testtest

Open Carry consequences?

Sld1959 said:
What makes you different than the gun grabbers then. We complain they do not respect our rights and do whatever they want.

How is you disrespecting a property owner's rights to control what is or is not brought onto thier property just because you want to any different.

We lose, when we become what we deplore.
Click to expand...
The answer is obvious. Well it should be obvious. The difference between me and a "gun grabber" is that I am not advocating for or actively trying to take away property owner's rights through force of law. "Gun grabbers" do not believes the right to own guns should ever have existed and/or wants state legislatures and Congress to abolish gun ownership. I don't want to use the force of law nor do I want Congress to make felons out of and imprison property owner's for having property rights. There's little logic in what you stated.

Gun grabbers want to to limit what citizens can own and carry on in their home AND on public property. Gun grabbers want to take away rights with the force of law. I do NOT believe I've stated or eluded to wanting any of a sort in my post, and although I'm admitting to secretly not adhering to the desire of property owners, I'm not broking any laws or taking away the property owner's legal rights. Their property rights still exist, and will have the force of law if they decide to exercise their rights.
 
Last edited:
WellArmed said:
The answer is obvious. Well it should be obvious. The difference between me and a "gun grabber" is that I am not advocating for or actively trying to take away property owner's rights through force of law. "Gun grabbers" do not believes the right to own guns should never exist and/or wants state legislatures and Congress to abolish gun ownership. I don't want to use the force of law nor do I want Congress to make felons out of and imprison property owner's for having property rights. There's little logic in what you stated.

Gun grabbers want to to limit what citizens can own and carry on in their home AND on public property. Gun grabbers want to take away rights with the force of law. I do NOT believe I've stated or eluded to wanting any of a sort in my post, and although I admitting am secretly not adhering to to the desire of property owners, I'm not not broken any laws or taken away the property owner's legal rights. Their property rights still exist, and will have the force of law if they decide to exercise their rights.
Click to expand...
Like talking to a brick wall, sad common courtesy and respect is becoming so rare in the my rights override anyones elses and if i dont get caught it makes it ok crowd. Done with this useless exercise.
 
Sld1959 said:
Like talking to a brick wall, sad...
Click to expand...
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall who makes, IMHO, illogical comparisons, gets frustrated when I RESPECTFULLY detail my opinion on why I disagree with their assessment, so the wall responds with a snarky remark while completely disregarding all the points I outlined in my post...
 
Last edited:
HayesGreener said:
What is relevant is your state statute concerning "no gun" signs. In Florida the signs have no force of law, but if a private property owner sees you armed they can tell you to leave and if you don't go you are tresspassing.
Click to expand...
You must be a brick 🧱 wall too I see. I agree. The law is being followed.

That reminds me that when I worked at a fast food restaurant as a teen, I once went to work without my required name badge in direct violation of the property owner's (a Greek McDonald's franchisee) rules and policies. Whiles I didn't break any laws and the manager still processed the right to send me home and/or write me up, I just realized that I was the equivalent to a Michael Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, Shannon Watts, Gabby Giffords, and the like! God help all the people who went to an all-white-party wearing a speck of any other color, or people who ever showed up to Halloween party without a costume!
 
Fourteenth Ammendment said:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
Fifth Ammendment said:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...
This is what the Constitution says about property rights. I do not want nor have I ever attempted to deprive anyone of these constitutional protected rights. I support those rights, and want them to remain intact!

Second Ammendment said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
This is what the Second Ammendment states. Gun grabbers want to and are actively attempting to deprive all Americans of this Constitutional protected right via unconstitutional government intervention!

The rest of property and business rights are predominantly covered and addressed by Home Owners Associations (HOA), City codes, and State law. A HOA, city, and state has the power and the right to tell property owners what they (and others) can and can't do on their own private property just as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. For example, the state and federal government can NOT tell private citizens they can not have firearms on their property because that violates the 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution; however, they CAN tell private owners that they must meet certain building codes, they can't shoot on their land, they can't own farm animals, they can only only a maximum of 3 dogs, so on and so forth...

Me walking into a store with a gun buster sign in my state isn't violating anyone's Constitutionally protected property rights, nor am I violating any local laws. Yes, I'm violating the property owner's policies; however, they still retained their constitutional and locally protected rights at all times. They are free to exercise their state given property rights by asking me to leave at any time for any reason.

In closing, I respectfully disagree with those who are saying that people who ignore a "no guns, no loitering, no parking, bathroom is for customers only, no outside food," dresses code, etc signage that's posted on private property as being the equivalent to those who want to abolish constitutional rights aka gun grabbers...
 
Last edited:
WellArmed said:
This is what the Constitution says about property rights. I do not want nor have I ever attempted to deprive anyone of these constitutional protected rights. I support those rights, and want them to remain intact!


This is what the Second Ammendment states. Gun grabbers want to and are actively attempting to deprive all Americans of this Constitutional protected right via government intervention!

The rest of property and business rights are predominantly covered and addressed by Home Owners Associations (HOA), City codes, and State law. A HOA, city, and state has the power and the right to tell property owners what they (and others) can and can't do on their own private property just as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. For example, the state and federal government can NOT tell private citizens they can not have firearms on their property because that violates the 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution...

Me walking into a store with a gun buster sign in my state isn't violating anyone's Constitutionally protected property rights, nor am I violating any local laws. Yes, I'm violating the property owner's policies; however, they still retained their constitutional and locally protected rights at all times. They are free to exercise their state given property rights by asking me to leave at any time for any reason.

In closing, I respectfully disagree with those who are saying that people who ignore a gun buster, "no loitering," "no parking," "bathroom is for customers only," dresses code, etc signage that's posted on private property as being the equivalent to those who want to abolish constitutional rights aka gun grabbers...
Click to expand...
No…you’re just somebody who thinks they can do whatever they want on someone elses’s property, despite the property owner’s clearly stated wishes.

Basically, a self-centered (deleted).
 
HansGruber said:
No…you’re just somebody who thinks they can do whatever they want on someone elses’s property, despite the property owner’s clearly stated wishes.

Basically, a self-centered (deleted).
Click to expand...

Keep it civil and polite. Also, no foul language. Arguments will result in deletion of all comments or post involved. (Keep it civil no ifs, ands or buts). Healthy discussions / disagreements are okay but as soon as aggression is noticed it will be removed.
Click to expand...
Question: What's the forum owner’s "clearly stated wishes?"

You are so called grown men who aren't capable of having a civil debate without making personal attacks and I'm the "sad" "self-centered" (you know what)?

I must have made good points, because you both started out by directly addressing and refuting points and opinions that were being discussed to abandoning that tactic altogether via resorting to personal attacks because I have a different outlook. Not once have I disrespected, attacked, or really got snarky with anyone.

I do not believe I can do "whatever" on someone elses property, but I can technically do some things I want to on someone else's property just as long as I do not violate the law. I also strongly disagree with the notion that I've violated or want to take away anyone's constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

1677048234241.png


1677048179200.png


;)


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
PAGunGuy said:
Perhaps it's semantics, but I make a huge distinction between property rights of a homeowner than the rights of a business that's open to the public.
Click to expand...
I agree. When you are in the “public domain,” it is completely different (or mostly different anyway) than when you are in private domain, like somebody’s home. I could be wrong, but I believe most self defense laws recognize this difference.

As to whether to comply with signs, etc., that a business owner in the public domain posts indicating their preference about patrons being armed, that is a judgment call each of us has to make. I don’t open carry, though, because it may make other patrons of a particular business uncomfortable. I consider that would be rude.

My thinking is that if a business says I cannot be armed on their premises, then they are obligated to assume responsibility for the security of me and my loved ones. Since I know most businesses don’t do that, I do what I consider necessary for my protection.
 
I learned the value of concealed carry in 1960. Like many of us here I grew up watching various westerns and police shows. Gunsmoke, The Rifleman, Lawman, Wyatt Earp, Wanted /Dead or Alive, The Untouchables, etc. Every birthday and Christmas I asked for the guns, six shooters, lever rifles, coach guns, etc. One of my favorite shows was the Untouchables. I was thrilled when Mattel came out with the Untouchable set, a Shootin' Shell snub nose, cuffs, shoulder holster, badge, complete with stick on caps. Well, the day arrived and I got the set under the tree. Back then everyone dressed up for church, and I had a suit just like Elliott Ness. I went to church a 10 year old Fed every Sunday armed with my Shootin' Shell revolver in my shoulder holster, and no one including my parents was the wiser. This went on for a month or so and my secret was safe until out in the church parking lot I was forced to pull iron and bust a cap on my smartass cousin. This caused quite an uproar and my Mom confiscated my Shootin Shell revolver and rig on the spot. For several months after that I think I was the only 10 year old whose Mom frisked him before church every Sunday. So I learned at the age of 10, your gun is like your "special purpose", if you keep it covered in public it won't get you into trouble.
 
As we have learned some believe in all rules, others believe in some rules, and others only believe in their rules. I will say we should fully understand if the signage has legal consequences. There have been many general statements made about rights and who knows maybe it would be a better place if people simply followed the rules.
 
southtex said:
As we have learned some believe in all rules, others believe in some rules, and others only believe in their rules. I will say we should fully understand if the signage has legal consequences. There have been many general statements made about rights and who knows maybe it would be a better place if people simply followed the rules.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My state, signage has no force of law. But when we went to Ohio a few years ago, I noticed that there signs did. At that time, they didn't have reciprocity with my state, so it didn't matter, I wasn't carrying. But I did see the signs everywhere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top