Carrying Concealed in Malls - Page 7
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Carrying Concealed in Malls

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Actually, they are two entirely different things (private vs business properties) and your cute try at distorting my point above is quite frankly, pulling smelly stuff out of your backside.... because you have utterly FAILED to distinguish that a BUSINESS invites the public onto their property, Yet, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999% of the rest of us (non business owners, you know those with ACTUAL private, non-business property) have NOT invited the public onto our properties.

    The other thing you KEEP DOING every time we have this discussion (what is this, the 4th or 5th time?) is you keep ignoring the big gorrilla in the room that RIGHTS are different than RULES....... I, as a landowner/homeowner, etc... can make ANY rule I want, yet if someone breaks those RULES on my property, they have NOT infringed on any of my RIGHTS.... they have simply broken a rule.... Why cant you understand something as simple as that?

    Just for good measure... I will add this: How can someone wearing pink panties on my property infringe on my RIGHTS if I never see that they have them on? (and you know how much I hate those things, and have a billboard posted on my property line advertising the fact that I forbid them on my property so they cannot claim ignorance of my RULE)
    And you continue to fail to prove your claim that a business is not private property.

    "Open to the public" is an invitation to come onto/into the property... "Open to the public" does NOT give the public any right to be on/in the property... all it does is give individual members of the public permission to be on/in the property IF they obey the property owner's rules... disobey the rules and you lose the permission and if you don't have permission then you are trespassing.

    It is that simple.

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    And you continue to fail to prove your claim that a business is not private property.

    "Open to the public" is an invitation to come onto/into the property... "Open to the public" does NOT give the public any right to be on/in the property... all it does is give individual members of the public permission to be on/in the property IF they obey the property owner's rules... disobey the rules and you lose the permission and if you don't have permission then you are trespassing.

    It is that simple.
    PART of your statement is correct, and part smells very bad...... think about it awhile and you might just see where you went wrong.....

    and BTW... I have NEVER stated that a business owner could not ask anyone for any reason whatsoever to leave his or her property. I have simply stated the FACT that Rules are NOT RIGHTS... and breaking a RULE does not in any way fashion or form INFRINGE on a RIGHT....

    If I was wrong and you were right in this, then as a property owner, I could make a rule that anyone with purple skin could not breathe while on my property..... My property, my rules, right? and IF they did have the utter gall to breathe on my property, they just infringed on my RIGHTS according to YOUR FAILED LOGIC!

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    PART of your statement is correct, and part smells very bad...... think about it awhile and you might just see where you went wrong.....

    and BTW... I have NEVER stated that a business owner could not ask anyone for any reason whatsoever to leave his or her property. I have simply stated the FACT that Rules are NOT RIGHTS... and breaking a RULE does not in any way fashion or form INFRINGE on a RIGHT....

    If I was wrong and you were right in this, then as a property owner, I could make a rule that anyone with purple skin could not breathe while on my property..... My property, my rules, right? and IF they did have the utter gall to breathe on my property, they just infringed on my RIGHTS according to YOUR FAILED LOGIC!
    Let me see.... a private property owner has the right to deny access to people and/or to require them to leave if they are already there... because the private property owner has the private property right to control who uses his property in what way.

    Guess what? A no guns rule is the expression of the private property owner exercising his private property right to deny access to people who carry guns.

    And, as a private property owner you can make any rule you want.... "No shoes, No shirt, No service" ring a bell?

    Hence... those who violate the property owner's no guns rule and carry their gun on/in the property anyway are DISRESPECTING the property owner's right.

    Now... I went back and reread my postings in this thread (twice!!) and I can't find anywhere that I said anything about sneaking a gun in where there is a no guns rule "infringing" in reference to private property owner's rights but there are many posts where I mentioned "disrespecting" the private property owner's rights. You are aware that "disrespecting" and "infringing" are two entirely different things so could you please direct me to where I said anything in this discussion about "infringing" in reference to private property rights?

    In reference to "infringing"... the government "infringes" on private property rights with laws that decree that a private property owner who uses his private property to conduct business * cannot deny access to the business to certain groups of people. Those laws are based in not allowing the business owner to "discriminate"... yet any law that tells a person how they are NOT ALLOWED to exercise a right (any right regardless of which right it may be) IS an "infringement".

    And there is one State that recognizes private property rights trump even the right to life itself:

    Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

    Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property

    § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
    justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
    tangible, movable property:
    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the
    other under Section 9.41; and
    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
    deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
    arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
    nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
    immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
    robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
    property; -snip-

    And you have still FAILED! to prove there is a difference between a businesses private property rights and a homeowner's private property rights ...actually you have failed to even attempt to begin to offer any proof! relying instead on stupid fish (dum bass) arguments about purple skinned people breathing and pink panties. Didn't you give the example of a thong in a previous discussion about this issue? What is it with you and underwear?

    GIVE ME CITES AND/OR LINKS TO ACTUAL FACTS!... that private property used for a business is different than private property used for a home. In fact it would appear that you are intentionally avoiding presenting any actual facts complete with cites and/or links to those facts as proof. And please do not refer to the oft posted video of Judge Napalitano offering his opinion about "public accommodations" unless you can also cite and/or link to where his opinion is actual law in reference to carrying guns.

    * please note the distinction I referenced when I said private property owner who uses his private property to conduct business * above because the only real difference between a homeowner and a business owner is what is happening on/in ...................... PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    GIVE ME CITES AND/OR LINKS TO ACTUAL FACTUAL LAWS!... If you can't then you got nothing... nothing at all... to uphold your argument that a businesses private property rights... are different than a homeowner's private property rights.

    No cites? No links? Equals epic fail.

  5. #64
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    756
    YES, you can still carry into a Mall in Michigan, the Code of Conduct doesnt mean a thing in the state. Worst that can happen is a trespass if they find out youre carrying. But, carry away, Michigan law does not recognize the Code of Conduct.
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Itstjs View Post
    YES, you can still carry into a Mall in Michigan, the Code of Conduct doesnt mean a thing in the state. Worst that can happen is a trespass if they find out youre carrying. But, carry away, Michigan law does not recognize the Code of Conduct.
    But Michigan law does recognize trespass as an illegal activity.

    And I wonder about folks who want their right to bear arms be respected while advocating disrespecting a property owner's right to ban the bearing of arms. Aren't ALL rights equally valid? Equally as important? Or do we get to choose to only respect the rights we like and disrespect the rights we don't like .... just like the anti gunners do with respecting the right to free speech and using it to disrespect the right to keep and bear arms that they don't like?

    Edited to add....
    While there may not be any specific law in Michigan that recognizes a businesses Code of Conduct or a sign a judge could consider your knowledge of what is contained within that Code of Conduct or sign as you having foreknowledge that guns are banned on/in that property and might consider that willfully entering the property with a gun along with the foreknowledge as an intentional act of trespass.

    And I'll repeat that some counties in Michigan still have gun boards that could look upon the willful act of trespass as showing a person is too irresponsible to have a carry permit and revoke it.

    Some interesting reading about this topic starting at post #30.... pay particular attention to post #38 ..... and the poster's signature line at the bottom.

    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sho...08#post2222808

  7. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by sbubrick View Post
    Check Michigan state firearms laws! If its concealed how would they know! In Nevada if they see they can ask you to leave, if you do not they can have you removed for trespassing, Sign or no sign!
    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/michigan.pdf
    Handgunlaw.us
    7
    Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?
    “YES
    If there is a no gun sign in the state of michigan it holds weight over the law. hope this page helps

  8. I always laugh at the "no weapon of any kind" ban. Peacenik liberal idjits are clueless. When I see the "no weapon of any kind" sign I think about a confrontation I had with my son's junior high principal a few years ago. I dropped my son off to meet his friends at a local high school football game. As he went through the metal detectors (yes, metal detectors at a HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL GAME!) he realized he still had his pocketknife in his pants pocket (he was working on his boy scout wood carving after school). He immediately told the security officer that it was his pocket knife, and they FREAKED!

    By their reaction, you woulda thought they found Osama Bin Laden sneaking into the game with a backpack full of Pakistani enriched uranium. The high school principal demanded that he be expelled from the junior high, but fortunately the junior high principal only chose to suspend him for 3 days.

    When I went in for a meeting with the junior high principal I brought my coffee mug. While I was telling him how absurd the school administration was being he bought up the "we have zero tolerance for any kind of weapons on school grounds!" thing. I simply smiled at him and told him that he might want to call the police, because I brought a coffee mug onto school grounds. He looked at me with complete lack of understanding. I then told him that he should turn himself in as well, and pointed to his desk and all of the "weapons of any kind" he had on his desk - scissors, pens, keyboard, etc, etc, etc.

    Liberals are idjits. They will freak when a 13 year old boy scout has a pocket knife because he might blow up the entire football stadium, but they will absolutely refuse the protect the life of a 26 year old viable fetus that a woman wants to kill simply because it is inconvenient.

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Boatswain2PA View Post
    ....but they will absolutely refuse the protect the life of a 26 week old viable fetus that a woman wants to kill simply because it is inconvenient.
    Agree with all of your post 100%, but took the opportunity to correct what I think you must have meant. I think even mastodons had a shorter gestation period than 26 years!
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Agree with all of your post 100%, but took the opportunity to correct what I think you must have meant. I think even mastodons had a shorter gestation period than 26 years!
    Thanks for that! lol

  11. #70
    Rule #24
    24. No fishing, swimming, or boating without prior written approval of shopping center management.
    I guess that means that water skiing is also verboten.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

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