Firearms Owner's Rights V. Property Owner's rights

[Bikenut]

I guess it's kind of like the "slippery when wet" sign. If its displayed, it makes it harder to sue if you slip and fall. Now, that's not to say you can't try or will lose.

So it isn't that there is a for sure actual benefit for a business to have a no guns rule/sign but is more of a "maybe it will work but it doesn't hurt my business so why not?" kind of thing?

 

[tricolordad]

Just a note... we have the right to the pursuit of happiness... we do not have the right to actually attain happiness.

Let me elaborate...If somebody is carrying without a pocket holster, IWB whatever and in the process of grabbing keys, scratching their butt, whatever...the gun goes off...did that AD/ND get in the way of my pursuit of happiness? Did a chance ricochet threaten my right to life? If his ricochet goes through the window and hits a car on the road, does it threaten my right to liberty (jail time) if I can't prove that that person was responsible and it wasn't mine? Nobody can tell me that metallurgy and ballistic testing will do jack to exonerate me. Fragments kill, fragments also have no story to tell. My magazine being full of lead RN or FMJ means nothing to a DA who will say I had a different round in the tube.

That's why I ban other people carrying at my home. Certain people, like my jarhead brother, are allowed because KNOW without a doubt his training minimizes the chance of a ND or AD. As to the general public...I have NO idea how much training you have. I have no idea if you're playing with pocket change or an unholstered pistol. As an example, I found out last week that a friend who hunts every year doesn't even own the rifle he has been using...get my stance on it?

 

[Bikenut]

Let me elaborate...If somebody is carrying without a pocket holster, IWB whatever and in the process of grabbing keys, scratching their butt, whatever...the gun goes off...did that AD/ND get in the way of my pursuit of happiness? Did a chance ricochet threaten my right to life? If his ricochet goes through the window and hits a car on the road, does it threaten my right to liberty (jail time) if I can't prove that that person was responsible and it wasn't mine? Nobody can tell me that metallurgy and ballistic testing will do jack to exonerate me. Fragments kill, fragments also have no story to tell. My magazine being full of lead RN or FMJ means nothing to a DA who will say I had a different round in the tube.

That's why I ban other people carrying at my home. Certain people, like my jarhead brother, are allowed because KNOW without a doubt his training minimizes the chance of a ND or AD. As to the general public...I have NO idea how much training you have. I have no idea if you're playing with pocket change or an unholstered pistol. As an example, I found out last week that a friend who hunts every year doesn't even own the rifle he has been using...get my stance on it?

Perhaps I'm misreading the tone of your post but I'm not your enemy nor was I trying to be a smart arse....

And it should be obvious from my postings that I support the property owner's right to make any dang legal rule he wants for his property.

But there is a difference between pursuing happiness by wanting to be in control of who does what on your property and holding everyone else responsible for you being able to pursue happiness. After all.. if we take the idea that anything anyone else does that interferes with your personal pursuit of happiness then anyone who does anything to inconvenience you in any way on your way to the store.. or prevents you from making a million dollars... or has a headache when you are feeling frisky... is getting in the way of your pursuit of happiness.

But that is a flawed perspective because the pursuit of happiness is exactly that... the pursuit of it.. and those things that get in the way of attaining happiness are just obstacles along the way of the .... pursuit.

In plain language... you have the right to pursue happiness but you don't have the right to capture it.

 

[Axeanda45]

If your RKBA infringes on my right to the pursuit of happiness, then does it cancel both out? I don't allow people to carry on my property if I am not aware of their level of training...I've yet to catch someone, but it IS posted on my front door.

Let me ask you this...if I come into your house and smoke, which is potentially hazardous to your health, and you ask me not to and I continue to do it...how is that different from somebody, whose level of training you are unfamiliar with carrying a loaded firearm into YOUR home. A home is a man's (or woman's) final place of retreat. The place you go to be safe.

Be realistic. You don't want me carrying in your home, which is a property rights issue, whether you rent or not, because your home is your castle and you have the right to restrict certain things so that you have the upper hand and can be safe.

Now for a business...which is accessible to anyone...i believe that you have the right to be safe. I also believe that others have the right to do as they wish with their property. If they don't like your gun being used to protect yourself or family, then drive your butt somewhere else and spend money there. Great minds think alike and I'd rather be with people like me if something goes wrong.

I do not own any land. I have no financial interest in any of this...

0% of your post even comes close to proving what I said was wrong in any way, it all fails miserably.... For example, you try (and fail) to say a concealed firearm that no-one knows is there is the same thing as someone SMOKING A CIGARETTE in a no smoking zone!!! ever hear of second hand smoke? have you ever smelled a cigarette burning? have you ever seen smoke? how in the he** can something not seen, smelled, or toxic be the same thing as something that actually is all those things????

 

[Axeanda45]

A little more about "rights" vs "rules".......

One thing to look at is the "you are free to exercise your rights until they infringe on anothers rights" or however you want to put it.....

Anyways, where is the line when a "property owners rules" begin to endanger someones right to protect themselves? If a "property owner" makes a rule that potentially can cause someone to die (in this case a no firearms rule). Wouldnt the RIGHT to keep and bear arms trump someones "rule" in this?

 

[Nightmare45]

Texas is a private property state, I can stop anyone from carrying on my private property including police. my close personal friends have an invite from me to carry on my property everyone else can and will be disarmed including LEO's, I have a ranch in Texas and AZ and entry to my property is forbidden unless you have my permission. Typically I grant Border Patrol entry to my property to chase illegal folks.

 

[Glockout]

So it isn't that there is a for sure actual benefit for a business to have a no guns rule/sign but is more of a "maybe it will work but it doesn't hurt my business so why not?" kind of thing?

In my opinion, yes. I'm no lawyer is I can't say for sure. But it makes sense.

 

[Bikenut]

A little more about "rights" vs "rules".......

One thing to look at is the "you are free to exercise your rights until they infringe on anothers rights" or however you want to put it.....

Anyways, where is the line when a "property owners rules" begin to endanger someones right to protect themselves? If a "property owner" makes a rule that potentially can cause someone to die (in this case a no firearms rule). Wouldnt the RIGHT to keep and bear arms trump someones "rule" in this?

Actually folks do not have any right what so ever to be on/in someone elses property in the first place. So... if a person agrees to the rules the property owner has for entering the property they have voluntarily agreed not to have the means to protect themselves.

Like it or not... on private property folks only have the ability to exercise the rights the property owner allows them to.......... and it is the folks who enter/stay that voluntarily agree to limit their rights according to the property owner's rules in exchange for the privilege of being allowed to enter/stay on/in the property.

After all... if folks had a right to be on/in the property then they could not be thrown out at all and "trespass" would not even be a legal consideration since they would have just as much right to be there as the owner.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So it isn't that there is a for sure actual benefit for a business to have a no guns rule/sign but is more of a "maybe it will work but it doesn't hurt my business so why not?" kind of thing?

In my opinion, yes. I'm no lawyer is I can't say for sure. But it makes sense.

Ok... let me ask...

If a businessman is thinking that having a no guns rule might help if he were sued in court because someone brought in a gun and shot someone else..........wouldn't it be equally as valid to think that if there wasn't a no guns rule and someone brought in a gun and used that gun to stop a bad guy from shooting multiple people it might cut down on the number of lawsuits?

After all... people will sue the business no matter if they got shot on purpose by a bad guy or accidentally by a good guy responding to a bad guy.

Please understand... I'm sincerely trying to find out what real world benefit there is for a businessman to decide to have a no guns rule.

 

[Glockout]

Ok... let me ask...

If a businessman is thinking that having a no guns rule might help if he were sued in court because someone brought in a gun and shot someone else..........wouldn't it be equally as valid to think that if there wasn't a no guns rule and someone brought in a gun and used that gun to stop a bad guy from shooting multiple people it might cut down on the number of lawsuits?

After all... people will sue the business no matter if they got shot on purpose by a bad guy or accidentally by a good guy responding to a bad guy.

Please understand... I'm sincerely trying to find out what real world benefit there is for a businessman to decide to have a no guns rule.

Interesting point. I think you got me. Check mate!!

 

[maine04619]

Ok this is simple. If the person who OWNS the property says they do not want X in or on there property then stay off if you do not wish to comply with there rules.

No all those of you who are puffing out your chest saying I do not care about a sign I will carry there it is my right I will bet you do not even attempt to carry into a airport boarding area or a federal building do YA!!! If nothing else it is a simple matter of respect.

I live in Maine we have a sign law but here it carries NO legal weight. IE if you carry in a business that is posted and your found out they can ask you to leave that is it. If I see a sign ( I only have seen ONE in a store I was going to shop in in Bangor ) I went to another store and spent my money there. Ignoring the sign and supporting the business with your money is STUPID. You are only hurting yourself and the rest of us supporting a business who openly is against what we as know to be our rights.

If a business has a sign then you do two things spend YOUR money elsewhere then contact the highest link in that company you can tell them why you no longer shop there and where you will be shopping and that you will be telling all your friends the same.

People if we with our rights to be respected ignoring others rights is not going to get us anywhere.

 

[BC1]

A little more about "rights" vs "rules".......

One thing to look at is the "you are free to exercise your rights until they infringe on anothers rights" or however you want to put it.....

Anyways, where is the line when a "property owners rules" begin to endanger someones right to protect themselves? If a "property owner" makes a rule that potentially can cause someone to die (in this case a no firearms rule). Wouldnt the RIGHT to keep and bear arms trump someones "rule" in this?

Absolutely not. Castle doctrine... get off my property. If you feel you're not safe on my property then don't enter. Free will. Do you read the posts on here? How may "what-if" scenarios? How many of these huckaleros are itching to intervene in robberies or open-up at the first sign of troube? Do you want someone with the intellect of a stump and the skills of a chimp deciding to start shooting on your property? No one enters armed. If they do and I don't know, so be it. If I ask them to leave, they will most definitely. Either on their own or with assistance. No exceptions. The issue is closed. Castle doctrine prevails... no exceptions.

 

[BluesStringer]

It seems to me the responsible thing to do would be to simply not go into/onto property that bans guns. That way you retain command and control of your gun AND you do not disrespect someone else's rights.

I wasn't sure when I first entered this thread, but I just checked the Alabama Legal Knowledge Base here, and there is nothing covering No-guns signs in our Code concerning the carrying of weapons. So any signs I might see (which I've only ever seen one in my 21 years living here) have no force of law. Only a property-owner's verbal request has the force of law. As such, referring to disrespecting a property-owner's *rights* by ignoring a sign hardly seems valid since the state doesn't recognize the sign as the right of anyone to have them enforce it standing on its own. However, the solid and unambiguous *right* to keep and bear is protected as a constitutional amendment, along with a very easy-and-cheap-to-get permit, and a strong Stand Your Ground law that follows you everywhere you go in this state. It seems to me this state, and by extension, her citizens who elect the people who write our laws, consider the RTKAB a real *right*, and the "right" to put a sign in your window as nothing more than a suggestion that CC'ers are free to abide by or ignore.

I suppose the theory is that anyone could tape a sign on the front door of any business without the owner's knowledge. Maybe an anti-gun employee, or just some business competitor trying to steer business away from the establishment he posts the faux sign at.

Regardless of the theory for the state not regarding signage as proper notification for that one specific issue though, I freely admit it's a technicality. Most, including myself, would presume the business owner put the sign there. There might be a shallow level of disrespect towards them personally by ignoring it, but it doesn't rise to the level of disrespecting their *rights* if the state doesn't recognize them as such.

But like I said, this is really an academic exercise for me, as the only sign I've ever seen at the entrance to any building here was at Gander Mountain, and it only pertained to loaded weapons being taken to the gunsmith's section for service of some sort. The sign at the door said, "Please make sure weapons are unloaded before entering." I asked the store manager what exactly he was asking of his (potential) customers, and he laughed and said I was the third guy that day to ask him, and then explained about the gunsmith etc. So it never has been, and likely never will be a problem for me directly, but if it ever is, I will still maintain command and control of my weapon until such time as the property owner informs me verbally after somehow becoming spontaneously aware that I'm carrying, which would also never happen! LOL

Like you said Bikenut, this unending argument will be going on here at USA Carry just about any time I want to comment on it, so I'll leave it there...........for now. LOL

Blues

 

[travis smith]

As I said before "We're all guaranteed of our rights by law... in-so-much as they don't impede on the rights of others" When they do...we have courts! In court, "precedence" and "intent of law matter". When those are in question we have a "Supreme Court" of sorts!

 

[Treo]

Let me ask you this...if I come into your house and smoke, which is potentially hazardous to your health, and you ask me not to and I continue to do it...how is that different from somebody, whose level of training you are unfamiliar with carrying a loaded firearm into YOUR home. A home is a man's (or woman's) final place of retreat. The place you go to be safe.

The problem with these analogies is that smoking does affect other people. Even if everything they say about second hand smoke is false I still have to smell your smoke I still have to breathe it and it’s still going to stink up my house.

A gun in my pocket doesn’t affect you as long as I behave responsibly and I submit that the type of person that wouldn’t behave responsibly wouldn’t obey the sign either

 

[Treo]

I want to specify again that in this scenario it is legal for you to carry a firearm it’s just a violation of the property owner’s wishes. I want this to be a question of ethics, not legalities.

Obviously, if it’s illegal for you to carry a gun in a given location then you shouldn’t do it and if you do and you get caught take the consequences like a man and don’t come back here whining about how the evil gubberment stripped you of your rights.

 

[Bikenut]

There is a difference between "rights" and "laws".... we always have the right, any right and all rights, and rights can never be taken away although laws can regulate by putting penalties (infringements) upon exercising those rights. But the law does not determine if a right exists. Nor does the law determine whether a person respects or disrespects someone's rights... it only determines if there are, or are not, legal penalties for that disrespect.

So even if the law doesn't recognize a sign as legal notification but recognizes verbal notification... the right of the property owner to ban guns is still no less valid because the law is only stipulating the manner in which penalties are assessed.

Since no one has any right to be on/in the property someone else owns without their permission... and the property owner is not forcing anyone to enter/stay.... it becomes a matter of individual choice if a person will decide to:

1. Respect the property owners right to ban guns and go in without a gun.

2. Disrespect the owner's right to ban guns and go in carrying anyway using any number of excuses to justify that disrespect.

3. Have the means to protect themselves, maintain control of their firearm, exercise their right to bear arms, AND respect the owner's right to ban guns by not going in at all.

#1 Makes no sense to me because I want to maintain control of my firearm and have the means to protect myself so leaving it home or leaving it in the car to go onto/into a business is, to me, just plain stupid.

#2 Isn't even about guns or rights... it is about a person's personal integrity. I'm not judging anyone... I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy involved when a person wants their rights respected while they are disrespecting the rights of others.

#'s 1 and 2 also make no sense to me because why would I support a business with a gun ban? Supporting the business is also supporting banning guns! And my money adds to the businessman's profit enabling him to open another business that also bans guns. I see no sense in that what so ever.

#3 Is the only choice, the only decision, that allows me to have the means to protect myself, maintain control of my firearm, exercise my right to bear arms, and respect the property owner's right to ban guns.

 

[travis smith]

Clear and concise... Well said!

There is a difference between "rights" and "laws".... we always have the right, any right and all rights, and rights can never be taken away although laws can regulate by putting penalties (infringements) upon exercising those rights. But the law does not determine if a right exists. Nor does the law determine whether a person respects or disrespects someone's rights... it only determines if there are, or are not, legal penalties for that disrespect.

So even if the law doesn't recognize a sign as legal notification but recognizes verbal notification... the right of the property owner to ban guns is still no less valid because the law is only stipulating the manner in which penalties are assessed.

Since no one has any right to be on/in the property someone else owns without their permission... and the property owner is not forcing anyone to enter/stay.... it becomes a matter of individual choice if a person will decide to:

1. Respect the property owners right to ban guns and go in without a gun.

2. Disrespect the owner's right to ban guns and go in carrying anyway using any number of excuses to justify that disrespect.

3. Have the means to protect themselves, maintain control of their firearm, exercise their right to bear arms, AND respect the owner's right to ban guns by not going in at all.

#1 Makes no sense to me because I want to maintain control of my firearm and have the means to protect myself so leaving it home or leaving it in the car to go onto/into a business is, to me, just plain stupid.

#2 Isn't even about guns or rights... it is about a person's personal integrity. I'm not judging anyone... I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy involved when a person wants their rights respected while they are disrespecting the rights of others.

#'s 1 and 2 also make no sense to me because why would I support a business with a gun ban? Supporting the business is also supporting banning guns! And my money adds to the businessman's profit enabling him to open another business that also bans guns. I see no sense in that what so ever.

#3 Is the only choice, the only decision, that allows me to have the means to protect myself, maintain control of my firearm, exercise my right to bear arms, and respect the property owner's right to ban guns.

 

[hogwylde]

The problem with these analogies is that smoking does affect other people. Even if everything they say about second hand smoke is false I still have to smell you’re your smoke I still have to breathe it and it’s still going to stink up my house.

A gun in my pocket doesn’t affect you as long as I behave responsibly and I submit that the type of person that wouldn’t behave responsibly wouldn’t obey the sign either

But I'm a responsible smoker.

 

[tricolordad]

0% of your post even comes close to proving what I said was wrong in any way, it all fails miserably.... For example, you try (and fail) to say a concealed firearm that no-one knows is there is the same thing as someone SMOKING A CIGARETTE in a no smoking zone!!! ever hear of second hand smoke? have you ever smelled a cigarette burning? have you ever seen smoke? how in the he** can something not seen, smelled, or toxic be the same thing as something that actually is all those things????

Did you know that if somebody is playing with their gun or has it unholstered in their waistband and it goes off that the smoke can cause cancer? Don't say AD/ND don't happen. Some moron let one off in Burger King, another in a movie theater, a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder...

Just giving you another perspective to look at it from...unless you've already closed your mind to it.