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

[Firefighterchen]

assault, the mere act of trespassing is a misdemeanor, what that lunatic described is him assaulting someone

If someone is on my property, and I tell them to leave and they don't, and I physically push them out the door, I would be charged with assault?

Has that ever happened?

...sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if some heart bleeding jury did find someone guilty of that...'murica!!!

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[AndeyHall]

Are you saying a bouncer can't physically remove a person from a privately owned bar? Seen it in FL a number of times. I lived in W. Palm during the winter up until this past year. My wife is from W. Palm Beach. Never heard such a thing. Where in FL law is a trespasser protected? What I find in FL law says you're completely wrong.
.
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer
.
I can remember a party at my brother-in-law's house in W. Palm where one of the younger crowd was drunk and rowdy. He asked this guy to leave several times. Eventually he reached for his arm to assist him in leaving when the guy took a half-hearted swing at him. My B-I-L thumped this guy to the ground so fast I got whiplash. Dragged him outside and called police who promptly arrested the guy on charges relating to disorderly conduct, trespass and public intoxication. There were several charges if I remember right.
.
I would challenge any person in any state to post a law which prevents a property owner from using force to eject a trespasser.

Well that's not fair. I'm kinda like Ron White on this one..."I was drunk in a house. They THREW me into public!"

 

[AndeyHall]

Link Removed

 

[Farmhood]

It only gets like that when folks can't get their brain around the fact that private property trumps the other stuff.

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

 

[Axeanda45]

It all is a form of respect and what you want to do. If you want to go in somewhere that doesn't promote 2nd amend. Rights . then that is your business. I wouldn't and won't ,but that's me. If you go to someone's house and they don't want you to carry and they ask you to it is your duty as a legal gun owner and a responsible gun owner to abide by their wishes and go put it in your car or to leave . it is your choice. But "sneaking" it in is very childish and is the reason why so many people are using you type people as ammo for the push for gun bans. Grow up and live respecting people .

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using USA Carry mobile app

Some people realize/fathom what the word RESPECT means, and others, like you, spew it out without knowing what it is they are talking about..... A business owner who tries to impose something they have no right to do, like infringe on a humans right to carry an inanimate object that in no way shape or form (no matter how hard you and others like you try to confuse it) harms or infringes on ANYONES RIGHTS WHATSOEVER, is the one doing the DISRESPECTFUL thing.......

I suggest YOU "grow up" and stand up for our RIGHTS instead of advocating others to infringe on them when they arent practiced the way YOU want them to be...

You "property righters" always have pulled stinkie stuff out of your backsides and ignore all the FACTS about rights........ YOU CONFUSE the issue with ideas of trespass and rules, and totally IGNORE questions of just where do you get these so-called "rights" you claim, and when confronted with the question of why can you ONLY infringe on this right (to have anything we want in/on our person as long as it does no ACTUAL harm to you) yet you are silent on the extremely LOGICAL conclusion that if you have this "right" you claim, WHY DO YOU NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON ANY OF OUR OTHER RIGHTS???? You are silent on this aspect because you KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON THE OTHER RIGHTS, THEN YOUR ARGUMENT THAT YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT ONLY CONCERNING WEAPONS IS TOTALLY BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER.....

 

[Axeanda45]

It only gets like that when folks can't get their brain around the fact that private property trumps the other stuff.

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

My weapon in my pocket is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY...... and it does not harm you in the least... (does not ""infringe") Wrap YOUR HEAD around that one and get back to me when you get a clue...

 

[Bikenut]

Some people realize/fathom what the word RESPECT means, and others, like you, spew it out without knowing what it is they are talking about..... A business owner who tries to impose something they have no right to do, like infringe on a humans right to carry an inanimate object that in no way shape or form (no matter how hard you and others like you try to confuse it) harms or infringes on ANYONES RIGHTS WHATSOEVER, is the one doing the DISRESPECTFUL thing.......

I suggest YOU "grow up" and stand up for our RIGHTS instead of advocating others to infringe on them when they arent practiced the way YOU want them to be...

You "property righters" always have pulled stinkie stuff out of your backsides and ignore all the FACTS about rights........ YOU CONFUSE the issue with ideas of trespass and rules, and totally IGNORE questions of just where do you get these so-called "rights" you claim, and when confronted with the question of why can you ONLY infringe on this right (to have anything we want in/on our person as long as it does no ACTUAL harm to you) yet you are silent on the extremely LOGICAL conclusion that if you have this "right" you claim, WHY DO YOU NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON ANY OF OUR OTHER RIGHTS???? You are silent on this aspect because you KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON THE OTHER RIGHTS, THEN YOUR ARGUMENT THAT YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT ONLY CONCERNING WEAPONS IS TOTALLY BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER.....

A property owner has the right to deny entry to the property to a person and/or deny a person the ability to remain on/in the property.

Let me repeat that:

A property owner has the right to deny entry to the property to a person and/or deny a person the ability to remain on/in the property.

The property owner is denying the individual person ... the specific individual human being... and every thing about that person including the person's words, deeds, clothing, anything the person is sneaking in hidden in their clothing, their thoughts, their beliefs, their farts, and even their rights because the property owner is denying the person the ability to be on/in the property.

So Axe.... you are almost correct in that you (and I and everyone) retain our rights where ever we go but where your argument fails is there are some places (private property) we are NOT ALLOWED to go.

General comments:
1. Sometimes I think folks arguing about their right to bear arms isn't about bearing arms at all but is all about the selfishly arrogant belief that they are entitled to go anywhere they damn well please... including onto/into the private property of others regardless of what conditions (rules) the owner places upon his invitation to come in.

2. And sometimes I think folks are exceedingly hypocritical when they complain about laws that restrict (infringe upon) the right to bear arms yet selfishly want laws that would restrict (infringe upon) the private property right of excluding those who bear arms from privately owned property.

3. And sometimes I think folks just don't want to understand (see #1) that there isn't any difference (when it comes to private property rights) between a homeowner telling friends he has invited there is a rule that in order for them to visit they must take their shoes off at the door.... and a business that invites members of the public there is a rule that in order for them to visit they must not bring guns. Both are the property owner applying conditions upon his invitation to enter. Conditions that, if not met, mean the invitation is void.

4. And sometimes I think some folks are intentionally being obtuse when it comes to understanding that "open to the public" does not mean "open to everyone" but only means "open to those members of the public who agree to the property owner's rules".

 

[Farmhood]

My weapon in my pocket is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY...... and it does not harm you in the least... (does not ""infringe") Wrap YOUR HEAD around that one and get back to me when you get a clue...

Clue: Well it looks like Bikenut about Wrapped that up!

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

 

[Axeanda45]

Clue: Well it looks like Bikenut about Wrapped that up!

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

So... you dont have a clue either I see...

Blindly following the blind is where you are.....

The public is EVERYEFFINGBODY........... If you dont want the PUBLIC, dont invite them, open a members club... like sams club or costco..... otherwise STFU

 

[Axeanda45]

Bikenut, every time YOU comment on this thread and those along the same subject, YOU are insisting it is only YOUR WAY that is right.... and yet you are saying I am the arrogant one who wants to exercise my rights and damn all the rest??? yet it is YOU who have yet to prove you have ANY right that trumps/overrides someone elses just because your effing name is on a deed...... all the while only claiming it on JUST ONE SINGLE ASPECT OF THE ENTIRETY OF RIGHTS WE HOLD...... You have nothing at all but your very strong opinion... no facts whatsoever to back up your claims....

 

[Bikenut]

Bikenut, every time YOU comment on this thread and those along the same subject, YOU are insisting it is only YOUR WAY that is right.... and yet you are saying I am the arrogant one who wants to exercise my rights and damn all the rest??? yet it is YOU who have yet to prove you have ANY right that trumps/overrides someone elses just because your effing name is on a deed...... all the while only claiming it on JUST ONE SINGLE ASPECT OF THE ENTIRETY OF RIGHTS WE HOLD...... You have nothing at all but your very strong opinion... no facts whatsoever to back up your claims....

Axe.... here is a way to prove what I said is fact.

All you need do is grow some balls and walk into any business that has a no guns rule and tell the owner/manager that you are carrying a gun and there is nothing they can do about it because they do not have the right to take away your right to defend yourself no matter where you are.

Go for it Axe... instead of................... sneaking.................. your gun in so you won't get caught man up and walk in and refuse to leave as you proudly proclaim that the business owner doesn't have the right to boot you out for carrying a gun.

Come back and tell us all about it....................... after you get out of jail.

 

[Farmhood]

So... you dont have a clue either I see...

Blindly following the blind is where you are.....

The public is EVERYEFFINGBODY........... If you dont want the PUBLIC, dont invite them, open a members club... like sams club or costco..... otherwise STFU

Axe you are going off the deep end... think about it... your property the property you own is your "sams club or cosco" you just proved it by saying "don't invite them" So by your words if you have the right to not invite (on property you own) then you have the right to restrict visitation. Serious question: Is your name on any deed?

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

 

[BC1]

assault, the mere act of trespassing is a misdemeanor, what that lunatic described is him assaulting someone

Don't get too familiar again... be nice.
.
This lunatic described a situation where someone won't leave and resists attempts to remove him with force. In such a case you're going... one way or another you're going. How you go is up to you. That's not assault. That's legal according to FL law, NY law and every other state law.
.
FL Statute S776.031 (Use or threatened use of force in defense of property) says I can physically remove a trespasser.
FL Statute S776.032 (Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force) says you're powerless to claim assault when you needed to be physically removed for trespass.
.
If you have something... like another law to substantiate your claim then please list it. Short of that, this discussion has concluded. And watch that very thin line.

 

[AndeyHall]

Bikenut, every time YOU comment on this thread and those along the same subject, YOU are insisting it is only YOUR WAY that is right.... and yet you are saying I am the arrogant one who wants to exercise my rights and damn all the rest??? yet it is YOU who have yet to prove you have ANY right that trumps/overrides someone elses just because your effing name is on a deed...... all the while only claiming it on JUST ONE SINGLE ASPECT OF THE ENTIRETY OF RIGHTS WE HOLD...... You have nothing at all but your very strong opinion... no facts whatsoever to back up your claims....

I think you're accidentally hitting the CAPS button sporadically through your post...

 

[Rhino]

Only if you're threaten in your castle. If I am carrying concealed and you become the aggressor if you think I'm CC'ing. The line of liability is thin. Are you ready to commit? CC is CC. You gonna risk it all?

Enforcing one's right to physically remove a trespasser from private property does not constitute aggression. Resisting the legal removal of oneself from private property while trespassing would make you the aggressor though. You'd be committing a crime. Resisting an attempt to be removed from the premises would just make the crime worse. Resisting with the use of a firearm would likely result in the permanent loss of your right to possess a firearm, and possibly time in prison. You might want to think about such things before willingly falling on your sword because you think something you feel strongly about trumps the law. The property owner has the right to set conditions for access to the property, and those conditions can be whatever he wants them to be, whether they be fact or suspicion. Defying those conditions constitutes trespassing. The property owner has not only the right to demand you leave, but also the right to remove you if necessary. If you resist, you're just escalating the crime of trespassing to a higher level. If you resist with a gun, you've just used a firearm in the commission of a crime, which in almost all instances means you'll start kissing a lot of things goodbye.
.

this could be what the law is in NY but it certainly is not the law elsewhere. try and forcibly remove a trespasser like you would in FLA would get you into a heap of trouble with the law, both criminally and civilly

That's not true.

 

[Rhino]

My weapon in my pocket is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY...... and it does not harm you in the least... (does not ""infringe") Wrap YOUR HEAD around that one and get back to me when you get a clue...

Your private property? But didn't you just argue that private property rights aren't important?
.
First, the "shall not be infringed" part applies to the government, not to individual people. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can come onto my property at 2 AM and start screaming at the top of your lungs, even if I'm wearing earplugs and don't hear you. You don't have the right to build a cabin on my back 40 where I can't see it. It's still against the law, even if all the materials used were your "private property" and even if it never causes me any tangible harm. That doesn't mean I don't respect your right to have those materials or your right to build a cabin. It means I have the right to control my land and what happens there, even if I never see it and even if it never directly affects me. You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around that simple, irrefutable fact. Having one right doesn't mean you can trample the rights of others. You seem perfectly willing to accept that concept as long as it works in your favor, but you inexplicably forget the concept ever existed when it works against you. I want to exercise my right to carry as much as you do and in as many places as you do, but I don't want to deny or trample the rights of others in order to do so. That would be very hypocritical of me. It would also make me very much like the anti-gunners.

 

[whodat2710]

Alexandra45, I think I posted this about 73 pages ago, but try and "wrap your little brain" around this:
-
Have you ever seen the sign on a business that states "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? As long as the business does not use this as a discriminatory practice, this is legal and has been upheld in court.
-
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"? Same thing. As long as it is enforced unilaterally it is legal.
-
How in the world do you envision that "No Guns", "No Knives", "No Concealed Weapons" etc. is any different?
-
AND - before you start you "Constitutionally protected right" argument, It could be argued that you making me put on shoes to enter your establishment infringes on my rights; or the fact that you refused me service because I was belligerent. smelled bad, or was offensive to other customers. You can argue it all you want, but none of it would fly in court. You're "sneaking" proves that you know you're wrong.

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

I think you're accidentally hitting the CAPS button sporadically through your post...

Now that I see someone else doing it. It does come off pretty dang annoying. I'm gonna have to stop w my sporadic cap habit as well.

 

[jer85]

I can't believe that you people are arguing about something that is so plain and clear. Everyone that thinks that you have the right to carry where you please , your wrong plain and simple. Regardless of your view point it is still against local law. It doesn't matter what you think. If there is a sign that says no guns or a crossed out gun or anything of that sort then it is not right for you to carry and you can get taken to jail. Prob. Not prosecuted for it cause in Texas the 30.06 and 51% sign are the only sign punishable by law , but could make you r life hell for a couple of days . at any rate , the people that carry where and when they can legally or right fully , we r the law abiding c.c. people that they refer to as responsible gun owners. If you don't like the thought of being told you can't c.c. a gun on the premise , then leave, but " sneaking it in " drops you to a thugish level in my opinion. And I am pro 2nd amendment and pro every other amendment that's why I believe they have the right in the states to tell you not to carry. But I will not support them either

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

My two cents-

Businesses that don't allow- well- I take my business elsewhere- unless it can not be helped.

Private homes that have the no gun sign- I feel that to ask that people respect our constitutional right to bear arms- means that we too should respect the home owner's wish that we not do so in his home as well.

I can use the home with small children as a good example. You never know why a homeowner posts such a sign. It could be thru sheer ignorance- or fulfill a very necessary safety precaution (whether rational or irrational).

I rarely have girlfriends who carry firearms. But if they do- they're welcome to carry in my home with my kids around- and they have to place their purse (with the firearm) - on top of my fridge.

Other mothers might not be as understanding. And to purposely carry inside when specifically asked not to- would make me feel like i'm forcing my rights onto someone who does not want that right expressed in their home.