Doctor shoots armed patient in Philly hospital: A gun rights case is born

"While Ad hominem attacks are practically de rigueur for liberals, it doesn't make them appear to be clever..."

Hmmm. Elitist, presumptuous notions of telling a property owner what he can/can't/must/mustn't permit on his property are also the typically the domain of liberals but that hasn't stopped you from indulging in the same.

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."

I never said a property owner can "force," you to disarm. They can make disarming yourself a condition for remaining on (or in fact, entering) the property. Since you wish to be technical, a property owner who openly declares and posts, "no weapons allowed," has made that a known condition for permission to access the property. A person ignoring that and packing onto the property is there without the implicit or explicit permission of the owner and is therefore trespassing the moment they step foot on the property.

Now, you seem to be making a big deal about the carrier needing to be asked or told to leave. Of course...because the property owner doesn't know they're trespassing (i.e. on the grounds without consent) until they become aware that the carrier is in violation of the conditions the property owner set. If you're on vacation and somebody comes onto your property without your permission or knowledge, that doesn't make it "not trespassing," simply because you were unaware they had come onto it without permission. Which begs the further question...why would you carry on a property where you know the owner's thoughts and expressed opinion, but callously disregarded them? That's also something more commonly associated with the left than the right.

Go back to my earlier example of the people on your lawn. Suppose you had a big family gathering and knew there were some extended relatives who were big Obama supporters, but out of a sense of comity you invite them but explicitly state, "Campaigning for any political candidate is not permitted on my property during the reunion." Now, coming onto your property without permission is trespassing. You have set a condition upon which your permission is contingent. The second that those relatives pack up their Obama flyers to sneak in and hand out at the party, I would argue that they had done so with the intent to trespass, in short, to come on your property without complying with the conditions you had set. The second they set foot on your property (with the concealed flyers) they are trespassing, but you are entirely unaware of it because you are of the belief they are in compliance with your conditions. Now, when you see them start handing out the flyers and extolling the virtues of Obama, you realize they are in violation of the conditions you set for your permission, and ask them to leave because only then are you aware they are trespassing, or you give them the option of putting the flyers back in their car. You're not trampling their rights to political speech, you're enforcing your rights as a property owner.

Of course you, as the property owner can't (legally) Take their flyers by force, or detain them; one would have to be mildly retarded to believe otherwise. Obviously there is no law against campaigning for a candidate, which is a Constitutionally protected right. But you, as the property owner, can clearly restrict and preclude the exercise of that right on your property.

Elitist, presumptuous notions of telling a property owner what he can/can't/must/mustn't permit on his property are also the typically the domain of liberals but that hasn't stopped you from indulging in the same.

I've done no such thing, speaking of ad hominem attacks.

Which begs the further question...why would you carry on a property where you know the owner's thoughts and expressed opinion, but callously disregarded them? That's also something more commonly associated with the left than the right.?

I never said I would so it's a straw-man argument. Further, not wanting people exercising their 2nd amendment rights on your property seems far more "liberal" than conservative, but it is your property to do with what you wish.

But you, as the property owner, can clearly restrict and preclude the exercise of that right on your property.

You cannot restrict their rights while on your property. You can ask them not to exercise said rights, and they can willingly agree, or you can ask them to leave. While they are leaving they can also hand out propaganda and there isn't much you can do about it. Charging someone with criminal trespass is very difficult especially if they leave willingly. The important lesson here is to not invite Obomotons to your party.

"You cannot restrict their rights while on your property. You can ask them not to exercise said rights, and they can willingly agree, or you can ask them to leave."

What you continue to ignore is that you can set explicit conditions for accessing your property. It's not complicated; movie theaters do it everyday. Your welcome to come in and watch a movie...you just have to pay for a ticket first. Different clubs and restaurants have dress codes: no tie, no jacket, no entrance. When a property owner says, or posts, "No Firearms Permitted on the Premises," they are setting a condition for permission to the property. Persons not complying with that condition are trespassing by virtue of the fact that they are entering the property without permission.

Again - I'll refer you to the Q&A compiled by the gun rights attorney from your state:

Q:"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?"

A:"NO, private property rights prevail."

Attorney Dean does state that the means of notice are not statutorily defined, and there is some degree of ambiguity as to what constitutes due notice, but her answer to the question is a direct, unequivocal, 'NO'.

It really doesn't get more simple than that. Note also that the bold is Attorney Dean's, not mine. Parse all you want. Either Attorney Dean is wrong or you are. You can't both be right, despite your protests to the contrary. Now you get with her, and when you're ready to tell me which of you two is right, and which of you two is wrong, let me know.

What you continue to ignore is that you can set explicit conditions for accessing your property.

No I'm not ignoring it, what I'm saying is that those conditions are voluntarily obeyed. At no time does the rights of the property owner allow for anything other than willful compliance of said arbitrary rules, and barring a theft of goods and/or services, the property owners only legal recourse to someone not complying with said rules, is to ask the person to leave. If, and only if, the person refuses to leave does it become criminal.

Either Attorney Dean is wrong or you are. You can't both be right, despite your protests to the contrary. Now you get with her, and when you're ready to tell me which of you two is right, and which of you two is wrong, let me know.

This is called the "false dilemma" logical fallacy and I've already answered it previously. There is a difference between the words "prevail" and "supersede".

Regardless it's a fact that a person can walk into any establishment in NH, excluding USSC recognized "sensitive areas" such as courts and Post offices, regardless of signs being posted, out of ignorance or intentionally, and the only thing the business/owner could do, if they realized one were armed, would be to ask said person to leave.

Why one would put up such signs is a better question.

In this crazy world I worry every day who is going to walk into the hospital I work in and start shooting. And I feel very vulnerable walking to my car in the docs parking lot, often late at night. Like all hospitals, mine refuses to even consider allowing staff to carry on campus....

Unfortunately the doc will probably be thrown off staff at the facility and have their license challenged at the state board..... Hospitals are not tolerant of staff defending themselves against angry and sometimes crazy patients and families.

Any hospital staff deals with unstable patients and families, often placed under more stress by acute illness. Working in an acute health care setting is working in a dynamite factory - where the explosives are not handled with care and can go off at any time...

"...barring a theft of goods and/or services, the property owners only legal recourse to someone not complying with said rules, is to ask the person to leave."

No, that is not their only legal recourse. They also have the option of denying that person admittance in the first place, which they effectively do. That the other party chooses to ignore that denied permission and willfully trespass anyways, is irrelevant, since that is by definition, what trespassers do.

Then it’s amazing that hospitals have fewer problems than post offices.....

How about...if the doc is reprimanded, then the family of the deceased has grounds to sue on behalf of everyone who did and would be shot as a direct result of enforced policy? Doctrine of competing harms...if he’s in trouble for saving lives, then the hospital assumes responsibility for the harm done and inevitable.