"No weapons" sign at Ale Emporium?

[chipbennett]

Yes they do. For instance I can restrict your free speech on my property. Now if you do not follow the rules of my welcome I my only legal option may be to revoke your welcome, but that does not mean that my property rights do not override your rights while on my property.

No, you can't. Not legally. Not morally.

You can ONLY allow or disallow the presence of my person on your real property.

 

[Trigger Time]

Yes they do. For instance I can restrict your free speech on my property. Now if you do not follow the rules of my welcome I my only legal option may be to revoke your welcome, but that does not mean that my property rights do not override your rights while on my property.





I didn't say it probably wouldn't be pursued, I stated some jurisdictions most likely wouldn't pursue. There is a large difference.

You state you don't trespass, what do you call it when you go on someone else property when they don't want you there? Or if you ignore a sign like I described?



Agreed.

Ok man I see we will get,no where talking further about this. You have your opinion and I have mine. If you choose to be unarmed best of luck to you. If you choose to not visit somewhere that asks you to disarm best of luck to you then also.
For me I view a business different as individual property and from what I've seen so far in the courts so do they.
Time will tell. As for me you know what I'll be doing. And no one will be harmed or be the wiser

 

[moosehead]

I sure hope the State doesn't start telling people what they can do on their private property...nope. It's private property and they can manage it as they see fit, as it should be.

I agree with you, but it's too late. They already stepped into that arena with the smoking bans.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree with you, but it's too late. They already stepped into that arena with the smoking bans.

And non-discrimination ordinances.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A sign has no agency. A sign can neither welcome nor revoke that welcome.

So a "no trespassing" sign is just a suggestion?

 

[Trigger Time]

I'm just not getting it i guess. A business is even zoned different than private individual property. To be a business you accept a level of accommodation. For example you must accommodate disabled persons right? Or wrong? I'm seriously asking.
So I really don't see the right to bear arms as any different as someone in a wheel chair being able to have access to your business. Why is one more important or protected more than the other?

 

[Trigger Time]

So a "no trespassing" sign is just a suggestion?

No blacks signs were law. Now illegal. Why is a no guns sign any different? I don't see the difference

 

[Trigger Time]

Just like a firearms trust or class 3 that can buy new machine guns or make them with the proper tax status. It's an entity not an individual. A business is an entity not a private individual. So now can an entity discriminate against your constitutional protected right to bear a firearm If you aren't doing anything dangerous with it?

 

[hoosierdoc]

No blacks signs were law. Now illegal. Why is a no guns sign any different? I don't see the difference

protected class

 

[Indynic]

Coming in a little late here. I really like the Ale and have been there a few times since the signs came up.

Something must have happened. Those signs are LARGE. Like 18"x24". Much larger than any sign of this nature that I have ever seen.

Last time in, I was carded at the door on the very left. I had my full size gov't 1911 OWB with my shirt over it. Only thing the door man was worried about was my I.D.

But, I don't like the signs. And I'm sure glad I don't carry a Desert Eagle!

Next time in, I'm going to inquire about the signs. There has to more to the story.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No blacks signs were law. Now illegal. Why is a no guns sign any different? I don't see the difference

There shouldn't be any difference. I standby ANY property owners right to deny ANYONE for any reason, with only a very few exceptions, such as social engineering.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, you can't. Not legally. Not morally.

You can ONLY allow or disallow the presence of my person on your real property.

No? I can't make it a condition of allowing you on my property that let's say you can't use profanity? Or discuss politics? What is illegal about that? Or immoral?

INGO's ban on discussing religion was illegal and immoral? Why did you stick around then and iirc follow the rules at least for the most part? Heck there are still restrictions on speech here.

It's the owners property and they are fit to make the rules they wish, if you or I do not like the rules we can leave. I don't believe it is right to willfully go against the owners wishes when we are invited in with those wishes known. Or heck even after joining they change the rules, we still have the choice to accept the rules or leave. IMO it is immoral to not follow the owners wishes if you wish to come on their property, or to not remove yourself if the rules change.

I agree with you, but it's too late. They already stepped into that arena with the smoking bans.

And the parking lot bill. I don't agree with either.

I'm just not getting it i guess. A business is even zoned different than private individual property. To be a business you accept a level of accommodation. For example you must accommodate disabled persons right? Or wrong? I'm seriously asking.
So I really don't see the right to bear arms as any different as someone in a wheel chair being able to have access to your business. Why is one more important or protected more than the other?

Depends. You have to offer "reasonable accommodations"

Because the govt decided to infringe on property rights in one area and not the other.

Just like a firearms trust or class 3 that can buy new machine guns or make them with the proper tax status. It's an entity not an individual. A business is an entity not a private individual. So now can an entity discriminate against your constitutional protected right to bear a firearm If you aren't doing anything dangerous with it?

It's not the entity, it is the owner of the entity. Your house or yard is not a private individual is it? Can you allow or disallow people in/on them for any reason you wish? Can you tell mommies demanding action that they can't set up a booth in you're front yard? After all free speech is constitutionally protected. Why should the owner of a business have their rights infringed? Are your rights more important?

There shouldn't be any difference. I standby ANY property owners right to deny ANYONE for any reason, with only a very few exceptions, such as social engineering.

Kut the (usually) consistent.

 

[chipbennett]

So a "no trespassing" sign is just a suggestion?

No, certainly not. A "no trespassing" sign has legal weight.

A "no firearms" sign has no such weight. A sign that says "if you have a firearm, you are trespassing and will be arrested" is simply untrue.

Let's do a thought experiment. What if someone has one of these "if you have a firearm, you are trespassing" signs, and someone with a firearm enters the property. What is the property owner's recourse? Can he call the police to report a trespasser? Can he shoot the person?

 

[chipbennett]

There shouldn't be any difference. I standby ANY property owners right to deny ANYONE for any reason, with only a very few exceptions, such as social engineering.

Agreed (though my libertarian leanings would go so far as to make it absolute). But that ship sailed a long time ago, and will likely never come back.

 

[chipbennett]

No? I can't make it a condition of allowing you on my property that let's say you can't use profanity? Or discuss politics? What is illegal about that? Or immoral?

You can certainly make such a condition. There is certainly nothing immoral about making rules regarding profanity or discussion of politics or whatever on your property.

The problem is: you cannot force someone to follow those rules while on your property. Your only recourse is to trespass a person who chooses not to follow them.

INGO's ban on discussing religion was illegal and immoral? Why did you stick around then and iirc follow the rules at least for the most part? Heck there are still restrictions on speech here.

Setting rules for one's private sandbox is neither illegal nor immoral, and I never said otherwise. Trespassing someone for failing to follow said rules is neither illegal nor immoral, and I never said otherwise.

What I said was that it is illegal and immoral to disarm someone who is otherwise acting lawfully.

If someone is on your property, and is breaking your rule about using profanity, you cannot force that person to stop using profanity. You cannot use physical force to stop that person. You cannot call the police and have the police stop that person. (In that specific example, police may have other recourse, such as public nuisance, disturbing the peace, etc. - but that would not hold for, say, a rule about discussing politics or religion.)

Rather, you can only trespass that person, and require that such person leave your property.

It's the owners property and they are fit to make the rules they wish, if you or I do not like the rules we can leave. I don't believe it is right to willfully go against the owners wishes when we are invited in with those wishes known. Or heck even after joining they change the rules, we still have the choice to accept the rules or leave. IMO it is immoral to not follow the owners wishes if you wish to come on their property, or to not remove yourself if the rules change.

You can certainly make whatever rules you want. What you CANNOT do, however, is force someone to follow them (assuming that the person's behavior is not otherwise unlawful). You can't prevent someone from breaking them. You can't use force to stop that person from breaking the rules. You can't call the police and have the police stop that person from breaking the rules.

All you can do is require that such a person leave your property.

Trespassing a person and disarming a person are two entirely different things.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, certainly not. A "no trespassing" sign has legal weight.

A "no firearms" sign has no such weight. A sign that says "if you have a firearm, you are trespassing and will be arrested" is simply untrue.

Let's do a thought experiment. What if someone has one of these "if you have a firearm, you are trespassing" signs, and someone with a firearm enters the property. What is the property owner's recourse? Can he call the police to report a trespasser? Can he shoot the person?

Why does a "no trespassing" sign have legal weight, but a sign like the one below does not? Do they not both deny entry?

Firearms prohibited on this property.
Anyone in possession of firearm(s) is hereby denied entry.
Anyone entering beyond this point while in possession of a firearm
will be trespassing pursuant to IC 35-43-2-2

Heck how about this sign?

Employees only beyond this point.
Persons who are not employed by this facility are denied entry.

For your thought experiment, the property owners recourse is the exact same as if a trespasser was beyond a "no trespassing" sign. They can call the police to report them, they can tell them to leave and if they don't use reasonable force to remove them. Shooting them? That would depend. Would their actions lead a reasonable person to believe they were in danger of an immanent threat of serious bodily injury or death?

The problem is: you cannot force someone to follow those rules while on your property. Your only recourse is to trespass a person who chooses not to follow them.

Setting rules for one's private sandbox is neither illegal nor immoral, and I never said otherwise. Trespassing someone for failing to follow said rules is neither illegal nor immoral, and I never said otherwise.

What I said was that it is illegal and immoral to disarm someone who is otherwise acting lawfully.


Trespassing a person and disarming a person are two entirely different things.

No I can't use physical force or have them arrested for using profanity, as I stated my only legal recourse would be to tell them to leave. But yes if they wish to remain, they are forced to not use it.

And you didn't? You sure on that? See below.

Yes they do. For instance I can restrict your free speech on my property. Now if you do not follow the rules of my welcome my only legal option may be to revoke your welcome,

No, you can't. Not legally. Not morally.

I stated I can restrict speech on my property. I also agreed that if you do not follow my restrictions that my only legal option may be to revoke your welcome. That doesn't mean your freedom of speech is not restricted if you wish to remain on my property.

And if my rule to be welcome on my property is no firearms, you have two choices. Neither of which involve me disarming you. You can choose to not come on my property, or you can choose to disarm yourself.

 

[chipbennett]

Why does a "no trespassing" sign have legal weight, but a sign like the one below does not? Do they not both deny entry?

Because trespassing is a matter of allowing or disallowing persons.

There are some lawyers on INGO who have opined that such a sign would stand up to legal scrutiny if challenged in court. Others disagree. I'll believe it when I see it.

For your thought experiment, the property owners recourse is the exact same as if a trespasser was beyond a "no trespassing" sign. They can call the police to report them, they can tell them to leave and if they don't use reasonable force to remove them. Shooting them? That would depend. Would their actions lead a reasonable person to believe they were in danger of an immanent threat of serious bodily injury or death?

So, the recourse is the same, regardless of the presence or absence of a sign. It is as if the sign is completely meaningless.

No I can't use physical force or have them arrested for using profanity, as I stated my only legal recourse would be to tell them to leave. But yes if they wish to remain, they are forced to not use it.

And you didn't? You sure on that? See below.

Yes, I'm quite sure. There is a difference between making rules, and enforcing those rules. Making rules is perfectly legal and moral. However, any enforcement of those rules, outside of trespassing a rule-breaker, is illegal and immoral.

I stated I can restrict speech on my property.

You can make the rules to restrict speech, but you cannot actually restrict the speech. (I'm pretty sure that we're agreed on this point?)

I also agreed that if you do not follow my restrictions that my only legal option may be to revoke your welcome. That doesn't mean your freedom of speech is not restricted if you wish to remain on my property.

You're adding the "if you wish to remain on my property" caveat. There's the rub. You can't actually force the person to stop breaking your rules.

And if my rule to be welcome on my property is no firearms, you have two choices. Neither of which involve me disarming you. You can choose to not come on my property, or you can choose to disarm yourself.

And if a person chooses not to disarm himself, and comes on your property, you cannot make that person disarm.

You can only force that person to leave. (I'm pretty sure we're agreed on this point, as well?)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Because trespassing is a matter of allowing or disallowing persons.

So, the recourse is the same, regardless of the presence or absence of a sign. It is as if the sign is completely meaningless.

Yes, I'm quite sure. There is a difference between making rules, and enforcing those rules. Making rules is perfectly legal and moral. However, any enforcement of those rules, outside of trespassing a rule-breaker, is illegal and immoral.

You can make the rules to restrict speech, but you cannot actually restrict the speech. (I'm pretty sure that we're agreed on this point?)

You're adding the "if you wish to remain on my property" caveat. There's the rub. You can't actually force the person to stop breaking your rules.

And if a person chooses not to disarm himself, and comes on your property, you cannot make that person disarm.

You can only force that person to leave. (I'm pretty sure we're agreed on this point, as well?)

Do not my two examples allow or disallow a person? Why yes, yes they do.

Nope, the recourse is not quite the same. With the sign they have notice they are denied entry/not allowed on the property. Let's say I have a sign on my back gate that says "no trespassing" or let's say I have a neighbor who I allow access to my backyard and have a sign that says Person X is allowed, all others are denied entry". And I see someone other than person X in my back yard I can call the police and they can be arrested and prosecuted for trespassing. Without the sign I can either go tell them myself they are not allowed or call the police and have them do so. See the difference?

Yes, yes you did. Is not forcing them off your property enforcing the rules? Heck someone knows that I don't allow profanity in my home, they start cussing like a drunken sailor and I tell them to stop or leave. They continue to use profanity in front of my young daughter. They will be escorted to the property line while being silenced using whatever means I need. While possibly illegal, I see nothing immoral about it.

And yes I can force them to stop breaking the rules, I agree the most likely only legal way is to remove them from my property. That is still forcing them to stop breaking the rules. Since my rules only apply to my property.

The difference between someone who knows I don't allow profanity on my property vs someone who knows they are denied entry if they are in possession of a firearm is this. They started using profanity after I allowed them entry. The person in possession of a firearm was disallowed entry. Since I initially allowed entry to the person using profanity my only legal recourse is to revoke that permission. The person with a firearm never had said permission to enter so they are trespassing with prior notice and as such can be arrested/prosecuted.

ETA Same with let's say a person I invited over showing up and swearing while coming towards my property line. I tell them they are not allow to use profanity or they are not allowed on my property. They continue swearing while crossing my property line, they were denied entry before they came onto my property.

So no we are not in agreement. Forcing them to leave is one option, not the only one.

 

[chipbennett]

So no we are not in agreement. Forcing them to leave is one option, not the only one.

I never said that it was the only option. Only that it was the only legal/moral option.

In fact, while escorting the profanity user off of your property, any attempt to use physical force to silence that person would be an unlawful use of force, and would potentially justify the profanity user to use force in self-defense (assuming, of course, that the profanity user is not using force to resist being escorted off of your property or otherwise acting unlawfully).

 

[Trigger Time]

My mind is blown. Maybe Im On the wrong side of the issue when it comes to this. I'm never against changing my position because all,I do really care about is following the constitution. However this is what is wrong with our current society, meaning there is an overvomplication of things that were never meant to be. It seems that the side that wins is the side that can trick you into believing their way on the issue (not meaning this issue but any issue). The best liar or debater wins instead of the constitution always winning.