Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.
With the object they are infringing.
Arguments over.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Why carry open in town?
- Thread starter Horseman
- Start date
Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.
With the object they are infringing.
Arguments over.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
whodat2710
New member
So what you are saying, and Axe, is that we can make rules as property owners, but to expect that they actually mean anything is a pipe dream. We have the right to make rules, we just don't have the right to expect that anyone respect them.
-
You guys don't seem to be able to separate the fact that I can think that gun free zones are ludicrous while also supporting those Americans right to have them. I think that in true public locations like schools, hospitals etc. we should fight tooth and nail to get them removed. I think that is Bob's hardware store wants to have a gun free zone I he will not be getting my business - but to violate that gun free zone is just pretty damn disrespectful,
B
Bikenut
Guest
Actually private property rights aren't about having the right to make rules and enforce them... private property rights are all about having the right to control how your private property is used and who has permission to use your private property. The rules are merely a method the owner uses to specify who does not have permission to enter and those rules also serve as notice (whether legal or not often depends on the laws of the individual State... and whether legal or not the rule still informed the individual they do not have permission) to those who do not have permission.
I'll try to draw a parallel...
The right to bear arms is exactly that... the right to bear arms. How a person bears an arm whether openly or concealed is how the person exercises that right.
The owner of property has the right to control who has, and who does not have, permission to enter. His rules that specify who does, and who does not, is how he exercises that right.
When a person disregards or disobeys the owner's rules he is effectively giving himself permission over and above the property owner's right to deny permission. The funny thing about that is it seems to be a common theme for those who say they don't care about the property owner's no guns rule to also say they will... sneak... the gun in. A bit of a contradiction because if the property owner doesn't have the right to deny permission to those who carry guns why is it necessary to .... sneak... the gun in?
whodat2710
New member
Like the sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service" for whatever reason the property owner deems fit. If the owner refuses service to someone based on race, that person has a valid case in court against that property owner. If the owner refuses you service because you are armed, would you have a case?
Axeanda45
Banned
Do you as a property (business) owner have the RIGHT to enslave anyone who happens to come onto your property even when they arent breaking any of your rules? Do you as a property owner have the RIGHT to strangle anyone for no reason at all if they are on your property and not breaking any of your rules? Do you as a property owner have the RIGHT to rape my daughters and wife just because YOU INVITED THEM ONTO YOUR PROPERTY as members of the PUBLIC? (if you dont want the public, open a private club)
I see how most of you keep trying to insert that the subject at hand is PRIVATE property... the subject is actually about BUSINESS property... stay on point please, and dont give me that utter bullcrap that they are the same thing... if they were, they wouldnt have different words to describe them...
Axeanda45
Banned
You cant seem to discern that you can make up ANY RULE YOU WANT, but some people just might ignore the "rules" that happen to infringe on their RIGHTS....
Axeanda45
Banned
Really? You are still posting the 1 of my hundreds of posts on this subject that just happens to have a missing word/unfinished thought in it to prove your point? Is this all you have? Is your case so weak that the only thing you have to prove me wrong is this? How about PROOF that a RULE trumps a RIGHT? Oh... you dont have that, I remember......, all you have is slight of hand and ridicule.
Axeanda45
Banned
Anyone, anywhere has the RIGHT make ANY RULES they want.... yet, if you break any of their RULES, you have NOT infringed on their RIGHTS.... all you have done is broken a "rule".... no-one here (especially me) has EVER STATED that you cannot make rules about anything you want..... I STAND BEHIND YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE RULES!!!!!, even stupid ones!
I also stand up for our RIGHTS, the ones that every human is born with... and these RIGHTS trump anyones rules, no matter where they are....... Whenever a rule comes up against a right, the right always trumps it.... otherwise, we wouldnt have rights.... they would be "possibles"... you know, possibly a right as long as no-one has written a rule about it....
How about you refuting the above statements I posted earlier today instead of ignoring them?
I also stand up for our RIGHTS, the ones that every human is born with... and these RIGHTS trump anyones rules, no matter where they are....... Whenever a rule comes up against a right, the right always trumps it.... otherwise, we wouldnt have rights.... they would be "possibles"... you know, possibly a right as long as no-one has written a rule about it....
How about you refuting the above statements I posted earlier today instead of ignoring them?
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.
With the object they are infringing.
Arguments over. Your argument is so weak this is all it takes to prove you wrong, that is correct.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Axeanda45
Banned
You do not have an argument..... So you only misquote me.... EVERYONE ELSE knows (and I finished the sentence a few posts later in the thread you are quoting what I meant to say) and yet you are here and in multiple posts other places LYING about it by KNOWINGLY continuing to misquote me..... Are we to believe ANYTHING you say now, now that you have proven yourself to be a liar?
If the misquoted post you keep repeating was such a gross oversight on my part that I was back-peddling every chance I got to "fix" the problem it caused, dont you think I would have edited it the very first chance it was pointed out to me??????? I have NOT edited it because anyone with half a brain COULD READ MY OTHER POSTS AND DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES that I surely forgot to put ONE word in there, and THEY know (because they have at least half a brain) that the missing word is "rules" and most definitely not "RIGHTS"
Do yourself (and your reputation) a favor and stop repeating lies, it only proves you have nothing else to refute my argument with.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Link Removed
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
BluesStringer
Les Brers
"Why carry open in town?"
Not a huge deal to me that the thread started by a drive-by troll got hijacked, but let's at least get it right that it did indeed get hijacked. Until a passing mention alluding to "sneakiness" of CC'ers who violate property owners' rights to control who, and under what circumstances, someone can enter their property (whether private or business, and yes, as far as the law is concerned, they are the same), this thread actually did stay pretty much on topic. You didn't make the passing mention, but you sho' 'nuff participated in taking the thread completely off-topic.
So no lectures from you, Axe, about "the subject at hand," OK? Thanks.
Blues
I lived in Indiana for decades without knowing its an open carry state. Most people who OC in Indiana, based on my experience, don't flaunt it; I'd say they're discrete, in fact.
There will always be a few extremists who OC in an outlandish manner just to be noticed. They do a great injustice to the rest of who are sensitive about public opinion regarding firearms.
When I notice an OCer, my first thought is always "Thats probably a plain clothes cop". I suspect many other 'civilians' think the same thing.
There will always be a few extremists who OC in an outlandish manner just to be noticed. They do a great injustice to the rest of who are sensitive about public opinion regarding firearms.
When I notice an OCer, my first thought is always "Thats probably a plain clothes cop". I suspect many other 'civilians' think the same thing.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Your "outlandish manner" may very well be my sincerest attempt at using discretion, and as regards the overwhelming majority of criticisms directed towards OC'ers on this forum, it most certainly is.
You see, the discretion I employ by OC'ing is "just to be noticed" by any and all criminals who might think I'd otherwise be their willing or unprepared victim. I don't wear a small gun so people won't notice, I wear a full-size .45 that no one could miss if they're sizing me up as their potential victim. During the winter, I wear it on a drop-leg platform so it is easily visible (and accessible) even though I'm wearing layers of clothing. Sometimes I simply strap it on a belt on the outside of my coat, but that makes getting into my pockets more difficult, so I vastly prefer the drop-leg rig.
Is that "outlandish?" Am I an "extremist" because I absolutely do want to be noticed by criminals, and have them decide that there are easier targets out there to victimize than moi? Not that I really care whether you think I am or I ain't, but since you made the statement the way you did, it seems valid to ask for clarification of just who qualifies in your mind as "outlandish extremists."
I owe no consideration at all to "the rest of" your over-active sensitivities towards people whose rights or enjoyment of life I am not threatening in any way, shape, manner or form by exercising my God-given right of self-defense in any legal manner I choose. Avoidance is the best form of defense there is. I believe that OC deters crime against me, and assuming that I'm right about that more times than not, then I have defended myself preemptively and without even knowing it more times than not. To think that I should relinquish the right to make my own tactical decisions for myself based simply on some stranger's irrational and irrelevant sensibilities might get offended is not supporting my rights. I'll thank you to always support all gun rights, even when strangers "out there" in the ethos somewhere don't and won't.
Blues
I surrender!
The "outlandish" behavior I was referring to was from images I've seen of the mall-ninja types with long black coats, big pistols, etc.
My "over active sensitivities" are my problem, I guess. Your approach is yours to follow, and I'm not critizing it; you know what your needs and your philosophy call for.
I should have kept my yap shut on this topic, cause I know better. No offense intended.
The "outlandish" behavior I was referring to was from images I've seen of the mall-ninja types with long black coats, big pistols, etc.
My "over active sensitivities" are my problem, I guess. Your approach is yours to follow, and I'm not critizing it; you know what your needs and your philosophy call for.
I should have kept my yap shut on this topic, cause I know better. No offense intended.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Bouncing off your post because it is important to make the following point..........
Some folks carry in what others might consider to be an "outlandish manner" on purpose to make a political statement in support of the right to bear arms. The thing is... it is the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS... not the privilege according to what someone might not like and/or consider an "outlandish manner".
And yes... those who are making a political statement want to be noticed because how else to bring about change if the statement goes unnoticed? Please consider that there really isn't any difference between carrying a sign and actually carrying the gun the sign refers to. Both are political speech protected by the 1st Amendment. It's just that some people don't like one of those methods of exercising free speech.
There are many things that people do as they exercise their rights that I don't like and/or think are foolish.. or even downright stupid. Yet those folks have every right to be doing what they are doing and it would be the height of arrogance for me to tell them they shouldn't exercise their rights that way just because I don't like it. Actually, since I am a firm supporter of the right to bear arms, it would be hypocritical in the extreme for me to start telling other folks how to exercise the right to bear arms since my trying to make other people only bear arms in ways I think are "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" would be me attempting to regulate their right to bear arms and that is an infringement.
And... whether some folks like it or not... there are some videos on youtube where the open carrier was not only carrying in what some might consider an offensive manner but they also behaved in what some might consider an offensive manner.... as they caught police officers doing illegal things. Perhaps the open carrier even baited the cops... but consider this... if the cops never took the bait then the cops would not have broken the law.
And some of those videos have been used in law suits that caused the cops to be retrained. Offensive manner? Perhaps... but when used to make a statement that results in positive change I prefer to call it.......... effective manner.
Axeanda45
Banned
Again MORE misdirection from you...... even though the thread is in fact about what you said, the argument/discussion that was going on where you quoted me was very much on the subject I talked about in that post.... You still have absolutely NO PROOF OR EVEN A HINT of ANYTHING that shows that an inanimate object harms (infringes on anyones RIGHTS) I see.... so all you do is misdirect and ridicule....
Chris Rakes
New member
I Will have to ask, where is this "private property rights" ,you speak of ?
Just to remind you guys there is no property rights in the US. It is laws that dictate what is done on property. There is even less on a business property
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Well, will the Bill of Rights suffice as a "place" to "find" these private property rights? You have heard of the Bill of Rights, right?
The 4A has been affirmed by SCOTUS as relating to protecting property rights and privacy rights.
The 14th Amendment reinforces property rights relating to due process as well.
According to the 5th Amendment, the property is assumed to belong to the citizen, and the law only defines what the government must do before depriving one of their rights to it. Rules for "what is done" on private property certainly don't predate or precede the notion of private property rights. Ownership and the premise of "A man's home is his castle" predates civilized society! I'm either the King of my castle, or the government is the King of me. Which premise do you imagine is better-supported by history, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution or subsequent court rulings? (Hint: it's a rhetorical question, meaning that the answer should be obvious to anyone with more than a couple of brain synapses firing off every millisecond or two.)
While there are laws that limit what can be done on private property by the property owner, there are innumerable things which "can be done" on privately-owned property that don't require any interfacing with government whatsoever. "What is done" on my property most certainly doesn't begin or end with government's authorization, and that was true when I owned a small business as well.
Where is this distinction between private and business property owners' rights you speak of?
Most restrictions on use of commercial property are written as being authorized under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and what isn't justified as such, is mostly regulation from alphabet agencies that have no constitutional authority to make law whatsoever. But regardless of that fact, the right of property ownership derives from the same place the right to keep and bear arms does; from natural law, from common law, and/or from our Creator.
Blues
