Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Durus
"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.

61 posted on 07/27/2014 1:26:00 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: Joe 6-pack
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.

62 posted on 07/27/2014 2:03:50 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson