Some thoughts on fixing the proliferation of 30.06 and 30.07 signs next session

[Mexican_Hippie]

For example, Uncle Bob comes over and get hammered during Thanksgiving and starts cussing at people. I kick him out.

Or

Uncle Bob shows up the following year with a 5th of Jack. I tell him to stow it in his car or he's not coming in.


Were my property rights infringed because government didn't create a legal sign for me and I had to give verbal trespassing notice?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

One more.

I own a convenience store. Unruly high school kids come in and are causing trouble acting like idiots. I tell them to leave.

We're my rights infringed because there's not a sign created by the government to prevent unruly high school kids?

 

[Younggun]

If you force me to follow my principles to the letter, then any sign should suffice. Including gunbusters or simply "no guns".

I do feel that having to ask someone verbally to leave after placing signs in visible areas notifying them that I do not want _____ on my property means my property rights have already been infringed by someone when they ignored the sign. I believe the infringement of a right deserves some form of punishment.

Edit to add: I don't believe that removes the ability of the property owner to choose whether or not he wishes the set punishment to be implemented.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

You have the right to post a sign and the right to ask someone to leave. You exercises those rights. How were they infringed?

I'm not an expert but this sounds like a civil matter not a criminal one.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Perhaps we should decriminalize it and you could still file suit against the person for any civil claims?

Or maybe I just dislike government involvement in any dispute, lol

I know I'm biased on that.

 

[Younggun]

Does that mean if I post a sign that say "keep out" and someone comes in I can shoot them so the gov doesn't need to get involved?


Post 323 I stated that going strictly by my beliefs I don't think a gov designated sign is required. Any sign such as "no alcohol" should suffice in the case of your uncle Bob. If he trespasses it would be up to you to file against him for his trespass immediately, give verbal notice, or ignore his violation.


The problem with civil matters is that it often costs more to make something right than you can win in the suit. Or simply more than you can afford to bring suit against someone. Then it becomes a case of rights only being enforced by the wealthy which has many of it's own issues.

 

[Recoil45]

How is running a business any different than owning a home? If I own property it is mine to do with as I see fit. They may have legislation that restricts that, but they also have restrictions on gun ownership and we argue that is wrong as well.

Homes are private and not open to the public. If you open your property to the public you will have some of the public carrying on your property whether it is posted or not. Some by accident and others because they don't care about your silly sign. If you don't want guns on your property don't open it to the public.

 

[TheDan]

I don't believe there is any difference between a house on private property and a business on private property. Any difference perceived today is simply do to violations of property rights in the name of political correctness and "fairness ". We have let things go way to far and we have a choice to reverse this course and restore rights

 

[TheDan]

Homes are private and not open to the public. If you open your property to the public you will have some of the public carrying on your property whether it is posted or not. Some by accident and others because they don't care about your silly sign. If you don't want guns on your property don't open it to the public.

It doesn't have anything to do with guns or any other specific object.

 

[Mreed911]

Homes are private and not open to the public. If you open your property to the public you will have some of the public carrying on your property whether it is posted or not. Some by accident and others because they don't care about your silly sign. If you don't want guns on your property don't open it to the public.

"Open to the public" and "public property" are two different things. A public park is both open to the public and public property. A private business open to the public is just that: private property where the public is invited onto the premises for specific reasons and actions. Just like the "no food or drinks in store" signs aren't legally binding, they help a private business owner provide notice (but aren't required), and that private business owner has the ability to ask that person to leave and, failing that person doing so, to have their wishes legally enforced (under general Criminal Trespass laws).

I'd support simply repealing 30.06/07, removing the handgun language from 30.05, and reverting back to Criminal Trespass laws. Signs then have no force of law, there's no criminal offense until you're asked to leave and don't, and the owner maintains the right to use the law to make it a criminal offense to return (Criminal Trespass Warning) since you've been given notice.

Pretty simple, demonstrably effective, and already in place.

 

[Recoil45]

I'd support simply repealing 30.06/07, removing the handgun language from 30.05, and reverting back to Criminal Trespass laws. Signs then have no force of law, there's no criminal offense until you're asked to leave and don't, and the owner maintains the right to use the law to make it a criminal offense to return (Criminal Trespass Warning) since you've been given notice.

Me too.

 

[Whistler]

"Open to the public" and "public property" are two different things. A public park is both open to the public and public property. A private business open to the public is just that: private property where the public is invited onto the premises for specific reasons and actions. Just like the "no food or drinks in store" signs aren't legally binding, they help a private business owner provide notice (but aren't required), and that private business owner has the ability to ask that person to leave and, failing that person doing so, to have their wishes legally enforced (under general Criminal Trespass laws).

I'd support simply repealing 30.06/07, removing the handgun language from 30.05, and reverting back to Criminal Trespass laws. Signs then have no force of law, there's no criminal offense until you're asked to leave and don't, and the owner maintains the right to use the law to make it a criminal offense to return (Criminal Trespass Warning) since you've been given notice.

Pretty simple, demonstrably effective, and already in place.

Don't start in with the common sense now...

 

[TheRedGoat]

The business is public, but the property is usually still private. Would you like it if some $#@! from the state (or God forbid, federal) government told you what you -have- to allow on your property lest you face fines/charges/penalties? I don't $#@!in' think so.

Uh..they already do. Helloooo, Americans with Disabilities Act.

Private businesses are not immune from government regulations about what they can or cannot do on/with their own property.

TRG

 

[Blind Sniper]

Doesn't the ADA simply state that the building must be handicap/wheelchair accessible (honest question, because I have no idea)? Far fuckin' leap from that to .gov saying that you -MUST- allow licensed citizens to carry on your property.

 

[Younggun]

The ADA is an infringement as well. Just something done in the name of political correctness.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[SC-Texas]

Y'all do realize that property rights have never been inviolate since the dawn of time

 

[Mreed911]

The ADA is an infringement as well. Just something done in the name of political correctness.

I'm a bit torn on this one. Obviously, it's keeping people from discriminating against the handicapped, but one has to wonder if that isn't a business owner's right? Now that businesses require all sorts of licenses, I'd have to say no, it's not their right - they're agreeing to open a business under the conditions of equal access, so they accepted the requirements.

 

[Younggun]

I could agree, if they were allowed to open an unlicensed business and not agree. It seems even the right to have a business has been infringed.

I do believe a business has the right to discriminate however they wish.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[winchster]

.

I do believe a business has the right to discriminate however they wish.


Sent from my HAL 9000

With real liberty, they would be able to. Deny service to anyone for anything. The market would settle it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Does that mean if I post a sign that say "keep out" and someone comes in I can shoot them so the gov doesn't need to get involved?

You have free will. The choice has always been yours to make. But there's still consequences.

Murder has always been a crime and would be tried in a criminal court if you were suspected. Even if there were no criminal court you would also still have any civil wrongful death cases to deal with.

It could work with no government at all as well but that would sideline this entire thread.

Post 323 I stated that going strictly by my beliefs I don't think a gov designated sign is required. Any sign such as "no alcohol" should suffice in the case of your uncle Bob. If he trespasses it would be up to you to file against him for his trespass immediately, give verbal notice, or ignore his violation.

I understand. You're also saying that the 30.06 and 30.07 signs are unnecessary and that not having them shouldn't be an infringement under different circumstances.

The problem with civil matters is that it often costs more to make something right than you can win in the suit. Or simply more than you can afford to bring suit against someone. Then it becomes a case of rights only being enforced by the wealthy which has many of it's own issues.

I think it also makes people weigh what's important and let it go if it isn't. Something to consider. I wish there were more options for mediation and less government.

Too much incarceration and wasted money for things that aren't a big deal.