Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?
- Thread starter HappeScrapn
- Start date
- Status
Again, there is a huge difference between what is illegal, and what violates someone's rights.
Axeanda45
Banned
Still no proof that in my example that I have INFRINGED on your RIGHTS in the least, other than your ignorant/lying opinion that rules are rights?
I have NOT DENIED you have the right to call tho popo on me.... or that you could have me thrown off your property, but you can only do so because I am trespassing, heck, I even stated I had no RIGHT to be ON your property.... Only that IF I HAPPENED to "be" on your property, I STILL RETAIN ALL OF MY RIGHTS, I AM NOT INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS..... GET AN EFFING CLUE......
B
Bikenut
Guest
Really? I have posted this many times Axe...
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-
I gave you a cite and a link to a reputable source that tells you that if you do not have the property owner's permission (disobeying a property owner's rule means you do not have his permission) then you are trespassing and your trespassing has been held to infringe upon the property owner's right to enjoy the benefits of owning that property.
Oh ... and... you said...
So show me MY posts! Man up and provide proof!
Also... still no cites and/or links? Your credibility on this issue is plummeting faster than Congresses approval rating.
Axeanda45
Banned
WTF don't you get about what we are discussing??????
You keep repeating bull that DOES NOT APPLY to what we are discussing.....
Do you actually think by repeating stuff that DOES NOT APPLY that it eventually will apply??????
GET A CLUE. My Cites are the D O I, The Constitution and the BOR...
Axeanda45
Banned
If we are to believe YOUR CITE, then the logical conclusion would have to be that YOU CLAIM TO HAVE THE POWER TO RAPE/KILL/ENSLAVE WITH IMPUNITY if THAT is how you intend to ENJOY YOUR "PROPERTY"..... One idiotic quote from some obscure opinion (that isnt even case law) does NOT THE TRUTH MAKE.....
Axeanda45
Banned
Inalienable
The word inalienable is often linked to human rights — you’ve probably heard the term “inalienable rights.” In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson (using the un- variant) wrote that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The spelling may vary but the meaning is clear: an inalienable right is something that can’t be given or taken away by a government or another legal power.
The word inalienable is often linked to human rights — you’ve probably heard the term “inalienable rights.” In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson (using the un- variant) wrote that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The spelling may vary but the meaning is clear: an inalienable right is something that can’t be given or taken away by a government or another legal power.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Axe... what part of you, as a person, will always have your rights but since you have no right to be on in my property and trespassing on/in my property infringes upon my property rights when I throw you out I am denying you and your rights to be on/in my property do you not understand?
Your rights were not "taken away"... they, along with you, are not allowed on/in my property.
And just because you don't accept my cite and link doesn't mean it isn't a valid source.
Now... instead of just mentioning what your sources are how about citing actual wording from them that supports your position?
Your rights were not "taken away"... they, along with you, are not allowed on/in my property.
And just because you don't accept my cite and link doesn't mean it isn't a valid source.
Now... instead of just mentioning what your sources are how about citing actual wording from them that supports your position?
B
Bikenut
Guest
Dammit man! Stop trying to sensationalize your argument by putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said anything about claiming to have the power to rape/kill/enslave with impunity! Quote my posts where I said those words!
B
Bikenut
Guest
I am not taking your life if I throw you off my property. I am not taking away your liberty either since you are free to go somewhere else.... and that "pursuit of happiness" part? Well, if you are pursuing your happiness in/on my property then remember those words "pursuit of happiness" means you have the right to pursue it but you don't have the right to attain it on/in my property. Go pursue it somewhere else.
Axeanda45
Banned
Bikenut CLAIMS he has the POWER to remove/prohibit another persons RIGHT to bear arms... therefore, the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION ANYONE WITH EVEN HALF OF A BRAIN COULD COME TO IS THAT BIKENUT would ALSO have the "power" to remove/abuse/infringe on ANY RIGHT...... if you have the "power" for one, you have the "power" for them all...... too bad he cannot seem to comprehend LOGIC......
Too bad he also doesnt have a clue that he ACTUALLY DOES NOT HAVE THE "power" he claims he does about being able to remove someone elses RIGHT to bear arms, it is all in his convoluted UN-logical fantasies...
Axeanda45
Banned
Too bad you still havent a clue....
B
Bikenut
Guest
Too bad you cannot comprehend that when I remove YOU from my property I also remove your right to bear arms on my property since your rights go with you when I throw you out the door.
Got cites and/or links to support your position that ... sneaking... a gun into/onto property where the property owner has a rule that those who carry guns do not have his permission is NOT infringing upon that property owner's right to control who is, and who isn't, allowed on/in his property?
Cites and links Axe..... and your credibility rating has just gone lower than Congress's.
Axeanda45
Banned
too bad YOU DONT GET IT.... WHILE I AM ON YOUR PROPERTY, ALL OF MY RIGHTS ARE INTACT.... We arent talking about once you kick me off..., never have been, grasping at anything now, arent you?
the "property owner" we are talking about has FAILED to keep me off his "property" and we are talking about the time that the "trespass" is happening, not before, or after, but WHILE IT IS HAPPENING...... And the FACT that WHILE "trespassing" the person doing the "trespassing" RETAINS ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS, no matter how many times you try to claim different.... and no, because I know you are going there again.... I am not saying the trespasser has the right to be on the "property"...
B
Bikenut
Guest
We, as humans, never lose any of our rights. But I, as a private property owner, can deny your rights on/in my property just by denying you as a person. If I deny you I also deny your rights. I don't take them from you... I remove you, and your rights, from my property. And if you would go back and reread my posts you would discover that I have been saying that all along.
Let me say it again...
I, as a property owner, have the right to deny your right to bear arms on/in my property.
I accomplish that by denying you, as a person, to be on/in my property.
This isn't about taking away a right... it is about denying the person and their rights right along with them to be on/in the property.
Now... I would use rules to show who does not have my permission to be there and those who break those rules are trespassing.... and trespassing infringes upon my private property rights... or did you find cites and/or links to refute that? That is how this discussion of ours started with you asserting that breaking a rule does not infringe upon the property owner's rights.
While you have been focusing on the argument about taking away rights you have avoided providing cites and/or links to prove your assertion that breaking a private property owner's no guns rule that denies those who carry guns permission to be on/in that property doesn't infringe upon the property owner's right to control his property.
Got cites and/or links?
+1. And, at least in Washington state, carrying past a simple no guns sign into a business does not automatically make it trespassing.
http://www.seattle.gov/police/prevention/business/trespass.htm
Link Removed
I've never seen a no guns sign come even close. In Washington, breaking the owner's rules on their property does not raise to the level of trespassing until the owner actually informs you specifically that it is trespassing - or specifically tells you that you must leave and you don't.
B
Bikenut
Guest
The act of trespass happens the moment a person steps on/in the property where they know they do not have permission to be. That is the act itself.
Being asked to leave the property is getting caught already in the act of trespassing.
How the trespass law(s) can be utilized by the property owner and the point at which there will be legal penalties depends on the trespass law(s) of the State where the trespass occurred. The property owner can, could, might, decide to just require the person (the whole person including their rights) to leave and never come back without getting the law involved or the owner might decide to levy the full weight of the trespass law(s).
But the act of trespass happens when a person is on/in private property knowing they do not have permission to be there whether they get caught at it or not.
Once again.....
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-
It is up to us as individuals to decide whether or not to infringe on the right of a property owner to deny entry and trespass by entering property that we know we do not have permission to be there. Doesn't matter if we get caught at it and/or suffer legal penalties or not... trespass is still trespass. But it is discouraging to see folks who want their right to bear arms not be infringed infringing upon the property owner's right to deny access to his property.
I'm sure anyone who has been following my posts is aware of my position so whether folks agree with me or not I'm done with this discussion.
Being asked to leave the property is getting caught already in the act of trespassing.
How the trespass law(s) can be utilized by the property owner and the point at which there will be legal penalties depends on the trespass law(s) of the State where the trespass occurred. The property owner can, could, might, decide to just require the person (the whole person including their rights) to leave and never come back without getting the law involved or the owner might decide to levy the full weight of the trespass law(s).
But the act of trespass happens when a person is on/in private property knowing they do not have permission to be there whether they get caught at it or not.
Once again.....
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-
It is up to us as individuals to decide whether or not to infringe on the right of a property owner to deny entry and trespass by entering property that we know we do not have permission to be there. Doesn't matter if we get caught at it and/or suffer legal penalties or not... trespass is still trespass. But it is discouraging to see folks who want their right to bear arms not be infringed infringing upon the property owner's right to deny access to his property.
I'm sure anyone who has been following my posts is aware of my position so whether folks agree with me or not I'm done with this discussion.
- Status
