Posted on 07/26/2014 6:42:46 AM PDT by Innovative
A few months ago, a young man knifed a bunch of people in a local hospital where his mother was being treated. He was insane and thought they were killing his mother.
I can’t recall how many died. I guess it didn’t make national news because it didn’t involve a “nasty, dangerous gun.”
They are trespassing. They do not have a constitutional right to trespass and can be removed.
In the spirit of your challenge I suggest you put a sign on your place of business/property line that says "No Blacks, No Irish, and No Muslims allowed" and see what happens.
In the state of Washington, by state law you can’t carry in a court room, school, or bar. Any other place that has a sign and you get caught it is a matter of them asking you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then it gets treated as trespassing.
There was an odd letter written after the Sandy Hook massacre. It was in the form of a letter written to one of the dead teachers. Chastising her for not having a gun on her to protect her children. Went on about how “natural” or God-given rules are greater than some rule that man (the school) sets. It was too harsh in my opinion (the teacher was dead), but it does bring up the point that sometimes man’s rules are not just.
I always have a struggle picking my kids up from school. Bring the gun, or risk having my CCW revoked forever. So far I leave my gun at home.
Honestly, anyone who thinks someone who used a gun to save lives should be punished hasn’t got a shred of logic in them to make them worth debating.
When my Sons went to public school, I’d take my gun to pick them up and drop them off. I’d just stay off of the property. Never had an issue.
What teachers/staff knew me knew I did it, and appreciated it, too.
Definitely. Another good possibility.
What is the rule about a gun in the trunk of your car separated from your ammunition and being on school grounds?
Is that acceptably transporting but at the same time unarmed?
There are both Federal and State laws.
If the firearm is unloaded and locked up, I think it would be alright under Federal law.
State laws vary considerably.
Actually, you have made my point better than I could. The hypothetical devil worshippers/Obama campaigners on your lawn, while engaging in Constitutionally protected activities do not have the property owner's permission to practice their Constitutionally protected activities on his property, and therefore are trespassing. Similarly, when a property/business owner says effectively, "Persons carrying firearms are not allowed on this property," they are denying permission to such persons, and persons carrying firearms on such property are trespassing, although carrying a firearm is, like devil worship, or campaigning for Obama, a Constitionally protected activity.
Similarly, a business owner/property owner can not deny you the right to carry a firearm. They can deny permission to persons carrying firearms onto their property and into their business, whether that person is a guest, customer or employee.
"In the spirit of your challenge I suggest you put a sign on your place of business/property line that says "No Blacks, No Irish, and No Muslims allowed" and see what happens."
I would argue that laws precluding such signs are also un-Constitutional. Yes, I recognize that such discrimination has been recognized and barred by law, but I also consider those laws onerous intrusions on the rights of the property owner. Having said that, the law still merely states that a property owner (of a public venue) can not bar a person from their property for certain, specified reasons, it does not prevent them from barring persons for reasons outside those specifically outlined in law. We've already established that a property owner can bar people from exercising Constitutionally protected activities on their private property (you kicked the satan worshipping Obama campaigners off your lawn).
Business owners in my state do not have the legal authority to forbid customers from carrying concealed firearms. Employment is an agreement between two parties and is completely different subject.
I would argue that laws precluding such signs are also un-Constitutional.
You might be right but that doesn't change reality one bit.
We've already established that a property owner can bar people from exercising Constitutionally protected activities on their private property (you kicked the satan worshipping Obama campaigners off your lawn).
No we haven't. The rights privileges and immunities guaranteed by the constitution to the individual can't be nullified simply because one is on private property. An individual can be asked to leave a private property but their rights cannot be violated. As an example, if I had satan worshiping, Obama campaigners on my lawn (but I repeat myself), I could ask them to leave, but I couldn't legally gag them or use an oxy/acetylene torch to melt their pentacles to their chests.
Just as you don't have the legal authority to forbid people from worshipping Satan...But a property owner can assert whether or not they're going to accept that practice on their property, and if they ask you to leave and you don't, you're trespassing. You're being pedantic, but in spite of your parsing, it still amounts to a de facto authority of a property owner to assert the right to allow or disallow armed persons on their property.
"No we haven't. The rights privileges and immunities guaranteed by the constitution to the individual can't be nullified simply because one is on private property."
You conveniently overlook the fact that the property owner's rights are among the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution. Just as you're under no obligation to allow persons to exercise their protected rights on your front lawn, no property owner is obligated to allow you to exercise your rights on their property.
"Can I carry my loaded and concealed firearm (assuming I have a license to do so) in a New Hampshire business (public place) such as Costco that has a NO FIREARMS sign posted? NO, private property rights prevail. If you are caught carrying a firearm in a business that is properly posted prohibiting firearms (i.e. the sign was of a sufficient size-there is no law precisely defining the ―prescribed manner of posting‖ i.e. what size and type the sign must be-however some guidance may be found in New Hampshire R.S.A. 635:4 Prescribed manner of Posting 40) and posted at the entrance where you entered (thus you had notice) you may be asked to leave (only someone with ―authority‖ can ask you to leave, typically a store manager or even an employee of the store may be deemed to have ―authority‖) and you could be prosecuted under New Hampshire R.S.A. 635:2. 41 See State v. Gaffney, 147 N.H. 550 (2002). (When defendant refused to leave the police station after being asked to do so, there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of criminal trespass under former R.S.A. 635:2, II (b) (now R.S.A. 635:2 III(b) because defendant received strong warnings to leave the station or risk being arrested.) You can be asked to leave even IF you do not have a firearm and even if you believe you are not doing anything wrong, as a business, even Wal-Mart is private property and has a right to control who is allowed on the premises (assuming they are not violating federal law, by, for example posting a ―NO X race allowed‖ or keeping a federally protected category of individuals from entering).
You can't forbid anyone on your property from practicing their religion but you can ask them to leave. It's an important distinction.
You're being pedantic, but in spite of your parsing, it still amounts to a de facto authority of a property owner to assert the right to allow or disallow armed persons on their property.
If I'm being pedantic then you are being obtuse. Private property rights do not supersede other rights. You can ask someone to leave your property for any reason you like, but you can't remove their rights.
You conveniently overlook the fact that the property owner's rights are among the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution.
No...I don't.
no property owner is obligated to allow you to exercise your rights on their property.
Their only legal remedy is to ask the person to leave their property. They can not restrain someone from exercising their rights.
That being said what are the penalties for carrying in a posted place? None. They can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave then you can be charged.
""Can I carry my loaded and concealed firearm (assuming I have a license to do so) in a New Hampshire business (public place) such as Costco that has a NO FIREARMS sign posted?
NO, private property rights prevail."
Nowhere did I say a private property owner can infringe/remove/abrogate your Constitional rights, but they can forbid you from exercising those rights on their property as they see fit.
My time is entirely too valuable to keep educating you for free. Call the author of the piece, Atty Penny Dean, 59 Warren St Concord, NH 03301, (603) 230-9999. Perhaps you can call her to account for the false, misleading information she authored on behalf of GO-NH, Inc.
Here's the website for Gun Owners of New Hampshire: http://www.gonh.org/
Contact them and tell them Atty Dean has provided them with incorrect information so they can demand their money back.
Finally, here's the website for the NH State Bar:
Go there and file a complaint against the attorney for providing erroneous and misleading legal advice, as her analysis was essentially the same as mine, with which you so vociferously disagree.
Which is a de facto prohibition against you or anybody carrying on the property. Your argument is like the gay lobby who parses that, "Nobody every died of AIDS. They all died of other infections that AIDS prevented the from fighting."
Yeah, she must be a real close associate of yours, considering her first name is 'Penny'. And whereas you wrote previously, "Private property rights do not supersede other rights," the very first words Ms. Dean addresses the matter with, are, "NO, private property rights prevail."
Which is it?
Oh dear I misspelled a name. Whatever will I do?
While Ad hominem attacks are practically de rigueur for liberals, it doesn't make them appear to be clever, and doesn't add anything to the conversation. Such behavior is beneath you. I outlined my association with her quite clearly, such as it is, and I didn't say it was a close one. I was simply amused by it.
And whereas you wrote previously, "Private property rights do not supersede other rights," the very first words Ms. Dean addresses the matter with, are, "NO, private property rights prevail."
Which is it?
It isn't an either/or proposition. Private property rights do not supersede other right, as the example PeNNy gave clearly shows. Private property right prevail in that they can ask you to leave, but they can't not force you to disarm, nor is it illegal for you to go there armed.
As an example let's say someone went into a post office while carrying a concealed firearm. According to federal law, by simply by stepping into that property, the person a felon. This is a clear case of Federal law superseding constitutional rights. On the other hand no matter how you post your property, or how a business owner posts their property (in NH), all you and the business owners can do is ask someone to leave and they are obligated to leave.
I was completely unaware of such signs in NH and I've never seen one. If I did see such a sign I would not step a foot inside that business as I wouldn't want to support their desire for an unarmed populace with my money. However if I needed to go in there for some reason, the absolute worst thing that could happen to me is being asked to leave.
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.