Some thoughts on fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs next session

[Younggun]

You have free will. The choice has always been yours to make. But there's still consequences.

Murder has always been a crime and would be tried in a criminal court if you were suspected. Even if there were no criminal court you would also still have any civil wrongful death cases to deal with.

It could work with no government at all as well but that would sideline this entire thread.

That's the point I was trying to make. If the government isn't involved in protecting rights it will leave us to use our own force to protect them.

I understand. You're also saying that the 30.06 and 30.07 signs are unnecessary and that not having them shouldn't be an infringement under different circumstances.

Not sure I completely understand this post as far as the infringement part goes. Yes, they could do away with both signs. And any sign that said "no guns allowed" would constitute notice that bringing a gun is trespassing. No other notice needed for a trespass charge.

I think it also makes people weigh what's important and let it go if it isn't. Something to consider. I wish there were more options for mediation and less government.

Too much incarceration and wasted money for things that aren't a big deal.

Maybe, but I don't believe people should be encouraged to let it go if one of their rights have been violated in some way, even light trespassing or ignoring of property rights. People have been encouraged to do that for so long that now it's become acceptable. I think a better option would be to keep cost down if it is a civil matter, but place the burden of payment for the requested compensation on the accuser should it turn out that no violation had occurred. Should reduce BS claims is think, but still not a perfect answer.



Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[WarHawk_AVG]

"Open to the public" and "public property" are two different things. A public park is both open to the public and public property. A private business open to the public is just that: private property where the public is invited onto the premises for specific reasons and actions. Just like the "no food or drinks in store" signs aren't legally binding, they help a private business owner provide notice (but aren't required), and that private business owner has the ability to ask that person to leave and, failing that person doing so, to have their wishes legally enforced (under general Criminal Trespass laws).

I'd support simply repealing 30.06/07, removing the handgun language from 30.05, and reverting back to Criminal Trespass laws. Signs then have no force of law, there's no criminal offense until you're asked to leave and don't, and the owner maintains the right to use the law to make it a criminal offense to return (Criminal Trespass Warning) since you've been given notice.

Pretty simple, demonstrably effective, and already in place.

Fair enough...

Sent from my 9006W using Tapatalk

 

[TAZ]

"Open to the public" and "public property" are two different things. A public park is both open to the public and public property. A private business open to the public is just that: private property where the public is invited onto the premises for specific reasons and actions. Just like the "no food or drinks in store" signs aren't legally binding, they help a private business owner provide notice (but aren't required), and that private business owner has the ability to ask that person to leave and, failing that person doing so, to have their wishes legally enforced (under general Criminal Trespass laws).

I'd support simply repealing 30.06/07, removing the handgun language from 30.05, and reverting back to Criminal Trespass laws. Signs then have no force of law, there's no criminal offense until you're asked to leave and don't, and the owner maintains the right to use the law to make it a criminal offense to return (Criminal Trespass Warning) since you've been given notice.

Pretty simple, demonstrably effective, and already in place.

Bingo. I'd second this approach of no signs nothing. Folks have the right to ask anyone to leave for any reason they desire be it guns or pink tutus. Not sure why we always feel like complicating things.

 

[Younggun]

So, you feel that entry should only be able to be denied AFTER someone has already entered your property?

I just find it a little strange, it seems you should be able to easily let someone know they aren't welcome with a plain sign and that should suffice.

I feel like many would be much less adamant if it were something other than guns and their own property involved.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[bones_708]

That is why we changed it to the Wisconsin style immunity from suit

www.AtomicLabRat.com

one thing has no connection to the other.

 

[SC-Texas]

Huh?

 

[TAZ]

So, you feel that entry should only be able to be denied AFTER someone has already entered your property?

I just find it a little strange, it seems you should be able to easily let someone know they aren't welcome with a plain sign and that should suffice.

I feel like many would be much less adamant if it were something other than guns and their own property involved.


Sent from my HAL 9000

I protect my private property by locking the door and only letting a very limited number of people in. I do not have an open door policy like say a business open to the public does.

I am also a proponent of controlling actions instead of implements. If someone acts like an ass then act upon their actions and not what they have tucked in their waist band.


With regard to the whole simple sign. I dare you to start a business with tax backed loans or even your own money and post a sign that stated no droopy pants black people allowed and see how that goes over. Hope you have some cash for legal fees left over. Heck for that matter I dare you to go ask a droopy pants black guy to leave cause he is black and has droopy pants. Good luck with that. I'd much rather go down the road of protecting the 2nd as the civil right it is and place the same limits on folks violating it as we do on folks violating gay rights or black rights or Muslim rights. Instead I've suggested a compromise where a business owner may ask a gun owner, or anyone for that matter, whom he identifies as behaving in a manner not to his liking to simply leave.

 

[Younggun]

Citing a rights violation (unable to throw out black droopy pants guy) to justify a rights violation isn't a winning argument for me.


Most of the things people think are civil rights aren't.

Edit to add: I'll come back and break down the rest of your post when I have a little more time.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[bones_708]

I protect my private property by locking the door and only letting a very limited number of people in. I do not have an open door policy like say a business open to the public does.

I am also a proponent of controlling actions instead of implements. If someone acts like an ass then act upon their actions and not what they have tucked in their waist band.


With regard to the whole simple sign. I dare you to start a business with tax backed loans or even your own money and post a sign that stated no droopy pants black people allowed and see how that goes over. Hope you have some cash for legal fees left over. Heck for that matter I dare you to go ask a droopy pants black guy to leave cause he is black and has droopy pants. Good luck with that. I'd much rather go down the road of protecting the 2nd as the civil right it is and place the same limits on folks violating it as we do on folks violating gay rights or black rights or Muslim rights. Instead I've suggested a compromise where a business owner may ask a gun owner, or anyone for that matter, whom he identifies as behaving in a manner not to his liking to simply leave.

But droopy pants white people are OK?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

No shoes, No shirt, Droopy pants, No service

 

[bones_708]

No shoes, No shirt, Droopy pants, No service

But Taz seems to only care if you're black and show your butt.

 

[Younggun]

Shouldn't matter. Still a property owners right to throw them out for any reason. Even if it's based only on their race.


Of course, that right has been infringed because feelings.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[bones_708]

Shouldn't matter. Still a property owners right to throw them out for any reason. Even if it's based only on their race.


Of course, that right has been infringed because feelings.


Sent from my HAL 9000

One could say that but of course a crap load of people as well as the law disagree. It also is a bit of a hijack from the question at hand.

 

[Younggun]

One could say that but of course a crap load of people as well as the law disagree. It also is a bit of a hijack from the question at hand.

Not a hijack at all. It falls back to property rights and what rights a property owner does and doesn't have.


You seem to be confusing "law" with "right". It's a pretty common issue in discussions like this. Once again, people have lived with the two being interchanges for so long they have a difficult time separating the two. The same has happened with rights being tied to feelings. They seem to think that simply doing something immoral or mean automatically violated someone's rights, which is simply not the case.

It all comes back to the simple fact that a person has no intrinsic right to enter the property of another, whether "open to the public" or not.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[winchster]

One could say that but of course a crap load of people as well as the law disagree. It also is a bit of a hijack from the question at hand.

Not really a hijack, it goes back to the idea that in a free society, a business should be able to determine whom it chooses to do business with. That includes LTC holders and those mentioned by YG

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

This conversation is revolving around LTC, but the conversation could revolve around any activity or person and the discussion would be the same and the principle factor would still come down to whether or not a property owner has the right to regulate who may or may not enter his/her property or demand service and under what conditions. They either have the power or they don't. If not, then none of us have the right or even any ownership of our property or the fruits of our labor, and are all subject to forced servitude at any time.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[bones_708]

Not a hijack at all. It falls back to property rights and what rights a property owner does and doesn't have.


You seem to be confusing "law" with "right". It's a pretty common issue in discussions like this. Once again, people have lived with the two being interchanges for so long they have a difficult time separating the two. The same has happened with rights being tied to feelings. They seem to think that simply doing something immoral or mean automatically violated someone's rights, which is simply not the case.

It all comes back to the simple fact that a person has no intrinsic right to enter the property of another, whether "open to the public" or not.


Sent from my HAL 9000

In your opinion. See that is why I fall back on the law because everyone differs on where and how they decide what is or isn't a right. Here we actually have courts that decide what is a right by law and it surely differs from your opinion. So we can have a discussion where nothing can be defined because everyone can, and will, define things differently or we can have a discussion with agreed on definitions by basing thing as defined by our laws and courts. I think it's obvious what is the most productive.

And if you don't think it's off topic you are not being very honest. It's a topic that is important to you but certainly not what the OP was about. Mind you I've gone off topic more than a few times but just cause you want to continue a hijack doesn't mean it isn't a hijack or that I have to go there.

 

[bones_708]

Not really a hijack, it goes back to the idea that in a free society, a business should be able to determine whom it chooses to do business with. That includes LTC holders and those mentioned by YG

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

So the OP had a philosophical question not a practical one on posting businesses? Because telling people that posting a business is some libertarian crime will be doing nothing for anyone.

Yeah hijack

 

[winchster]

So the OP had a philosophical question not a practical one on posting businesses? Because telling people that posting a business is some libertarian crime will be doing nothing for anyone.

Yeah hijack

I get what you're saying. The reason it wasn't a hijack is because the discussion revolves around the very idea of whether or not a person has the right to determine the conditions for entering their property. YG and I believe they do. Several others want to follow suit with the states that force a business to engage in commerce with someone they don't want to. I am against that philosophy across the board, be it 30.06 or cake for a gay wedding.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[SC-Texas]

Well. The discussion deals more than property rights

1. Right of self defense. The individuals right to defend oneself
2. Right to control property

One is specifically mentioned in the constitution.

One is a derived right that is not specifically mentioned but is inferred.

The discussion revolves around the clash of these rights and which one takes presidence