St Mary's is NOT gun friendly

[Titanium_Frost]

Titanium......you have Jedi mind powers?

Thats freakin awesome.....yes..i would love to buy you a drink..

No, see I told you it was Yotewhacker with the Jedi mind powers... I don't drink

 

[Hammerhead]

BumpShadow, I'll tell you this just as I told Finity in the BW3 thread.

Stop placing a "moral" obligation over a legal obligation when it comes to "policies" and "rules". You, me, Titanium, none of us have any legal obligation to follow some stupid "policy", posted or not, spoken or not, tin star security or not. None. Nada. I walk into a place of business (hospitals are businesses) that has a sign posted No Firearms, I can keep walking into the business with my firearm. There is NO infringement on "property rights" by doing so. I'm not following a request. That's not a property right. A property right infringement is denying people the fair use or ownership of property. I'm not denying the fair use of property, nor am I denying ownership (theft) of the property. They can limit the objects I carry on my person (pen, wallet, sidearm, bananas) ONLY by asking me to leave and take them with me.

If I refuse to leave at that time, then, and only then, am I violating the law. I have a legal obligation at that moment. But to walk into a building with an object someone finds inappropriate (putting that mildly) does not mean I must OBEY.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have this discussion, because people would realize that no guns does not equal safer, and that good guys with guns protect people from bad guys with guns. We do not, however live in a perfect world. We live in a world where people are stupid, petty, ignorant, ill informed, arrogant, vindictive, and selfish. And those are just the people who blindly believe guns should go away because that will make things all better (rainbows and unicorn farts aplenty, right Bill?).

As a gun toting, law abiding, evil-doer hating, willing-to-do-what's-necessary person, I will happily, without pause ignore stupid signage, and stupider "policies" and "rules" in places I'm not legally obligated to refrain from being armed (anything can be a weapon, just sayin'). I may perhaps be seen as a villain, a rogue, an ******* for not following "the rules". I don't care.

But don't tell us we're morally obligated to follow "the rules". Every time someone says we should follow "the rules" I hear "...but, but, but, they're the rules, you have to follow them!"

Until a law says that signs hold legal weight, I'll carry anywhere I damn well please (legally obligated locations excluded). People don't like it? Ask me to leave, and I'll do so.

Hasn't happened to me yet.

 

[Bill of Rights]

At this point, I am convinced that BumpShadow has his mind made up and wishes to not be confused with such things as facts. If he feels that an object on someone's hip (as long as they're not a government-approved, "special" someone... After all, the "security" guard not only invited but escorted a presumably-armed EPD officer into the building) infringes upon the property rights of the Order of Sisters of St Mary or whatever the corporate name of the purported owners of the presumably-tax-supported hospital, my feeble abilities will certainly not convince him otherwise. All I have on my side are logic and common-sense, while he has feelings, and as I'm sure any therapist he may or may not have ever heard speak (not necessarily seen in session) has told him, feelings are never wrong.

Of course, that says nothing about the information or interpretation on which the feelings are based... That could as easily be total fecal matter...

But what do I know? I'm just a hypocritical thug who is only interested in himself. It's not like I actually carry, research laws, or study such things. It's not like I go out of my way to make sure people are well informed as to the nature of rights and the difference between rights, privileges, authority, and powers.

At this point, I do believe that I may be done with him and with this thread. Maybe not. We shall see.

To the OP, I hope all is well with young Colt. Good wishes to him and to you and Mrs Frost. Your adventure is just beginning.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BumpShadow]

BumpShadow, I'll tell you this just as I told Finity in the BW3 thread.

Stop placing a "moral" obligation over a legal obligation when it comes to "policies" and "rules". You, me, Titanium, none of us have any legal obligation to follow some stupid "policy", posted or not, spoken or not, tin star security or not. None. Nada. I walk into a place of business (hospitals are businesses) that has a sign posted No Firearms, I can keep walking into the business with my firearm. There is NO infringement on "property rights" by doing so. I'm not following a request. That's not a property right. A property right infringement is denying people the fair use or ownership of property. I'm not denying the fair use of property, nor am I denying ownership (theft) of the property. They can limit the objects I carry on my person (pen, wallet, sidearm, bananas) ONLY by asking me to leave and take them with me.

If I refuse to leave at that time, then, and only then, am I violating the law. I have a legal obligation at that moment. But to walk into a building with an object someone finds inappropriate (putting that mildly) does not mean I must OBEY.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have this discussion, because people would realize that no guns does not equal safer, and that good guys with guns protect people from bad guys with guns. We do not, however live in a perfect world. We live in a world where people are stupid, petty, ignorant, ill informed, arrogant, vindictive, and selfish. And those are just the people who blindly believe guns should go away because that will make things all better (rainbows and unicorn farts aplenty, right Bill?).

As a gun toting, law abiding, evil-doer hating, willing-to-do-what's-necessary person, I will happily, without pause ignore stupid signage, and stupider "policies" and "rules" in places I'm not legally obligated to refrain from being armed (anything can be a weapon, just sayin'). I may perhaps be seen as a villain, a rogue, an ******* for not following "the rules". I don't care.

But don't tell us we're morally obligated to follow "the rules". Every time someone says we should follow "the rules" I hear "...but, but, but, they're the rules, you have to follow them!"

Until a law says that signs hold legal weight, I'll carry anywhere I damn well please (legally obligated locations excluded). People don't like it? Ask me to leave, and I'll do so.


Hasn't happened to me yet.

You forgot right of control. You know, that nit picky little right that say's an owner has control over what goes on, is brought into or out of their property. But what do I know, I'm an emotional anti-gun elitist in need of therapy.

And sure, morals and ethic's have no place when comes to being able to take lives with the pull of a trigger.

At this point, I am convinced that BumpShadow has his mind made up and wishes to not be confused with such things as facts. If he feels that an object on someone's hip (as long as they're not a government-approved, "special" someone... After all, the "security" guard not only invited but escorted a presumably-armed EPD officer into the building) infringes upon the property rights of the Order of Sisters of St Mary or whatever the corporate name of the purported owners of the presumably-tax-supported hospital, my feeble abilities will certainly not convince him otherwise. All I have on my side are logic and common-sense, while he has feelings, and as I'm sure any therapist he may or may not have ever heard speak (not necessarily seen in session) has told him, feelings are never wrong.

Of course, that says nothing about the information or interpretation on which the feelings are based... That could as easily be total fecal matter...

But what do I know? I'm just a hypocritical thug who is only interested in himself. It's not like I actually carry, research laws, or study such things. It's not like I go out of my way to make sure people are well informed as to the nature of rights and the difference between rights, privileges, authority, and powers.

At this point, I do believe that I may be done with him and with this thread. Maybe not. We shall see.

To the OP, I hope all is well with young Colt. Good wishes to him and to you and Mrs Frost. Your adventure is just beginning.

Blessings,
Bill

You are well informed on many issues, I'll give you that. But on this issue I can't agree with you. I agree that a sign, security guard, and a policy do not carry weight of law till asked to leave, yes. And you are free to do as you wish, yes. Never mind the fact that your making gun-owners everywhere look like jerks and asses. Whatever, maybe you are a jerk. I don't know. Don't care either. Nevermind the fact your violating right of control. So what. Do as you see fit and God bless. Clearly your out if your arguement degenerates to personal attacks.

I say your wrong in doing it. I say you violated the law the moment you step foot on a property with a gun and the owners don't want it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. I too have logic and common sense on my side. I for one will respect peoples rights and not carry if it's not wanted.

Wally world doesn't care if you carry because they need the foot traffic. Hospitals don't need it. Just because one business say's its cool doesn't apply to all.

Do as you please and accept the just deserts that come.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Until a law says that signs hold legal weight, I'll carry anywhere I damn well please (legally obligated locations excluded). People don't like it? Ask me to leave, and I'll do so.

I think it does... but, apparently the law is too vague. I think it should be clarified like in Texas. I'm honestly thinking of contact my rep to have this issue addressed.

I don't like a property owner's wishes being disregarded. If it says no guns... no guns. If it says no dogs... no dogs... and so forth.

 

[Rookie]

Anyone remember Virginia Tech? 32 dead because a mental case ignored policy and decided to go on a killing spree. Can anyone rationally argue that 32 people would be dead if they had chosen to ignore the policy?
My moral responsibility is the protection of my family and myself. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect me to give up my moral obligations. Because of that, a policy which is unreasonable will be ignored by me every single time. Ignoring a policy, ESPECIALLY in this situation where it was not posted, is not a violation of law. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

I could care less about what others think about my choice to carry. I'm not doing it to impress anyone. I'm doing it so my family and I can go home every night. Police are quick to throw the "officer safety" card when the situation fits (and even times when it doesn't), so I'll throw out personal safety as my trump card. After all, since the courts have ruled that police aren't responsible for our safety, who else is my family supposed to rely on?

 

[Rookie]

I think it does... but, apparently the law is too vague. I think it should be clarified like in Texas. I'm honestly thinking of contact my rep to have this issue addressed.

I don't like a property owner's wishes being disregarded. If it says no guns... no guns. If it says no dogs... no dogs... and so forth.

You have said that many times, but I can't remember if you posted case law to back that up. I know you've posted IC, and the contention is "vested interest".

I found something that may or may not help. Before anyone points it out, yes the circumstances are different, but it's interesting that her trespassing conviction was reversed even after she refused to leave.

http://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/1998/123101-ewn.html

 

[Rookie]

After reading the case law I posted, a couple things jump out at me. It's obvious that she had a contractual interest, even more iron clad than you or I walking into Walmart. She was asked to leave and refused. I would consider being asked to leave a termination of contractual interest. The court didn't see it that way, but I don't agree. Let's say I go to Sams club where I have a membership. This particular day, I decided to go with my EBR slung over my shoulder. The manager comes up to me and tells me that I have to leave. I calmly tell him no and continue to shop. In my opinion, any time an employee asks you to leave, they have verbally terminated contractual interest, yet the court didn't see it that way. Weird.

 

[finity]

Wow, that post was as long as some of mine.

Good job!

Basically what your saying you don't about anyone elses rights as long they don't infringe on your own.

Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up.

And you don't care if your rights infringe of anyone elses.

Nope. I didn't see that. And since "truth is in the eye of the beholder" I don't see where you can even disagree with me.

Your gun on your hip absolutey infringes on their property rights if they've have decided they don't want guns on their property.

Is it only "guns" you have a problem with or is it anything at all?

Would you say it is an infringement on their "right of control" for me to wear pink underwear onto a property that has a "no pink underwear allowed" sign? Neither pink underwear nor concealed guns are a danger or disruption to anyone until they're exposed . Should we be forced to undergo a full cavity search in order to be allowed to enter onto a property that is open to the public (ie. a business) just in case we are bringing something in that the owner doesn't like?

If you agree with that then where does it end? Should he be able to pump our stomachs to make sure we don't bring any foreign food substances as implied by "no outside food or drinks" signs?

Just because you don't agree doesn't make me wrong in calling you one, which I wasn't. I said your value system is thuggish and hypocritial.

Hold on to that thought. We'll return to that in a minute.

True or not is in the eye of the beholder. They believe they are safer without everyone caring a gun. It is, say it with me now, their right.

You're not getting it.

They can say or believe anything they want but JUST BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

Irrational beliefs are still irrational no matter how strongly someone "believes" it to be true.

See above.

Nope. Sorry.

I still don't see where he said "the hospital has no right to ban guns on their property".

What I saw him say is that he has a right to carry an item on that property that is not disrupting that business. There is a difference.

In the OP's case once the gun was exposed it became a "disruption" & he was asked to take it out. No problem. Well, except for the problem caused by the guard & cop making a scene.

You called me anti-gun.

No I didn't.

* "Just because you don't agree doesn't make me wrong in calling you one, which I wasn't. I said your value system is..." anti-gun.

See what I did there? (see two quotes above this one)

Their you go again. Now I'm an anti-gun elitist.

"Just because you don't agree doesn't make me wrong in calling you one, which I wasn't. I said your value system is..." anti-gun elitist.

If being an anti-gun elitist means I would people to go out and shoot their gun once or twice before believing that they do anything with it, than fine, I'm an anti-gun elitist.

Man, I sure didn't get that from your posts. It seemed to me that the whole "skills & bravery" that "many don't possess" that will "only make things worse" thing was implying a little more than "take it out & shoot it a couple of times".

Where did I say "formal training"? I said training, just training. Lots of things fall into that definition.

Rrriiight...

Like "taking it out & shooting it once or twice"...

But there lots of people that would think that a gun gives them instant accuracy. They think that buying a $2000 rifle will make up for their lack of skill. Or that in the heat of the moment they will rise to the challenge and become instant marksman.

Well, since they think that it must be true since "truth is in the eye of the beholder".

Where did I say that? All I said was don't discount those stats as irrevelevant.

What stats?

Where did you post any stats?

Where did you post or even reference any stats to support your belief that untrained people cause more accidents?

Or was I incorrent in my interpretation that you think that most accidents occur in the "untrained" group?

If that's the case then where is the argument here?

If there is no major difference between the accident rate of trained or untrained then why are you so nervous about untrained people carrying guns for self-defense?

I would also agree with that. It still doesn't prove that stats on accidental gun injuries are irrelevant.

Please tell me how they are relevant in the context of this discussion of training (or in the case of the OP, carrying concealed into a "no guns" business). I'm really not seeing it.

Again with the personal attacks.

see * above.

I can see your itching to smack someone is "anti-gun" down, but that is not me.

see * above.

Again, correct. But one can defend themselves without a firearm.

Again with the "anti-gun" arguments.

That is a pretty broad statement.

Can a person with physical disabilities defend themselves against a physivally fit attacker?

Can a smaller person defend themselves against a larger opponent?

Can a single fit person defend themselves against a "gang" of people intent on violence?

Should a business be allowed to be placed in the position of determining what you should be required to use (or not) to defend youself?

Should the government?

And in many cases a gun is not always the best option.

But if it IS the best option then by following the "policy" you would be denied the Right to effective self-defense.

Non-violent prostests...

You mean, sort of like carrying a gun concealed that is hurting absolutely no one?

Granted these options don't have the grand-standing or bravado of thumbing your nose at a guard or an officer...

I don't see where the OP thumbed his nose at anybody. He exercised his Right to not provide ID where no "crime" was committed.

He was leaving when asked. It was the guard & cop who was causing the scene.

You're not trying to say that we should be required to provide ID to any guard or cop who wants to see it for ANY REASON AT ALL are you?

 

[finity]

After reading the case law I posted, a couple things jump out at me. It's obvious that she had a contractual interest, even more iron clad than you or I walking into Walmart. She was asked to leave and refused. I would consider being asked to leave a termination of contractual interest. The court didn't see it that way, but I don't agree. Let's say I go to Sams club where I have a membership. This particular day, I decided to go with my EBR slung over my shoulder. The manager comes up to me and tells me that I have to leave. I calmly tell him no and continue to shop. In my opinion, any time an employee asks you to leave, they have verbally terminated contractual interest, yet the court didn't see it that way. Weird.

An entity can't unilaterally terminate a contract without some legal cause. Usually those "causes" are listed in the contract. Otherwise they are a part of law or case law.

She had a contract that said she could be on the property basically anytime she wanted (as noted in the decision).

Similarly, a landlord can't prosecute a tenant for criminal trespass if they suddenly decide they don't want the tenant there any longer & tells them to leave as long as the tenant hasn't violated the terms of the lease & the contract is still in force.

If so then what would be the point of a "contract"?

If you have no written "contract" then a verbal contract controls the situation. A verbal contract also has legal binding status to a lesser degree.

When you go into a business without a written contract you tacitly agree to the businesses rules. If you violate a rule then there is no longer a valid contract & they can ask you to leave.

This is similar to the OP where a company has a rule that says "no guns". You have previously been allowed entry then simply violated a rule & can be asked to leave. If they don't KNOW you violated the rule then that is their responsibilty to find out.

As far as Sam's Club & guns, you'd have to look at the contract you signed to see if "no guns" is in there or some other reference to "the rules".

 

[Rookie]

I have reached the elite status, finity hath quoted me.
Sams club. As far as I'm concerned, it's my responsibility to leave when asked.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You know... I hate seeing people post that they're done with a thread and then return to it. I wasn't going to add more... until I saw you actually get the point I was making. No sarcasm here, I'm really, honestly pleased to see you acknowledge the issue I was addressing:

...
You are well informed on many issues, I'll give you that.

Thank you.

But on this issue I can't agree with you.

That's fine, you don't have to. In some ways, though, you do, whether you realize it or not.

I agree that a sign, security guard, and a policy do not carry weight of law till asked to leave, yes.

And that's the point. As I said, ask me to leave, hell, even tell me to leave, I'll leave. Peaceably, even, though I'll speak to the issue in a calm, rational, but unbending way. Don't read more into that sentence than is there. What I mean is that I know what are and are not rights. The business owner has a right to tell me to leave. He does not have a right to lay a finger on me nor to demand I hand over property to him, nor does he have a right to demand my ID. I have a right to carry, upon which IN and at least 45 other states currently infringe in some way. I believe I have a responsibility to do so in a peaceable, civil, law-abiding manner and I fulfill that responsibility. I also believe that by choosing to be an armed citizen, I accept the responsibility to take care of myself and in some circumstances, others as well, in time of need.

And you are free to do as you wish, yes. Never mind the fact that your making gun-owners everywhere look like jerks and asses.

Wait, how am I doing that? By carrying my pistol in a way that no one (or almost no one) knows it's there? The exercise of rights makes those who exercise them look like jerks and asses? Not sure I get where that idea is based.

Whatever, maybe you are a jerk. I don't know.

Some think so. I try not to be.

Don't care either. Nevermind the fact your violating right of control. So what. Do as you see fit and God bless. Clearly your out if your arguement degenerates to personal attacks.

Actually, no. I was "out" when I saw that all I was doing was

I say your wrong in doing it. I say you violated the law the moment you step foot on a property with a gun and the owners don't want it.

You can say that. Cite, please, the law I supposedly violated. In Texas, for example, there is a law that says a specifically worded and formatted sign carries force of law and if you pass that sign armed, you have committed a felony. Yes, just by walking past a sign. (of note, that sign is named after the section of Texas law in which it's described: Section 30, #6. It's called a thirty-ought-six sign ) That's not the law in IN. Here, someone must be made aware of the rule and be asked to leave. It has nothing to do with being armed. The law in question is Indiana Code 35-43-2 and specifies that either the person must be asked to leave or must be made aware by conspicuous signage. I know it's been discussed here but I don't recall if it was a court case that decided that "no guns allowed" is signage sufficient to provide a basis for trespassing. IIRC, the sign would have to specify "The carry of firearms or other weapons on this property is forbidden. Violators may be prosecuted for trespass if found carrying weapons on this property." or some similar verbiage.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. I too have logic and common sense on my side. I for one will respect peoples rights and not carry if it's not wanted.

I hope that "respect" on your part doesn't place you in a position where you wish you were armed someday. You might not live to regret it, and I wouldn't want that to happen. This, BTW, is not meant as a threat, only a recognition that someone who wants to commit a crime you could have stopped if armed will probably be unopposed if there is no armed citizen with the will to do what's needed amongst his victims.

Wally world doesn't care if you carry because they need the foot traffic. Hospitals don't need it. Just because one business say's its cool doesn't apply to all.

True. But then, Wal Mart tends to pay their own way, rather than receive monies or the benefits of monies extorted from working citizens' paychecks without their consent.

Do as you please and accept the just deserts that come.

The "just deserts" (sic) to which you refer consist of being able to have a chance of defending myself if the need arises (rather than being a willingly helpless victim) on the upside and possibly having to talk with a law officer and show him my LTCH on request... if you can call that a downside. For me, it would only be a downside if the officer was not knowledgeable in re: the law in IN and tried to make it up on the spot... and that would only be a downside until his department decided to settle with me.

I obey the law. I just don't obey the whims of a business solely because they think that those whims create law.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

I have reached the elite status, finity hath quoted me.

Really? I've never quoted you before? Then I must generally agree with you.

Trust me. I'll let you know if I don't.

Sams club. As far as I'm concerned, it's my responsibility to leave when asked.

Hey, that's your choice & I'm not saying that there's anything wrong it. I was just discussing the legality of the "criminal trespassing" issue re: guns/contracts.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think it does... but, apparently the law is too vague. I think it should be clarified like in Texas. I'm honestly thinking of contact my rep to have this issue addressed.

I don't like a property owner's wishes being disregarded. If it says no guns... no guns. If it says no dogs... no dogs... and so forth.

Meant to catch this earlier. Kutnupe, are you saying that you really want it to be a felony to just walk past a sign? Don't you have enough work to do as it is? Why do you want to make more criminals of law-abiding, peaceable citizens? Should possession of a lawful object in the absence of criminal intent or behavior really be a criminal offense at the whim of a business that chooses to put up a specific sign? Tell me you don't really mean that in that way, or at least explain how that makes sense to you, please?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[indytechnerd]

I have lots of experience in this area and was just trying to make it easier for you the next time you encounter a LEO.
I had a friend LEO in NY that OC always. He was in a bar as it was being robbed. The bad guys said for everyone to hit the floor. When he did, his shirt rose up making his gun visible. The next thing he heard was a bang and a sharp pain. The bad guy said he shot him because he had a gun. If it was CC. He might never have been shot.
I carried a gun for 34 years and been in law enforcement for 13 years.
Just trying to help you some. Meant no harm.

If his shirt had to rise up, after he's on the ground, in order for his weapon to be visible, I'd say that he was CCing.

I'm also going to pile on the "against policy" carry. Here's another example. If you remember Simon's first task in Die Hard 3, he made McClain stand out in the middle of Harlem wearing a sandwich board that said "I Hate N**gers". Now, as offensive as that is, anyone here could walk into Circle Center mall wearing a shirt just like that, as the word itself is not against the law, and the worst (from an "against the law" standpoint) that would happen is being asked to leave or risk getting dinged for (wait for it) TRESPASS! The shirt itself is (arguably) covered under the 1st amendment. Note: I wouldn't try this if I were you.

Anyway, the point is, it's not carrying a gun that is the problem, it's being present in the building after someone has asked you to leave where one can get in trouble.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Scooby snack for the 1st person to state where the above quote comes from. There's a reason that they are listed in the order they are, as life is the most precious right, one that I am willing and able to defend. Someone else's right to be offended or scared does not trump my right to life and the defense of it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If his shirt had to rise up, after he's on the ground, in order for his weapon to be visible, I'd say that he was CCing.

I'm also going to pile on the "against policy" carry. Here's another example. If you remember Simon's first task in Die Hard 3, he made McClain stand out in the middle of Harlem wearing a sandwich board that said "I Hate N**gers". Now, as offensive as that is, anyone here could walk into Circle Center mall wearing a shirt just like that, as the word itself is not against the law, and the worst (from an "against the law" standpoint) that would happen is being asked to leave or risk getting dinged for (wait for it) TRESPASS! The shirt itself is (arguably) covered under the 1st amendment. Note: I wouldn't try this if I were you.

Anyway, the point is, it's not carrying a gun that is the problem, it's being present in the building after someone has asked you to leave where one can get in trouble.


Scooby snack for the 1st person to state where the above quote comes from. There's a reason that they are listed in the order they are, as life is the most precious right, one that I am willing and able to defend. Someone else's right to be offended or scared does not trump my right to life and the defense of it.

Declaration of Independence. And spot on on the rest, too. Great post.

Edit: Rooby rnacks!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hammerhead]

You forgot right of control. You know, that nit picky little right that say's an owner has control over what goes on, is brought into or out of their property. But what do I know, I'm an emotional anti-gun elitist in need of therapy.

And sure, morals and ethic's have no place when comes to being able to take lives with the pull of a trigger.

I've never said that a property owner doesn't have a right to control what happens on their property. The only way they can control it is to ask me to leave. They can NOT legally enforce a company policy by any other means.

And I never, NEVER once said anything about morals and ethics having anything to do with pulling a trigger and taking lives. I know that unless you're a cold blooded killer, you'll struggle with any moral or ethical issues that come from taking a life. But morals and ethics are subjective. Don't for one second think that your morals and ethics are mine, or that they should be. That's where problems form between people.

I said that I have no moral obligation to follow a "policy" or "rule", a completely separate issue from taking a life with a trigger pull.

 

[BumpShadow]

Well I tried to post a reponse to everyones post to me, but it hung up and got rid of it. I'll post it later. It took me an hour and a half to do it the first time.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Meant to catch this earlier. Kutnupe, are you saying that you really want it to be a felony to just walk past a sign? Don't you have enough work to do as it is? Why do you want to make more criminals of law-abiding, peaceable citizens? Should possession of a lawful object in the absence of criminal intent or behavior really be a criminal offense at the whim of a business that chooses to put up a specific sign? Tell me you don't really mean that in that way, or at least explain how that makes sense to you, please?

Blessings,
Bill

Felony? Certainly not. That's way too harsh... A Misd as well. think it should be a progressive charge... infraction, to misd...

What makes sense to me, is that if a person puts up a sign that "no XXXXX" and a person purposefully ignores it, there should be a consequence.

I referenced Texas' law as a example

§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Felony? Certainly not. That's way too harsh... A Misd as well. think it should be a progressive charge... infraction, to misd...

What makes sense to me, is that if a person puts up a sign that "no XXXXX" and a person purposefully ignores it, there should be a consequence.

I referenced Texas' law as a example

§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

I would agree that there should be a consequence: the person should be asked to leave, enforceable by trespass only if s/he refuses. It is not the place of government to regulate all action; to use an example from upthread, would you think the same if the object possessed was a banana or a wallet or a keyring that affects no one at all, least of all the business owner?
Taking it a step further, should it be an offense to come onto property to speak on a subject with which the owner disagrees? The person possesses ideas of which the owner disapproves, after all.

I agree with property rights. I do not agree with a corporation or a tax-supported business having those rights. Privileges, yes. Rights, never.

Blessings,
Bill