Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Why does private property get special protection from gun carriers?

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Why does private property get special protection from gun carriers?

    For a long time something has not quite sat well with me when it comes to the way law abiding citizens are treated with respect to carrying firearms on private property. It finally fell into place why.

    Just to start, I am as strong of a private property rights person as you will find anywhere. But I see inconsistencies in the application of the law when it comes to guns, and I believe that is wrong.

    Generally speaking, a property owner can prohibit a visitor from carrying a gun on their property. If the visitor does not comply, the property owner can call the police and have the visitor arrested for trespassing. In essence, the property owner is wielding the full power of the government to enforce a private policy.

    I think that is wrong. Private property policies are by definition civil matters, not matters for law enforcement.

    If a person were shopping in a store while wearing a red shirt, and the property owner declared red shirts to be prohibited, and then called the police to remove you, what do you think the reaction by the police would be? They would probably arrest the property owner for a frivolous use of police resources. Lets take it one step further, banks often have policies about wearing hats. Would the police actually arrest someone for wearing a hat in a bank? I don't know if it's ever happened, but I doubt it. The bank can refuse to do business with you until you comply, but that is not the same as being arrested.

    One more example, it is common knowledge that if you have renters (or even squatters!) in your house and you want them out, the police will NOT simply come and kick them out. That is the ultimate form of trespassing (especially squatters.) But in those cases, the police will claim "it's a civil matter" you have to sue them, win your case, and get a judge to order them out.

    My point is, why is a gun carrier treated so much differently that the government feels it is ok to become involved in what is clearly a dispute among two private parties? There is precedent for them not to become involved, absent any violence or threat of violence, which never happens with law abiding carriers.

    Why should private property owners be entitled to the services of the government law enforcers, when there is no law being broken, other than a private trespass, which in many other cases they will not even consider interfering?

    Private property proponents will object, enjoying the free services that the government law enforcers sometimes provide. But that is a gift that private property owners are not entitled to. The fact that it is disproportionately applied against gun owners and not red shirts or blue shirts or baseball jerseys of certain teams is even worse.

    Until we identify and stamp out all of these double standards, gun carriers will always be considered the second class citizen, against whom it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate.

    TFred

  2. #2
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    People used to be discrimination at places, why guns also?
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    If a person were shopping in a store while wearing a red shirt, and the property owner declared red shirts to be prohibited, and then called the police to remove you
    Then you would be asked to leave and if you did not, they would trespass you.
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by ed View Post
    Then you would be asked to leave and if you did not, they would trespass you.
    The point of my post is that I don't believe for a second that that would actually happen for a shirt color. Everyone other than the crazy owner would realize how ridiculous it would be, and everyone should see how ridiculous it is for a gun carrier as well.

    Why does it take a lawsuit and a judges order to evict trespassers from a house, but ten seconds on the phone to 911 to evict someone exercising their Constitutionally protected rights?

    Such a dispute should be a civil matter, to use the government to enforce a discrimination against a civil right should not be an authorized use of that power. It was done in the 50s and 60s based on skin color and it was just as wrong then as it is today.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 08-11-2012 at 12:49 AM.

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    The point of my post is that I don't believe for a second that that would actually happen for a shirt color. Everyone other than the crazy owner would realize how ridiculous it would be, and everyone should see how ridiculous it is for a gun carrier as well.

    Why does it take a lawsuit and a judges order to evict trespassers from a house, but ten seconds on the phone to 911 to evict someone exercising their Constitutionally protected rights?

    Such a dispute should be a civil matter, to use the government to enforce a discrimination against a civil right should not be an authorized use of that power. It was done in the 50s and 60s based on skin color and it was just as wrong then as it is today.

    TFred
    It did take a while for the folks to realize that ROSA PARKS was 100% fully in the right!
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 08-11-2012 at 02:49 AM. Reason: spelling error
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I've had that very same thought.

    Can you IMAGINE the outcry if a store should post "No gang oriented clothing" or "No Democratic or Progressive voters allowed" They would have to invent a new nano timescale to measure how quick the lawsuits would come forth.

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post

    Why does it take a lawsuit and a judges order to evict trespassers from a house


    TFred
    Cite Please?

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Cite Please?
    I don't have the cite in front of me WW but he's talking about unlawful detainer warrants which are used to evict tenants. Apples to oranges because a trespasser and a non paying tenant are two different things.

    To answer why the trespassing laws are written the way they are, is simple. It's to prevent violence. At one time we shot trespassers. In some states you can still do it under certain circumstances and it's not a bad idea IMO.

    Suppose someone comes on my property and I order them to leave for any reason, and they refuse....what do you think is going to happen?

    The problem with the law is that they don't differentiate between a business that invites people to come in, and someone's back yard where people are forbidden to enter.

    One is public property that's privately owned and the other is private property.
    Last edited by peter nap; 08-11-2012 at 02:26 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I don't have the cite in front of me WW but he's talking about unlawful detainer warrants which are used to evict tenants. Apples to oranges because a trespasser and a non paying tenant are two different things.

    To answer why the trespassing laws are written the way they are, it's simple. It's to prevent violence.

    Suppose someone comes on my property and I order them to leave for any reason, and they refuse....what do you think is going to happen?
    That is why I asked for a cite. I am aware of the difference between evicting an occupant, and arresting a trespass. Somehow I am betting he knew the difference also.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Property rights are a foundation block of society. In fact, one school of thought derives our personal liberties from property rights, arguing that we have a property right in ourselves. Was it not John Locke who argued that we have a property right in our rights?

    While I think businesses that ban self-defense are bad. I am utterly convinced it would be even worse to use the power of government to force them to recognize self-defense rights. As soon as you give government the power, suddenly every demagoguing hack wanting some votes and campaign contributions will start selling the rest of the rights of business.

    If we want to change anything, it might be a good start to pass laws that businesses cannot be held to blame for allowing self-defense rights. That would start to knock out a few teeth of the corporate lawyers who advise businesses to ban guns. And, disarm some of the unscrupulously litigious lawyers who would sue a business if anything bad were to happen.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193
    I don't think this is a legal matter at all. No one but the property owner can set the rules. If they want you out you have to get out. For any reason you must oblige or face trespassing charges. What needs to change is the property owner's take or opinion on firearms. And you change this by oc'ing, being polite, educating those who are interested, and complying with the rules set by private property owners.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  12. #12
    Regular Member GreatDaneMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chesapeake, Va
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    I've had that very same thought.

    Can you IMAGINE the outcry if a store should post "No gang oriented clothing" or "No Democratic or Progressive voters allowed" They would have to invent a new nano timescale to measure how quick the lawsuits would come forth.
    already been done. south park mall...quad cities area moline, il. no gang colors or symbols such as hatchet man allowed. yet there was icp gear in the spencers.
    Mud Blood and Oil with a great dane along for the ride!

  13. #13
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Generally speaking, a property owner can prohibit a visitor from carrying a gun on their property. If the visitor does not comply, the property owner can call the police and have the visitor arrested for trespassing.
    I don't think that's the case, as it's not trespassing per the code (§ 18.2-119). A few on this site disagree, but I've never been able to follow their reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    If a person were shopping in a store while wearing a red shirt, and the property owner declared red shirts to be prohibited, and then called the police to remove you, what do you think the reaction by the police would be? They would probably arrest the property owner for a frivolous use of police resources. Lets take it one step further, banks often have policies about wearing hats. Would the police actually arrest someone for wearing a hat in a bank? I don't know if it's ever happened, but I doubt it. The bank can refuse to do business with you until you comply, but that is not the same as being arrested.
    I think if you were wearing a red shirt (or a hat in a bank) in violation of their policy, it does not run afoul of the trespassing code. It's their property; it's up to them what the penalty (if any) should be. Stores and regular homeowners have rules and policies... e.g. no cell phone use while ordering sandwiches, no guns, no more than 10 items in the express lane, keep off the grass, no disruptive behavior in the mall. Just like I can on my property, the store owner can enforce their rules how they see fit -- "Stop that, don't do it again," "Don't worry about it, I don't mind," "You have to leave," etc. It's their property; it's up to them what the penalty (if any) should be. 11 items in the express lane does not fit the trespassing code. If they ask you to leave because of your 11 items and you do not, that fits the trespassing code.

    If asked to leave, we leave. I've been called over to the express lane with my 10+ items because no one was in that line. I've been told I could carry in a store despite the "no loaded guns" sign because the owner knew me and didn't mind if I carried. Was I trespassing in those cases? I don't believe I was.

    The trespassing code code (§ 18.2-119) refers to going on or remaining on property after being told otherwise. Cops I've discussed this with said they won't cite for trespassing in an open-to-the-public place like a store without telling someone they have to leave and having them refuse. I'd be surprised to see them skip that part of the code and still cite.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Why should private property owners be entitled to the services of the government law enforcers, when there is no law being broken, other than a private trespass, which in many other cases they will not even consider interfering?
    This bugs me too. I've read many stories of police showing up to tell someone they have to leave because the owner wants them to. Why don't the police ask the business owner if they've ask the guest to leave first? I don't know. I believe the property owner should ask first before the police are involved, as no law violation has occurred unless the guest has been asked to leave and has refused.

    As a group, we gun owners are respectful. If asked to leave, we leave. It's offensive when normal interaction between citizens (even if it's "I'd like you to leave my property") is bypassed for direct police involvement.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Cite Please?
    Not in Virginia but it still happened (and is still happening):

    http://consumerist.com/2012/07/color...ossession.html
    http://consumerist.com/2012/07/squat...own-house.html

    No lease, nothing, just plain old ordinary trespassers, that they can't get rid of. I guess if they had a gun, it would be quite a bit different.

    TFred

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Not in Virginia but it still happened (and is still happening):

    http://consumerist.com/2012/07/color...ossession.html
    http://consumerist.com/2012/07/squat...own-house.html

    No lease, nothing, just plain old ordinary trespassers, that they can't get rid of. I guess if they had a gun, it would be quite a bit different.

    TFred
    Now come on, there is a big difference from squatters, which in some cases is legal if indeed the property is abandoned. And a person trespassing a property. IMO you are reaching, and reaching very far.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Not in Virginia but it still happened (and is still happening):

    http://consumerist.com/2012/07/color...ossession.html
    http://consumerist.com/2012/07/squat...own-house.html

    No lease, nothing, just plain old ordinary trespassers, that they can't get rid of. I guess if they had a gun, it would be quite a bit different.

    TFred
    This has nothing to do with trespass, except that the people gaming the bankruptcy laws happen to be trespassers who are gaming the bankruptcy laws.

    The squatters also apparently counted on the landlord-tenant act to provide a delaying action before they could be booted out - thus gaming another law.

    Going back to your original complaint - I's like to suggest that there may be a special relationship that drives a lot of the way in which this issue is carried out. That relationship is the one between gun owners, who are generally self-sufficient and assertive (not aggressive) people who take responsibility for their own safety into their own hands, and the police, who are essentially in the control business instead of the law-enforcement business. There may be other reasons why the police also tend not to like gun owners but IMHO the matter of control is paramount. That being the case, the police have a vested interest in "enforcing" trespass for private business owners. And then to take the argument one step further - who do the poolice work for? The answer is certainly not "the People" as that concept is generally understood. I say the police work for the lawmakers. Lawmakers, even more than the police, have a control issue. If the proles do not obey the law then the lawmakers are impotent.

    Just one possible set of answers to your question.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,171

    Simple answer

    "A man's home is his castle." Another simple explanation, "my house, my rules".

    Carrying a gun against the home owner's wishes would be as bad as saying you have the right to have sex with his wife.

    It could and probably would cause many fights.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by va_tazdad View Post
    "A man's home is his castle." Another simple explanation, "my house, my rules".

    Carrying a gun against the home owner's wishes would be as bad as saying you have the right to have sex with his wife.

    It could and probably would cause many fights.
    And you make my point, without even knowing it. There is absolutely no reasonable correlation between carrying a gun and sleeping with a man's wife. That example is well beyond the reasonableness of some of my prior scenarios, with which I was simply trying to make a point.

    It is my contention that carrying a gun in another man's home or place of business should be treated the same as carrying a cell phone, or a ballpoint pen, or ::gasp:: a pack of cigarettes! Has anyone ever been asked to take their pack of cigarettes back out to the car before being served in a restaurant? Why not?

    No sane person would have someone removed for trespassing for carrying any of these other innocuous objects. I mean, someone might talk on their cell phone during the meal and disturb other diners... or they could go crazy and take that pen and start writing all over the walls, or they might light up a cigarette and kill everyone in the room with second-hand smoke!

    Sure we all understand that we are to respect a property owner's wishes. We don't write on their walls, and we don't fill their house with cigarette smoke, and we don't pull out a gun and start shooting holes in things or people... But to kick someone out for carrying a pen, or a pack of cigarettes (and I say also a properly holstered firearm) is well beyond ridiculous, and nobody should be evicted by the hand of the government for simply carrying any of those inanimate objects.

    Until we see that a legally carried firearm is no different than a pack of cigarettes, we are losing the battle to bring OC or any kind of carry to any semblance of "normal" within society.

    TFred

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    And you make my point, without even knowing it. There is absolutely no reasonable correlation between carrying a gun and sleeping with a man's wife. That example is well beyond the reasonableness of some of my prior scenarios, with which I was simply trying to make a point.

    It is my contention that carrying a gun in another man's home or place of business should be treated the same as carrying a cell phone, or a ballpoint pen, or ::gasp:: a pack of cigarettes! Has anyone ever been asked to take their pack of cigarettes back out to the car before being served in a restaurant? Why not?

    No sane person would have someone removed for trespassing for carrying any of these other innocuous objects. I mean, someone might talk on their cell phone during the meal and disturb other diners... or they could go crazy and take that pen and start writing all over the walls, or they might light up a cigarette and kill everyone in the room with second-hand smoke!

    Sure we all understand that we are to respect a property owner's wishes. We don't write on their walls, and we don't fill their house with cigarette smoke, and we don't pull out a gun and start shooting holes in things or people... But to kick someone out for carrying a pen, or a pack of cigarettes (and I say also a properly holstered firearm) is well beyond ridiculous, and nobody should be evicted by the hand of the government for simply carrying any of those inanimate objects.

    Until we see that a legally carried firearm is no different than a pack of cigarettes, we are losing the battle to bring OC or any kind of carry to any semblance of "normal" within society.

    TFred
    It doesn't matter if you think it is ridicules, it is their property, end of story IMO. I have seen people ejected from restaurants for being to loud. Usually cigarettes are concealed and there is no concealed laws on the books for cigarettes. Plus smoking in a public place or business is illegal in most states now. Myself I find it ridicules that people just can't get the concept of property rights. And how much damage it does to open carry to act the fool when on another person's property.

    BTW it is common for furniture stores to post trespass signs for food and drinks. That does not mean not drinking or eating that means not bringing them in the store.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 08-12-2012 at 02:30 PM.

  20. #20
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    You miss the point entirely, intentionally, I suspect. The government should only get involved to enforce the property owners right to limit access to his property. The person would be "evicted by the hand of government" for refusing to leave private property when ordered to do so, not for the underlying cause for that order. The cause for the order to leave is unimportant and at the complete discretion of the owner (except for a few protected classes). In some cases the property owner or his agents may feel uncomfortable or think it dangerous to confront some people. In that case, they may ask the police to assist them by delivering the message that the visitors are unwelcome on the property. At that time, it is not unreasonable to offer an compromise to allow the visitor to stay; change the color of his shirt, modify his behavior, put the gun in the car etc. Only if the person refuses the compromise and/or refuses to leave should governments authority be used. If the visitor refuses all other options, it is reasonable he be removed by government force, arrest. At that point, he has crossed the line and become a criminal. All of this is a appropriate use of governmental police power, in my opinion.
    He misses the point?

    It sounds like you and he are in agreement.

  21. #21
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    It doesn't matter if you think it is ridicules, it is their property, end of story IMO. I have seen people ejected from restaurants for being to loud. Usually cigarettes are concealed and there is no concealed laws on the books for cigarettes. Plus smoking in a public place or business is illegal in most states now. Myself I find it ridicules that people just can't get the concept of property rights. And how much damage it does to open carry to act the fool when on another person's property.

    BTW it is common for furniture stores to post trespass signs for food and drinks. That does not mean not drinking or eating that means not bringing them in the store.
    You may wish to read the entire thread. He is not arguing against property rights or respecting a property owner's wishes; he's lamenting the discrepancy between guns and other objects with respect to government involvement in enforcing a property owner's wishes (or worse) absent the property owner expressing his concerns to the one offending him.

    "...acting the fool?" What is this in reference to? Did you intend to reply to another post?

    Do you have any picture of these trespass signs for food and drinks? It sounds like a fascinating concept; I've never heard of them or seen one.

  22. #22
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by DrMark View Post
    You may wish to read the entire thread. He is not arguing against property rights or respecting a property owner's wishes; he's lamenting the discrepancy between guns and other objects with respect to government involvement in enforcing a property owner's wishes (or worse) absent the property owner expressing his concerns to the one offending him.

    "...acting the fool?" What is this in reference to? Did you intend to reply to another post?

    Do you have any picture of these trespass signs for food and drinks? It sounds like a fascinating concept; I've never heard of them or seen one.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=no+f...w=1166&bih=596

    I have seen MORE "no food or drinks" signs than I have "No Weapons" signs. As far as my reply, there was a quote that was in it that I directly responded to. I have read the thread and as posting carried on I could see where it was going, IMO. As far as cigarettes or whatever he laments a property owner CAN trespass for any reason outside those protected by law. Please do not tell me how to interpret or how to post, I will ignore it, unless you are a mod.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 08-12-2012 at 06:09 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    https://www.google.com/search?q=no+f...w=1166&bih=596

    I have seen MORE "no food or drinks" signs than I have "No Weapons" signs. As far as my reply, there was a quote that was in it that I directly responded to. I have read the thread and as posting carried on I could see where it was going, IMO. As far as cigarettes or whatever he laments a property owner CAN trespass for any reason outside those protected by law. Please do not tell me how to interpret or how to post, I will ignore it, unless you are a mod.
    I've seen more no food or drink signs too. How come when you stop at the gas station to get get snacks for when you go to the movies you shove them in your bag before going in instead of putting the snacks on the counter when you buy your ticket?

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    You miss the point entirely, intentionally, I suspect. The government should only get involved to enforce the property owners right to limit access to his property. The person would be "evicted by the hand of government" for refusing to leave private property when ordered to do so, not for the underlying cause for that order. The cause for the order to leave is unimportant and at the complete discretion of the owner (except for a few protected classes). In some cases the property owner or his agents may feel uncomfortable or think it dangerous to confront some people. In that case, they may ask the police to assist them by delivering the message that the visitors are unwelcome on the property. At that time, it is not unreasonable to offer an compromise to allow the visitor to stay; change the color of his shirt, modify his behavior, put the gun in the car etc. Only if the person refuses the compromise and/or refuses to leave should governments authority be used. If the visitor refuses all other options, it is reasonable he be removed by government force, arrest. At that point, he has crossed the line and become a criminal. All of this is a appropriate use of governmental police power, in my opinion.
    The above is just about on the money, except some states have trespass laws specific to firearms. It is not even necessary to give a reason to have a person removed. Just tell the police they were told to leave and refused. The officer may or may not ask why, depending on their mood or department.

  25. #25
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by CCinMaine View Post
    I've seen more no food or drink signs too. How come when you stop at the gas station to get get snacks for when you go to the movies you shove them in your bag before going in instead of putting the snacks on the counter when you buy your ticket?

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
    I have seen a "no food and drink" sign at a Family Dollar no less. Not sure why but it is after all their business. I am used to seeing them at furniture stores, restaurants, mostly. And let's not forget the "no customers past this point" signs, almost every garage has one of these posted, doesn't matter what you are carrying.

    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 08-12-2012 at 07:10 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •