I figured, but wanted to document. LolHe was redirecting.
I figured, but wanted to document. LolHe was redirecting.
I'm holding off a while to see how this comes out, but ............... all the responses are, in my opinion, just opinions of an individual's own translations of "rights, laws, etc., etc.") (sarcasm)
I'm holding off a while to see how this comes out, but ............... all the responses are, in my opinion, just opinions of an individual's own translations of "rights, laws, etc., etc.") (sarcasm)
Huh?
One of my contentions is that concealed carry laws regulate and restrict bearing arms. This guy other guy is saying I'm saying 2+2=5.
I'm simply pointing out that you have to pay a tax to bear arms in this state while out and about in your day.
A tax is a restriction. It's not a redirect at all. It is in support of one of the main pillars of the argument. Government is restricting ones ability to bear arms.
Ok, let's say CHL was done away with and we went to full blown constitutional carry (like it should be), you would still have no right to carry on another persons property, because you have no right, constitutional or otherwise, to be on that persons property.
For that reason, the CHL itself is irrelevant to your claim that a person disallowing carry on their privately owned property is infringing on your 2A rights.
One of my contentions is that concealed carry laws regulate and restrict bearing arms. This guy other guy is saying I'm saying 2+2=5.
I'm simply pointing out that you have to pay a tax to bear arms in this state while out and about in your day.
A tax is a restriction. It's not a redirect at all. It is in support of one of the main pillars of the argument. Government is restricting ones ability to bear arms.
But and I think this is key. (And I really do think this) it's not the government telling you no.
The government isn't telling you with a 30.06 sign. The owner is. The sign is only different than verbal in that the state mandated how it must be phrased.But and I think this is key. (And I really do think this) it's not the government telling you no.
The government isn't telling you with a 30.06 sign. The owner is. The sign is only different than verbal in that the state mandated how it must be phrased.
stdreb27;1062514R said:Disarming someone in a place of business, can potentially harm them, quite a bit. (See Luby's from way back when).
When you do, with the support of the government (30.06 sign), in a space open to the public, how is that not government restricting one's ability to bear arms?
Some gun owners will ignore an invalid no guns sign. Most will honor a valid 30.06 sign. If I'm correct Young gun and others of are of opinion that entering the property of either sign is a violation of the property owners right. However only one is breaking the law. It's the government that will levy the penalty for breaking the law. There is no legal penalty for just violating the owner property rights.
[/FONT]Some gun owners will ignore an invalid no guns sign.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Most will honor a valid 30.06 sign.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT] If I'm correct Young gun and others of are of opinion that entering the property of either sign is a violation of the property owners right.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
No, we said, his request is not an infringement of our right to carry. As stated above, it would only be an infringement if we were required to go there.
I ignore incorrect signs and avoid places with correct ones.
He's never going to understand the concept.
I'm starting to like 30.06 under certain circumstances (people) LOL
I ignore incorrect signs and avoid places with correct ones.
I was correcting your interpretation of what we said.I did not bring up anything about infringement of the pistol holders rights in my post.
And why is that? If one were to follow your logic, your trampling on property rights regardless of signage?
If the sign is incorrect i have no reason to believe they are serious in their request.
If the sign is correct, their desire is communicated quite clearly.