if you know you aren't supposed to be there because you are carrying a gun against the owner's wishes but are there anyway you are .... sneaking... the gun in so you won't get caught and thrown out. If you weren't concerned about being thrown out you wouldn't need to .... sneak... the gun in now would you?

 

[Bikenut]

I somewhat agree, but at the same time, didn't we crucify all the businesses who tried to set those same conditions of access to their property against minority races? How is my right to self defense on their property any less of a civil rights issue?

Please understand that those laws that prohibit a property owner from denying entry to certain classes of people are just as much an infringement upon the property owner's right to control who has access to his property as gun laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms. Both are the government exercising control over the rights of "we the people".

All rights are equal or there are no rights at all... only those rights the government allows us to exercise. And guess what? The government in control of what rights we are allowed to exercise is exactly what we have now... only the privilege to exercise the rights the government says is Ok, in ways the government says is OK, in places the government says is Ok, for people the government says is Ok.

And people have become so used to the government "fixing" rights so things will be "fair" they think they actually have rights now a days....

 

[whodat2710]

Please understand that those laws that prohibit a property owner from denying entry to certain classes of people are just as much an infringement upon the property owner's right to control who has access to his property as gun laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms. Both are the government exercising control over the rights of "we the people".

Both are the government regulating what the elected majority thinks is best for the country, for our own good, and enforcing that through regulations. It has been argued that the 13th and 14th Amendments were just political grandstanding, trying to buy votes in a way that a Supreme Court ruling would not. It was already set in stone that "all men are created equal", and the Supremes could have affirmed that "yes that includes blacks" leaving the only necessary amendment to reword Art 2 Sec III to fix the "free men" and "3/5" blurb regarding the census. If you asked a slave owner in the early 1800's if having a slave was his "right" I'm sure he would have said it was. Where my analogy crosses with the topic of the thread, is that both slavery AND carrying a gun into an establishment that doesn't want them there is where your rights don't trump someone else's. It seems you can't convince Axe that property rights are the same as personal rights if you are paying (or have paid) for the privilege of exercising YOUR rights on that property by virtue of renting, leasing or owning that property; and how that trumps anyone coming in off the street.
-
Axe - if you don't have a "no trespassing" sign on your property, can I go in and fix myself a sandwich? Conversely, if you do have a no trespassing sign does it mean anything? Bear in mind that the sign itself does not carry the weight of any rules, laws or regulations other that to express your "rules" as a property owner.

 

[Axeanda45]

Axe - if you don't have a "no trespassing" sign on your property, can I go in and fix myself a sandwich? Conversely, if you do have a no trespassing sign does it mean anything? Bear in mind that the sign itself does not carry the weight of any rules, laws or regulations other that to express your "rules" as a property owner.

Again, you utterly FAIL to see or comprehend my position, and are coming up with ridiculous examples so far off into left field (off topic) that you arent even in the same ballpark....


I will try once again to get through to you in as simple a language as I can....

Your rights, my rights, everyones rights exist EVERYWHERE, period, end of story......


IF <----- PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT EFFING WORD, IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND EVERYONE SEEMS TO IGNORE IT

IF I am on someone elses "property" be it private OR business (even ignoring the inviting the public part) I still retain all of MY RIGHTS...... and IF I decide to exercise them, as long as I do no "HARM"(infringe), which for example, an inanimate object they do not know is there can no way shape or form can possibly do, then I have NOT infringed on anyones "RIGHTS"

I have NEVER stated that I had the RIGHT to BE on their property... and that is yet another aspect you all seem to ignore also..

 

[Axeanda45]

You "property righters" are insisting you have some special power to deny others their RIGHTS...... sure, you pick a less drastic "RIGHT" to infringe on, so not many people will challenge you or point it out... yet you are STILL infringing on someone elses RIGHTS when you prohibit an inanimate object you dont even know is there....

You claim that when I say that if you have this "special power" you must also have the "power" to infringe on ANY OTHER OF THEIR RIGHTS and then give an extreme example just to show you what you are actually claiming you have the "power" to do then I get accused of being demon possessed/sick in the head.....


IF your position is the correct one, then on your property, you are 100% LEGAL to do WHATEVER YOU WANT to ANYONE who happens to be on your property.... (denying them of their rights... no picking and choosing now, YOU said you had this "power", it either applies to ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS or it doesnt apply to ANY of them)

My position is much more realistic and logical.....