St Mary's is NOT gun friendly

[Hammerhead]

Well what can I say other than your wrong? Calling me wrong doesn't make you right. Your the one grabbing at straws by basing a whole counter-arguement on one word I said.

I will agree with you that the laws is clear though. If you enter a property in a manner that is not welcome, your tresspassing. Clean, simple and to the point don't you think? And I would say carrying a firearm when a sign say's "no firearms" fits that bill don't you? Oh wait, of course you don't.

Sorry, talking in a matter of fact way doesn't make you right. I say your wrong, and will continue to say that as long people keep saying I'm wrong.

"Good luck with that."

Umm...ok. I don't know how to respond to the first part, so I'll just leave that alone.

As far as the trespass law, yes it's clear. You must be informed that you're trespassing. "No firearms" doesn't inform that you're trespassing. It informs you that someone desires you to not possess an object. Otherwise I could be cited for trespassing for "sneaking" my own candy into a theater. They put signs up for "no outside food or drink". That's because they want you to pay their overpriced snacks. I'm not breaking a law, I'm not following a rule.

Carrying a sidearm against someone's wishes isn't trespassing.

 

[BumpShadow]

Umm...ok. I don't know how to respond to the first part, so I'll just leave that alone.

As far as the trespass law, yes it's clear. You must be informed that you're trespassing. "No firearms" doesn't inform that you're trespassing. It informs you that someone desires you to not possess an object. Otherwise I could be cited for trespassing for "sneaking" my own candy into a theater. They put signs up for "no outside food or drink". That's because they want you to pay their overpriced snacks. I'm not breaking a law, I'm not following a rule.

Carrying a sidearm against someone's wishes isn't trespassing.

So a sign that say's "no outside food or drink" consitutes trespassing but a sign that say's "no firearms" doesn't?

Your logic seems to have a flaw.

And it is trespassing if the "someone" is the property owner.

By your logic, as long as there is no sign that say's "no trespassing", anyone call just walk onto your property and do what they want as long as they don't do anything to interfere, right?

 

[Roadie]

Prehaps you should read a little more then. As knownledgable as Bill's is, last time I checked he didn't make the law.




The fact that a property owners rights are ignored at all is the problem here.

Well, thanks for joining the discussion. In case you haven't read past the last few posts, its not about gun laws, it's about property rights. The sign could say "No pink underwear" and I would still support the owners right to not have pink underwear on their property if they don't want it.

Perhaps you should read a whole thread, or at least the last few pages, before posting such narrow minded opinion's.

My aren't we condescending. I have been in the discussion for a week now, and many others just like this for the last 2 years, NEWB.

Do try and keep up, your analogy about "pink underwear" was already squashed in the example of dogs and cigarettes..

Personal property rights, and business property differences have also been discussed. so..

Perhaps you should read a whole thread, or at least the last few pages, before posting such narrow minded opinion's.

 

[Roadie]

So a sign that say's "no outside food or drink" consitutes trespassing but a sign that say's "no firearms" doesn't?

Your logic seems to have a flaw.

And it is trespassing if the "someone" is the property owner.

By your logic, as long as there is no sign that say's "no trespassing", anyone call just walk onto your property and do what they want as long as they don't do anything to interfere, right?

If that is what you read from Hammerhead's analogy, then your reading comprehension is sorely lacking, and explains much regarding your previous posts on this issue..

Allow me to rephrase it..

1. Would you expect to be arrested for trespass, if you are caught with your own snacks at the Theater?
2. OR would you expect to be asked to either get rid or the snacks, or leave?
3. THEN if you didn't leave, wouldn't it THEN become Trespass?

Substitute "guns" for "snacks" in the above.

Get it??

 

[BumpShadow]

My aren't we condescending. I have been in the discussion for a week now, and many others just like this for the last 2 years, NEWB.

Do try and keep up, your analogy about "pink underwear" was already squashed in the example of dogs and cigarettes..

Personal property rights, and business property differences have also been discussed. so..

Oh no, he called me a newb!

And could you please point out just how the dogs and cigs example squashed my analogy. I fail to see it. Just because a sign isn't backed by anything more than the owners wishes doesn't give them any less of a right to put it up.

Keep trying...

 

[BumpShadow]

If that is what you read from Hammerhead's analogy, then your reading comprehension is sorely lacking, and explains much regarding your previous posts on this issue..

Allow me to rephrase it..

1. Would you expect to be arrested for trespass, if you are caught with your own snacks at the Theater?
2. OR would you expect to be asked to either get rid or the snacks, or leave?
3. THEN if you didn't leave, wouldn't it THEN become Trespass?

Substitute "guns" for "snacks" in the above.

Get it??

Ok, my mistake.

My case still stands, though.

 

[Roadie]

Oh no, he called me a newb!

And could you please point out just how the dogs and cigs example squashed my analogy. I fail to see it. Just because a sign isn't backed by anything more than the owners wishes doesn't give them any less of a right to put it up.

Keep trying...

Let me use your own quote, modified a bit..

(Bill) already addressed that. If you haven't bothered to read it, I'm not going chase my tail with you about.

...and again, your words, modified a bit(misspellings intact)....

(snip)



If a person carries (SNACKS) onto a property knowly full well that (SNACKS) are not wanted on that property then they are knowingly and intentionally interfering with the use of that property. But maybe thats not the real arguement here. It seems that because there is no real consequence for disobeying a property owners sign that in fact no crime is being committed. And that if your not caught break said sign, then no crime has been committed.

The problem is that if you enter a property in a manner that you know is unwelcome, say carrying when the sign say's "no (SNACKS)", (snip)

Get it yet? Hmmm?

 

[Roadie]

Ok, my mistake.

My case still stands, though.

Props for admitting a mistake, but you kind of ignored the point and didn't bother to address it now, didn't you?

 

[Roadie]

How, EXACTLY, is carrying an object that no one even knows is about interfering with the use of the property?





If you feel the need to live somewhere that enforces signs as law then you could always relocate to our neighbor to the east. Ohio would be glad to have you, I'm sure.

Interestingly, though, even in OHIO the signage law only specifically refers to firearms. Obviously that law is only on the books due to some irrational fear of the firearms & really has nothing to do with property rights or that code would apply to ALL other objects, too.

You still haven't addressed the question of whether you feel that the "punishment" should include possessing objects that AREN'T firearms as well? Do you think that a person should be criminally charged for carrying a banana concealed in their pocket if a business has a sign that says "no bananas"? Or a handkerchief in their pocket, a photo of their wife in their wallet or any of various other mundane objects out of view with a "no XYZ" sign?

If that is what you read from Hammerhead's analogy, then your reading comprehension is sorely lacking, and explains much regarding your previous posts on this issue..

Allow me to rephrase it..

1. Would you expect to be arrested for trespass, if you are caught with your own snacks at the Theater?
2. OR would you expect to be asked to either get rid or the snacks, or leave?
3. THEN if you didn't leave, wouldn't it THEN become Trespass?

Substitute "guns" for "snacks" in the above.

Get it??

Finity even made a similar point, and you ignored it... hmm

 

[BumpShadow]

Get it yet? Hmmm?

Nope. By bringing something that is not wanted onto the peoperty a person is creating a situation that will disrupt the use of that property. Just because the theater choice not to press charges doesn't mean they don't have the right too.

Sorry, I'm not buying your argument.

 

[Roadie]

Nope. By bringing something that is not wanted onto the peoperty a person is creating a situation that will disrupt the use of that property.

Sorry, I'm not buying your argument.

So you ARE saying that if I bring my own bag of:

into:

it IS "disrupt(ing) the use of that property."

and therefore:

..and I should be:

..for it??

 

[BumpShadow]

So you ARE saying that if I bring my own bag of:

into:

it IS "disrupt(ing) the use of that property."

and therefore:

..and I should be:

..for it??

Yes. I've never heard of it happening myself. Most people would just leave peacefully or give up the goods. But that doesn't mean a manger couldn't go that way if they wanted. They do have the right.

Sorry if my last few post were confusing. it's been a busy than normal night. Hope this straighten things up

 

[Roadie]

Yes. I've never heard of it happening myself. Most people would just leave peacefully or give up the goods. But that doesn't mean a manger couldn't go that way if they wanted. They do have the right.

Sorry if my last few post were confusing. it's been a busy than normal night. Hope this straighten things up

Thanks for clarifying, but I still cannot fathom how a business owner has the "right" to have a person trespassed/arrested for a box of JuJu Fruits..

I can usually put myself in someone else's shoes and see where they are coming from, but your position is so contrary to the way I think that I can't even begin to grasp it..

 

[BumpShadow]

Thanks for clarifying, but I still cannot fathom how a business owner has the "right" to have a person trespassed/arrested for a box of JuJu Fruits..

I can usually put myself in someone else's shoes and see where they are coming from, but your position is so contrary to the way I think that I can't even begin to grasp it..

Why not? Wouldn't you want every means available to remove an unwanted item from your property, personal or otherwise? I'll admit an arrest for a box of JuJu's would be a bit extreme and unnessary, but would you want your hands tied at all? I thought the whole argument was not to have the goverment make decisions for people. Was I wrong?

My point is still valid. If you enter a property in an unwelcome manner, say bringing an item that is prohibited, than that is trespassing from the start, not at the moment when your confronted with it.

 

[finity]

By your logic, as long as there is no sign that say's "no trespassing", anyone call just walk onto your property and do what they want as long as they don't do anything to interfere, right?

Why, yes. Actually they can.

Anyone CAN just walk onto your property when there is not a "no trespassing" sign. If you don't want them there then you need to tell them to leave. If you didn't want them there in the first place then just put up the sign.

You still haven't answered how having an item that is not visible to anyone & no one knows is even there is disrupting the owners use or enjoyment of his property. You are erroneously equating carrying (something) as openly carrying (something). That's not the debate.

 

[Roadie]

Why not? Wouldn't you want every means available to remove an unwanted item from your property, personal or otherwise? I'll admit an arrest for a box of JuJu's would be a bit extreme and unnessary, but would you want your hands tied at all? I thought the whole argument was not to have the goverment make decisions for people. Was I wrong?

My point is still valid. If you enter a property in an unwelcome manner, say bringing an item that is prohibited, than that is trespassing from the start, not at the moment when your confronted with it.

You are still falsely equating personal property and business property.

A business owner, such as at a Cinema, invites the PUBLIC onto its property. Once you buy a ticket to a movie, do you not then have a "contractual interest" in that Cinema? Yes, they can set rules regarding their actions once on property, but to make disobeying those rules a criminal offense is ludicrous and holds no weight of law in this State. A business owner already has the means available to them to control their property, by asking violators to leave or THEN face trespass. To give a business the power to call for the immediate arrest of a patron for carrying a box of candy(or a gun, or a banana, or for going shirtless, etc), IS involving the Government more because more laws would have to be put in place, more arrests would be made on a day to day basis, increasing LE costs, etc etc.

A homeowner, on the other hand, invites only those he wants on his property. The mere act of stepping foot on private land without an invite IS legally Trespassing. Period. End of story.

The two situations are not even remotely similar logically, morally, or legally.

 

[Roadie]

Why, yes. Actually they can.

Anyone CAN just walk onto your property when there is not a "no trespassing" sign. If you don't want them there then you need to tell them to leave. If you didn't want them there in the first place then just put up the sign.

You still haven't answered how having an item that is not visible to anyone & no one knows is even there is disrupting the owners use or enjoyment of his property. You are erroneously equating carrying (something) as openly carrying (something). That's not the debate.

I know we are basically on the same side on this debate, but...

Is the law written in such a way that a sign is required to make an un-invited guest a trespasser?

 

[Hammerhead]

Heck, even openly carrying (something) against someone's wishes isn't a crime. If I were ever asked to leave because I OC, I'd do so because to not do so would be trespassing. But OCing (something) against a policy, rule or request ISN'T ENFORCEABLE WITH A TRESPASS LAW, unless you've been told "Having (something) will be considered trespassing." "No (somethings)" doesn't meet that standard.

But openly carrying (something) isn't the issue. I CC my sidearm sometimes because I feel it might be more prudent. But I will not disarm because of a sign, rule, policy or request.

 

[Hammerhead]

Heck, even openly displaying something isn't disrupting the owners use or enjoyment. I may offend his eyes or his sensibilities and if it does he can ask me to leave. Because he has this option, he still controls his property. If he chooses to let me be, I'm still not trampling his rights.

If I CC to avoid that, I'm still not trampling his rights because he can still ask me to leave for anything or nothing. He still controls his property. I still control mine and exercise my natural rights too.

In either case, my sidearm stays put unless needed and remains just a complex machine I carry around.

 

[BumpShadow]

Why, yes. Actually they can.

Anyone CAN just walk onto your property when there is not a "no trespassing" sign. If you don't want them there then you need to tell them to leave. If you didn't want them there in the first place then just put up the sign.

You still haven't answered how having an item that is not visible to anyone & no one knows is even there is disrupting the owners use or enjoyment of his property. You are erroneously equating carrying (something) as openly carrying (something). That's not the debate.

Yes I have, but since your going to keep badgering me about it because your to lazy to look it up yourself, I'll spell it out to you.

How you carry doesn't matter. OC or CC your still carrying. Just because no one knows you have trespassed doesn't mean you haven't.

You are still falsely equating personal property and business property.

A business owner, such as at a Cinema, invites the PUBLIC onto its property. Once you buy a ticket to a movie, do you not then have a "contractual interest" in that Cinema? Yes, they can set rules regarding their actions once on property, but to make disobeying those rules a criminal offense is ludicrous and holds no weight of law in this State. A business owner already has the means available to them to control their property, by asking violators to leave or THEN face trespass. To give a business the power to call for the immediate arrest of a patron for carrying a box of candy(or a gun, or a banana, or for going shirtless, etc), IS involving the Government more because more laws would have to be put in place, more arrests would be made on a day to day basis, increasing LE costs, etc etc.

A homeowner, on the other hand, invites only those he wants on his property. The mere act of stepping foot on private land without an invite IS legally Trespassing. Period. End of story.

The two situations are not even remotely similar logically, morally, or legally.

If you carry an unwanted item onto a property, business or personal, contractual or not, IS trespassing. I never said "immediate arrest", as the law states the person must be confronted first. Unless confronting the person presents a safety risk. But the right to arrest a trespasser is always there. Now, whether or not an officer will follow though is a differrent debate. But a property owner, business or otherwise, always retanes the right to have a have a trespasser arrested.

But lets say for a second that contractual interest does play a role. Now you have an obligation to follow the policies of the business to recieve their services. The policy is "No Firearms", but your carrying. Even if they don't notice, your still carrying thus still trespassing. Even if they don't ever catch on all thats happened is you have gotten away with trespassing.

Being confronted is there to resolve the matter at the lowest plossible level, not because you haven't done anything wrong.

Do you see my point yet?