Posted on 12/14/2004 9:18:33 AM PST by KimRife
You've escalated to destruction of property in retaliation for the owner doing something you dislike. So you've now made it clear that the property owner's right to his property is contingent on his doing only as you wish, under threat of destroying his property. In that case, you should have no objection to your property being destroyed if you do something that someone else doesn't like.
I still preserve my first amendment rights if I enter onto the property of another and speak respectfully, cordially and politely.
BZZZZT! Wrong answer. If you respectfully, cordially and politely advocate electing Hillary Clinton President in 2008, I will order you to leave my property, and you will either comply or be arrested for trespassing.
If I start yelling "You stupid mother*@#*@#, you ought to be flogged and your chidlren #$%&**!..." I should expect to be immediately tossed from and forever banned from that property.
If I enter into a gun "banning" store carrying my weapon and never display it or fire it I haven't hurt anyone, and both the store's rights and mine have been protected.
To the contrary, you have engaged in trespassing. You just weren't caught doing so. At some point, you will be, and you will be ejected from the store.
Location of event, and approximate date: I need to do a search of the news archives.
And your point is? Even if this did happen, you still miss the point that a private property owner has no duty to help you enjoy your rights.
But then maybe that's not such a bad idea. Darwin's law would soon reduce the population to Outlaws and Scofflaws.
Where the heck do you live where getting shot at the local Costco is an actual danger for the average person?
If you only carry your firearm where you think there's an "actual danger" of having to use it, then odds are you won't have it when you need it.
And besides, it's a sensible policy to avoid going to places where you think there might be an "actual danger."
Okay, I'll get them for you. It was sometime in the spring of 1994 and in CA. I will ask my dad exactly when and where when I talk to him tonight as I do not remember, I was just 9 actually and it SCARED me out of my mind!!! I'll get that for you and might even look it up myself on news archives, that would be interesting :)
The FR Gen X posse is a bunch of generalizers. Turn the tables on them and they freak out. My kids are Gen X and they think.
You're confusing the RKBA with a right to self-defense. The two are not the same thing.
Nope. But a business is in reality private property. Property rights are under enough pressure from the government. If a business owner and I don't agree I go elsewhere. I hate smoking bans imposed by government. It should be up to the business owner. I put gun rights in the same category. If I don't want you bringing a gun into my business, that is my right. I carry but I respect the private property rights of the owner of the business.
I would never hold it against Costco employees that their CEO gave millions to defeat Bush. It's not their fault. However I can choose to spend my money elsewhere if the CEO is going to give some of it to the Democrats.
That's WAY too conservative approach for Free Republic (c8
Some days I think it is.
Yup. :o) I definitely understand that!
Now that is a reason to not shop at Costco. And since we don't have one here I'll have to wait to not shop there.
This is the crux of the matter. A proper control system requires not just decision rules, but a detector, a feedback loop, and an adequate forcing function. Detection is never a problem for real crimes with real victims. This type of store rule doesn't really attempt to pre-empt the harmless carrying of arms, as much as it attempts to prevent real violent crimes. Alas, it fails in both desires unless the store owner wants to use medal detectors, or random pat downs (both can be subverted for criminal mischief).
I understand in Texas the law requires a very large, hard to not notice, specific and obnoxious sign in order for property owners to legally post against arms carry. Many stores simply put up non-legal signs so they can have it both ways. The educated ccw carrier can legally ignore it, the sheep can feel safer, and the business doesn't have to waste time and money on procedures and methods that do not provide real security, insult portions of their client base, and would waste judicial horsepower if legal eforcement were a temptation.
"If I enter into a gun "banning" store carrying my weapon and never display it or fire it I haven't hurt anyone, and both the store's rights and mine have been protected."
Absurd ... trespassing is just fine if the owner dosen't catch you ...
Why would you shop there anyway?
The CEO is a major lefty and huge donor to the Kerry campaign and others.
Vote with your feet.
LOL, I don't have one nearby either, it's about 20 miles away. So I can both save a long drive and not shop there!
The Journal of Common Sense, December, 2004 pg 56.
Now cite the source of your contrary information.
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.