St Mary's is NOT gun friendly

[Kutnupe14]

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

My opinion focuses on intent. I find it distasteful, rude, and downright dishonorable that a person when given notice prior to entering someone else's property would simply be flippant with their wishes. We all agree that if a person sees a sign that says no trespassing, and they walk onto the property, they are immediately criminally liable right? Ok, that's the property owners wishes, and you are liable. Why are people that give notice of "no firearms" with signage, any different?

We can disagree, but I see absolutely zero reason for a grown man to infringe on the sole, immediate, and enduring control of another's property. If a owners gives reasons "X,Y,Z" as the why he doesnt want someone on his property... and "sufficient" notice is given. Then if "X,Y,Z" applies to you, stay off the damn property. I have no idea why gun owners have this "entitlement" thinking. I'd swear that some must be on welfare or something. People with dogs don't typically go into places where it is posted "no dogs." People that smoke don't typically "light up" where it's posted "no smoking." But there is always that segment of hardheads that don't think such things apply to them.... well, since being stupid doesn't actually hurt, it should at least cost.

 

[Bill of Rights]

My opinion focuses on intent. I find it distasteful, rude, and downright dishonorable that a person when given notice prior to entering someone else's property would simply be flippant with their wishes. We all agree that if a person sees a sign that says no trespassing, and they walk onto the property, they are immediately criminally liable right? Ok, that's the property owners wishes, and you are liable. Why are people that give notice of "no firearms" with signage, any different?

We can disagree, but I see absolutely zero reason for a grown man to infringe on the sole, immediate, and enduring control of another's property. If a owners gives reasons "X,Y,Z" as the why he doesnt want someone on his property... and "sufficient" notice is given. Then if "X,Y,Z" applies to you, stay off the damn property. I have no idea why gun owners have this "entitlement" thinking. I'd swear that some must be on welfare or something. People with dogs don't typically go into places where it is posted "no dogs." People that smoke don't typically "light up" where it's posted "no smoking." But there is always that segment of hardheads that don't think such things apply to them.... well, since being stupid doesn't actually hurt, it should at least cost.

Perhaps in part because their is no explicit right to a dog or a smoke (I'm not addressing implicit, if any, at the moment.) Consider for a moment also that "no guns" doesn't really usually mean "no guns", either, as long as you happen to be paid by the government to carry one, or are a judge, or are really wealthy, politically connected, etc. It just means that those who aren't in those special groups' lives aren't viewed as being as important or as worthy of being allowed to defend themselves.
Now obviously, hospital boards don't sit around thinking, "who can we make helpless today?!" while wringing their hands evilly or while holding cats, a la Blofeld. I don't think they think about it at all, and while that, too, is their choice, someone said earlier that you don't really have a choice to go to the hospital or not as a patient; if you need to, you need to. Further, I don't see most of the (usually unarmed) security personnel doing more than they are allowed (which is to "observe and report") in the event of a criminal act. Are they (the business) accepting responsibility for the safety of those who would otherwise guarantee their own? I have yet to see a business, especially a hospital, do so (though they'll be happy to take you to surgery or an inpatient room and bill you to take care of whatever injuries their policies were partially responsible for you sustaining.)

Kutnupe, I mean this respectfully when I say, as the old joke goes, "you no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules"; until you are disallowed the choice to be armed in places like the rest of us are, you (as a police officer) giving an opinion on where the public should and should not be allowed to defend themselves effectively should be given as much weight, IMHO, as a man speaking on the topic of abortion, people with a Lifetime LTCH promoting the mandatory training of new applicants for that License, or the church speaking on what couples are allowed to choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.... Which is to say, none at all.

I don't say that with malice, I just think it's presumptuous to demand more regulations to which you yourself will not be subject with regard to non-harmful behavior.

Thanks for clarifying once again.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe, I mean this respectfully when I say,

You are nothing BUT respectful, and I have certainly noted it. You a good guy, and you can disagree with me, and know, (in my opinion) it doesn't take away from your character.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Kutnupe, do you really think that MORE legislation will fix a problem? I certainly do not. Would the benefits outweigh the cost? One big problem I had is where you stated that it was more about Intent than anyhting else. Again, I don't know about you but I don't like anyone, especially the .gov telling me what my intentions are. Only I know that. I would like laws to reflect ACTIONS, not thoughts. That said, I personally draw a disctinction between private property meant for a dwelling (or private use) and private property used for business or public affairs that for the most part anyone can use at any time. I don't think that those type of places, hospitals, restaurants, etc should be able to set LAWS on who can come in and use their establishments or what they can bring with them apart from what is already allowed or oulawed by existing set laws voted on by elected officials. Beyond that they can ask someone to leave who is causing a disturbance, nothing more.

Let me ask you a professional question, say a guy like me goes into that hospital armed as I was and was discovered as I was, but the difference is there WAS a sign just like there is now but I didn't see it when I came in because I was nervous, anxious, and my wife's water broke. Now I could try to explain myself, but what if they were like the guards I have delt with there before? They would not listen to reason either, and now I have a ticket, infraction, misdemeanor charge, or possibly a felony charge on top of my present situation. I certainly don't think that sounds like a good situation.

 

[lashicoN]

We can disagree, but I see absolutely zero reason for a grown man to infringe on the sole, immediate, and enduring control of another's property. If a owners gives reasons "X,Y,Z" as the why he doesnt want someone on his property... and "sufficient" notice is given. Then if "X,Y,Z" applies to you, stay off the damn property. I have no idea why gun owners have this "entitlement" thinking. I'd swear that some must be on welfare or something. People with dogs don't typically go into places where it is posted "no dogs." People that smoke don't typically "light up" where it's posted "no smoking." But there is always that segment of hardheads that don't think such things apply to them.... well, since being stupid doesn't actually hurt, it should at least cost.

Once again, since you're not on welfare, don't have any "entitlement thinking", and are a grown man who knows how to read, you would leave your duty weapon off the property as well, in the event of a call-in by the property owner, correct?

People with dogs generally don't enter a place with a "No Dogs" sign. And people with guns shouldn't enter a place with "No Guns" sign, that's your argument, right? Does the sign have a badge exception, or do you believe you're entitled to carry where we are not?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Once again, since you're not on welfare, don't have any "entitlement thinking", and are a grown man who knows how to read, you would leave your duty weapon off the property as well, in the event of a call-in by the property owner, correct?

People with dogs generally don't enter a place with a "No Dogs" sign. And people with guns shouldn't enter a place with "No Guns" sign, that's your argument, right? Does the sign have a badge exception, or do you believe you're entitled to carry where we are not?

Unfortunately the scope of my duties includes that I must carry a gun while in unifom. Sorry this is a well expected fact. In uniform, such a law does not apply to officers, just as "no dogs" doesn't apply to seeing eye dogs or other canine companions. Now off-duty, an officer should respect the signage as much as any other person.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe, do you really think that MORE legislation will fix a problem?

It's not more legislation.... the law is already on the books. It's clarified legislation. I actually asked a judge about this law and directed him towards the code, and he indicated that he himself had wondered about it as well.

Let me ask you a professional question, say a guy like me goes into that hospital armed as I was and was discovered as I was, but the difference is there WAS a sign just like there is now but I didn't see it when I came in because I was nervous, anxious, and my wife's water broke. Now I could try to explain myself, but what if they were like the guards I have delt with there before? They would not listen to reason either, and now I have a ticket, infraction, misdemeanor charge, or possibly a felony charge on top of my present situation. I certainly don't think that sounds like a good situation.

That's totally understandable. I wouldn't expect you to be cited. You certainly should not be.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Unfortunately the scope of my duties includes that I must carry a gun while in unifom. Sorry this is a well expected fact. In uniform, such a law does not apply to officers, just as "no dogs" doesn't apply to seeing eye dogs or other canine companions. Now off-duty, an officer should respect the signage as much as any other person.

While the officer "should" respect the signage, there is no expectation that he do so. Therein lies the problem... It's not that Titanium_Frost had a gun that was the problem. It's that he had a gun and not a badge. For that matter, when speaking of the places where carry is specifically forbidden (i.e. schools, gov't buildings, etc., you're almost correct that the law does not apply to officers in uniform... LEOs among others are specifically and literally exempted. I don't fault the LEO for this- in most cases, the LEO didn't write the law doing that and if he did, he didn't do so as a LEO but as a legislator- but I don't see too much being done publicly by LEOs to repeal the prohibition for the rest of us or to refuse to carry in those places themselves. Gun rights groups were vocal in passing LEOSA. The favor has not been returned.

Again, I don't begrudge you the fact that you can carry basically anywhere. I think that it's wrong to support more regulation for others, though, when you have almost no regulation applied to yourself by the law and are quite happy with that fact.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hammerhead]

I know you may not have been meaning it so, but I dislike the idea of you comparing the exercise of natural rights to an "entitlement mentality".

This is not a personal attack, so please don't take it as such.

Kutnupe, you have repeatedly attempted to present an argument where we as gun owners should follow "rules" and "policies" presented by (businesses) when it comes to carry. It seems as if you continue to feel that these "rules" and "policies" are in place and that as law abiding citizens, we should treat them as laws. Or, as having the same weight as a law. Or, being backed by laws that are similarly worded but not the same. You also seem to have the notion that rights are being infringed upon.

Yet when presented with facts by either myself or others here, you still continue to hold steadfast with your beliefs. I applaud you for your integrity and willingness to stand behind your decision. I also applaud you for your ability to stick to your guns, so to speak. I also applaud you for the ability to have an open and honest discussion without degrading it into name calling, attacks or general asshattery. Bravo.

But you're wrong. Perhaps you're ok with being wrong. And that's perfectly fine too. But you're still wrong.

The idea that signs should be considered as having the weight of law, especially if new laws are required to make it so, is heavy handed at least, and an infringement at worst. As citizens, we've been trampled on repeatedly by legislatures, courts, and yes the police because we carry legally and rightfully. IN citizens fought hard especially this last legislative session to get rid of unnecessary and horribly written and enforced local laws that created a patchwork of legal landmines because some local government clowns wanted to spread their own version of "gun control".

Why must we then be subjected to arguably worse conditions by having an even larger patchwork of "public" businesses and buildings we're going to have to be concerned with being punished for exercising our natural right to self defense and bearing arms?

CCing in those businesses (if done properly) does not affect anyone in the business other than the carrier. So I CC (for example) in a business with a no gun sign, do whatever business I have to do there, and leave. What have I caused? What have I violated? What have I prevented? Who have I affected? Even hybrid (CCing with not caring if your gun is exposed) or OC carry still does not change a thing, aside from a sidearm being visible.

Those with irrational fears that perpetuate the need for "control" or people being unarmed cannot be reasoned with in one encounter at a (business). But for every time a person sees a normal law abiding citizen going about their business armed (OC, CC, hybrid) it is perhaps one more time they'll learn that firearms themselves are not the problem.

By then making an enforceable law requiring people to disarm to enter buildings, you're only perpetuating the myth that the guns are the problem. Why? Why make it harder on us? Why make it more difficult for us to go about our daily routine when we're not the problem?

People keep saying that it's an infringement of property rights to ignore "rules" and "policies", and that we're wrong for doing so. (I've already addressed this up-thread, I'm not going to here again) What about the property right we're being infringed upon by being disarmed? I'm losing my fair use and ownership of my property (my sidearm) when I'm being disarmed. Why does a real property owner's property rights trump mine? If we're going to argue that someone is being trampled, then I'm going to say that not only are my natural rights being trampled, my property rights are too when stupid signs and policies are wrongly enforced. I now have two rights being trampled so someone, somewhere doesn't get butthurt because I carry a machine.

Yes, people do not bring dogs into places with no dogs signs. People (generally) do not smoke where there are no smoking signs. The no dogs rules are generally backed by the health code. The no smoking rules are (more often now being) backed by ordinances. These two objects can and do affect other people (allergies, second hand smoke). My sidearm does not affect anyone beyond their visual senses being offended, so long as it remains in my holster unless absolutely required to be removed and used. It is inert unless manipulated.

People fear otherwise due to ignorance, mythical beliefs, and the lack of ability to remember 5th grade science and the requirements of a machine (simple or complex). A machine will not work without some outside force being applied. People forget this because they're led to believe that anyone with a gun will use it. Facts and logic won't cure irrational fear because it's irrational.

There's no reason to make things worse. Only by making things better for law abiding gun owners and carriers can we affect the change in perception.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Very well worded Hammerhead and Bill, I feel the same way. I also want to say I have absolutely no bad feelings for Kutnupe and I am glad he is able to share his thoughts on the matter. Hey we all can't agree on everything right?

 

[LPMan59]

interesting that some people who were against the "guns in your car" law due to the rights of property owners being infringed now openly thumb their noses at a property owner's expression of said rights.

 

[BumpShadow]

I find it intertesting that Bill, Titanium, and Hammerhead have all grossed over the fact Kutnupe14 already said that if a LEO is off duty he should respect signage same as everyone else. I guess it doesn't work into their lectures if they do.


The main thing I'm objecting to is the same as Kutnupe14, in the flippit disreguard of the property owners rights because its "stupid" or they just don't agree with it. I read over the law Bill cited earlier and I think a convicing argument could be made. Specifically Indiana Code 35-43-2-2, section 4;

knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent.

If a person carries a gun onto a property knowly full well that firearms are not wanted on that property then they are knowingly and intentionally interfering with the use of that property. But maybe thats not the real arguement here. It seems that because there is no real consequence for disobeying a property owners sign that in fact no crime is being committed. And that if your not caught break said sign, then no crime has been committed.

The problem is that if you enter a property in a manner that you know is unwelcome, say carrying when the sign say's "no firearms", then you have just committed the crime of tresspassing. The fact that you are not caught doesn't regate the fact that you have still committed the crime. The decision you have to make when/if you are caught and asked to leave is not wiether or not you wish to commit the crime of trespassing or not, as you have already done that. But wiether or not you wish to leave peacefully and avoid further legal action or not.

I also agree with kutnupe14 that what is needed is a clarification of the law thats already on the books. With perhaps a more robust punishment.

 

[Roadie]

Perhaps in part because their is no explicit right to a dog or a smoke (I'm not addressing implicit, if any, at the moment.) Consider for a moment also that "no guns" doesn't really usually mean "no guns", either, as long as you happen to be paid by the government to carry one, or are a judge, or are really wealthy, politically connected, etc. It just means that those who aren't in those special groups' lives aren't viewed as being as important or as worthy of being allowed to defend themselves.
Now obviously, hospital boards don't sit around thinking, "who can we make helpless today?!" while wringing their hands evilly or while holding cats, a la Blofeld. I don't think they think about it at all, and while that, too, is their choice, someone said earlier that you don't really have a choice to go to the hospital or not as a patient; if you need to, you need to. Further, I don't see most of the (usually unarmed) security personnel doing more than they are allowed (which is to "observe and report") in the event of a criminal act. Are they (the business) accepting responsibility for the safety of those who would otherwise guarantee their own? I have yet to see a business, especially a hospital, do so (though they'll be happy to take you to surgery or an inpatient room and bill you to take care of whatever injuries their policies were partially responsible for you sustaining.)

Kutnupe, I mean this respectfully when I say, as the old joke goes, "you no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules"; until you are disallowed the choice to be armed in places like the rest of us are, you (as a police officer) giving an opinion on where the public should and should not be allowed to defend themselves effectively should be given as much weight, IMHO, as a man speaking on the topic of abortion, people with a Lifetime LTCH promoting the mandatory training of new applicants for that License, or the church speaking on what couples are allowed to choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.... Which is to say, none at all.

I don't say that with malice, I just think it's presumptuous to demand more regulations to which you yourself will not be subject with regard to non-harmful behavior.

Thanks for clarifying once again.

Blessings,
Bill

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

Quotes in red sum it all up for me.

• Self defense is a Right,
• Businesses and Corporations do not have Rights(at least not the same, inherent Rights, we as individuals have)

</End Of Thread> as far as I can see

 

[Hammerhead]

interesting that some people who were against the "guns in your car" law due to the rights of property owners being infringed now openly thumb their noses at a property owner's expression of said rights.

I'm not one of those people, but I believe that most of the argument against the parking lot law was because they didn't want the government making another law.

I agree with the intent of the law. My car, my business. It does not affect a business if my gun is locked in my car while I'm inside, whether I work there or not. It also does not affect a business if I'm carrying or not. It doesn't affect the guy walking down the street next to me, it doesn't affect the guy pumping gas on the opposite side of the pump, it doesn't affect anyone until it is removed from my holster and used.

The problem lies not with me and my sidearm, it lies with those who irrationally fear me and my sidearm.

 

[Roadie]

I find it intertesting that Bill, Titanium, and Hammerhead have all grossed over the fact Kutnupe14 already said that if a LEO is off duty he should respect signage same as everyone else. I guess it doesn't work into their lectures if they do.


The main thing I'm objecting to is the same as Kutnupe14, in the flippit disreguard of the property owners rights because its "stupid" or they just don't agree with it. I read over the law Bill cited earlier and I think a convicing argument could be made. Specifically Indiana Code 35-43-2-2, section 4;



If a person carries a gun onto a property knowly full well that firearms are not wanted on that property then they are knowingly and intentionally interfering with the use of that property. But maybe thats not the real arguement here. It seems that because there is no real consequence for disobeying a property owners sign that in fact no crime is being committed. And that if your not caught break said sign, then no crime has been committed.

The problem is that if you enter a property in a manner that you know is unwelcome, say carrying when the sign say's "no firearms", then you have just committed the crime of tresspassing. The fact that you are not caught doesn't regate the fact that you have still committed the crime. The decision you have to make when/if you are caught and asked to leave is not wiether or not you wish to commit the crime of trespassing or not, as you have already done that. But wiether or not you wish to leave peacefully and avoid further legal action or not.

I also agree with kutnupe14 that what is needed is a clarification of the law thats already on the books. With perhaps a more robust punishment.

I don't think people are ignoring "No Guns" signs "because its "stupid" or they just don't agree with it", they ignore them because they feel they have a right to self defense when on a Business's property that they, as customers, have been invited to by the very nature of the business.

As far as a gun owner wishing stiffer penalties on other gun owners for exercising their RKBA... I can't even fathom that kind of thinking..

 

[BumpShadow]

Quotes in red sum it all up for me.

• Self defense is a Right,
• Businesses and Corporations do not have Rights(at least not the same, inherent Rights, we as individuals have)

</End Of Thread> as far as I can see

Prehaps you should read a little more then. As knownledgable as Bill's is, last time I checked he didn't make the law.

I don't think people are ignoring "No Guns" signs "because its "stupid" or they just don't agree with it", they ignore them because they feel they have a right to self defense when on a Business's property that they, as customers, have been invited to by the very nature of the business.

As far as a gun owner wishing stiffer penalties on other gun owners for exercising their RKBA... I can't even fathom that kind of thinking..

The fact that a property owners rights are ignored at all is the problem here.

Well, thanks for joining the discussion. In case you haven't read past the last few posts, its not about gun laws, it's about property rights. The sign could say "No pink underwear" and I would still support the owners right to not have pink underwear on their property if they don't want it.

Perhaps you should read a whole thread, or at least the last few pages, before posting such narrow minded opinion's.

 

[finity]

If a person carries a gun onto a property knowly full well that firearms are not wanted on that property then they are knowingly and intentionally interfering with the use of that property.

How, EXACTLY, is carrying an object that no one even knows is about interfering with the use of the property?

I also agree with kutnupe14 that what is needed is a clarification of the law thats already on the books. With perhaps a more robust punishment.

If you feel the need to live somewhere that enforces signs as law then you could always relocate to our neighbor to the east. Ohio would be glad to have you, I'm sure.

Interestingly, though, even in OHIO the signage law only specifically refers to firearms. Obviously that law is only on the books due to some irrational fear of the firearms & really has nothing to do with property rights or that code would apply to ALL other objects, too.

You still haven't addressed the question of whether you feel that the "punishment" should include possessing objects that AREN'T firearms as well? Do you think that a person should be criminally charged for carrying a banana concealed in their pocket if a business has a sign that says "no bananas"? Or a handkerchief in their pocket, a photo of their wife in their wallet or any of various other mundane objects out of view with a "no XYZ" sign?

 

[BumpShadow]

How, EXACTLY, is carrying an object that no one even knows is about interfering with the use of the property?

I already addressed that. If you haven't bothered to read it, I'm not going chase my tail with you about.

If you feel the need to live somewhere that enforces signs as law then you could always relocate to our neighbor to the east. Ohio would be glad to have you, I'm sure.

Thanks, I'm good here.

Interestingly, though, even in OHIO the signage law only specifically refers to firearms. Obviously that law is only on the books due to some irrational fear of the firearms & really has nothing to do with property rights or that code would apply to ALL other objects, too.

You still haven't addressed the question of whether you feel that the "punishment" should include possessing objects that AREN'T firearms as well? Do you think that a person should be criminally charged for carrying a banana concealed in their pocket if a business has a sign that says "no bananas"? Or a handkerchief in their pocket, a photo of their wife in their wallet or any of various other mundane objects out of view with a "no XYZ" sign?

Again, yes I did.

 

[Hammerhead]

I find it intertesting that Bill, Titanium, and Hammerhead have all grossed over the fact Kutnupe14 already said that if a LEO is off duty he should respect signage same as everyone else. I guess it doesn't work into their lectures if they do. I don't care if a LEO "should" respect signage if they're off duty. LEOs are exempt on duty or off because they're LEOs and it's codified in the law as such. (The way my Dad always told me was that LEOs are never off duty.) I don't care if I "should" respect signage. I'm not going to, because I don't have to. Whether Kutnupe or you think I should doesn't concern me. Your moral or ethical argument holds no weight over me. If you choose to respect signage, good for you. I've made my choice. I honestly hope you don't regret yours.


The main thing I'm objecting to is the same as Kutnupe14, in the flippit disreguard of the property owners rights because its "stupid" or they just don't agree with it. I never said I disregard property owner's rights because it's stupid or I don't agree. I said I regard company policies, rules, requests and unenforceable signage as stupid and I won't agree with them. I read over the law Bill cited earlier and I think a convicing argument could be made. Specifically Indiana Code 35-43-2-2, section 4;

knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent.

If a person carries a gun onto a property knowly full well that firearms are not wanted on that property then they are knowingly and intentionally interfering with the use of that property. But maybe thats not the real arguement here. It seems that because there is no real consequence for disobeying a property owners sign that in fact no crime is being committed. And that if your not caught break said sign, then no crime has been committed. Sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. By carrying my sidearm, I'm not interfering with the possession because I'm not taking the property or making them give me the property. I'm also not stopping them from using the property because I'm not making them leave, or keeping other people from entering. It's not because there's no consequence that no crime is being committed, it's because there's no crime being committed that there's no consequence.

The problem is that if you enter a property in a manner that you know is unwelcome, say carrying when the sign say's "no firearms", then you have just committed the crime of tresspassing. Not unless the sign states something to the effect of "If you enter with a firearm, you're trespassing." "No firearms" does not mean the same thing. The fact that you are not caught doesn't regate the fact that you have still committed the crime. What crime? The decision you have to make when/if you are caught and asked to leave is not wiether or not you wish to commit the crime of trespassing or not, as you have already done that. But wiether or not you wish to leave peacefully and avoid further legal action or not. Sorry, you're not correct here, either. You haven't committed trespassing unless you've been told before you enter that you're trespassing (again, "no firearms" doesn't hold to this standard) or if you don't leave when asked.

I also agree with kutnupe14 that what is needed is a clarification of the law thats already on the books. With perhaps a more robust punishment. No clarification needed for a law that is pretty specific. You must tell someone they're trespassing. Again, "no firearms" does not meet that standard. And a more robust punishment? Are you kidding? For what? Not following a "policy"?

Good luck with that.

 

[BumpShadow]

Good luck with that.

Well what can I say other than your wrong? Calling me wrong doesn't make you right. Your the one grabbing at straws by basing a whole counter-arguement on one word I said.

I will agree with you that the laws is clear though. If you enter a property in a manner that is not welcome, your tresspassing. Clean, simple and to the point don't you think? And I would say carrying a firearm when a sign say's "no firearms" fits that bill don't you? Oh wait, of course you don't.

Sorry, talking in a matter of fact way doesn't make you right. I say your wrong, and will continue to say that as long people keep saying I'm wrong.

"Good luck with that."