Ignoring Gun Buster signage. - Page 9
Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 233

Thread: Ignoring Gun Buster signage.

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by jtg452 View Post
    So, you feel is that it's OK for YOU to ignore their rights to dictate what is allowable on their property as long as YOU get to exercise your rights.

    That's is what you are saying, right?
    It's not a right, it's a request. And no, he's saying that if they don't like his possession of a forbidden item, he'll leave when requested. That's the right they have, and he and I have both said we'd follow it.

  2.   
  3. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
    I'm not exaggerating.
    Yeah..you are.

    I'm substituting carrying a banana (ok, taping a banana) to the carry of a gun.
    Exactly.
    youre using an example that is absurd and WONT happen to one that isnt aburd and DOES happen.


    If I did have a sign stating "no entry without..." that would be a trespassing sign. I'm specifically marking that you must have one, or you can't enter. Saying "no bananas allowed" isn't a trespass sign. It's a request to not carry a banana. If I'm on that property, and they find I have a banana, they can ask me to leave. If I don't, I'm trespassing and can be jailed.
    Meaning you completely DISREGARDED the right of the property owner to post a sign with rules.
    ONLY when the law steps in and threatens you with fines or jail time do you show this rule any respect, which means you ARE a rule breaker who only does what you HAVE to do to keep from going to jail.
    In and of yourself you have ZERO respect for the rights of others.
    Youve proven that here.

  4. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    42
    Sorry, case law doesn't follow your logic on signs where there's no law backing them. It's not a denial of entry, it's a denial of your property. If the sign were to say "If you carry a gun in here, you're trespassing", then it would be a denial of entry. Saying "no guns allowed" doesn't keep you from entering, it allows them to deny you staying if you do so.

    Wording is important, which is why laws have to be worded specifically.

  5. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
    It's not a right, it's a request.
    Youre deranged.
    I have the RIGHT on MY damned property to make whatever rule I want to make that isnt unlawful.

    A sign isnt a request, Its a RULE of that particular property owner/leaser for that property.
    That the law doesnt kick in until later doesnt mean the property owner doesnt have RIGHTS to say what isnt allowed on that property.

  6. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    42
    I said I was a rule breaker. I didn't deny that. I don't follow absurd rules. I don't speak the language stupid signs are written in.

    My choice. But keep felling morally superior. I'm sure it makes you all warm and fuzzy.

  7. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
    Sorry, case law doesn't follow your logic on signs where there's no law backing them.
    Actually, pal, here in Ohio they DO carry the weight of the law. Even if scribbled on a sticky note with a crayon.

    Secondly, you are proving my case for me.
    MY issue is that you DONT have respect for the rights of others UNTIL FORCED by law.
    Thank you for proving me right.

  8. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
    I said I was a rule breaker. I didn't deny that. I don't follow absurd rules. I don't speak the language stupid signs are written in.
    For any NON gun owner or Brady types here digging for evidence, this is ONE guy who does NOT represent the whole.
    Just like there are rule breakers in every other group and those who dont respect the rights of other persons.
    But keep felling morally superior. I'm sure it makes you all warm and fuzzy.
    Youre breaking my heart....no really.

  9. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
    Flawed analogy is flawed. Smoking isn't a right.
    wrong, you have a right to inflict self damage so long as it does not harm another:
    SCOTUS:
    Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
    "Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence
    of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his
    conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects
    himself."

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
    Sorry, case law doesn't follow your logic on signs where there's no law backing them. It's not a denial of entry, it's a denial of your property. If the sign were to say "If you carry a gun in here, you're trespassing", then it would be a denial of entry. Saying "no guns allowed" doesn't keep you from entering, it allows them to deny you staying if you do so.

    Wording is important, which is why laws have to be worded specifically.
    You are confusing law with ethics.

    I'm not arguing the legality of ignoring a 'No Guns Allowed' sign. A quick search of the statutes and case law of your state can answer that question for you.

    I'm arguing about the ethics of ignoring a 'No Guns Allowed' sign while fiercely defending your own right to legally carry a gun.


    Is it legal?

    Kinda but not really because by doing so you are opening yourself up to a potential trespassing charge.

    Is it ethical?

    Nope, not to me it isn't. If you have to limit another person's right to control their property to exercise your right to carry a gun, then I feel you are the one in the wrong.

    Just because you legally can do something doesn't mean it is ethical to actually do it.

  11. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruger357SP101 View Post
    Actually, pal, here in Ohio they DO carry the weight of the law. Even if scribbled on a sticky note with a crayon.

    Secondly, you are proving my case for me.
    MY issue is that you DONT have respect for the rights of others UNTIL FORCED by law.
    Thank you for proving me right.
    I'm not concerned with Ohio law, unless I'm in Ohio.

    I respect the rights of others. I don't respect stupid rules I don't have a duty to follow. I have that choice. I can choose to not patronize an establishment that posts stupid signs. I have in the past. I can choose to ignore their signs. I have in the past. I have the right to choose.

    Your opinion of my choices does nothing to affect me. I may be proving your point, only if I choose to not respect the rights of others. You're trying to lump me into your neat little category when you don't have the whole story. Because I make one choice about one aspect of my life, does not mean I make every choice the same way.

    That would truly make me a horrible human being, probably a criminal, and generally an a-hole if I didn't care about anything.

    Thanks for pigeonholing me based on inadequate information.

Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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