peacefuljeffery,
You seemingly are ill informed, on at least a few points:
I was not trespassing if you had not informed me that I was. For that to be so, you would have had to have informed me that I was no longer welcome (having a store that is open to the public counts as welcome until it is revoked explicitly).
Whom are you trying to kid. You were plainly informed that you were not welcome on the property if armed and you in sheer disregard of that sign entered the property. Don't say now - oh I did not see the sign - you already premised this by saying you disregarded what it said and went in or, would disregard it and go in anyhow.
You would under the law of most states, if not all, be trespassing if you were there on the owner's property against his will. If his will, clearly stated in any type of sign state: No entry while carrying firearms and then you enter his property carrying a firearm, you would be guilty of trespassing in almost any court of law. Again your apparent disregard of the rights and privileges of others is seemingly unabashed. Unless specifically stated in the law, you have no right granted to you by any authority to carry a weapon onto private property of another who forbids it.
I believe that even if I were on your property, if I were legally carrying that firearm, if you drew on me because of my simply carrying it (not using it, holding it, brandishing it...) it is YOU who would be breaking the law.
I tell you what, just keep disregarding those no entry to armed people signs, see what happens sooner or later. In many states, when you find a trespasser on your property who would be trespassing because you prohibit armed individuals on the property, that would be more than enough to hold him for police. If the store owner feels threatened enough, by saying something like: When I said hey mister you with the gun don't move, and you moved even one iota, that could be seen as a grave threat and upheld in any court especially if the store had ever been robbed in the past. Even without that the store owner would probably be found to be within his rights as you were the ARMED trespasser. Do it in some states, you are not only trespassing but are in violation of the carry statutes applying to when you can carry. How many laws would you like to break? Sure it will not EVER happen, but I guess you are into this so heavily that you could not see the hypothetical if I were inclined to do this waiver in my statement. In other words it was more tongue in cheek than anything - but it certainly could happen, and while the person who drew on you may get in some hot water you can be assured you would too. To boot you would likely loose your permit and be sued quite successfully.
Anyone who posts such a sign and then attempts to argue that it can in any way serve the purpose of hindering the commission of violent crime is -- absolutely -- either an IDIOT who believes it or a LIAR who claims he does when he does not.
and
I understand your claim that as a property owner he has a right to make the rules. I just don't understand why you are not able to separate his right to make the rules from the idea that his rule is misguided and idiotic given that it can't possibly work.
The person who posts a sign, prohibiting firearms on his/her property need not give you (unless required by law) any reason for not permitting firearms on the property. You again show a seemingly arrogant, less than respectful attitude by believing that they have the same reason you believe them to have. They do not need to have any reason at all other than that is the way they want it. This is not stupid in any fashion. Being disrespectful of another's wishes concerning that other person's property while you are carrying concealed is the, in y opinion, stupid thing. It will sooner or later lead to more bad press and more rules against gun ownership. Keep on screwing us all by breaking the rules whether they be those of the law or of private citizens concerning when you ARE INVITED or DENIED ENTRY onto their property.
The ONLY right of his that I am violating is his right to usurp MY rights.
He is usurping no rights of yours, you are on the other hand making armed intrusion onto his property. You can go wherever you want, wherein it is legal to carry, except his property. How is that usurping your rights? You are going into his property with the intention of violating his rules for his property. You DO NOT NEED TO ENTER HIS PROPERTY AT ALL, LET ALONE UNDER ARMS! So why not just stay off of his property? Is your self image that small that you have to disregard the wishes of others even on their own property; do you have to lift your leg and leave your mark so to speak to show who really is top dog?
Why not go to a big amusement park armed someday, one that refuses entry to armed people, and sneak in armed. Then let someone see you are armed. See what happens. Or better yet, why not enter a grammar school that forbids armed individuals on the property, let them know you are armed, and see what happens. I do not advocate doing it, and I know I would not unless in the course of my duties. If you do it, I will be watching on Fox news as you are arrested.
LOL! Like I would be itching to go back to your store
Well isn't it obvious that you were itching enough to enter it in the first place despite the signs telling you not too. You had the gun on yet you, under the circumstances, say you would enter anyway! What kind of guy does this make you? First you have to enter - then you imply you would not want to enter again! Are you just looking to cause that trouble, then after you do it, you do not go back to that store to spite yourself? Why go inside in the first place, just to see if you can get away with it? Is it just to make trouble? Are you an anti gun person who got a permit and now is trying to ruin it for the rest of us by giving permit holders a bad name? Are you the enemy within our own ranks? I am wondering!
The manager of a Sports Authority might shoot me even though I committed no aggressive act, just on the basis that I was carrying a firearm I am licensed to carry and flouting their rule prohibiting such??!
Maybe the owner of a Sports Authority store just got robbed yesterday, or a week or a month ago, and an employee got shot. Could have been by a guy who came in just like you, dressed like you, who maybe even looked like you even just a little bit. Any move you make to adjust your carry rig could be seen a s a threat. Even if you do not make a move you could easily be seen as a threat. You do not know what is going on in the mind of the store owner or manager or security guard when they see you are armed. Here is the kicker - you seem to think that even though you can violate the prohibition against carrying into the property, they cannot violate the prohibition against shooting you before you make some overt threat! You seem to think you are the special one who is allowed to break the rules set by others - whic by the way is a very liberal frame of mind. What makes them so different than you, and why are you so high and mighty as to be able to violate the rules and at the same time think others cannot violate the rules? You can chance it all you want. Then again, why not enter onto some ultra extremists property with a gun, property that was posted no entry by armed individuals all others welcome. See what happens. if it be a truly ultra leftist or truly ultra rightist you may get shot because he or she is simply a nut and because you have a gun. What do they care if it was legally justified, and now that you maybe are dead and buried in the swamps somewhere, who cares. No that could not happen because I forgot, you or people like you are the only ones who can brea the rules and have it go your way!
As for this:
As far as filing a baseless, frivolous lawsuit is concerned... Glenn, why is it that you seem to find it so easy to think like a libsheep?
I will address both issues in this quote, the frivolous law suit statement and the libsheep thing:
As for the frivolous law suits you mentioned - I guess you do not watch the news too much. Frivolous law suits are bit by bit destroying our right to keep and bear arms. Sooner or later one of the many so called frivolous law suits is deemed good enough to go to court. It then cost a lot of money to defend. It can lead to a victory for the anti gunners too. So just keep pushing the issue by entering places that prohibit your entry.
As Mad Man pointed out:
You may be cavalier about whether or not you can enter the store again. But do I really need to explain what happens to you, as a gun owner, if you have a restraining order against you?
You do not even need a restraining order against you to lose your permit to carry in some states. Enough founded allegations will do you in whether or not a court issues a restraining order. Just keep doing whatever it is you want to do on another's property, sooner or later you will wind up in hot water because of it.
As for that libsheep question:
Are you saying what I think you are saying or implying? If we do not agree with you and think like you, then we are not right nor are we good but we are rather libsheep. Come now the implication is quite the weak one. I can think like whomever I care to think, or however I care to think but, I certainly am not thinking like a libsheep. The thing here is that I do choose to think. I do not just push my own agenda. I look at it from various angles. I present a few of those angles and all of a sudden you wonder how I think like a libsheep. You do not, in my opinion, know the first thing about how a libsheep thinks or what are the tenets of liberalism.
I believe in the sanctity of private property and private property ownership and the owner's property rights. You are the one who would violate these things. Hmm, whom else did that throughout history? Mostly the libs who tried to overthrow conservative governments come to mind. Sounds very Communistic to me, anyone can enter on anyone else's property in total disregard of the property owner's wishes! How does that sound to you - because in essence it is what you are saying. Again, you do not have to give up your right to carry a gun - just do not enter that person's property! Then give that person hell for having such a rule - but don't do something that is not right to promote your own self indulgence. It is the libs in our society who try to knock down privatization of things, who want to screw the private property rights, who want to screw us all regarding gun rights and so on. The libs are those who believe anyone should be allowed to go anywhere. Goodness that is one of the most liberal ways of thinking that has ever been and, you not realizing such seems to indicate you are either confused or are a lib in right winger's clothing. Are you so stuck up on what YOU want (relative to being on someone else's private property) that you cannot see this.
As for the implication that I may be a lib or even just the question as to why I can think like them, all I can say is that I am rather well versed in thinking before I write. I try to view other sides of the argument before I present my own. I have dealt with libsheep as you call them for many years. I lived in NYC for most of my life and in NYS for most of the remainder of it. I see lib kooks all the time. I try to convert them to becoming humans. I have also arrested enough criminals and dealt with enough defense attorneys to know how they operate and to understand issues they would raise. I have attended enough Republican Conventions where I have seen the liberal protesting and ranting and raving. I have also attended many political rallies on both sides (in capacity as a federal agent and privately). I see their rants all of the time. I read the papers and watch the news, most of which espouses the lib viewpoints. I also listen to Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levine, and the babe whose name I can never recall. I listen to both sides or more sides of an issue. Then I call a spade a spade as I see it, but not until I know more than one side. You seemingly choose to simply assume the other person is doing something for whatever reason you deem fit to assume without asking the why such is the case. Then you call them stupid. How wonderful a way to go about things!
In all honesty the way you go on sort of reminds me of them, the really leftist liberals, as they too always want to trample someone else's rights to promote their own agenda and they do so by incessant ranting about how the other side is absolutely stupid and wrong. I am not saying you are liberal, but your argument surely sounds like the one a liberal would make to trod on another person's rights. As a conservative, on the majority of issues, I choose to uphold the wishes of others in such regards, and if I think their wishes stink then I try to go about changing their minds or changing the rules in a legal manner without violating their rights. This is why I vote, why I join and donate to organizations that promote things in which I believe, why I write to politicians and private citizens expressing my thoughts, and so on. I even write to the ultra left libs such as Schumer and Clinton to express my pro gun ideas, and other pro conservative ideas, in the hopes of changing their agenda here in NY. I have voted in a few presidential elections in my time. I voted for Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush and so on. I have never voted for a Democrat though I do not fault people who do and, if I thought one to best represent my views then I would not hesitate. The thing is they have not done that yet, so they do not get my vote. Does this make me better able to understand those libsheep – I don’t know. I do know that I do not call them stupid for wanting no guns on their property but; I do try to change their views and get them to be pro gun ownership for all citizens. This will not be accomplished by trampling their rights as property owners but, it may come about by showing and teaching them that law abiding gun owners are respectful of others and of the law. I try not to pigeon hole myself or others into a stereotype. Nor do I do such with my viewpoints - that would be a sign of a less than intelligent person and I choose to do things at least a bit more intelligently than that. I also try to be respectful of the rights and privileges of others under the law, at least until the law can be changed.