Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Stock Holders, and tresspass.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415

    Stock Holders, and tresspass.

    I just had an interesting idea, some anti-gun companies that prohibit carry are publicly traded, if you were to buy some of their stock, thereby becoming part owner, would you then be able to ignore them when they say to get out since technically you are on property that you in part OWN? Further would you then qualify for private property examptions to carry laws in some states?

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    that's actually a very good question.

    the problem though would be comparing the percentage of the company you own, and the people who actually exercise control over the property.
    some could say the fact you own anything at all gives you the right, and some would say you may have partial ownership but you don't exercise any control so you have no say, and many other variables
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    no, because you are not an owner but a stockholder ....

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Stock Holders, and tresspass.

    Corporations are entities in their own right and routinely make decisions independent of any one owner's or all the owners' wills. That decision could be to disallow carry, to allow carry, or to have separate policies for the public and stockholders. Those decisions will be made by the board or the officers of the corporation. Stockholders have a say in any issue brought before them and in the election of board members. They do not have a say in policy making like an actual business owner would.

    Saying they do is as off the mark as saying that, since we citizens elect our representatives (members of the board of the entity known as the US), we run the country and can do as we please, regardless of the rules set forth by our representative legislature.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Small_Arms_Collector View Post
    I just had an interesting idea, some anti-gun companies that prohibit carry are publicly traded, if you were to buy some of their stock, thereby becoming part owner, would you then be able to ignore them when they say to get out since technically you are on property that you in part OWN? Further would you then qualify for private property exemptions to carry laws in some states?
    I've made that argument already.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Interesting, yet misguided. If a private firm "votes" to enact a "constitution" where "citizens" (shareholders) have certain "rights" then the case could be made. until then. Whipping out your stock certificate will not prevent Barney Fife from tossing you into the cooler for trespassing.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    no, because you are not an owner but a stockholder ....
    A stock holder is an owner.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
    A stock holder is an owner.
    That is over simplistic. There is a world of difference between a sole proprietor (a true owner) and a stock holder. While an owner has full authority over all aspects of a business, a stock holder has voting rights and a share of the profits. The board of directors exercises the authority normally belonging to an owner.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is over simplistic. There is a world of difference between a sole proprietor (a true owner) and a stock holder. While an owner has full authority over all aspects of a business, a stock holder has voting rights and a share of the profits. The board of directors exercises the authority normally belonging to an owner.
    Oh I realize all of that. I just wanted to point out that a stock holder owns a piece of the company. Depending on how big a piece sometimes determines how much say so he has. It is pretty simple.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Considering that the premise of the thread was that a stock holder could do as he pleases, regardless of the will of the board of directors, much like a true owner could, it was critical that it be pointed out how markedly [different] owners and stockholders are.

    Anyway, I'll let this thread wander where it will without further intervention. I have made the point I wished to make to all those who were curious about the initial assertion in the thread, which is all I was trying to do.

    Moving on.

    On edit: added missing word.
    Last edited by eye95; 03-11-2013 at 08:41 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member The Trickster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    218
    Interesting. What if one controlled a majority of the shares?

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Would a volunteer please step forward - be sure and let us know how it worked out.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by The Trickster View Post
    Interesting. What if one controlled a majority of the shares?
    Makes no difference. A majority holding in a firm a owner of that firm does not make.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Stock Holders, and tresspass.

    I know that I said that I was out, but a new point has arisen.

    The majority stockholder cannot simply violate the stated policy of the corporation. He can ask the board to change it. He can change out the board in favor of members who will give him what he wants, however, in Ohio, if he carries where the company has posted a sign, he has committed a crime. In other States, it may not be a crime, but it is still wrong.

    A true owner sets the policy on-the-spot.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I know that I said that I was out, but a new point has arisen.

    The majority stockholder cannot simply violate the stated policy of the corporation. He can ask the board to change it. He can change out the board in favor of members who will give him what he wants, however, in Ohio, if he carries where the company has posted a sign, he has committed a crime. In other States, it may not be a crime, but it is still wrong.

    A true owner sets the policy on-the-spot.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    In the case of a true owner there would not be stock holders.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Check your state laws carefully when deciding who has "control" over private property. Trespass laws may use descriptors in addition to "owner" who can trespass you and thus call upon Barney Fife to uphold the peace.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member The Trickster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I know that I said that I was out, but a new point has arisen.

    The majority stockholder cannot simply violate the stated policy of the corporation. He can ask the board to change it. He can change out the board in favor of members who will give him what he wants, however, in Ohio, if he carries where the company has posted a sign, he has committed a crime. In other States, it may not be a crime, but it is still wrong.

    A true owner sets the policy on-the-spot.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Thanks for the clarification.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    In the case of a true owner there would not be stock holders.
    That's the difference between a public compnay and one that is privately held.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    A "private" company can issue stock (shares), Facebook did this to the angst of a great many retail investors. A "public" company permits any citizen to invest their money via the purchase of publicly traded securities.

    Even a single owner, sole proprietorship, can "issue" shares to potential investors and not run afoul of federal and/or state laws. Get a attorney competent in such matters to better inform you of the implications of issuing "shares" as a not publicly trade firm.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    That's the difference between a public compnay and one that is privately held.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A "private" company can issue stock (shares), Facebook did this to the angst of a great many retail investors. A "public" company permits any citizen to invest their money via the purchase of publicly traded securities.

    Even a single owner, sole proprietorship, can "issue" shares to potential investors and not run afoul of federal and/or state laws. Get a attorney competent in such matters to better inform you of the implications of issuing "shares" as a not publicly trade firm.
    Indeed - I should have included limiting word(s) like "generally/most frequently.

    I guarantee a return on stock/shares purchased in my favorite endeavor.......and if you are so fortunate, the results will be positive. Not only do words have meaning, but their omission has meaning.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

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