Solution for Businesses and Firearms

[Bikenut]

IF you are talking about me, or including me in the blanket of "entitlement generation", here is my response:


My argument has nothing to do with trying to force someone to ALLOW others to carry a gun onto his property.... it is simply that they cannot deny a persons rights to do so... many of you get confused into thinking that entails permission to be there... it does NOT... it simply says that IF a person is there, you cannot deny them the tools/trinkets/air/property that is in his pockets....... just as you cannot deny them their right to exist, you cannot kill them for simply BEING there, even if they have something in their pocket you dont like... it is NOT threatening you at all... you do however, have every right in the world to make them leave IF they are on your property..... You can deny them access, yet if they ignore that denial, and DO come onto your property... they retain all the same RIGHTS as they would have anywhere else... like for example, the RIGHT to own/have the property they carry in their pockets or on their belt.....

The confusion really kicks in when bikenut and others think I am claiming the "intruder/trespasser/person not wanted on your property" has the right to be there in the first place, that has NEVER been said or hinted at by me.... it has all been imagined by those who either cannot read or will not read what has actually been written.....

Oh I think there is very little imagining going on and plenty of simply reading your own words... about you thinking you have some kind of right to come onto/be in property where the property owner has exercised his private property right to ban guns with a no guns rule.

From the Benefits of carrying concealed and having real priorities thread here on USACarry...

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/busi...rying-concealed-having-real-priorities-4.html

post #132

What you continue to fail to comprehend is that I do recognize that a property owner has the right to make rules... and he has the right to deny anyone, including me onto his property... while at the same time I also recognize my own rights, and they (in this matter, the right to carry whatever I want on my person) is a right that is higher and it trumps the property owners rights... So, in this case, his rules are NOT a valid reason to keep me from coming onto his property....

bold and underline added by me for emphasis.

Do you deny your own words Sir?

Or is it that you recognize that a property owner has private property rights but you just don't care because you figure your rights are more important than the rights of others?

 

[Firefighterchen]

....... just as you cannot deny them their right to exist, you cannot kill them for simply BEING there...

Yes I sure can. Just BEING on any of my properties while I'm there at 2 am is a threat to me.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Nightmare45]

Absolutely correct sir...... to a point... But I think you are confusing a business with private property in this context..... A business open to the public is not the same thing as a private property open only to whom you want it to be open to...

As far as the right to spend or not to spend your money where you want, you are correct... and if I wish to spend my money where the public is invited, even if it is posted no firearms, I retain the right spend my money there while armed... it is MY CHOICE, not the property owners, whether I am armed or not.... I may be doing something he doesnt like or want, but I am not harming him in any way by having something in my pocket or under my shirt.... and, to top it off, he is profiting by me spending money there...

Well aware of what you are saying.

 

[BC1]

I think people need to understand what the constitution does and doesn't do. In addition to defining government and its powers, it sets limits on the powers the government can have over its people. Those limitations, or amendments to the constitution, were first enumerated as the bill of rights. This is strictly defining what government can and can't do.

 

[Axeanda45]

Oh I think there is very little imagining going on and plenty of simply reading your own words... about you thinking you have some kind of right to come onto/be in property where the property owner has exercised his private property right to ban guns with a no guns rule.

From the Benefits of carrying concealed and having real priorities thread here on USACarry...

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/busi...rying-concealed-having-real-priorities-4.html

post #132

bold and underline added by me for emphasis.

Do you deny your own words Sir?

Or is it that you recognize that a property owner has private property rights but you just don't care because you figure your rights are more important than the rights of others?

Again, you are FAILING MISERABLY to comprehend what is written, and your examples of quoted statements from me actually prove my position correct and your gross misunderstanding of it for all to see....... You really should stop before you cannot climb out of the hole you are digging...

 

[Bikenut]

Again, you are FAILING MISERABLY to comprehend what is written, and your examples of quoted statements from me actually prove my position correct and your gross misunderstanding of it for all to see....... You really should stop before you cannot climb out of the hole you are digging...

I think everyone can easily comprehend exactly what you said when you said:

What you continue to fail to comprehend is that I do recognize that a property owner has the right to make rules... and he has the right to deny anyone, including me onto his property... while at the same time I also recognize my own rights, and they (in this matter, the right to carry whatever I want on my person) is a right that is higher and it trumps the property owners rights... So, in this case, his rules are NOT a valid reason to keep me from coming onto his property....

bold and underline added by me for emphasis.

All I need do is to let your own words speak for themselves.

 

[Axeanda45]

I think everyone can easily comprehend exactly what you said when you said:

bold and underline added by me for emphasis.

All I need do is to let your own words speak for themselves.

You still have nothing.... that quote in context claims the RULE a property owner has does NOT override the RIGHT to be armed, to carry whatever you want on your hip or whatever... It in no way shape or form states that the person has a RIGHT to be on someone elses property, it states that WHILE on someone elses property, the right to be armed is still there/trumps their "property rights" ... I may have stated it wrongly so it could be interpreted incorrectly like you have done, but the intent/actual premise is NOT what you are trying to point it out to be...

Here it is so you can better understand it, since you are having such a hard time with the reality of it: (I forgot a word in the original post... I added it here and put it in red so you can see it))

So, in this case, his rules are NOT a valid reason to keep me from coming ARMED onto his property....

 

[Firefighterchen]

You still have nothing.... that quote in context claims the RULE a property owner has does NOT override the RIGHT to be armed, to carry whatever you want on your hip or whatever... It in no way shape or form states that the person has a RIGHT to be on someone elses property, it states that WHILE on someone elses property, the right to be armed is still there/trumps their "property rights" ... I may have stated it wrongly so it could be interpreted incorrectly like you have done, but the intent/actual premise is NOT what you are trying to point it out to be...

Here it is so you can better understand it, since you are having such a hard time with the reality of it: (I forgot a word in the original post... I added it here and put it in red so you can see it))

So, in this case, his rules are NOT a valid reason to keep me from coming ARMED onto his property....

Being armed or unarmed doesn't matter, a property owner can make any rule he wants to keep you from coming into his property, and because the property owner makes the rules they are all valid.

No shirt, no shoes, no pink panties, no guns, no children, no outside food, no alcohol, no drugs, no cellphones, no cameras, no cops, no backpacks...all valid rules to keep you from coming on the property at all (with or without a weapon).

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

You still have nothing.... that quote in context claims the RULE a property owner has does NOT override the RIGHT to be armed, to carry whatever you want on your hip or whatever... It in no way shape or form states that the person has a RIGHT to be on someone elses property, it states that WHILE on someone elses property, the right to be armed is still there/trumps their "property rights" ... I may have stated it wrongly so it could be interpreted incorrectly like you have done, but the intent/actual premise is NOT what you are trying to point it out to be...

Here it is so you can better understand it, since you are having such a hard time with the reality of it: (I forgot a word in the original post... I added it here and put it in red so you can see it))

So, in this case, his rules are NOT a valid reason to keep me from coming ARMED onto his property....

bold added by me for emphasis....
First of all... if you want to express yourself then do so in a manner that is conducive to being understood instead of expecting everyone to read your mind.

Here is the quote:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/busi...rying-concealed-having-real-priorities-4.html
post #132

What you continue to fail to comprehend is that I do recognize that a property owner has the right to make rules... and he has the right to deny anyone, including me onto his property... while at the same time I also recognize my own rights, and they (in this matter, the right to carry whatever I want on my person) is a right that is higher and it trumps the property owners rights... So, in this case, his rules are NOT a valid reason to keep me from coming onto his property....

bold and underline added by me for emphasis.
You said:

I do recognize that a property owner has the right to make rules... and he has the right to deny anyone, including me onto his property.

bold and underline added by me for emphasis
Correct? Would that not mean that the property owner has the right to have a rule that says anyone with a gun is denied permission to be on/in my property?
But then you also said:

the right to carry whatever I want on my person) is a right that is higher and it trumps the property owners rights[/b]... So, in this case, his rules are NOT a valid reason to keep me from coming onto his property....

bold and underline added by me for emphasis
and you want to change that to:

Originally posted by Axeanda45\
So, in this case, his rules are NOT a valid reason to keep me from coming ARMED onto his property....

and this:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/busi...rying-concealed-having-real-priorities-3.html
post 114

If I came up on your property line and saw a sign that said no weapons allowed, I would simply smile inside and put you in a little box there as someone who has absolutely no idea how dangerous this world is and what a little feeble minded idiot you are and carry anyway... WHILE I am carrying there, I would NOT want to show everyone else what an idiot you are and so I would keep my gun hidden from view out of embarrassment for YOU....

bold and underline added by me for emphasis
So care to explain how your own words are not saying that you believe that in respect to being armed your right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban guns giving you the right to carry a gun on/in that person's property regardless of the rule(s) the property owner has every right to make?

You aren't fooling anyone Axe.. your entire argument is predicated on the belief that the right to bear arms trumps the private property owner's right to ban guns yet you have offered no proof (cites and/or links please) that such is the case.

And the truth is... if the right to bear arms really did trump the property owner's right to ban guns then the property owner could not refuse anyone who was carrying a gun. And that just isn't the way it is and everyone knows it.

 

[BC1]

bold added bold and underline added by me for emphasis
So care to explain how your own words are not saying that you believe that in respect to being armed your right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban guns giving you the right to carry a gun on/in that person's property regardless of the rule(s) the property owner has every right to make?

I keep asking a simple question that certain supporters of the anywhere/anyplace opinion won't answer...
,
If I can't ban another from carrying on my property and if there are both castle doctrine and SYG laws in effect, don't we have a contradictory mess? Who has the right to do what???? I tell the armed person to leave, he says he doesn't have to, I attempt to remove him under castle doctrine, he stands his ground....... No, it doesn't work that way.
.
And in the end, the bill of rights sets limitations on the power government has over its people. It does not address what one person may or may not do.

 

[Bikenut]

I keep asking a simple question that certain supporters of the anywhere/anyplace opinion won't answer...
,
If I can't ban another from carrying on my property and if there are both castle doctrine and SYG laws in effect, don't we have a contradictory mess? Who has the right to do what???? I tell the armed person to leave, he says he doesn't have to, I attempt to remove him under castle doctrine, he stands his ground....... No, it doesn't work that way.
.
And in the end, the bill of rights sets limitations on the power government has over its people. It does not address what one person may or may not do.

Don't know about other States but in Michigan the following laws apply to your scenario...

Michigan Legislature - Section 780.961

DEADLY FORCE (EXCERPT)
Act 310 of 2006


780.961 Use of deadly force or force other than deadly force; establishing evidence that individual's actions not justified.

Sec. 1.

(1) An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act and who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses that deadly force or force other than deadly force commits no crime in using that deadly force or force other than deadly force.



THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; exception; violation; penalty; "process server" defined.

Sec. 552.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
-snip-
(3) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.

So a plain reading of both of those laws would mean a person who is trespassing is committing a crime (a misdemeanor) so the protection of Section 1 of 780.961 (Use of deadly force or force other than deadly force) would not apply. My understand of that in plain language would mean that a person who is trespassing is committing a crime and therefor does not have the protection of "Stand your ground"...

But then... I am not an attorney ....

 

[Shatteredstar]

While I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with more compulsory laws. That is not liberty. For starters, I reserve the right to NOT go into a business that prohibits CCW. Secondly, I'm going to CCW there anyway. Civil disobedience. If they can't guarantee my safety, I will do my best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nightmare45]

Private property is private property if you wish no weapons post your property.

 

[Axeanda45]

Business property is mostly privately owned, but it is still business property, NOT private property... IF they were the same thing, they wouldnt have different names and regulations/laws concerning them..... Ignoring this very simple concept is a fault that many on this forum possess.... and it leads them into much confusion.

 

[Axeanda45]

I keep asking a simple question that certain supporters of the anywhere/anyplace opinion won't answer...
,
If I can't ban another from carrying on my property and if there are both castle doctrine and SYG laws in effect, don't we have a contradictory mess? Who has the right to do what???? I tell the armed person to leave, he says he doesn't have to, I attempt to remove him under castle doctrine, he stands his ground....... No, it doesn't work that way.
.
And in the end, the bill of rights sets limitations on the power government has over its people. It does not address what one person may or may not do.

It seems to me that you are VERY confused about some of the posts here.. I suggest you go back and re-read them again..... and get some enlightenment.

here is a MAJOR HINT:

You CAN ask him to leave, and HE DOES have to comply..... he does not have the RIGHT to stay there once asked to leave for any reason or even no reason at all.....

 

[BC1]

In a word..... no.
.
I've said it numerous times and will continue to do say it as long as posters don't understand what the second amendment means. The U.S. Constitution defines the powers of the government. The bill of rights as amendments to the constitution limit the government's power over it's citizens. It is between you and the government, not you and I. It does not define and was never written to define any relationship between you and the owner of a private establishment. In fact it supports my right to refuse to serve any customer where I feel safety is an issue in pursuit of my own life and liberty.
.
Further, it hands a huge liability over to the owner. I'm not defending you just because you're in my building. I'm not the police. I'm not a security guard and I'm not a bodyguard. While I may choose to defend someone I can't be made to do so for more reasons than I can list here. The supreme court ruled that even the police have no obligation to protect you. You're on your own.
.
If a person feels that strongly about the subject they can always exercise free-will and shop where their gun is accepted. More importantly, why not just conceal the gun and go about business. No one is searching you and no one can prove you're armed. If they question you just turn and leave without a word.

 

[BC1]

It seems to me that you are VERY confused about some of the posts here.. I suggest you go back and re-read them again..... and get some enlightenment.

You CAN ask him to leave, and HE DOES have to comply..... he does not have the RIGHT to stay there once asked to leave for any reason or even no reason at all.....

Agreed. But my comment about what the constitution and bill of rights mean are right on the money, and supported by hundreds of years of decisions in the courts. On my private property one has no right to assembly, no right to freedom of speech, no right to practice your religion, no right to bear arms, no right to be free from search (employers may reserve the right to search packages), in fact no right to be there at all.

 

[BC1]

Business property is mostly privately owned, but it is still business property, NOT private property... IF they were the same thing, they wouldnt have different names and regulations/laws concerning them..... Ignoring this very simple concept is a fault that many on this forum possess.... and it leads them into much confusion.

There are some differences as I'll describe. While there may be differences in taxation, zoning law or building codes, property is treated a little different.
.
Personally owned real property is just that. My property for personal use... my home, a vacation house. I can deny someone entry for any reason I choose. I can discriminate against them for any reason I choose. From race to religion to sexual orientation. They have no claim.
.
Business owned real property:
+
First would be property owned by me or any entity (Corp, LLC, Partnership, Trust, etc.) for business use. Whether the property is owned by me personally or by a Corp that I control, it is a private entity. If the company who owns the property is publicly traded on the stock exchanges it is owned by the stockholders, not the public. The stockholders, shareholders or private investors (in a PPO offering), or even me as the sole shareholder in my own company own the property and may set policy as any private entity. It is not a public place. I may refuse anyone entry for any reason as long as I do not deny service to any protected group under the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. I can't deny you because of race, religion, sex, sexual preference, etc. I must be in compliance with provisions regarding handicapped persons. But I can deny you because you carry a gun... you're not a protected group under the USCRA. I can deny you for smoking. I can deny you based on an offensive slogan on a T-shirt because you have no first amendment right to freedom of expression on my private property (Disney World).
+
Second is best stated as when the business I own, which holds the property rents the premise to you. I cannot tell you what to do, not to allow firearms, who to serve, etc. Because the property is rented by you, you retain your rights and I must defer. This was the case when Andrew Cuomo tried to tell persons living in federally subsidized housing that they couldn't have a gun. No cigar... he has no say in it. So in that situation you can accept anything you want and as the owner I'm powerless to interfere. If there's a mishap as the building owner I may get named in a civil action but that's just too bad for me. And that's the way it should be. The renter has the right to be free of interference from me as long he's not causing anyone any harm. Imagine telling a hunter who just rented your RV that you don't allow guns in the camper? If he rents it he can do what he wants.

 

[drgntkd]

I'm with bikenut on this. As a business owner, I should have the right to decide who I want to serve. That being said I can exclude a certain class of people but I would take the loss. I personally allow anyone into my business.

Take the Oregon bakery that the state tried to force. They didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. That's their choice and the state should never have stepped in. The couple should have just found another bakery.

The way I look at it is simple. If you don't like my policy or rules then don't come to my business. I will serve anyone who wants to come in (with or without a firearm). Luckily I don't have to jeopardize my belief system to do so. I'm not in a business where I would have to take my religious beliefs to the test.

 

[BC1]

you do however, have every right in the world to make them leave IF they are on your property..... You can deny them access, yet if they ignore that denial, and DO come onto your property... they retain all the same RIGHTS as they would have anywhere else... like for example, the RIGHT to own/have the property they carry in their pockets or on their belt.....

If they ignore that denial in NYS I have the right to physically remove them (See NYS PL S35.20 and PL S140.17) If they escalate the confrontation by resisting while armed they'll be shot. Game over.
.
S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
.
S 140.17 Criminal trespass in the first degree.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building, and when, in the course of committing such crime, he:
1. Possesses, or knows that another participant in the crime possesses, an explosive or a deadly weapon; or
2. Possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun, as those terms are defined in section 265.00, and also possesses or has readily accessible a quantity of ammunition which is capable of being discharged from such
firearm, rifle or shotgun; or
3. Knows that another participant in the crime possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun under circumstances described in subdivision two.
Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class D felony.
.
If you're armed and refuse to leave you have committed a felony with a gun. Your gun rights are gone too. You can be physically removed and the property owner or custodian enjoys freedom from prosecution. If you resist the attempt to be removed by any defensive or combative action you may be shot. Period. You would not be entitled to an affirmative defense.