trespassing an open business

[Kutnupe14]

A lot of times when there's a negative OC'ing issue some members bring up the Rosa Parks bus incident making the point that just being black back then was the same as OC'ing is now (as far as public acceptance goes). So if you apply that same thinking to the thread that I'm guessing this is mostly in reference to, would anyone be saying "their property, their rules" if the manager was asking the patron to leave just because he was black? It's not always their property their rules....

Uh yeah, I don't think being black and OC'ing are even remotely related.
There's a choice in one, and none in the other. The alternative to OC is CC, the Alternative to being black is....? Micheal Jackson? That's ay too expensive to pull off me thinks.

 

[RandomName]

Not a lawyer, and definitely not an expert, but the Indiana Code says "not having a contractual interest in the property, "

Having a contractual interest with a business and having a contractual interest in the property are two different things.

I have a contract to pay Bank X my mortgage. That doesn't give me any contractual right to their property. I have a contractual agreement with my tenants to pay me rent, but that doesn't give them any rights to the properties that they don't rent (like my home office).

To expand "contractual interest" to the extent some here are suggesting would basically mean I could move into my bank's lobby and live there until they evicted me because I have a checking account there.

 

[Indy317]

A lot of times when there's a negative OC'ing issue some members bring up the Rosa Parks bus incident making the point that just being black back then was the same as OC'ing is now (as far as public acceptance goes). So if you apply that same thinking to the thread that I'm guessing this is mostly in reference to, would anyone be saying "their property, their rules" if the manager was asking the patron to leave just because he was black? It's not always their property their rules....

Any member is free to violate the Indiana Code at will, and use their money, or maybe funds from NRA, ACLU, etc., to fight the charges. We are just starting in with gun laws and rights. So far we pretty much have a ruling that says we get to own modern firearms in our homes and their are such things as reasonable restrictions. As more and more cases go through the courts, it is only then will we know where we all stand. Oh, and we need to remember we only got the Heller ruling in our favor by one vote.

 

[Roadie]

This is another reason why I conceal carry

Just curious, how many threads are you going to post this on? You are getting very close, IMHO, to becoming a Troll..

 

[Bung]

Their rules!

Same as No Shirt - No Service. It doesn't have to be posted and they can make up a new rule daily.
Some coffee joint in Washington (I think) wouldn't serve a cop and kicked him out of the shop. It was his right to do so for whatever he didn't like about him.

If your saying you have a right to be there because money has already been exchanged - still, no.
They can change the rules to fit their needs and maybe they didn't notice the gun till after you sat down, then acted on it.
Like if you sat to eat and decided to take off your shirt, out you go.

They can pick on anything they want and you don't have to agree with it.

I would love for a shop to only allow gun carriers in. That would be awesome.

I think no shirt and no shoes is a health department regulation. I've always wondered why it says nothing about pants or shorts.

 

[Benny]

Just curious, how many threads are you going to post this on? You are getting very close, IMHO, to becoming a Troll..

But he has a point. CC is the superior way to carry.

OC is for attention-whoring idiots.

 

[ATM]

 

[looney2ns]

I think no shirt and no shoes is a health department regulation. I've always wondered why it says nothing about pants or shorts.

Nope it's not.

 

[Rookie]

But he has a point. CC is the superior way to carry.

OC is for attention-whoring idiots.

I believe the proper term is asshat.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I believe the proper term is asshat.

Did someone say asshattery? I'm in!

 

[Compuvette]

Recently passed anti-smoking laws say that the government thinks otherwise.

And I don't agree with that crap. Not a smoker, just don't like the breach of property rights.

 

[Compuvette]

A lot of times when there's a negative OC'ing issue some members bring up the Rosa Parks bus incident making the point that just being black back then was the same as OC'ing is now (as far as public acceptance goes). So if you apply that same thinking to the thread that I'm guessing this is mostly in reference to, would anyone be saying "their property, their rules" if the manager was asking the patron to leave just because he was black? It's not always their property their rules....

Can't stop being black. Can't untuck your shirt to cover it. Can't leave it in the car either.

Again, I freaking hate people trying to link the OC movement to the civil rights movement.

Just a fat, white, middle-aged white guy for what it's worth.

 

[stephen87]

Did someone say asshattery? I'm in!

Yo tambien.

I believe the proper term is asshat.

Reported.

But he has a point. CC is the superior way to carry.

OC is for attention-whoring idiots.

I know you are, but what am I?


Am I at 50 quality posts yet?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Am I at 50 quality posts yet?

If you have to ask....

 

[SmileDocHill]

From another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by You'll shoot your eye out
Thanks kirk, for the links. I am just trying to figure out what's going on here.

ssblair, I would like to be as secure in my person as I am in my home. As I read the state constitution it seems that I should be, yet plainly I am not.

The more laws we enact the worse off we are getting. The weight of legislation is weighing our rights down when no laws are proper or needed.

I don't understand any of it.

My reply:

I think, and I may be wrong, I may see where you are getting confused. I'm not a lawyer so my logic may be entirely wrong. Since I'm not a lawyer, though, I think I understand your question from a different perspective.
In overly general terms I think the principals behind the laws can be boiled down as follows...
The constitution and 2A recognize, spell out, and ID your rights but that is in the context of the relationship between citizens and the citizen government.
The government is not, however, the only authority a person may be under at any given time. As a guest, customer, employee, or otherwise non-owner entering or existing on privately owned property I should (and to a big extent legally have to) respect the wishes of the property owner (employer). If property owner rights didn't exist like this then mob rule, gov., or someone other than YOU are going to be able to tell you what you can or can't do or allow on your property.

The problem arises when a property owner makes a rule about how people should behave on the owners property (no problem so far) that results in having a huge affect on how the guests behave beyond the property.
If a rule has an affect that controls the behavior of others beyond the "jurisdiction" of the rule maker then there is an issue.

In the case of the parking lot law, owners were saying " it is my property here is my rule...no guns blah blah blah". The problem is that by abiding by that rule you were forced to be limited in your behavior not only at work but on the way to and from work. The parking lot law was made to solve the problem of employers making gun rules that affected employees behavior beyond the scope of a business or property owner.

It basically says look, even though the parking lot is your private property, if you prevent employees from having guns in their car you have caused them to be without elsewhere also. It is a little bit not right that we (the law) are telling you to allow this on your property but it would be more not right for you to control their actions beyond their employment, so here is how it is going to work..enter the law here.

They added the law that prevents employers from being able to even ask about guns to keep employers from gaming the system and firing people (for other official reasons of course) for having them. If you don't want them to know you have them it should be really hard for them to legally find out.

 

[AndersonIN]

But he has a point. CC is the superior way to carry.

OC is for attention-whoring idiots.

I am not a WHORE! I do like the attention and I'm not to bright.......but NOT a WHORE!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But he has a point. CC is the superior way to carry.

OC is for attention-whoring idiots.

I am not a WHORE! I do like the attention and I'm not to bright.......but NOT a WHORE!

If you get paid, you're not a whore. If you're doing for free, well, yes you are