I know some of you are going to bash me

[Bikenut]

I use to power lift but now I try and do more endurance training. Wing nut and firefart are helping, they are great comic relief. Join in the water is warm and feels good, but that might just be because wing nut and firefart have bladder problems

I've asked you repeatedly to provide cites and/or links to actual factual black letter law that supports your claims. Your response thus far is no cites and/or links but many insults and ridicule.

Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

You don't respect or care about the property owner's right to ban guns and will rely on sneaking your gun in "concealed means concealed so I can do whatever I want as long as I don't get caught" but you demand the property owner respect your right to bear arms. Now what was that I mentioned about hypocrisy?

One more time...

Let's get this straight, I don't give a crap if the store owner respect my right to bear arms!!! I don't care to meet him or talk to him period. His sign pretty much says it all about how he feels about my rights. Your the nut case that is all concerned about this guy. I'm just exercising my legal right in my state to carry a concealed weapon with my CCW permit into his store even though he put up his dumb ass sign.

Concealed means concealed

The store owner's sign shows how he feels about your right to bear arms but the thing is.... because it is his property he has the right to ban guns. But you DO NOT have any right at all to be on/in his property in the first place, not even while carrying a gun... none... no right what so ever... because if you had the right to be carrying a gun against his gun ban you wouldn't have to sneak your gun in hiding behind "concealed means concealed" so you won't get caught and thrown out. And your sneaking your gun in shows how YOU feel about the store owner's property rights.

And by your own admission in your own words I have quoted above you have proven my point about the hypocrisy of exercising your rights while not being concerned about the store owner's rights.

Feel free to respond with more insults and ridicule...........

The funny thing is.. way back somewhere in this discussion I mentioned something about folks will do whatever they will do and no one had to meet my standards but... if they are honest about what they do and why they do it.... it is their own self they have to face in the mirror every morning.

Have a nice day....

 

[Pitbull11]

I've asked you repeatedly to provide cites and/or links to actual factual black letter law that supports your claims. Your response thus far is no cites and/or links but many insults and ridicule.


The store owner's sign shows how he feels about your right to bear arms but the thing is.... because it is his property he has the right to ban guns. But you DO NOT have any right at all to be on/in his property in the first place, not even while carrying a gun... none... no right what so ever... because if you had the right to be carrying a gun against his gun ban you wouldn't have to sneak your gun in hiding behind "concealed means concealed" so you won't get caught and thrown out. And your sneaking your gun in shows how YOU feel about the store owner's property rights.

And by your own admission in your own words I have quoted above you have proven my point about the hypocrisy of exercising your rights while not being concerned about the store owner's rights.

Feel free to respond with more insults and ridicule...........

The funny thing is.. way back somewhere in this discussion I mentioned something about folks will do whatever they will do and no one had to meet my standards but... if they are honest about what they do and why they do it.... it is their own self they have to face in the mirror every morning.

Have a nice day....

I think we finally got there and you now understand. If you disrespect my rights, I don't give a crap about your stupid sign. You will never be able to act on your sign. Since concealed means concealed. But here is the rub, I've never seen one of these signs on a business here in Nevada. Sounds like this is really your issue up there in Detroit with your homeys

Have a nice day

 

[Bikenut]

I've asked you repeatedly to provide cites and/or links to actual factual black letter law that supports your claims. Your response thus far is no cites and/or links but many insults and ridicule.


The store owner's sign shows how he feels about your right to bear arms but the thing is.... because it is his property he has the right to ban guns. But you DO NOT have any right at all to be on/in his property in the first place, not even while carrying a gun... none... no right what so ever... because if you had the right to be carrying a gun against his gun ban you wouldn't have to sneak your gun in hiding behind "concealed means concealed" so you won't get caught and thrown out. And your sneaking your gun in shows how YOU feel about the store owner's property rights.

And by your own admission in your own words I have quoted above you have proven my point about the hypocrisy of exercising your rights while not being concerned about the store owner's rights.

Feel free to respond with more insults and ridicule...........

The funny thing is.. way back somewhere in this discussion I mentioned something about folks will do whatever they will do and no one had to meet my standards but... if they are honest about what they do and why they do it.... it is their own self they have to face in the mirror every morning.

Have a nice day....

I think we finally got there and you now understand. If you disrespect my rights, I don't give a crap about your stupid sign. You will never be able to act on your sign. Since concealed means concealed. But here is the rub, I've never seen one of these signs on a business here in Nevada. Sounds like this is really your issue up there in Detroit with your homeys

Have a nice day

Yes.. I think by now everyone understands what you consider "concealed means concealed" to really mean.

Sadly there are many who expect and/or demand their right to bear arms be respected who also consider "concealed means concealed" to be a valid excuse for disrespecting the right of the private property owner to ban the bearing of arms on/in his property.

 

[Bikenut]

I've asked you repeatedly to provide cites and/or links to actual factual black letter law that supports your claims. Your response thus far is no cites and/or links but many insults and ridicule.

Originally Posted by Pitbull11 View Post

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

You don't respect or care about the property owner's right to ban guns and will rely on sneaking your gun in "concealed means concealed so I can do whatever I want as long as I don't get caught" but you demand the property owner respect your right to bear arms. Now what was that I mentioned about hypocrisy?

One more time...
Let's get this straight, I don't give a crap if the store owner respect my right to bear arms!!! I don't care to meet him or talk to him period. His sign pretty much says it all about how he feels about my rights. Your the nut case that is all concerned about this guy. I'm just exercising my legal right in my state to carry a concealed weapon with my CCW permit into his store even though he put up his dumb ass sign.

Concealed means concealed

The store owner's sign shows how he feels about your right to bear arms but the thing is.... because it is his property he has the right to ban guns. But you DO NOT have any right at all to be on/in his property in the first place, not even while carrying a gun... none... no right what so ever... because if you had the right to be carrying a gun against his gun ban you wouldn't have to sneak your gun in hiding behind "concealed means concealed" so you won't get caught and thrown out. And your sneaking your gun in shows how YOU feel about the store owner's property rights.

And by your own admission in your own words I have quoted above you have proven my point about the hypocrisy of exercising your rights while not being concerned about the store owner's rights.

Feel free to respond with more insults and ridicule...........

The funny thing is.. way back somewhere in this discussion I mentioned something about folks will do whatever they will do and no one had to meet my standards but... if they are honest about what they do and why they do it.... it is their own self they have to face in the mirror every morning.

Have a nice day....

I think we finally got there and you now understand. If you disrespect my rights, I don't give a crap about your stupid sign. You will never be able to act on your sign. Since concealed means concealed. But here is the rub, I've never seen one of these signs on a business here in Nevada. Sounds like this is really your issue up there in Detroit with your homeys

Have a nice day

Yes.. I think by now everyone understands what you consider "concealed means concealed" to really mean.

Sadly there are many who expect and/or demand their right to bear arms be respected who also consider "concealed means concealed" to be a valid excuse for disrespecting the right of the private property owner to ban the bearing of arms on/in his property.

Edited to include the postings in their correct sequence.

 

[Pitbull11]

Yes.. I think by now everyone understands what you consider "concealed means concealed" to really mean.

Sadly there are many who expect and/or demand their right to bear arms be respected who also consider "concealed means concealed" to be a valid excuse for disrespecting the right of the private property owner to ban the bearing of arms on/in his property.

Edited to include the postings in their correct sequence.

I think everyone understands what you think of people's 2nd adm. Rights and how sadly, you feel that private property rights are more important then 2nd adm. Rights if they conflict. You do realize that you are preaching that property rights out weigh an individuals right to bear arms and protect themselves.

 

[Bikenut]

I think everyone understands what you think of people's 2nd adm. Rights and how sadly, you feel that private property rights are more important then 2nd adm. Rights if they conflict. You do realize that you are preaching that property rights out weigh an individuals right to bear arms and protect themselves.

Actually I believe that all rights are equally important and that it is hypocritical to elevate one of the rights I happen to like above a right someone else thinks is important just because I don't happen to like that particular one. I do not believe in expecting someone to respect my right to bear arms if I disrespect their right to ban guns on/in their property by sneaking in a gun just because "concealed means concealed" so I think that it's Ok if I get away with it.

You do realize that private property rights actually DO trump 2nd Amendment rights simply because the 2nd Amendment only binds the government... it does NOT bind the private individual.

Actually private property rights trump all other rights simply because the private property owner has the right to decree what will, and what will not, be allowed on/in his property... and what some folks seem to have difficulty understanding.... because no one has any right of any kind to on/in private property owned by someone other than themselves.

Simply put.... no one, not you.. not me.. not your neighbor.. not any poster/member of this forum... has any right to enter any store/business/property owned by someone other than themselves. When a business/store opens it's doors to the public the public doesn't have any right to be there... the public has been invited to be there with the understanding that the invitation comes with agreeing to abide by any rules the owner has decreed are conditions upon that invitation.

Break the rules and the invitation is revoked... the person is no longer welcomed and/or allowed to be on/in the property... and the person is thrown out. Even the law backs that up because anyone who remains on/in the property after being told they are no longer welcome or allowed there and they must leave will be arrested for trespass.

Once that is understood then there isn't any conflict of rights since a person can retain their ability to exercise the right to bear arms merely by not going where the property owner (store) has exercised his right to ban guns.

One last time.... private property rights trump the right to bear arms simply because the property owner has the right to make the rules, any rules that do not conflict with the law, for who is allowed on/in his property and what that person is allowed to do while on/in that property.

Now... if anyone thinks the concealed carry laws trump the property owner's right to ban guns....

Why can the property owner who has a no guns rule throw out someone who has carried a gun in? How can anyone throw you out if you have every right to be there?

Also... if there is such a law please provide a cite and/or a link to that law. Any cite or any link to any law whether Federal or from any State will do.

In the meantime as we all wait for those cites and/or links with bated breath... for those who may be interested in reading a little about property rights....

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/...ato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf

CATO HANDBOOK FOR POLICY MAKERS

CATO INSTITUTE

34. Property Rights and the Constitution

-snip-
In a nutshell, the basic rights they have recognized, beyond the rights
of acquisition and disposal, are the right of sole dominion—variously
described as a right to exclude others, a right against trespass,
-snip-

..... Please take note of the "right to exclude others"... you know, like having a "no guns" rule to exclude those who carry guns.....

 

[Firefighterchen]

null

I believe the Obama mindset of, "you didn't build that, it was given to you," or, "you don't own that, we allow you to have it," has blinded many, as they feel the property they own means nothing without government permission. They also seem to be the crowd that feels permits are acceptable and common sense.

 

[Pitbull11]

Actually I believe that all rights are equally important and that it is hypocritical to elevate one of the rights I happen to like above a right someone else thinks is important just because I don't happen to like that particular one. I do not believe in expecting someone to respect my right to bear arms if I disrespect their right to ban guns on/in their property by sneaking in a gun just because "concealed means concealed" so I think that it's Ok if I get away with it.

You do realize that private property rights actually DO trump 2nd Amendment rights simply because the 2nd Amendment only binds the government... it does NOT bind the private individual.

Actually private property rights trump all other rights simply because the private property owner has the right to decree what will, and what will not, be allowed on/in his property... and what some folks seem to have difficulty understanding.... because no one has any right of any kind to on/in private property owned by someone other than themselves.

Simply put.... no one, not you.. not me.. not your neighbor.. not any poster/member of this forum... has any right to enter any store/business/property owned by someone other than themselves. When a business/store opens it's doors to the public the public doesn't have any right to be there... the public has been invited to be there with the understanding that the invitation comes with agreeing to abide by any rules the owner has decreed are conditions upon that invitation.

Break the rules and the invitation is revoked... the person is no longer welcomed and/or allowed to be on/in the property... and the person is thrown out. Even the law backs that up because anyone who remains on/in the property after being told they are no longer welcome or allowed there and they must leave will be arrested for trespass.

Once that is understood then there isn't any conflict of rights since a person can retain their ability to exercise the right to bear arms merely by not going where the property owner (store) has exercised his right to ban guns.

One last time.... private property rights trump the right to bear arms simply because the property owner has the right to make the rules, any rules that do not conflict with the law, for who is allowed on/in his property and what that person is allowed to do while on/in that property.

Now... if anyone thinks the concealed carry laws trump the property owner's right to ban guns....

Why can the property owner who has a no guns rule throw out someone who has carried a gun in? How can anyone throw you out if you have every right to be there?

Also... if there is such a law please provide a cite and/or a link to that law. Any cite or any link to any law whether Federal or from any State will do.

In the meantime as we all wait for those cites and/or links with bated breath... for those who may be interested in reading a little about property rights....

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/...ato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf

CATO HANDBOOK FOR POLICY MAKERS

CATO INSTITUTE

34. Property Rights and the Constitution

-snip-
In a nutshell, the basic rights they have recognized, beyond the rights
of acquisition and disposal, are the right of sole dominion—variously
described as a right to exclude others, a right against trespass,
-snip-

..... Please take note of the "right to exclude others"... you know, like having a "no guns" rule to exclude those who carry guns.....

Actually you are wrong about property rights being more important then other rights. Matter of fact the way you use your property mitigates your rights. Plus most laws are written to protect not to permit. You don't write a law that says it is OK to carry a gun they right laws to restrict the carrying of Guns. Show me the law that states a business owner can do anything they want on their property. Instead the state writes a law that gives the business owner the ability to ask someone he feels he does not want on his property to leave his property, if they refuse to leave they can call the police and the police can arrest them for trespassing if they refuse to leave. The owner does not have the right to beat the person, shoot them or even touch them. If they do any of those things other laws come into play and now the business owner gets judged by 12 in criminal court and/or 6 in civil court. We are a country of laws, one right in the constitution or bill of rights does not trump another and when their is a conflict that is when the laws and courts intervene.

 

[Bikenut]

Actually you are wrong about property rights being more important then other rights. Matter of fact the way you use your property mitigates your rights. Plus most laws are written to protect not to permit. You don't write a law that says it is OK to carry a gun they right laws to restrict the carrying of Guns. Show me the law that states a business owner can do anything they want on their property. Instead the state writes a law that gives the business owner the ability to ask someone he feels he does not want on his property to leave his property, if they refuse to leave they can call the police and the police can arrest them for trespassing if they refuse to leave. The owner does not have the right to beat the person, shoot them or even touch them. If they do any of those things other laws come into play and now the business owner gets judged by 12 in criminal court and/or 6 in civil court. We are a country of laws, one right in the constitution or bill of rights does not trump another and when their is a conflict that is when the laws and courts intervene.

No right is more important than any of the other rights. Not only are all rights equally important but no individual's rights are more important than the rights of other individuals.

We are a country of rights first and laws second. The laws only assess penalties upon those who misuse their rights.. you know... like the trespass law is applied to those who misuse their right to bear arms by sneaking a gun onto/into private property where guns are banned because they think their right to bear arms is more important than the property owner's right to ban guns.

The State didn't write a trespass law that "gives" the property owner the ability to ask someone to leave... the State wrote a trespass law to uphold the property owner's right to deny access to a person and to punish the person who disrespected the property owner's right to deny access by refusing to leave.

By the way... the property owner might be nice and polite and request that a person leave but make no mistake... the property owner is NOT ASKING... he is demanding and requiring. And not only does he have that right but the trespass law backs him up on it.

In reference to the part of your post I put in bold ....

Link Removed

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Whether you like it or not... private property rights of the owners of property that you do not own does trump your rights. And the law upholds property rights trumping your rights with the trespass laws... and Texas law even goes so far as to uphold the property owner's right to protect his property with deadly force after dark. In other words Texas law upholds the property owner's right to protect his property by denying a person's right to............. life itself.

 

[Pitbull11]

Wing nut you are way out there!!! I thought we were talking about a store or restaurant that was open for business that had a sign that had "no weapons allowed"? Now you have me sneaking in at night, stealing stuff so the guy can shoot me???

 

[Pitbull11]

Whether you like it or not... private property rights of the owners of property that you do not own does trump your rights. And the law upholds property rights trumping your rights with the trespass laws... and Texas law even goes so far as to uphold the property owner's right to protect his property with deadly force after dark. In other words Texas law upholds the property owner's right to protect his property by denying a person's right to............. life itself.

You are a little out there aren't you . But you are fun!!!

 

[Bikenut]

Wing nut you are way out there!!! I thought we were talking about a store or restaurant that was open for business that had a sign that had "no weapons allowed"? Now you have me sneaking in at night, stealing stuff so the guy can shoot me???

I am talking about property owner's private property rights. And I gave an example, complete with cite and link, where in Texas the property owner even has the right to deny someone the right to life itself if that someone is stealing/damaging private property after dark. So whether you like it or not private property rights include... the legal!!! right to shoot someone.

The law, whether it is the trespass law or the Texas shoot the thief/mischief maker after dark law, doesn't "allow" the property owner the right.... the law recognizes the property owner's right and not only assesses legal penalties onto those who disrespect the property owner's right but, at least in Texas, also protects the property owner from being charged for denying someone the right to life itself on/in his property.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Whether you like it or not... private property rights of the owners of property that you do not own does trump your rights. And the law upholds property rights trumping your rights with the trespass laws... and Texas law even goes so far as to uphold the property owner's right to protect his property with deadly force after dark. In other words Texas law upholds the property owner's right to protect his property by denying a person's right to............. life itself.

You are a little out there aren't you . But you are fun!!!

I'm explaining that the private property owner has the right to decree who he will allow, and who he will NOT allow, onto his property and what those he does allow onto his property will be allowed, and what they will NOT be allowed, to do while on/in his property. (There are some laws concerning "protected classes" that infringe upon the property owner's right to deny access... but folks who carry guns is NOT one of those protected classes.)

And I am backing up my statement with cites and links to actual laws that uphold that private property right.

By the way....

Link Removed

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
-snip-
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
-snip-

Link Removed

Texas Penal Code - Section 28.03. Criminal Mischief

§ 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the
tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.
-snip-

So... after dark in Texas the property owner is protected by law if he uses lethal force (shoots someone/or otherwise denies them their right to life) to stop someone from spray painting the side of his house/barn/outbuildings.

I am pointing out that the rights of the private property owner to control/protect his property trumps the rights of everyone, ALL the rights of everyone including the right to life itself, and at least Texas recognizes that right with a law that legally protects a property owner who, under certain circumstances, denies someone of their right to life.

Now... what part of what I have said about private property rights and the laws that uphold that right is incorrect? Please include cites and/or links to the data you use.

What right is more important? A property owners right? Or my individual right to carry a weapon concealed that is approved by the federal and state laws? If a property owners property is open to the public his rights no longer take precedence over my second adm. Rights. -snip-

-snip-The law of this land has the power over the property owners right to Prevent me from carrying a concealed weapon on his property period!

Please provide cites and/or links to laws that uphold your statements I have quoted above instead of hoping derision, insults, and ridiculing me will somehow lend credibility to your statements.

 

[pilotj]

GUN FREE ZONE = You don't want my business! I will disarm for airports, schools, govnt. buildings, etc... But I won't enter an unsafe building ie:movie theater, store, etc that prohibits guns!

 

[AndeyHall]

GUN FREE ZONE = You don't want my business! I will disarm for airports, schools, govnt. buildings, etc... But I won't enter an unsafe building ie:movie theater, store, etc that prohibits guns!

That's exactly what I say! Except sometimes I say that exact same thing with an added "without my gun".

 

[Firefighterchen]

null

It's a lost cause bike, the police mentality of, "if I don't know the laws, I'll make them up, if they call me on it, I'll insult bully and push my mindset," is very apparent. You can post 100 more cites to laws and incidents, but do you think he will ever post a cite? Nope...

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Pitbull11 View Post
What right is more important? A property owners right? Or my individual right to carry a weapon concealed that is approved by the federal and state laws?

Originally Posted by Pitbull11 View Post
-snip-The law of this land has the power over the property owners right to Prevent me from carrying a concealed weapon on his property period!

Please provide cites and/or links to laws that uphold your statements I have quoted above instead of hoping derision, insults, and ridiculing me will somehow lend credibility to your statements.

As expected after waiting two days for a response backed up by cites and/or links to verifiable facts that prove the quoted statements are actually valid the only response is the deafening sound of.............


crickets.

 

[AndeyHall]

Originally Posted by Pitbull11 View Post
What right is more important? A property owners right? Or my individual right to carry a weapon concealed that is approved by the federal and state laws?

Originally Posted by Pitbull11 View Post
-snip-The law of this land has the power over the property owners right to Prevent me from carrying a concealed weapon on his property period!

Please provide cites and/or links to laws that uphold your statements I have quoted above instead of hoping derision, insults, and ridiculing me will somehow lend credibility to your statements.

As expected after waiting two days for a response backed up by cites and/or links to verifiable facts that prove the quoted statements are actually valid the only response is the deafening sound of.............


crickets.

Holy **** give it up! You've just proven by this comment you're more interested in the argument itself than the content of the argument and boosting your ego...

 

[Firefighterchen]

It's sad they still don't understand the importance of the argument. The pig just keeps on trucking with his pig mentality. News flash, disrespecting the individual is lame in itself, but the more important message is how much you are disrespecting the RIGHTS private property owners hold. But I digress, pig mentality has always shown Rights really don't mean a thing.

 

[Bikenut]

Holy **** give it up! You've just proven by this comment you're more interested in the argument itself than the content of the argument and boosting your ego...

Incorrect Sir!

My ego has nothing to do with it.... my concern is promoting an understanding of what rights are and what the legalities are when exercising those rights.... and expecting those who make a statement of fact to back it up with valid verifiable proof.

There are more folks than just those involved in a discussion that read these forums and if they read stuff that is incorrect they may be led to believe a course of action is not only their "right" but is also legal only to find themselves in trouble because the stuff they read on the forum was incorrect.

In the realm of rights and the law a mistake can cost a person many thousands of dollars and/or their freedom and perhaps even their ability to keep and bear arms for the rest of their lives because they became a "felon".

Of course it isn't wise to believe anything posted on a forum as fact but when cites and/or links to actual facts are provided then folks are presented with the truth... not just what someone "thinks" rights and the law are.

And NO Sir... I will not "give it up"... I will continue to promote an understanding of what rights are and how they interact with each other and how the law affects the ability to exercise our rights. And I will continue to demand that folks who submit a statement as being fact to back it up with cites and/or links to verify that it is indeed fact. To do less is to tacitly promote misunderstandings based on myths and/or incorrect information.

 

[gejoslin]

No they can not legally walk up to you in their business, while you are shopping (now if you are stealing stuff that's different but were not talking about that) and search you!!! The big box membership clubs like Costco are different since in the contract you signed when you joined you relinquished that right by signing their contract. But let's say your in some weird grocery store that randomly searches law abiding customers while they are shopping and you allow them to search you, and while they are feeling down the front of your pants, they find you are carrying a gun. They can ask you to leave their property, if you refuse to leave because you want to now stay in the store and have them check your crouch again. Then they have the right to call the Police, when the Police arrive they will ask you if you failed to leave the property after the owner told you to leave his property. If you say yes you can be arrested for trespassing if the owner then tells the officer he wants to press charges (doubt that would happen since after that second search you and the owner might already be in love) if you say no I was not told to leave and I thought I was being detained and molested by the owner and his employees, and since there is no evidence you did anything illegal you could file charges against the business owner and his employees. Now since no MAN is going to allow a unlawful search, make the person your wife that went to firefighter chins grocery store, and while shopping and picking up some yogurt, firefighter comes over and starts groping your wife to see if she is carrying concealed (which is not against the law) now who do you really think is going to jail?

I tried to stay out of this, but on top of everything else, it's OK in your mind, to start lying to the police! I think that now I've heard it all. Sheesh!