Are anti-gun private businesses discriminating and violating our rights?

[wrightme]

This link is a relevant document on the rights of businesses to exclude. The SCOTUS cites as to the rights of businesses to exclude anyone from their premises sans specific protected classes and that right being fundamental.

http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1470&context=wujlp

"ERROR: This is an invalid URL. Please reenter the URL, or if you clicked a link in an email message to get here, make sure the link was not split across two lines."


Can you double-check the actual link?

 

[jackrockblc]

"ERROR: This is an invalid URL. Please reenter the URL, or if you clicked a link in an email message to get here, make sure the link was not split across two lines."


Can you double-check the actual link?

Not sure if the link was changed by the poster, but it works for me.

 

[wrightme]

Not sure if the link was changed by the poster, but it works for me.

Weird. Still an error for me, using chrome.
What browser are you using?

 

[Ron_O]

Weird. Still an error for me, using chrome.
What browser are you using?

Error for me as well but I'd like to see the parameters set by SCOTUS, if they're out there.

Been consumed developing the website over the weekend or I'd have lassoed a couple of guys and tied them to the hitching post (beats throwing them into the water trough).

For the record I wasn't really singling this out for Nevada but rather as a USA-wide rights issue overall. I'm always thinking about test cases for the courts and another state may have an advantage overall.

To quote that famous peacemaker and non-violence ambassador, Rodney King...

"Can't we all just get along?"

 

[wrightme]

This link is a relevant document on the rights of businesses to exclude. The SCOTUS cites as to the rights of businesses to exclude anyone from their premises sans specific protected classes and that right being fundamental.

http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1470&context=wujlp

Can you name the case, or cases, you refer to? The link is not working for all.

 

[papa bear]

I was not going to reply, but.


My feelings are not hurt.

Yes you are trying to argue with me.

I am not thin skinned.

If you feel what you posted is a 'generalization of rules by court,' please provide authoritative source for your views, under forum rule #5.

Then explain how that
a) applies to NV
b) applies to this thread.

How you feel about me does not alter what I responded to your posts about. What you posted had nothing to do with trespass as discussed in this thread, or about trespass under NV statutes. If you think differently, maybe you can share your reasoning. Maybe without making it personal?

WRIGHTIME you sure you are not EYE95

what i gave was a generalization from years of experience and dealing with it. i could give you a whole page of personal data. don't want to. just adding my two cents, but everything i said was relevant to the discussion
sorry you got your feelings hurt. are you in LE somehow? but the discussion was of general opinion and not just the state of NV. can you give an example of where i was wrong.

 

[wrightme]

WRIGHTIME you sure you are not EYE95

what i gave was a generalization from years of experience and dealing with it. i could give you a whole page of personal data. don't want to. just adding my two cents, but everything i said was relevant to the discussion
sorry you got your feelings hurt. are you in LE somehow? but the discussion was of general opinion and not just the state of NV. can you give an example of where i was wrong.

What you posted about trespass had nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Why you posted it is not clear. What IS clear is that you again prefer to make it personal instead of informational.


Do you have the cites and explanation of relevance?



Once again, my feelings are not hurt.

 

[wrightme]

probably help to define definitions

trespass happens when a person has no apparent business on the property. such as loitering. but if a person has legitimate business on property. then they can not be trespassed. such as in NC if you shoot a deer on one property and it runs to another property then you can pursue it. as in you can also go up to someones door and knock, but you must have legitimate reason to be there. but also the property owner must be the one to charge someone with trespass, or their agent.

private property is property that is privately owned, such as a resident. but when you open your doors to the public, such as a licensed business, you are subject to the laws of the land.

carrying a firearm is a civil right, but one someone can legally discriminate against, because it is the law of the land

To redirect, where are you getting the part of 'trespass happens when a person has no apparent business on the property, such as loitering?'

As the discussion began with the premise of a business, how do you feel that is determined? There is no trespass at the place of business, until such time as the business has given a notice to the affected person that there presence is no longer allowed.

And, once again, whether a person does, or does not have legitimate business on the property does not override the rights of the property owner. Once again, where are you getting that from?

 

[papa bear]

What you posted about trespass had nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Why you posted it is not clear. What IS clear is that you again prefer to make it personal instead of informational.


Do you have the cites and explanation of relevance?



Once again, my feelings are not hurt.

again sense you are personally attacking me. if you will re read the thread again the discussion opened up about when you could be trespassed. i gave my opinion after many decades of dealing with the issue. i do not know what the terms of trespass is in NV. i know i will never go to that hot ass place anyway
you might as well asked what it has to do with wedding cakes also.
i will stand with my generalization. maybe you should try reading my whole post instead of zeroing on some bone to pick at
again sorry you got your feelings hurt

 

[wrightme]

again sense you are personally attacking me.

How is asking you to cite relevant information any form of an attack?

if you will re read the thread again the discussion opened up about when you could be trespassed. i gave my opinion after many decades of dealing with the issue. i do not know what the terms of trespass is in NV. i know i will never go to that hot ass place anyway

So, from your experience, do you have relevant court cases or statutes that show trespass definition as you have posted?

you might as well asked what it has to do with wedding cakes also.
i will stand with my generalization. maybe you should try reading my whole post instead of zeroing on some bone to pick at
again sorry you got your feelings hurt

As to wedding cakes, whether a business can or cannot trespass someone is of relevance. In fact, it was posed as a question in the OP post.

I'm just trying to attack this from the PC crowd's perspective, but only sort of. I guess anyone can trespass anyone for any reason, but if that's true then why couldn't the cake makers trespass the gay wedding folks?

I did read your whole post. I asked you to clarify the beginning of it.

What is your supposed definition of trespass based upon, and what does that have to do with the wedding cake baker question? If the couple asking for a cake still needs a cake, they still have legitimate business there. Whether they get trespassed by the owner is not based upon whether they have legitimate business there.



And, once again, my feelings are not hurt. But, I am curious as to why you keep taking this personally, instead of responding to the questions I have about your definition.

 

[wrightme]

Do you recall the progression here?

probably help to define definitions

trespass happens when a person has no apparent business on the property. such as loitering. but if a person has legitimate business on property. then they can not be trespassed. such as in NC if you shoot a deer on one property and it runs to another property then you can pursue it. as in you can also go up to someones door and knock, but you must have legitimate reason to be there. but also the property owner must be the one to charge someone with trespass, or their agent.

private property is property that is privately owned, such as a resident. but when you open your doors to the public, such as a licensed business, you are subject to the laws of the land.

carrying a firearm is a civil right, but one someone can legally discriminate against, because it is the law of the land

Even persons with legitimate business can be trespassed if their behavior warrants trespass.

what you are talking about is when you no longer have legitimate reason to be there. in other words, a sells man that knocks on your door, will not be trespassed. until he refuses to leave. that is where he crossed the line. from an uninvited guest, to a unwelcome trespasser. actually the same with a self defense carrier. well, within certain states anyway

I replied that I was not speaking of 'when you no longer have legitimate reason to be there.' Recall the wedding cake? The couple still had a legitimate reason to be there. If the owner trespasses them from the property, the couple STILL has a legitimate reason to be there, they are just no longer allowed there by the owner. The 'legitimate reason' only works up to the point where their presence is still allowed by the property owner.


I understand what you were saying about entering on private property, but this thread subject was based in the premise of a business open to the public, and not in the premise of private property not open to the public.


In that post of yours there, you claim that ' but if a person has legitimate business on property. then they can not be trespassed'. You have presented advice here that, if incorrect, can have those who choose to follow your guidance, under arrest for trespass. Can you cite the source for that so when someone reads your post, and refuses to leave a business because they still have 'legitimate reason' to be there, yet the cops show up at the behest of the business owner, they can then show the cops that there is no cause for the arrest?

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

 

[wrightme]

such as in NC if you shoot a deer on one property and it runs to another property then you can pursue it.

Can you cite the relevant statute that governs that?

It appears that what you refer to was 'The Landowners Protection Act' legislation from the 2011 session that originally was written to allow exactly what you claimed.

That portion does not appear to have made it into the final approved bill.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H762v6.pdf

Here is what I found in the online statutes:

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_22A.html

Do you see the portion you claimed in there? Is it a new change for 2014 that has not been published as yet?

 

[solus]

darn MAC, i wish i quit long time ago as the inital OP's discussion presented a fair query....
btw tks ron for bringing up the subject from your personal based perspective...
ipse

 

[wrightme]

darn MAC, i wish i quit long time ago as the inital OP's discussion presented a fair query....
btw tks ron for bringing up the subject from your personal based perspective...
ipse

I still wish I could see the SCOTUS opinions mentioned at the link that I cannot open.

This link is a relevant document on the rights of businesses to exclude. The SCOTUS cites as to the rights of businesses to exclude anyone from their premises sans specific protected classes and that right being fundamental.

http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1470&context=wujlp

If anyone can, please post the cites mentioned.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I still wish I could see the SCOTUS opinions mentioned at the link that I cannot open.


If anyone can, please post the cites mentioned.

Link is no longer good. Not sure what it up with that. I'll see if I can find it again on my next day off. Basically a Bing search of "businesses right to exclude" lead me eventually to it. No time to do it right now.

 

[papa bear]

Can you cite the relevant statute that governs that?

It appears that what you refer to was 'The Landowners Protection Act' legislation from the 2011 session that originally was written to allow exactly what you claimed.

That portion does not appear to have made it into the final approved bill.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H762v6.pdf

Here is what I found in the online statutes:

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_22A.html

Do you see the portion you claimed in there? Is it a new change for 2014 that has not been published as yet?

Wow dude you are attacking me on NC trespass. if you have so much time look it up in the NC wildlife reg.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Licensing/Regulations.aspx

looks like NV laws are just like what i said; NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.

legitimate business until you don't have legitimate business.

why are you taking this so personally. are you an ex-LEO and can't stand to have your word not taking seriously? chill out dude. you will be a lot happier.
sorry your feelings got hurt.

sorry added point. the trespass on posted land (all land in NC is posted weather there is a sign or not) is with intentions to hunt, not to retrieve wounded (dead) game.
but let's get off this tirade and back to the OP.

Yes, it is discrimination and it is legal by law. we need to change the laws

 

[wrightme]

Wow dude you are attacking me on NC trespass. if you have so much time look it up in the NC wildlife reg.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Licensing/Regulations.aspx

I looked it up in the NC statutes. That is where the statutes are. I did not find the law you tried to claim.

looks like NV laws are just like what i said; NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.

legitimate business until you don't have legitimate business.

I cited trespass for NV earlier in the thread. What portion do you feel says what you claim?

why are you taking this so personally. are you an ex-LEO and can't stand to have your word not taking seriously? chill out dude. you will be a lot happier.
sorry your feelings got hurt.

What does any of that have to do with the discussion? Are facts not the same if those apply? I am quite happy, and do not accept the things you post, simply because you choose to post them. According to the rules of the forum, it is your responsibility to cite statutes for stated laws as you present.

sorry added point. the trespass on posted land (all land in NC is posted weather there is a sign or not) is with intentions to hunt, not to retrieve wounded (dead) game.
but let's get off this tirade and back to the OP.

Yes, that is accurate. That is why it is important to cite statute, and not present what you may recall from news in the past.

Yes, it is discrimination and it is legal by law. we need to change the laws

On that, we are in agreement. The point I add is this. When we discuss such issues, it is important to discuss and present them from positions of knowledge, not from positions based in speculations or false memories of what may have been; such as your post about NC trespass laws. It just might be that what a person thinks is, was already changed for the better; or for the worse.

 

[wrightme]

For NV trespass, here is the statute:

NRS 207.200  Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.
1.  Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:
(a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or
(b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,
Ê is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.
2.  A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods:
(a) If the land is used for agricultural purposes or for herding or grazing livestock, by painting with fluorescent orange paint:
(1) Not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
(I) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 1,000 feet; and
(II) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary; and
(2) Each side of all gates, cattle guards and openings that are designed to allow human ingress to the area;
(b) If the land is not used in the manner specified in paragraph (a), by painting with fluorescent orange paint not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
(1) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 200 feet; and
(2) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary;
(c) Fencing the area; or
(d) By the owner or occupant of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.
3.  It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.
4.  An entryman on land under the laws of the United States is an owner within the meaning of this section.
5.  As used in this section:
(a) “Fence” means a barrier sufficient to indicate an intent to restrict the area to human ingress, including, but not limited to, a wall, hedge or chain link or wire mesh fence. The term does not include a barrier made of barbed wire.
(b) “Guest” means any person entertained or to whom hospitality is extended, including, but not limited to, any person who stays overnight. The term does not include a tenant as defined in NRS 118A.170.
[1911 C&P § 500; RL § 6765; NCL § 10447]—(NRS A 1969, 96; 1975, 1169; 1987, 2086; 1989, 997; 2005, 930; 2007, 981; 2009, 141)

Part 3 points to one meaning. It is not the only meaning. Whether 3 applies or not, a property owner can follow 2(b) for any reason, or no reason whatsoever except for protected class status and trespass a person with legitimate business there. The point is this. There is NOTHING preventing trespass of someone who DOES have 'legitimate business' on property, it states that it is 'prima facie evidence of trespass' to remain without lawful business on property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2

The statement you presented about trespass definition, by statute, has nothing whatsoever to do with the premise of the OP of the thread. And that is what I have been attempting to discuss with you.

 

[wrightme]

why are you taking this so personally. are you an ex-LEO and can't stand to have your word not taking seriously? chill out dude. you will be a lot happier.
sorry your feelings got hurt.

As an aside, I am not the one who appears to be bothered when questioned about what was posted.


I fully accept and understand that what I post may not always be accurate, and do try to post the relevant cites that support what I say, as was the case for NC statutes. What you posted had a 'truthy' sound to it, but when I looked it up, it seems that the legislature did not follow through with that portion of the bill. In some other searching on the specific of retrieving game or hunting dogs, there are actually very few places that give an exception in trespass statutes for such actions.

Yes, I did challenge you on NC trespass statute, because it appears that you were not correct about NC trespass statute.

Wow dude you are attacking me on NC trespass. if you have so much time look it up in the NC wildlife reg.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Licensing/Regulations.aspx

I did not 'attack you,' I challenged what you posted about trespass statute in NC.
From that link at ncwildlife:

The new Landowner Protection Act provides two ways for landholders to post their lands to allow only hunters, trappers and anglers with written permission to legally enter their property:
As permitted in the past, the landholder can place notices, signs, or posters on the property boundaries at a distance of 200 yards apart or closer.
A new way for landholders to post their property is with purple paint. The landholder can paint a vertical line of purple paint on trees or posts around property boundary, or areas intended to prohibit trespass. The paint line needs to be at least 8" long and the bottom of the line should be between 3' and 5' from the base of the tree or post. The paint marks need to be placed 100 yards apart or closer.
Sportsmen need written permission, dated within the past 12 months, signed by the land owner or lessee, to hunt, fish, or trap on lands posted with signs or purple paint. You must carry written permission on your person. If a hunting club has leased the land, hunters must have a copy of their hunting club membership and a copy of the landowner permission given to that club. Wildlife officers will enforce the Landowner Protection Act.
The Landowner Protection Act does not change general trespass laws nor have any effect on lands which are not posted. It does not repeal any local acts currently in effect that require written permission to hunt, fish or trap.
North Carolina law encourages owners of land to make property available for recreational use. The law states that a landowner who allows someone, without charge, onto their land for recreational purposes owes them the same duty of care they would owe a trespasser.

But, without regard to the verbiage at that website, the authoritative source for information about NC statutes that govern hunting, would be in the actual NC statutes. The wildlife website is only as current as the webmaster of that site makes it. In either case, I found nothing that supported your claim about game or dog retrieval being an exception to trespass law; and your own linked source does not support what you claimed. Can you find something to support what you posted?

sorry added point. the trespass on posted land (all land in NC is posted weather there is a sign or not) is with intentions to hunt, not to retrieve wounded (dead) game.
but let's get off this tirade and back to the OP.

How is land without signs, 'posted?'

 

[wrightme]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States

There is this list of US Reports now passing 550 volumes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_volume

Yes, that would be the SCOTUS. Do you have the list of cases he referred to at hand to share?