Gun Rights, and Carrying, vs. Property Rights.

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Dallas53, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards.

    8,432
    716
    113
    In Oklahoma a person who enters the home is presumed BY THE LAW to represent an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.

    http://www.oklahoma-criminal-defense.com/media/oklahomas-castle-doctrine-and-stand-your-ground-laws

    Someone walks on your property, not inside the home. They could be asking directions, but you feel uncomfortable. At this point, shooting them is probably not justifiable. You tell them to stop. They don't. You draw and tell them to stop. They don't. Bang. Totally justifiable.
     
  2. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Active Member

    285
    247
    43

    Exactly.
     
    locutus likes this.

  3. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,031
    43
    48
    Or you just shot a deaf person, a person having a serious medical emergency or a person that doesn't understand your language.
    Walking onto your property without any intent to do harm or damage is not an offense punishable by death. You shot an innocent person and now you have to lie to spin it to make him the bad guy. I hope you never have to live with that decision.
     
    MisterMcCool and locutus like this.
  4. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    7,512
    1,932
    113
    http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-burglary-and-criminal-trespass-laws.html

    http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-30-05.html

    the legal statutes in Texas concerning criminal trespassing.

    and to further bring things into context about trespassing. our land is fenced, with hog wire on the bottom, along with four strands of barbed wire that reaches a height of almost six feet. all entryways have gates with chains and locks on them with only three people having keys to them. there are also many "No Trespassing" signs posted, along with purple paint on trees and fence posts, (for those unfamiliar with the meaning of the purple paint, it's used to as means of serving notice of "No Trespassing" in the state of Texas. other states use the same method but use different colors.)

    http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-burglary-and-criminal-trespass-laws.html

    so the thought that someone just wandered up or was looking for help argument, and being armed, well that kind of fell flat in our case.

    now also consider this paragraph, (3), (B) which states as follows:

    (B) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
    Class A misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in jail, fine of up to $4,000.

    see, the signs and purple paint, in Texas serve as legal notice that trespassing is forbidden. and as i have said before, in Texas, trespassing and being armed is not a simple offense.in Texas trespassing while being armed goes from a Class "B" or "C" misdemeanor to a Class "A".
     
  5. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards.

    8,432
    716
    113
    It's possible that it could turn out as you describe. I won't shoot someone just for being on my property. I will try to discern whether the person means me any harm. If I think they genuinely need help, I'll try to help them.

    But if I feel threatened, things are more likely to go as I described. A deaf person won't hear me say stop. But they would have to be blind and deaf to miss someone drawing a gun, aiming it towards them, (maybe low ready if there's enough distance), changing posture to a shooting stance, an angry facial expression and visibly shouting Stop! If they are ignoring all those indicators, and if their appearance has already made me feel threatened, that's when both our lives will be changed.
     
    Ghost1958, locutus and Dallas53 like this.
  6. MisterMills

    MisterMills Active Member

    197
    40
    28
    No right is absolute, and if a property owner does not want me to carry on his property, I try to abide with those wishes. I was escorted out of a Food Lion in Charlotte once, when the manager called the cops on me. I was wearing a 1911 .45, cocked and locked, and I was told not to return to the store.

    So I wrote the owner of the chain, and I received a cock-eyed response. He said it was OK to return to the store, but keep the gun at home. Needless to say, I did not go back, and I did not miss them.

    I was pleased beyond measure when ABC did an expose on the chain later on. They were changing labels on meat, and putting new expiration dates on expired stuff.
     
    Missouribound and Dallas53 like this.
  7. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Active Member

    285
    247
    43


    I'd still bet a brisket shooting someone over a misdemeanor IE just because they are armed on your land even I Texas is gonna be a hard sale unless you hocus pokus up some evidence like taking the guys gun out after you murdered him like another moral high ground sign abider suggested.

    There are perfectly justifiable reasons to use lethal force on or of your property, sign or no sign.

    Shooting someone just for being on it armed and nothing else ain't one of me.
     
  8. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    7,512
    1,932
    113
    that is the responsible and respectful method of dealing with such issues.

    and you are correct. no right is absolute, and even the Supreme Court has held that up several times over the years.

    and some might ask why is no right absolute? simple because if they were at some point they would intrude or infringe upon another person's rights. and what some fail to comprehend is that trespassing is infringing upon another person's rights. what they fail to also understand, is that in place of business that is open to the public, anyone that enters, is essentially a guest, and as such they need to conduct themselves in respectful manner, and abide by the property owner's rules and wishes.

    no one is under any obligation to enter any business, or establishment. if a person doesn't like the rules the owner has put into place, then common sense says take your business somewhere else. in no way does it justify disobeying the rules.
     
    locutus and jigs-n-fixture like this.
  9. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Active Member

    285
    247
    43
    Rules a

    Rules aren't laws. Your open to the public business is factually NOT a private place.
    Someone carrying an inanimate object is not taking anything away from your rights nor harming you 8n any way.
     
  10. Greg_r

    Greg_r Active Member

    385
    106
    43
    Def
    Define "private place". I can see your point here. You choose to let people freely come and go, you can expect to lose some privacy.

    If by "private place" you are meaning "private property" then you are wrong. If you own the property, you have the right to say if a person can stay or not, even if you open it to the public.
     
    locutus, jigs-n-fixture and Dallas53 like this.
  11. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Active Member

    285
    247
    43
     
  12. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member

    7,512
    1,932
    113
    Greg, some people confuse actual facts. if a business is open to the public, the property and premises are still considered private property. meaning the property owner is the entitled to set the rules of conduct within that establishment. anyone there is by invitation and therefore a guest and is agreeing to follow the rules of the establishment.

    in regards to property rights, there is no legal distinction between a residence or business open to the public, in most states. both are considered private property under the law.

    public property is any property that is not privately owned.
     
  13. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Active Member

    285
    247
    43
    Your first paragraph.
    A open to the public business is not a private place by any stretch of the imagination.
    And and the owner should be liable for any injuries or deaths caused by his insisting on disarming his patrons when he in no way can disarm a criminal entering.

    Yep he had the right to tell some folks to leave.
    Others we all know he is not allowed to tell to tell leave, or refuse them entry.
    Religion is a choice. Tell someone to get out because they are Muslim. See how fat that flies.
    The COTUS guarantees freedom of religion. Same BOR. Yes yes I know the courts 100 yrs later. Baloney.
    The real law of the land the COTUS protects the freedom of religion.
    Same COTUS protects the right to keep and bear. Also a choice.

    The precious courts I guess just ain't caught up yet.
     
  14. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,031
    43
    48
    Private owned businesses are not public property. It may be a public retail or social space but it is 100% under your control. Just because you let the public in does not mean you give up your rights to define who may enter. You have the right to refuse service to anyone you choose. But you also have to maintain that standard across the board or else it becomes discrimination. When you enter someone else's property you leave some of your rights at the door. That's not up to interpretation, that's just the way the law sees it.
    While it may be fun to argue different scenarios and play devils advocate it never changes anything. You can just as easily ask a person who smells or is disruptive to leave as well as asking someone to leave if they enter a no-gun zone. And concealed carry is no different, but if you are doing it properly the business owner just won't know. I'm not condoning it, just stating a fact. But it is the duty of the business to post a sign in a place it will be seen upon entry stating that no guns are allowed. Fortunately for me I live in a area where those signs are almost never seen or used. But the few places that have them I have either avoided or just locked the gun in my vehicle if I absolutely had to get something there.
    I'm surprised this thread got as far as it did.
     
    locutus, jigs-n-fixture and Dallas53 like this.
  15. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Active Member

    285
    247
    43

    Actually 's business owner can't refuse service to anyone he chose.
    Try it with a black person.
    Or a Muslim.
    Or any minority.
    Heck try it with a cop of any race, you'll soon be raked over the public coals until you do serve them. At a discount.
    Personally if I'm physically present I'm armed.
    I and about everyone else in my state do not even look for no gun signs because they simply are irrelevant.
    If I do see one anywhere I may conceal but I will be armed. Period
    Concealed is concealed. As to avoiding I tend to avoid traveling in states with FOL signage if possible.
    Now I'm out of this one. Business owners in threads like these always want their cake and eat it too so it's just a roundy round that never ends with them.
    I will say this is the first time a property rights rule everything sign obeyer has suggested shooting a person in cold blood over trespassing or carrying a gun past their no gun sign and then tampering with evidence to hide the murder. And say they want claim the moral high ground lol.
    Something new round every corner I reckon. :confused:o_O

    Y'all carry on.
     
  16. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,031
    43
    48
    Sorry for the mis-understanding.
    You can't refuse service to a black person because he's black, a Muslim because he's Muslim...etc. Those are specific laws regarding racism. But that's where it ends. And the public doesn't dictate the laws. You certainly can tell a black or Muslim man to leave your store if he is carrying and you prohibit it. And no gun signs are the wishes of the owner.
    If you think they are irrelevant then maybe the owner thinks your wishes are as well.
    No law to bend. If he asks you to leave and you don't you are pushing the limits of legality.
    And he can ask you to leave if you are a gun carrying black Muslim.
     
    locutus and jigs-n-fixture like this.
  17. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Active Member

    285
    247
    43
    Y

    Yeah but by the time he's drug thru court and the mud hell wish he hadn't.
    Actually you missed my point entirely.

    But it's not worth going over again.
    Y
    No gun Sign abiders do as you wish.

    So will I.
     
  18. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,031
    43
    48
    Didn't miss your point at all. We agree to disagree.
    The outcome isn't always what the law dictates. I'm merely stating the legality of things while you are drawing valid conclusions. And I don't want to go over it again either.
     
    jigs-n-fixture and Ghost1958 like this.