apvbguy
New member
there are a lot of very foolish and ill informed instructors out there!
Firearms Owner's Rights V. Property Owner's rights
- Thread starter Treo
- Start date
there are a lot of very foolish and ill informed instructors out there!
B
Bikenut
Guest
This is a generic post not directed at any individual...
Let me ask this.... if you have a "no guns" rule for on your property including in your house and I know it but after you invite me over I walk in openly carrying my sidearm anyway... am I disrespecting your right to control who does what on/in your property by ignoring your rule banning guns? Or how about I bring a gun hidden in my pocket.... you know that sneaky "concealed means concealed" thing.... am I disrespecting your right to control who does what on/in your property by ignoring your rule banning guns? Would you say that my actions are telling you that I think my right to bear arms trumps your right to have control of your property and not have guns in your house? Or perhaps my actions are telling you that in regards to carrying a gun I will do as I damn well please on/in your property just like I do on my own property... I will treat your property as if I own it.. would you consider that to be disrespectful?
And please folks.. make no mistake.. when it comes to private property rights there isn't any difference between your privately owned home and a privately owned business... both are still "private property" and both have the same private property rights. (Although there are some laws that govern private property that is open to the public that do not apply to a private home.)
And as far as integrity goes... even though you don't know I snuck in a "concealed" gun wouldn't I still know and wouldn't my knowing I am intentionally disrespecting your right to ban guns be an indication of my level of integrity?
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.
Like it or not there is a great deal of hypocrisy involved when folks expect their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms be respected while intentionally disrespecting another person's equally as valid private property right to deny access to those who bear arms.
Let me ask this.... if you have a "no guns" rule for on your property including in your house and I know it but after you invite me over I walk in openly carrying my sidearm anyway... am I disrespecting your right to control who does what on/in your property by ignoring your rule banning guns? Or how about I bring a gun hidden in my pocket.... you know that sneaky "concealed means concealed" thing.... am I disrespecting your right to control who does what on/in your property by ignoring your rule banning guns? Would you say that my actions are telling you that I think my right to bear arms trumps your right to have control of your property and not have guns in your house? Or perhaps my actions are telling you that in regards to carrying a gun I will do as I damn well please on/in your property just like I do on my own property... I will treat your property as if I own it.. would you consider that to be disrespectful?
And please folks.. make no mistake.. when it comes to private property rights there isn't any difference between your privately owned home and a privately owned business... both are still "private property" and both have the same private property rights. (Although there are some laws that govern private property that is open to the public that do not apply to a private home.)
And as far as integrity goes... even though you don't know I snuck in a "concealed" gun wouldn't I still know and wouldn't my knowing I am intentionally disrespecting your right to ban guns be an indication of my level of integrity?
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.
Like it or not there is a great deal of hypocrisy involved when folks expect their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms be respected while intentionally disrespecting another person's equally as valid private property right to deny access to those who bear arms.
Axeanda45
Banned
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?
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?
hogwylde
New member
The simple answer is No. You may choose to but be prepared to pay the consequences. I can bet you have been in a position where you didn't carry in a certain place due to the law and not just because you suddenly opted to not carry.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Shall we keep the discussion about people instead of trying to veer off into discussions about animals?
No.. you do not have the right to carry your gun anywhere you darn well please.... you have the right to carry your gun but you do not have the right to be anywhere you darn well please.
Your gun is your property... but my house/yard/business/parking lot is MY property and neither you nor your property have any right to be on/in my property. Because I have the right to control who does what on/in my property all you have is either my permission to be there... or if I revoke that permission... my requirement that you leave and take your property along with your person elsewhere.
As blunt as the following might be it is the truth...
My house/business... my rules. Don't like it? Take yourself, your rights, and your property elsewhere.
Now if you want to discuss whether or not there is an actual private property right to be in control of things you own we can go there... and if you can make the case that there is no such thing as a property owner having the right to deny access to his property to other people I just might consider moving into your house.. after all.. without the private property right to deny me access I would have just as much right to sit in your living room as you do.
B
Bikenut
Guest
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.
hogwylde
New member
Have you ever been to a casino, pool hall, etc.....and noticed the HOUSE RULES? Same thing. Or if you like, we can twist it another way.....do you have kids? Do you expect them to respect your "rules"? Are you ok with them doing drugs (inanimate object) in your house so long as you don't know it's there?
hogwylde
New member
In some instances....yes! ;o)
accidentalfelon
New member
The civil rights movement is the reason for all this misinformation. The government has every right and indeed an obligation to enforce equal rights within its own operations, i.e. government buildings, the courts, public roads, etc. But they overstepped their bounds by forcing private business to do the same. The same thing applies to the ADA. The government has no authority to do such a thing.
But because they have done it, now we have people thinking that individual rights trump property rights.
While morally it may be the right thing to open the doors of your business to every citizen, legally, if the constitution is to be followed, no government has the legal authority to force you to do so.
You can't legislate racism out of existence. Only a change of hearts and minds can so that. Businesses that choose racism can easily be made to change racist rules by a populace that is willing to sacrifice their own convenience and shop elsewhere. Gun owners who wish to keep their carry rights at stores should encourage others in that way. Businesses run on profits.
We are brainwashed one act at a time in this country. And it has even permeated the gun owner community as proven by this thread.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
But because they have done it, now we have people thinking that individual rights trump property rights.
While morally it may be the right thing to open the doors of your business to every citizen, legally, if the constitution is to be followed, no government has the legal authority to force you to do so.
You can't legislate racism out of existence. Only a change of hearts and minds can so that. Businesses that choose racism can easily be made to change racist rules by a populace that is willing to sacrifice their own convenience and shop elsewhere. Gun owners who wish to keep their carry rights at stores should encourage others in that way. Businesses run on profits.
We are brainwashed one act at a time in this country. And it has even permeated the gun owner community as proven by this thread.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
B
Bikenut
Guest
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.
I've been talking about how it is hypocritical for someone to expect their right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting the property owner's right to deny access to anyone carrying a gun.
And I've been talking about how sneaking in a gun and using all sorts of excuses to justify disrespecting the property owner's right to ban guns says something about a person's integrity.
And you miss the point that only the government can "infringe" upon a right since the 2nd Amendment only applies to the government. It does not apply to individuals exercising their right to control who and how their property is used. Since you have no right at all to be on/in someone elses property neither do your rights have any right to be there.
After all.. if people had the right to be on/in any and all property no matter who owns it then I, and my gun, would have just as much right to sit in your living room as you do.. so.. what time is supper?
And no matter how many times it is explained it seems there is still some difficulty understanding that a property owner with a no guns rule is NOT restricting your right to bear arms but is restricting access to his property to YOU because you are bearing an arm. All you need do is not go on/in that property and your right to bear arms remains unrestricted.
It's not your gun that is being told not to come in.. it is YOU who is being told to not come in with your gun.
Perhaps that is what annoys some folks so much... knowing they just are not important enough to be able to do whatever they want on/in property other people own.
Warbirds
New member
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
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
S&W645
NRA Life Member
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?
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?
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.
B
Bikenut
Guest
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.
There are laws that make it illegal for a business to deny access/service to people who are members of what are called "protected classes" of race/age/disability/religion/etc.. but to the best of my knowledge there aren't any laws that protect those who carry guns.
Now here is some more food for thought...
All of the gun control laws that the government has instituted are "infringements" upon the right to bear arms.. and I'll likely start some crap with this... all the laws that the government has instituted that limit the property owner's right to deny access or service are also "infringements" upon the right to control one's own property.
A right is something you don't have to ask the government's permission or follow government's conditions/regulations to be able to do. An infringement is the government requiring permission be granted and that it's conditions must be met and it's regulations followed in order to have that permission. It doesn't matter which right is being infringed... if exercising a right is controlled in any way by the government then the government is infringing upon it.
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.....
(Edited to make make my post read more clearly........)
doublebarr
New member
Here you go, the Missouri statutes (laws) about signage:
Link Removed
Where it talks about signage:
and following where it negates the signage law statute (also a law):
So the "first law" which says no entry with posted signage is countered with the "second law" which makes the "first law" moot. Only if ASKED must you leave, the signs mean nothing. Well nothing except to criminals who then believe that it is a target rich environment.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Bikenut, I work 3rd shift and have to get some sleep, so since this discussion is going much like one I participated in back in January, may I impose upon you to look at this reply of mine in that thread and tell me if my solution respects the property owner's rights?
Assuming it does, as I clearly state that I would leave the instant I was made aware of the homeowner's rules, would you then look at this subsequent reply (quoted below) and tell me if you don't see the conundrum of both the visitor and property owner as being equal?
Slightly different topic on that thread, but essentially the same as property rights, property owners' rules, standard ways of conducting one's self etc. were all being discussed. I put one poster on ignore during that thread, and gained respect for several others abilities to communicate effectively from both sides of the argument.
In any event, the scenario hypothesized above seems to me to be just as respectful, or disrespectful depending on one's own POV, from both sides of the fence. I would leave if they disclose their rules, and they won't disclose their rules for the same reason I don't disclose I'm carrying - because they've decided that to disclose their personal security procedures is to defeat the purpose of developing them. The quintessential Mexican stand-off; no shots fired, but nothing resolved either.
Blues
Assuming it does, as I clearly state that I would leave the instant I was made aware of the homeowner's rules, would you then look at this subsequent reply (quoted below) and tell me if you don't see the conundrum of both the visitor and property owner as being equal?
Slightly different topic on that thread, but essentially the same as property rights, property owners' rules, standard ways of conducting one's self etc. were all being discussed. I put one poster on ignore during that thread, and gained respect for several others abilities to communicate effectively from both sides of the argument.
In any event, the scenario hypothesized above seems to me to be just as respectful, or disrespectful depending on one's own POV, from both sides of the fence. I would leave if they disclose their rules, and they won't disclose their rules for the same reason I don't disclose I'm carrying - because they've decided that to disclose their personal security procedures is to defeat the purpose of developing them. The quintessential Mexican stand-off; no shots fired, but nothing resolved either.
Blues
B
Bikenut
Guest
Blues... get some sleep... this perpetual argument will still be here when you wake up. :smile:
I read what you linked to... and your entire post...and in my post #47 in this thread I address the issue of being notified...
What I continue to talk about is those who know the property has an anti gun rule but carry anyway because "concealed means concealed" (translation: "I can carry a gun if I want no matter what you want as long as I sneak it past you.") or any other of several excuses to disrespect the property owner's no gun rule.
