It is indisputable that notice has been provided to me and I received it at a couple of doctors offices that use those little stand-up signs on the reception desks with letters 1/4" high, at a bookstore that uses a picture of a gun in a circle with a line through it, and buried in the masses of informational pamphlets that I'm provided (but don't sign for) at various medical clinics.It is indisputable notice was provided to OP and he received notice.
The Statue reads Provided to the person, not " provides". A Statue is synonymous to a contract of adhesion, you do not change the wording, or even the punctuation. It is never liberally construed, more especially to the writer.provides (third person present)
- make available for use; supply:
provides (third person present)
- make available for use; supply:
Yes I am desperate to know who wants to deny me carry rights so I can go elsewhere with my money.
The Statue reads Provided to the person, not " provides". A Statue is synonymous to a contract of adhesion, you do not change the wording, or even the punctuation. It is never liberally construed, more especially to the writer.
Tell me, what's the cover charge at your church?
Legal definition of "Provide notice": The formal receipt of papers that provide specific information.
Formal receipt and specific information are both missing from your mental gymnastics. A general handout does not meet the definition.
Now you are just making stuff up.
Why can't we take the charitable view of this situation?
Yes.how vague and misunderstood many of our laws are.
And yes.Op needs to sort this one out for himself.
Given the limited scenario OP provided, I would argue if he strolled in with an AR-15 on his back he would then be given legal verbal notice. Probably also if he OC'ed a Glock on his hip. A CC piece might depend on who caught him and how well they knew him.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what anyone on this thread has argued or how much they seem to be in disagreement with others, pretty much everyone agrees that the risk is so negligible as to be effectively nonexistent.he wanted to know if he is at risk of violation.
How such a simple question by the op can draw so many different opinions shows how vague and misunderstood many of our laws are.
Now who's making stuff up?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what anyone on this thread has argued or how much they seem to be in disagreement with others, pretty much everyone agrees that the risk is so negligible as to be effectively nonexistent.
How such a simple question by the op can draw so many different opinions shows how vague and misunderstood many of our laws are.