Posted on 12/10/2007 7:49:56 AM PST by jdm
I just ignore the signs. Unless they install metal detectors at all the entrances and pat everyone down who is coming in, what they don’t know won’t hurt them.
The same way the government can tell you not to use a legal product, tobacco, in many places. In both cases, it is the government camel keeping its nose under the tent to remind us of its "rights" and power.
I agree with the conservatives whom Tice describes.
Magnetometers at the entrance, it's on the way.
As a related question, if you are a legal CCW holder and are carrying in a legal manner, what penalties does one face for carrying in a business marked “no guns”?
Rmember the phrase; It’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Then the shooting will start at the entrance. They won’t wail until they get inside.
They won’t wait until they get inside either.
Well none actually, since the company lacks any enforcement mechanism the only thing they could do is to ask you to leave the premises. IMHO
Doesn’t a property owner have a right to ban guns from his property, even if it is unwise to do so? And aren’t those who believe such a ban puts them at risk free not to enter his property? Aren’t customers assuming any risk, and waiving any right to recompense, when they knowingly and voluntarily enter a gun-free zone?
The property owner has the right to ban guns, just like he should have the right to chain a fire exit closed. The customer has the right to sue when, in either case, the owner’s reckless disregard for the safety of the customers causes harm.
Likewise, a property owner has the right to keep lose rattlesnakes in his store. Here again, his reckless disregard for the safety of his customers creates a tort when one of the snakes bites someone.
Banning guns from a venue open to the public is as reckless as chaining the fire exits closed or allowing rattlesnakes to roam lose. Some trial attorney is going to become very wealthy when he starts taking these cases.
The owners of the mall were exercising their private property rights in declaring the mall a "gun free" zone. By posting that sign, they implicitly take responsibility for the safety of all who enter...including assurance that their prohibition is enforced on everyone who enters. The owners failed to prevent an armed person from entering their premises and killing persons unarmed by their policy. It is reasonable to hold the owners accountable for creating the situation that allowed the carnage.
Depends on the state. In mine, they have no legal force (unless posted someplace carry is illegal regardless of signage). You can only be asked to leave, and theoretically arrested for trespassing if you refuse.
In Nebraska, and I believe some other states (Texas is one), signs that meet certain standards do have force of law. You could be arrested for illegal possession of a firearm in a place with a properly posted sign even if you were otherwise legally permitted to carry.
Texas’ concealed carry law makes it a crime to carry in a place that bans concealed carry. You can be charged with a crime and have your permit revoked.
Here in Virginia if you carry somewhere that is posted, and you are caught, you can be asked to leave. If you do, no problem, if you don’t you can be charged with trespassing.
I am personally more interested in the original question since I refuse to surrender my Right to keep and bear arms for the state issued privilege to carry concealed...
Not being a lawyer, but keenly interested in the subject, my understanding is that prohibiting firearms does not create a legal liability unless they also make an attempt at providing that security/protection. In other words, if they simply post no firearms allowed, they created no legal liability, however if they provide a security guard, which fails to prevent an attack, the un-armed patron does have a legal claim.
Morally, there is no question, if you deprive me of my right and responsibility to defend myself, you are then liable for the repercussions you caused.
It depends on the state, but it could easily be a felony offense to be carrying concealed illegally.
You nailed it. Business owners have a private property right to ban guns from their premises, but they also have a legal responsibility to provide a safe environment. You have every right to make the decision to ban guns from property you control, but you’re responsible for the consequences.
That’s why I support a law stating that any legislator who votes against carry on a public university campus should be held legally liable if a shooting occurs. That would have a lot of Virginia senators and delegates mucking the stalls at the James River Work Center.
What I would like to know is where they get the notion that a constutionally protected right can be violated.
They don’t ask to remove your vocal chords so you can’t shout fire in a theatre.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.