quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Businesses can put notices on their doors citing the provision in both the open carry and cancelled carry laws that allow them not to allow weapons to be carried into their establishments.

City parks have similar notices, as do some state parks, court houses, bars, restaurants where alcohol is served, schools, child care centers etc.

And the law has withstood court challenge.

Most other states have similar provisions in their open carry laws.

I dont give a fuck what their intent is, the letter of the law is SHALL NOT INFRINGE, the gubmint has no legitimate authority to ban arms from any ESTABLISHMENT UNDER ITS CHARTER. PERIOD.

Now if there is such a thing as a business that is not under the gubmint charter then yes they have the right to ban carrying arms in the personal establishment.

A home would come under that rule if it were not taxed but even a home comes under gubmint purview.

All titles in teh united states are split titles, equity/legal, way beyond anyones comprehension here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



I dont give a fuck what their intent is, the letter of the law is SHALL NOT INFRINGE, the gubmint has no legitimate authority to ban arms from any ESTABLISHMENT UNDER ITS CHARTER. PERIOD.

Now if there is such a thing as a business that is not under the gubmint charter then yes they have the right to ban carrying arms in the personal establishment.

A home would come under that rule if it were not taxed but even a home comes under gubmint purview.

All titles in teh united states are split titles, equity/legal, way beyond anyones comprehension here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



I dont give a fuck what their intent is, the letter of the law is SHALL NOT INFRINGE, the gubmint has no legitimate authority to ban arms from any ESTABLISHMENT UNDER ITS CHARTER. PERIOD.

Now if there is such a thing as a business that is not under the gubmint charter then yes they have the right to ban carrying arms in the personal establishment.

A home would come under that rule if it were not taxed but even a home comes under gubmint purview.

All titles in teh united states are split titles, equity/legal, way beyond anyones comprehension here.

Hey shit for brains, the owners of any business has the right, under the constitution to tell people to not bring guns into their establishment, the states see this right and has written the law accordingly.

And no business has to submit a charter to operate, they do, however, have to obtain a state or local license to operate as a business.

You see, the your rights end where they infringe on the rights of someone else, which is the nice thing about the constitution. That means that if I had a business, I could tell you that 1) you were not welcome in my establishment and you have to leave, and 2) if you failed to do so voluntarily, I can have your happy ass escorted off the property by the law, and they would inform you should you return, it would be criminal trespass which is a felony in this state, punishable by five years in prison, and a nice 5000 buck fine.

aside from your all to obvious contradiction, you dont understand what I am talking about geni-ass boy.

Thats not true, they would force you to bake a gay wedding cake and cater a gay wedding.

Oh and what this 'business with right under the constitution shit? Care to provide the constitutional quote whatever in the hell you think you are talking about?

Otherwise nice try wanna go for best 1 out of 5?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

I'm guessing you've never lived on a military base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

The government cannot tell you where you can or cannot carry a gun, but a private entity can (at least on their property).

Maybe, I have not finished thinking that one through yet, like I said everything in american feudal society is split title. I dont remember which thread but I mentioned gubmint 'interest', da gubmint can only have interest where they have or have convinced you that they have jurisdiction and there are only so many ways they can gain jurisdiction to have an interest. fuck I am starting to sound like donald rumsfeld ffs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
To my knowledge, nobody was shot in the riots during the recent protest where a car ram a lady down. Despite the presence of plenty of guns.

So why is this turning into a gun argument again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I have to point out that the United States of America is just about the only place in the world that it is deemed acceptable to bring offensive weapons to a public march.

I know that you guys have a unique perspective on this subject, and I respect that, but almost everywhere in the world that the rule of law holds being part of an armed group on the streets would practically guarantee a forceful police or military response. I'm not a big fan of private citizens carrying guns, except when hunting or involved in sport, but when it is as part of an armed group claiming to be demonstrating peacefully it seems a bit absurd. Carrying a gun for self protection is very different from making it clear that you are armed while you are demonstrating.

Just one other thought. A car rams into a crowd of people with the explicit intent of causing serious injury in Europe and it is terrorism. I am struggling to see why this is any different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
To my knowledge, nobody was shot in the riots during the recent protest where a car ram a lady down. Despite the presence of plenty of guns.

So why is this turning into a gun argument again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I have to point out that the United States of America is just about the only place in the world that it is deemed acceptable to bring offensive weapons to a public march.

I know that you guys have a unique perspective on this subject, and I respect that, but almost everywhere in the world that the rule of law holds being part of an armed group on the streets would practically guarantee a forceful police or military response. I'm not a big fan of private citizens carrying guns, except when hunting or involved in sport, but when it is as part of an armed group claiming to be demonstrating peacefully it seems a bit absurd. Carrying a gun for self protection is very different from making it clear that you are armed while you are demonstrating.

Just one other thought. A car rams into a crowd of people with the explicit intent of causing serious injury in Europe and it is terrorism. I am struggling to see why this is any different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
To my knowledge, nobody was shot in the riots during the recent protest where a car ram a lady down. Despite the presence of plenty of guns.

So why is this turning into a gun argument again?

This was my thought as well. I don't agree with the premise that the gun carrying protesters intimidated the police. If anything, it should have emboldened the police to use whatever force was necessary.

ETA I'm glad they didn't. I'm also encouraged that with all thosd who carried, non fired a shot. That right tbere shows that even in a situation of attacks - gun carrier's didn't resort to gunfire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
To my knowledge, nobody was shot in the riots during the recent protest where a car ram a lady down. Despite the presence of plenty of guns.

So why is this turning into a gun argument again?

This was my thought as well. I don't agree with the premise that the gun carrying protesters intimidated the police. If anything, it should have emboldened the police to use whatever force was necessary.

ETA I'm glad they didn't. I'm also encouraged that with all thosd who carried, non fired a shot. That right tbere shows that even in a situation of attacks - gun carrier's didn't resort to gunfire.

It is a mindless thread.