Stock Holders, and tresspass.

Small_Arms_Collector · Mar 6, 2013

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?

motoxmann · Mar 6, 2013

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

Ca Patriot · Mar 6, 2013

Small_Arms_Collector said:
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?

The only time this might be applicable is at a shareholders meeting which by law shareholders have the right to attend.

davidmcbeth · Mar 6, 2013

no, because you are not an owner but a stockholder ....

eye95 · Mar 7, 2013

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>

Freedom1Man · Mar 7, 2013

Small_Arms_Collector said:
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.

OC for ME · Mar 8, 2013

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.

Fisherman · Mar 9, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
no, because you are not an owner but a stockholder ....

A stock holder is an owner.

eye95 · Mar 9, 2013

Fisherman said:
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.

Fisherman · Mar 9, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

eye95 · Mar 9, 2013

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.

The Trickster · Mar 11, 2013

Interesting. What if one controlled a majority of the shares?

Grapeshot · Mar 11, 2013

Would a volunteer please step forward - be sure and let us know how it worked out. :lol:

OC for ME · Mar 11, 2013

The Trickster said:
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.

eye95 · Mar 11, 2013

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>

Freedom1Man · Mar 11, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

OC for ME · Mar 11, 2013

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.

The Trickster · Mar 11, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

Grapeshot · Mar 11, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
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.

OC for ME · Mar 11, 2013

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.

Stock Holders, and tresspass.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member