CCing where it is "not allowed"......

[Bigum1969]

I always follow the rules.

 

[Bigum1969]

Should that have been in purple?

 

[dross]

Can private establishments ask citizens to fully surrender other Constitutional Rights? I understand requesting that someone not cuss, and refrain from speaking loudly, but I think that would be more akin to asking that one limit their bullet size to .40 or below.

What about if a business (read: participant in interstate commerce) were to offer separate facilities for blacks and whites, or hang a sign that stated: "All Christians must surrender religious jewelry at the door?" It is almost inconceivable that we would see a warning posted reading "No Press Allowed."

When put in perspective, firearms bans really can't make sense.

You've got it turned around. The violation of rights is that I can't refuse service or ask anyone to leave for ANY reason.

Voluntary exchange is freedom, forcing people to do something with a law is not freedom. Therefore I should be able to exclude anyone from my private property for any reason, including race, religion, sex, or because I don't like their face, or because they own a poodle, or because they were born in New York or because they have red hair.

The fact that the government has stolen some property rights is not a justification for the government stealing even more property rights.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I know from personal experience, AND from the numerous posts on INGO, that LE WILL NOT arrest someone for trespassing without first warning them. The first time they are caught, they get off with a verbal warning. The same as when you are caught carrying in a store with a "no guns" sign. That being said, Why worry about "No trespassing" or "no hunting" signs because they hold "no legal teeth"?

No, it depends on where you are. If a person in on the property of a persons where it is clearly posted "no firearms," If I, personally arrive, you will be disarmed, you will be identified, you will be walked off the property, and then you will be given a written trespass notice.

Why go through all that, when you could have respected the property owners wishes in the first place?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You've got it turned around. The violation of rights is that I can't refuse service or ask anyone to leave for ANY reason.

Voluntary exchange is freedom, forcing people to do something with a law is not freedom. Therefore I should be able to exclude anyone from my private property for any reason, including race, religion, sex, or because I don't like their face, or because they own a poodle, or because they were born in New York or because they have red hair.

The fact that the government has stolen some property rights is not a justification for the government stealing even more property rights.

Exactly, discrimination laws for private businesses are dumb.

 

[cowboywitek]

nutnfancy has alot of great videos about this... fact is that trespassing doesnt result in any kind of good result, well besides a possible good meal. but carrying where its "not permitted" may save a whole lot of lives if a shooter were to come on the scene. I wonder how the courts would handle that.... "well, this guy was carrying in a non carry zone, thus breaking the law. however, he was able to kill the shooter before some kind of mass shooting started, thus saving others' lives." hmmm....
TW

 

[Kutnupe14]

nutnfancy has alot of great videos about this... fact is that trespassing doesnt result in any kind of good result, well besides a possible good meal. but carrying where its "not permitted" may save a whole lot of lives if a shooter were to come on the scene. I wonder how the courts would handle that.... "well, this guy was carrying in a non carry zone, thus breaking the law. however, he was able to kill the shooter before some kind of mass shooting started, thus saving others' lives." hmmm....
TW

Or when LE arrives on the scene, the guy carrying the gun on property where "no firearms permitted" signs are emblazoned all over the place may end up the person being shot at...

 

[cowboywitek]

Or when LE arrives on the scene, the guy carrying the gun on property where "no firearms permitted" signs are emblazoned all over the place may end up the person being shot at...

yes, but if he identified himself, that could be avoided. or after subduing the shooter, concealing the firearm back in the holster.
TW

 

[Kutnupe14]

yes, but if he identified himself, that could be avoided. or after subduing the shooter, concealing the firearm back in the holster.
TW

Right he identifies himself, is cuffed (b/c we have no idea who he is), and in the process wasting valuable time as the real shooter continues on his rampage....

 

[88GT]

I know from personal experience, AND from the numerous posts on INGO, that LE WILL NOT arrest someone for trespassing without first warning them. The first time they are caught, they get off with a verbal warning. The same as when you are caught carrying in a store with a "no guns" sign. That being said, Why worry about "No trespassing" or "no hunting" signs because they hold "no legal teeth"?

Okay, you're arguing multiple points as a single one and it makes no sense. But first let's clarify a few things.

1. It is not a WARNING. It is a conveyance of the request for the trespasser to quit the premises.

2. I was not concerned with the act of having them arrested when I made my original point. I misread where you were. However, the implication of your post would/could lead some to believe that a request to quit is required before LE can be involved. This is the point I focused on, though I see now that it wasn't what you were arguing.

3. All signage is just a variation of "no trespassing." But no one gets arrested for carrying on someone's property. Ergo, the act of carrying the firearm in opposition to posted signage is not the crime. Violating the terms of access is.

 

[88GT]

No, it depends on where you are. If a person in on the property of a persons where it is clearly posted "no firearms," If I, personally arrive, you will be disarmed, you will be identified, you will be walked off the property, and then you will be given a written trespass notice.

Why go through all that, when you could have respected the property owners wishes in the first place?

It probably matters not, but your stock just went up a bit for that one.

 

[cowboywitek]

Right he identifies himself, is cuffed (b/c we have no idea who he is), and in the process wasting valuable time as the real shooter continues on his rampage....

dude are you sirious? let me quote the famous saying that goes, "when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away!" after the CCier SUBDUED the shooter (shot him) then maybe by that time the cops would show up with situation already taken care of, and the CCier already having his gun concealed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It probably matters not, but your stock just went up a bit for that one.

You can deny it all you want, but I know you secretly adore me...

 

[Sylvain]

I would CC where its not allowed (like stores, restaurants and such who have a "no gun" sign) but I would not CC where its not legal (schools, federal buildings ...).
I just ignore "no guns" signs when its in a place where I can legally carry.
If im asked to leave because im armed then I would leave.They have the right to refuse to serve custumers.In that case I would not come back again and make sure to let other gun owners know about their anti-gun policy.
I also leave a "no gun = no money" card in that case to let them know how stupid it is to not allow guns in their store.
Since I CC I never had anyone asking me to leave.

 

[Kutnupe14]

dude are you sirious? let me quote the famous saying that goes, "when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away!" after the CCier SUBDUED the shooter (shot him) then maybe by that time the cops would show up with situation already taken care of, and the CCier already having his gun concealed.

Maybe, that still doesnt clear the fact that the person is carrying a gun against the property owners wishes, and could very easily become a target when LE arrives. Point is, if you are that concerned about your safety, don't go to places where it's posted that the owners doesnt want you there.

 

[lashicoN]

Maybe, that still doesnt clear the fact that the person is carrying a gun against the property owners wishes, and could very easily become a target when LE arrives. Point is, if you are that concerned about your safety, don't go to places where it's posted that the owners doesnt want you there.

Of course, you'll also respect the property owners wishes and leave your duty weapon off the property, right?

 

[Hoosierdood]

Of course, you'll also respect the property owners wishes and leave your duty weapon off the property, right?

*BTW, you got repped for that.

 

[japartridge]

Of course, you'll also respect the property owners wishes and leave your duty weapon off the property, right?

EXACTLY!!!

 

[youngda9]

Of course, you'll also respect the property owners wishes and leave your duty weapon off the property, right?

Those signs are only for those pesky "civilians"...they don't mean anything to an "officer"

 

[Hammerhead]

No trespassing signs have the weight of law. No guns signs do not. They are a request.

If you are going to come to a business, let's say a restaurant, where I'm eating and OCing my firearm and you attempt to cuff me, disarm me, and lead me out of the property, we're going to have words with your supervisor and my attorney. You cannot enforce a company policy with your badge. If I am not asked to leave the property first, you can not force me.