• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What a massive misunderstanding of the word “Right”!

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
So, if you trespassed someone prior to 30.07 you had no legal authority?
I don’t know if your asking me or the other guy, but as to your question: IDK, I am only participating in a theoretical discussion of Rights. Actual law rarely measures up to the concepts of Liberty as envisioned by the Founders and Framers.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
So you do not concer yourself with the RIGHTS of those citizens of Texas or elsewhere outside your immediate sphere of reality?
Please do not put words into my mouth.

Folks, if you want to know what I am saying, please read my posts and not those of someone trying to antagonize.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
OK. In short a person has a right to be armed on private property.

The property owner has the right to tell that person to leave armed or for some other reason.

It's the only way both rights coexist.

Open to the public is NOT private, no matter who owns it.

Signs having force of law criminalize the RTKABA and should not exist.
Sentence by sentence, IMO: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, and No.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,246
Location
here nc
IDK. I only responded to that question about TX law as a hypothetical question about the Rights of property owners to bar carry. I believe that, in a society that respects individual Rights, property owners have that Right, even pre-emptively with a sign. I know nothing of, nor am I all that concerned about, TX law.

So, do they already possess that Right? Yes. Is it recognized in TX law? IDK.
Please do not put words into my mouth.

Folks, if you want to know what I am saying, please read my posts and not those of someone trying to antagonize.
Ok
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,131
Location
White Oak Plantation
Private businesses that post a no gun sign, whether that sign has the force of statute is irrelevant in my opinion. The property owner's requirements for entry are made known prior to my entry onto his property. I will respect his requirements and go elsewhere. Those who enter his private business while armed knowing that the owner prohibits armed citizens from entering his property are not interested in private property rights as an absolute right.

A private non-business property that posts a sign must be respected regardless of statutory mandates, or the lack thereof.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
Private businesses that post a no gun sign, whether that sign has the force of statute is irrelevant in my opinion. The property owner's requirements for entry are made known prior to my entry onto his property. I will respect his requirements and go elsewhere. Those who enter his private business while armed knowing that the owner prohibits armed citizens from entering his property are not interested in private property rights as an absolute right.

A private non-business property that posts a sign must be respected regardless of statutory mandates, or the lack thereof.
I agree. Which is why I'm not a fan of the texas law, because it places that authority with the government, which is unconstitutional IMO
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
998
Location
Kentucky
Private businesses that post a no gun sign, whether that sign has the force of statute is irrelevant in my opinion. The property owner's requirements for entry are made known prior to my entry onto his property. I will respect his requirements and go elsewhere. Those who enter his private business while armed knowing that the owner prohibits armed citizens from entering his property are not interested in private property rights as an absolute right.

A private non-business property that posts a sign must be respected regardless of statutory mandates, or the lack thereof.
Your call to make for you of course.
Personally I'll not claim to know what your interested in or not.



Where I live the sign means less than nothing, no law broken by ignoring one, because there is an absolute right to be armed and the property owner has no authority to interfere with that.
There isn't even any case law to support them even applying to OC here.

That said I will ignore no gun/weapon signs without a 2nd thought.


On the other hand I have no right to be or remain on said privately owned property once told to leave for any reason as the property owner does have authority about WHO is on their property. If asked I will immediately leave.
Though I've never been asked too cc or OC
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,131
Location
White Oak Plantation
Your call to make for you of course.
Personally I'll not claim to know what your interested in or not.

Where I live the sign means less than nothing, no law broken by ignoring one, because there is an absolute right to be armed and the property owner has no authority to interfere with that.
There isn't even any case law to support them even applying to OC here.

That said I will ignore no gun/weapon signs without a 2nd thought.

On the other hand I have no right to be or remain on said privately owned property once told to leave for any reason as the property owner does have authority about WHO is on their property. If asked I will immediately leave.
Though I've never been asked too cc or OC
No arguments from me on your choice to ignore a private businesses requirement for entry. Many armed citizens make the same choice. I hold private property rights as the foundation of all of our enumerated rights.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No arguments from me on your choice to ignore a private businesses requirement for entry. Many armed citizens make the same choice. I hold private property rights as the foundation of all of our enumerated rights.
To defend Liberty in general, we must first defend the Liberty of others—especially from our own behavior.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
998
Location
Kentucky
No arguments from me on your choice to ignore a private businesses requirement for entry. Many armed citizens make the same choice. I hold private property rights as the foundation of all of our enumerated rights.
No harm no foul. We just see the foundation of our rights differently.

Personally I hold the RTKABA as the rock all other rights rest on.
Can't defend property rights or any other rights without it. JMO
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
998
Location
Kentucky
True tjat
I could defend my property if guns were never invented. Guns makes defending my stuff easier.
True that. However the RTKABA nor the 2A only applies to guns. It includes any weapon, "arms" from a rock to a spear to a gun to warship.

The RTKABA IS the base all other rights and liberties, in the end analysis, rest and depend on for their continued existence. Has been so all through history, all over the planet.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The RKBA is an enumerated Right, a restriction on the behavior of government due to their predeliction to restrict the Natural Right of Self-Defense in order to maintain and increase their power over the People.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,246
Location
here nc
True tjat

True that. However the RTKABA nor the 2A only applies to guns. It includes any weapon, "arms" from a rock to a spear to a gun to warship.

The RTKABA IS the base all other rights and liberties, in the end analysis, rest and depend on for their continued existence. Has been so all through history, all over the planet.
The RKBA is an enumerated Right, a restriction on the behavior of government due to their predeliction to restrict the Natural Right of Self-Defense in order to maintain and increase their power over the People.
Gheee...some august members got confused over the nomenclature of “COTUS” now this confusion faction!
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
998
Location
Kentucky
Gheee...some august members got confused over the nomenclature of “COTUS” now this confusion faction!
What is confusing to you?
The 2A did not and does not grant the RTKABA.
That has existed since the dawn of man.
If the 2A,were abolished today it would simply be the illegal, immoral move of yet another tyrannical gov.

The RTKABA would still remain.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,131
Location
White Oak Plantation
True tjat

True that. However the RTKABA nor the 2A only applies to guns. It includes any weapon, "arms" from a rock to a spear to a gun to warship.

The RTKABA IS the base all other rights and liberties, in the end analysis, rest and depend on for their continued existence. Has been so all through history, all over the planet.
Please do not dilute my point with the nonsensical "what are considered arms" debate. I am focused on my stuff and among my stuff is guns and the required ammo.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,246
Location
here nc
What is confusing to you?
The 2A did not and does not grant the RTKABA.
That has existed since the dawn of man.
If the 2A,were abolished today it would simply be the illegal, immoral move of yet another tyrannical gov.

The RTKABA would still remain.
Sorry ghost you misunderstood my post
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
998
Location
Kentucky
Please do not dilute my point with the nonsensical "what are considered arms" debate. I am focused on my stuff and among my stuff is guns and the required ammo.
I too own guns ie arms
And archery equipment IE arms.

Any thing used as a weapon is considered arms in the COTUS.

pointing out the term does not only include guns is hardly nonsensical or diluting any discussion of the RTKABA.
 
Top