Didn't actually see this with my own eye but the guy that "taught" my CHP class claimed that anytime he entered a building that had uniformed security he would approach them and ask if it was OK to carry there.
Bikenut,
Do I, as someone who "owns" a firearm, not have the "RIGHT" to carry it on my person anywhere I darn well please??? It is my "property" is it not?
Shall we keep the discussion about people instead of trying to veer off into discussions about animals?Bikenut,
Do you,as a "property owner" have the "right" to restrict all wildlife from entering your "property" to ONLY those who have no claws or teeth?
Do I, as someone who "owns" a firearm, not have the "RIGHT" to carry it on my person anywhere I darn well please??? It is my "property" is it not?
You continually miss the point... I have the right to deny you access to my property in the first place. Which means I am not denying you the ability to breathe... I am telling you to go breathe somewhere else just like I'm telling you to go carry your gun somewhere else.Do you have the "right" to restrict me from breathing while I am on your "property"?
You "property righters" have continually FAILED to prove AT ALL how an inanimate object that no-one knows is there INFRINGES on someones "rights".......
Do you have the "right" to restrict me from breathing while I am on your "property"?
Again you miss the point... I've been talking about how a person carrying a concealed gun on/in property that has a no guns rule is being disrespectful to the owner's private property right to deny access to those who carry guns.You "property righters" have continually FAILED to prove AT ALL how an inanimate object that no-one knows is there INFRINGES on someones "rights".......
Same as here in Florida, even though many say they have no force of law. Just there has not been a case where the defendant has been tried on the charge of carrying past a no gun sign, just no case law yet. Who wants to be the test case among the anti private property folks?Setting aside opinions, the state of Utah differentiates between private homes and private businesses. Homes are protected by law, where if you can carry in a business that has posted a sign is a civil matter and to be decided in a civil court, which as far as i know has not happened yet.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Here's a bit deeper thinking for you surface folks: Why do states have laws that the "legally posted signage" carries no weight of law? A "law" that is not a law in effect. Think that one through carefully before typingThose of us that have been instrumental in helping to write the laws know why. Do you?
The Feds and many States have laws that differentiate between the private property of a person's home and the private property of a business as to who/why members of the public can be denied access.Setting aside opinions, the state of Utah differentiates between private homes and private businesses. Homes are protected by law, where if you can carry in a business that has posted a sign is a civil matter and to be decided in a civil court, which as far as i know has not happened yet.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
If anti private property folks were willing to be a test case they would stand up for their anti property rights beliefs and open carry (in States where open carry is legal) into property with no guns rules but instead they prefer to sneak their gun in concealed so no one will know. And even then I haven't seen any of them say they will stand up for their anti private property rights beliefs and refuse to leave if caught sneaking in a gun concealed.....Same as here in Florida, even though many say they have no force of law. Just there has not been a case where the defendant has been tried on the charge of carrying past a no gun sign, just no case law yet. Who wants to be the test case among the anti private property folks?
Well, I don't know of any states the "have laws that the 'legally posted signage' carries no weight of law." There are simply many states who have not enacted laws that make it a criminal offense to carry past a properly posted sign. I prefer that the signs carry no weight of law because signs can easily be missed when entering a store amongst all the other postings around entrances that most people tend to pay no attention to.
(15) Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;
2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. . If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years.
Here's the basic circular logic being presented here:
Question: Would you feel a sense of obligation to disclose to your good friends that you're carrying before entering their home?
Answer: No, I never tell anyone I'm carrying.
Comment: No one is allowed in my home while carrying, and dammit, I mean NO ONE!
Suggestion: Perhaps some signage informing all comers of that fact would preclude any misunderstandings, hurt feelings, challenges to trust etc. etc. etc.
Response to suggestion: Nope, I never make my security plans known to anyone!
Response to that response: BINGO! Neither do I! That's why I never tell anyone I'm carrying!
Third generation response: Yeah, well, you damn well better tell ME if you come to MY home or you'll be guilty of trampling on MY property rights and breaking the trust of ME, your oh-so-good-friend!
Fourth gen response: Dude, if you would've just told me how you felt about guns in your home, it never would've become a bone of contention between us.
Ex-friend says: I NEVER tell ANYONE about my security plans! Got it??
Of course, I'm paraphrasing here and exaggerating the tone of some of the posts for satirical effect, but really, the circular logic is blatant, and it's not coming from the side that says they'd leave without argument the instant they were made aware of their friend's rules.
And I neither implied nor stated any "desire" to bring an "unwanted" gun onto anyone's property. I carry everywhere I go, period. I never spontaneously disclose to anyone that I'm carrying, period. If the property owner doesn't like signs and thinks it's incumbent upon his visitors to disclose everything they have on their person before entering his home, our respective rules for how we conduct ourselves pretty much cancels each other out since he won't disclose his rules and I won't disclose the contents of my waistband. So cool, we go on just exactly like how we've been going while this deep, trusting, abiding friendship was developing; blissfully ignorant of who each other is and what we expect/demand of each other in each other's homes! Ain't friendship just grand? LOL God, this is ridiculous.
Blues... get some sleep... this perpetual argument will still be here when you wake up. :smile:Bikenut, I work 3rd shift and have to get some sleep
Blues
This is a generic post not directed at any individual...-snip-
What if I don't know you have, or don't have, a no guns rule for your house? Because it is your rule it is up to you to let me know you have that rule since if there isn't any rule I am not disrespecting something that isn't there. After all.. you, as a property owner, also have the right to NOT have a no guns rule and unless you tell me in some way I have no way of knowing if you exercised your right to make a rule or exercised your right to not make a rule.-snip-
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?