Gun free zone stores

[Frank Ettin]

That's an interesting statement, since I am the one trying to articulate the subtle difference between complying with a law that exists vs not having a law at all. In this case, a law that spells out exactly what the business owner must do to receive the protections outlined and what the perpetrator can expect for his non-compliance.....

Do you think that drivel actually means something in English?

....It certainly appears that you are saying someone "could" violate the pistol-first rule here, explaining that it would be too hard to for the ATF to prove otherwise....

It often may be hard for a prosecutor to prove a violation of the law. Whether pointing out those difficulties serves to encourage violating the law is another matter.

....I am trying, there, to show what a mess the law makes of the jobs of the regulatory agency tasked with enforcing it, in light of modern technologies. I did not encourage anyone to actually do this. If they want to decide this is unprosecutable, I might even argue in agreement with them, because it could well prove to be so, but I wouldn't tell them to do it.....

Exactly. And as is often pointed out, folks get prosecuted and convicted of crimes all the time as the result of happenstance or other unexpected turn of events.

...., stop trying to paint us in some dim light simply to bolster your failing argument.

But Sam, his position is so weak and his understanding so infirm, that's all he has.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Conflate? No. I'm saying that the moral choice is to comply with law rather than avoid prosecution. Laws aren't moral. Choosing to follow them is.....

But that has nothing to do with our discussion. We've been discussing what the law is. Now your attempt it introduce a discussion of the moral imperative for obeying law is how you are conflating the two.

....I'm saying that OK has a law that is separate from their regular trespass laws,....

But that is not what you in fact said. Perhaps you lack the linguistic skills to convey your meaning more clearly.

....that law deals exclusively and particularly with public businesses and guns in a way that is more specific and different from how FL law treats the same issues.

So what? How does that "insight" increase our understanding of the issues being discussed.

Indeed, both the Florida law and Oklahoma law get us to essentially the same place. For the purposes of this thread that is a distinction without a difference.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You understand that my "failing argument" is simply that people should observe and follow the OK law, regardless of the lack of penalties?....

What lack of penalties. If the fellow in Oklahoma doesn't leave when asked he can be fined. And that's exactly how it works in most States, even if there are multiple variations of statutory language leading to similar results.

....Not sure why that is such a stupid notion that multiple mods need to condemn it.

Because --

1. You're taking a fairly basic, simple legal construct sowing confusion about it. That's not helping promote understand of what the law is and how it works.
   
   
2. You're misrepresenting Sam's statements in other threads in a way that reflects poorly on Sam.[/quote]

 

[RX-79G]

Well Frank, as we see so often on this forum, the rules of forum decorum apply to everyone but you, and your understanding of gun law is superior to anyone else, even the ATF. I don't often have a problem making myself understood or reading with comprehension, but somehow any posts that you read are in code. The fact that I am not the only person to be a target of your highly derogatory put-downs leads me to believe that the problem is not 100% mine. You're just an unpleasant person who prefers to have minutia to use against people in your unmannerly abuse of your role as moderator.

 

[CAVHOOAH]

Gun free zones = shooting ducks in water

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well Frank, as we see so often on this forum, the rules of forum decorum apply to everyone but you,...

Some folks, such as you, can't take a hint. If one persists in error, the only possible response will be harsh.

....and your understanding of gun law is superior to anyone else,...

Well it is going to be true that the lawyers here, including me, Spats McGee, Bartholomew Roberts, and several others, understand law better than most other participants here. Our understanding of law is tested pretty much every day of our working lives -- out in the real world, in front of judges, regulators, opposing counsel and our peers -- representing the interests of real people for real stakes.

....even the ATF....

You're no doubt referring to this thread, and if so, you're again misrepresenting things -- another shabby rhetorical trick. Your problem was that you inartfully posed some questions to ATF and then didn't fully understand their responses. But all of that is addressed in that thread (which is why I provided the link that you did not).

 

[Sam1911]

You understand that my "failing argument" is simply that people should observe and follow the OK law, regardless of the lack of penalties?

Not sure why that is such a stupid notion that multiple mods need to condemn it.

Good heavens. The OK law is that IF you are asked to leave, and IF you do not, and IF a law officer is summoned to with it, you may be fined. THAT is the law. I can't tell anyone not to observe and follow it, because it is simply something that CAN happen to you if you do not acquiesce to a command to leave a premises.

The law does not say, "violating the terms of this sign is against the law." It says, if you are asked to leave, you must do so. A simple trespass issue. They simply put it down in text.


In fact, if you read the text of the law, there isn't even a direct instruction to the reader as to WHAT to do or not do. It simply says, if you do the following, you can be fined. How you avoid being fined is left for you to figure out.

Now, it's pretty easy to see that if you don't want to be fined, you should leave a premises if you are asked to do so. But it in no place says that a private party's "no gun" sign is something you're obliged -- legally, morally, or in any other way -- to heed.

An owner's or owners' representative's direct instruction that you must leave does carry that weight -- to the legal (and moral?) depth of a $250 fine. But to say that the sign itself carries legal heft is completely wrong -- not just a little bit wrong, but completely wrong -- because that IS NOT what the law says.




To take that even a step farther, just in case you want to continue to argue for a moral or ethical overtone to this law, the law not only does not proscribe against violating such a sign, but it spells out (for the layman, I would have thought) that a couple of things MAY happen if you do. Not, 'thou must not', but, if you do, an owner might choose to deny you access or remove you. Or, they might not at all. ... But, hey, if they do want you to leave, we the state will support them by sending over an officer and, if need be, enforcing a trespass fine.

Nothing with that kind of maybe/maybe not flexibility contained within it could be considered morally (and certainly not legally) concrete.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

With that logic, we cannot carry anywhere indoors except our own homes. Something I highly doubt many of us would make into habit.


Our modern culture is sue happy. Everything isn't our fault it must be someone else's. I am going to sue to cover my pain or displeasure in anyway even if I am at fault. Companies would rather enact policies that make no sense to avoid POTENTIAL lawsuits than deal with the possibility of one.

Your logic is extremely flawed and/or you completely misread. You don't make the rules on somebody else's private property, plain and simple. Unless the law says otherwise, they can exclude your gun from their property. You can carry on public property, however, as your CCW stipulates. You can carry on private property where it is not disallowed. So you most definitely may carry other than in your home.

 

[Sam1911]

In this case, a law that spells out exactly what the business owner must do to receive the protections outlined ...

I feel like I'm belaboring the point, but I even have to take exception to this.

It does not do what you say it does. (Again.)

This is not "what the business owner must do to receive the protections outlined." Those protections (i.e. trespass laws) are in place for that business owner regardless of whether he has a sign or has no signs. If you walk into a store and the owner asks you to leave because you've got a gun over your shoulder, he doesn't have to point at a sign to show that he can ask the police to remove you. Refusing to leave is a trespass, regardless.

So this is not a REQUIREMENT placed on a business owner, that he must meet if he wants certain protections.

This a clarification of how various laws fit together. I imagine this was included in the law specifically for the laypersons reading it, to make sure they didn't somehow conclude (in their incomplete understanding) that guns were, for some reasons, a protected class and they couldn't be asked to leave. A lawyer would have inherently understood this.

 

[RX-79G]

I feel like I'm belaboring the point, but I even have to take exception to this.

It does not do what you say it does. (Again.)

This is not "what the business owner must do to receive the protections outlined." Those protections (i.e. trespass laws) are in place for that business owner regardless of whether he has a sign or has no signs. If you walk into a store and the owner asks you to leave because you've got a gun over your shoulder, he doesn't have to point at a sign to show that he can ask the police to remove you. Refusing to leave is a trespass, regardless.

So this is not a REQUIREMENT placed on a business owner, that he must meet if he wants certain protections.

This a clarification of how various laws fit together. I imagine this was included in the law specifically for the laypersons reading it, to make sure they didn't somehow conclude (in their incomplete understanding) that guns were, for some reasons, a protected class and they couldn't be asked to leave. A lawyer would have inherently understood this.

The law says:
"If the building or property is open to the public, the property owner, tenant, employer, place of worship or business entity shall post signs on or about the property stating such prohibition. [sic] The carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm by a person who has been issued a handgun license on property that has signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms shall not be deemed a criminal act but may subject the person to being denied entrance onto the property or removed from the property." The implication being that an owner that does not post should not expect to be able to remove the gun owner.

You've systematically made the case that the OK legislature passed a law - Section 1290.22 - that doesn't mean anything because the entirety of that law is contained in existing laws. Why write a pass a law that any lawyer would apparently recognize as both meaningless and redundant?

I, foolishly, assumed that the law is there for a reason and that citizens should heed it.

 

[Sam1911]

I think the fundamental problem is that you are reading the law, grasping the gist of it, but seeing it through layers you yourself are carrying to it and laying over it.

There's a somewhat well known situation (sigh...the details of which I'm forgetting for the moment) in a different state wherein the law says, among other things, that gun buyers from that state can purchase firearms in certain other states. Many, many, many people have read that over the years and instantly assumed that there was an unspoken closing clause there that would read, "but no other." It took some surprisingly insightful folks to realize that the laws did NOT actually say, "and no other," and no other state law introduced such a prohibition. The law that was actually written was technically irrelevant, because -- whatever the original intent might have been -- it simply expressed something that was true anyway. Yes, they can buy guns in those states. And any others they choose to, as well!

It's inclusion, though, induced many people to assume that it carried the same raised-eyebrow, looking-over-the-glasses glare of a stern parent who's dicta were always to be treated as bounded by the tightest of possible limits and need-not-be-spoken constraints, rather than as a flatly-written, exact, precise bit of legal text, which says nothing beyond the actual words written on the paper.

And here, in this case, you seem to be doing the same thing. If the law states that you could be asked to leave if the owner chooses to take offense to your gun, and if the law could be brought to bear if you don't then leave, then surely it is safest to assume that the law is really saying it isn't legal to walk past that sign without heeding it.
And, if the law says, a business owner can put up a sign that says "no guns," and can ask a police officer to help remove you if you refuse to do so, then surely it is reasonable to assume that he MUST put up a sign that says "no guns" before he can ask the police to enforce a trespass charge.

Your assumptions on both fronts are unfounded and I think they point to a basic lack of grasp of how laws work. They aren't analogous to your dad laying down the house rules and letting you understand that they include "...and anything else you'd better have known I don't want going on."

 

[steve4102]

Does being asked to leave, have to be verbal?

Could a business post a no-guns sign and a sign saying something to the effect, "If you are carrying a concealed weapon please leave now". Would that be sufficient for a Trespass violation if discovered, even though there was no verbal request to leave?

 

[Sam1911]

You've systematically made the case that the OK legislature passed a law - Section 1290.22 - that doesn't mean anything because the entirety of that law is contained in existing laws. Why write a pass a law that any lawyer would apparently recognize as both meaningless and redundant?

Seriously? Why indeed. You really AREN'T familiar with much law, are you?

Laws are written by people. Educated people, but still fallible and imperfect folks. And they sometimes write things that are interpreted in ways they never intended. Or they write laws that wouldn't be strictly necessary, but they want to ensure that a certain connection they're gunning for gets understood. Like here, where someone reading the statute without that line might maybe believe that guns were somehow a protected class and you couldn't be trespassed over a gun. Or who knows why? The law says exactly what it says.

And then, a very great deal of law in practice isn't what was written down, solely, but what happened once a case was brought to argue the point. If you want to try to prove that a store owner SHALL/MUST put up a sign in order to press a trespass charge, you'd have to find (or become?) a test case and take it to court.

I, foolishly, assumed that the law is there for a reason and that citizens should heed it.

Again, you're making great over-steps in what it is, precisely, that a citizen should heed.

To take it back to the carrying question, what the citizen should heed is the fine for trespassing, IF an owner should decide to press for such, if he doesn't leave when requested to do so. That's really the only instruction, if it can be called such, to the citizen in that clause.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I imagine this was included in the law specifically for the laypersons reading it, to make sure they didn't somehow conclude (in their incomplete understanding) that guns were, for some reasons, a protected class and they couldn't be asked to leave. A lawyer would have inherently understood this.

It was also political.

As States began to consider "shall issue" laws, there was (at least in some States) pressure from the business community for some sort of express acknowledgement of a business' right to keep guns off the premises. So at least some of these laws were a trade-off to assure the support, or neutrality, of business in connection with "shall issue" bills in the state legislatures.

 

[Sam1911]

Does being asked to leave, have to be verbal?

Could a business post a no-guns sign and a sign saying something to the effect, "If you are carrying a concealed weapon please leave now". Would that be sufficient for a Trespass violation if discovered, even though there was no verbal request to leave?

In some states, yes. In most, no. I recently read over all of the states' varying states on this subject (thank you handgunlaw.us!!!) and some states DO say that a sign itself is sufficient notice that you are trespassing if you carry a gun there. I included those states in my count of about 18 where ignoring a "no guns" sign is against the law.

 

[danez71]

Sam, would you mind sharing that list with me?... even if by PM as to not detract from this thread....

 

[Sam1911]

Ahhh, unfortunately I did not keep the check list I scratched out. It was simply a "yes/no" count based off the info provided at www.handgunlaw.us.

From this thread: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-co-shooting-case.809639/page-2#post-10417900

 

[herrwalther]

Well in the cases you gave, you would be going onto private property and NOT your property. If you are not the owner or tenant (with appropriate lease agreement) and it is not otherwise mandated by law, then policy certainly may have the weight of law. Depending on the state, you may be able to be in the parking lot with your gun, but not enter the actual store with a gun, or you face trespass charges (as noted).

Just because a store may be a public place does not make it public property.

Your logic is extremely flawed and/or you completely misread. You don't make the rules on somebody else's private property, plain and simple. Unless the law says otherwise, they can exclude your gun from their property. You can carry on public property, however, as your CCW stipulates. You can carry on private property where it is not disallowed. So you most definitely may carry other than in your home.

My flawed logic is your flawed logic. Rules are not the same as policy. Law is not the same as policy. Likewise policy that is not enforced is completely useless. Unless every no gun business starts doing pat downs at the door, a no gun SIGN is just that, a sign you can stroll on by. Even businesses mentioned here already do not enforce their own policy. I go to Target a couple times a month. And every time I go, I always see someone open carrying a firearm and not get a second blink from a store employee or fellow customer. You can put a sign on your house that says "no black people allowed" but it won't be enforceable unless someone stands there denying entry.

As pointed out several times in this thread, only a handful of states carry the rule of law with no gun signs. You CAN be asked to leave if you are carrying a gun against store policy. And at that point, only be prosecuted on refusal.

 

[Sam1911]

Your logic is extremely flawed and/or you completely misread. You don't make the rules on somebody else's private property, plain and simple. Unless the law says otherwise, they can exclude your gun from their property. You can carry on public property, however, as your CCW stipulates. You can carry on private property where it is not disallowed. So you most definitely may carry other than in your home.

My flawed logic is your flawed logic. Rules are not the same as policy. Law is not the same as policy. Likewise policy that is not enforced is completely useless. Unless every no gun business starts doing pat downs at the door, a no gun SIGN is just that, a sign you can stroll on by. Even businesses mentioned here already do not enforce their own policy. I go to Target a couple times a month. And every time I go, I always see someone open carrying a firearm and not get a second blink from a store employee or fellow customer. You can put a sign on your house that says "no black people allowed" but it won't be enforceable unless someone stands there denying entry.

As pointed out several times in this thread, only a handful of states carry the rule of law with no gun signs. You CAN be asked to leave if you are carrying a gun against store policy. And at that point, only be prosecuted on refusal.

Double Naught Spy and herrwalther, I'm not at all sure I grasp why you're arguing with each other or even that you have a disagreement at all! You're both starting out with these digs at each other about "your flawed logic" but then both go on to say things that DON'T contradict each other!

Yes, any private entity can make its own policies, and no, you don't get to make those policies for them. Yes, any private entity can post signs that say "no guns." Yes, any private entity can choose to enforce those signs with controlled entry points, metal detectors, pat-downs, etc. Any private entity can refuse entry to you (with your gun) if they discover you to be carrying one. And can remove you from the premises if they find you in their property with one. Or they can choose not to. Or they can choose not to bother checking you at all, and allow you to walk in without even looking at their signs. And any private entity, once giving you direct notice to leave, can ask law enforcement to remove you and/or press trespass charges. This is true in every state.

In about 18 states, an entity posting a no-gun sign makes the location LEGALLY off-limits, with varying sorts of criminal penalties.



None of those things are in any way debatable. ... so ... like, what are you guys arguing over?

 

[mjsdwash]

Is a law that has no penalty not still a law? It seems like a strange distinction to say that something isn't illegal just because you can't be arrested or ticketed, even though it is on the books as a prohibition.

Its no different than "no outside food", or "no shirt, no service" here in washington. The sign has no law, it creates an exception to denial of service discrimination.

 

[Sam1911]

Is a law that has no penalty not still a law? It seems like a strange distinction to say that something isn't illegal just because you can't be arrested or ticketed, even though it is on the books as a prohibition.

Its no different than "no outside food", or "no shirt, no service" here in washington. The sign has no law, it creates an exception to denial of service discrimination.

The fundamental problem with RX-79G's argument is that he's looked at the penalty for staying in a store when asked to leave, and held that basic trespass matter up beside the secondary commentary and context of this particular statute which talks about carrying guns and "no gun" signs, and added the two together in his mind, making a logical jump to conclude that there is -- there MUST be -- an unspoken "shadow" law in play that makes the act of ignoring a posted "no-gun" sign illegal.

But there is no such "ghost" or "shadow" law hidden in there, unstated but compelling. The law is what was actually written. And all that was written is a reiteration of basic trespass law. If you are asked to leave, you must leave or be fined. And, yeah, they can ask you to leave because of your gun.

 

[RX-79G]

The fundamental problem with RX-79G's argument is that he's looked at the penalty for staying in a store when asked to leave, and held that basic trespass matter up beside the secondary commentary and context of this particular statute which talks about carrying guns and "no gun" signs, and added the two together in his mind, making a logical jump to conclude that there is -- there MUST be -- an unspoken "shadow" law in play that makes the act of ignoring a posted "no-gun" sign illegal.

But there is no such "ghost" or "shadow" law hidden in there, unstated but compelling. The law is what was actually written. And all that was written is a reiteration of basic trespass law. If you are asked to leave, you must leave or be fined. And, yeah, they can ask you to leave because of your gun.

Actually, the basis of my argument is that the law makes it fairly clear that a sign is necessary for a business to eject a customer because they are armed, or to expect LE to fine them for refusing to leave after being asked to for the reason of having a gun. The law states the necessity of having a sign, twice.

Now I'm sure the counterargument is that a business can eject a customer for any reason, but if the customer refused and it went to court, it strikes me that there would be grounds for dismissing the case because the business did not fulfill the specified precondition to eject customers for guns, specifically, since there is a law on the books that articulates this extra element that doesn't apply to other reasons for removal.

I'll accept that this higher burden put on the business doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a balancing legal expectation put on the customer to conform. But I don't see how you can call this law meaningless in its effect. It appears to create something similar to a protected class - people carrying guns cannot be asked to leave without proper signage, similar to how you couldn't ask someone to leave because of religion. And if you tell someone to leave without giving them a reason, you become open to accusations that the reason was due to something protected, like race or religion.

In other words, you can always ask a man to leave for being disruptive or without shoes, you can never ask a man to leave for being Hispanic, and you can ask an armed man to leave only if you met the legal requirement of having a sign.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, that wasn't the basis or the focus of your earlier arguments, which centered around the question of an "against the law but not criminal(?)" law against carrying a gun in violation of a store's sign -- which doesn't exist -- but I agree we picked up the rather secondary question of whether a store MUST put up a sign in order to ask a gun carrier to leave, along the way. Sometimes when an argument is not going well, it is helpful to shift to arguing about something else, in order to keep the argument going. Otherwise, the whole argument might just die out, and wouldn't that be sad?

But again, you want to maintain that a private entity that doesn't bother to put up a sign, for some reason would not have the lawful ability to ask a patron to leave simply because that patron is carrying a firearm. In other words, the existence of this clause in 1290.22 essentially nullifies the right to trespass law protections that any property owner would normally have, in the case of someone carrying a gun -- if that entity does not first erect a "no guns" sign.

In other words, a store owner could ask any patron to leave and press trespass charges if they don't. UNLESS that patron is carrying a gun which would then act as sort of a magic shield against trespass laws...

I do not see why this nullification would happen, but I can understand why you would conclude that it does. I imagine a lawyer might be able to offer some realistic explanations of why 1290.22 does not create a protected class (the gun carrier) that could not be evicted from a premises when such a person otherwise could be, but I doubt such an explanation would convice you. Short of that, you're probably going to have to find a case that has been brought before OK state courts and decided on those grounds to set that precedent, and I doubt such a case exists. Fortunately, there really is no harm in you believing that it is so, because I doubt you're a business owner in the state of OK, and so this remains a pretty academic exercise.

 

[RX-79G]

Sometimes when an argument is not going well, it is helpful to shift to arguing about something else, in order to keep the argument going. Otherwise, the whole argument might just die out, and wouldn't that be sad?

And sometimes, instead of discussing the argument, you engage in an ad hominem about the person making it. If you wanted this argument to die, you wouldn't keep posting about it.

But I didn't mean that I have been arguing about this aspect - I meant that the "shall" portion is what first caught my attention to the statute as being important and different in the first place. This has nothing to do with anyone else conflating "illegal" with "criminal".

I do not see why this nullification would happen, but I can understand why you would conclude that it does. I imagine a lawyer might be able to offer some realistic explanations of why 1290.22 does not create a protected class (the gun carrier) that could not be evicted from a premises when such a person otherwise could be, but I doubt such an explanation would convice you.

This is just another ad hominem. If you want to offer an argument, do so. If not, don't make it sound like my point is due to my inability to understand or being deliberately argumentative. You are being argumentative as well, but I'm not trying to use it against you as a character flaw instead of discussing the topic itself.

 

[Sam1911]

Funny how "meta" these things get.
1) Argue point A.
2) Point A eventually gets flattened. Don't accept this. Instead...
3) Switch to arguing point B.
4) Point B also eventually gets dispensed with. Don't accept this either. Instead...
5) Switch to complaining about HOW other people are treating us. Use the phrase "ad hominem" a lot.

And sometimes, instead of discussing the argument, you engage in an ad hominem about the person making it. If you wanted this argument to die, you wouldn't keep posting about it.

"Instead?" You mean to say that you haven't noticed that both Frank and I have answered every single point you've brought up at great length? I'm not interested in making a debate die, but I am interested in finding and sharing understanding. If you keep illustrating that you don't understand a point, and you bring up new points which also have flaws, I feel it is worth continuing to dissect and clarify them, to the best of my ability.

Perhaps you aren't simply arguing and really all these posts that Frank and I have taken as arguments from poor understanding are really just questions, and you simply aren't good at asking questions without making it look like you're trying to tell everyone else that they're wrong and you're right. If so, my apologies, but you do carry a lot of the responsibility for how you're received.

But I didn't mean that I have been arguing about this aspect - I meant that the "shall" portion is what first caught my attention to the statute as being important and different in the first place.

You didn't mean that you have been arguing about this aspect? Ok.

Yes, the word "shall" is in there. It seems you feel it is quite important, in that the word is not "may" or "can" or "could", and it gives this passage farther reaching impact which you've assumed to be what you read into it.

I've suggested that I don't believe that to be the case, and explained how the matter would have to be tested out.

This has nothing to do with anyone else conflating "illegal" with "criminal".

Who else is conflating "illegal" with "criminal?" I don't think anyone has even brought up such a thing. You DID introduce the idea that there is (or must be!) an "illegal" element to walking past a "no guns" sign in OK, based on how you interpreted the trespass reiteration that concludes that passage. And that was wrong.

I do not see why this nullification would happen, but I can understand why you would conclude that it does. I imagine a lawyer might be able to offer some realistic explanations of why 1290.22 does not create a protected class (the gun carrier) that could not be evicted from a premises when such a person otherwise could be, but I doubt such an explanation would convice you.
This is just another ad hominem.

Anything is an ad hominem if you don't like it or it makes you uncomfortable. In the first line I am trying, fairly gently, to point out that I do understand, based on your direction of argument and the assumptions you make WHY you would come to the conclusions you have. I do not agree with them, and I have pointed out why at great length. But I believe I do understand WHY you see X and Y in black letter text and then conclude that they must add up to Z.

In the last passage I'm merely recognizing that you do not appear to be swayed by the opinions of men who have studied the law professionally, and that I anticipate and understand that you would very much prefer a concrete legal judgment in a case before the OK state supreme court to say "THIS IS HOW IT IS." Unfortunately, such is not available.

If you want to offer an argument, do so.

I believe I have done so, at great and careful length. If you need more clarification on any of the points I've made, ask. I'll be happy to try again.

If not, don't make it sound like my point is due to my inability to understand or being deliberately argumentative.

You have made several argument which were CLEARLY made due to the fact that you do not understand certain things about law. And you have followed a pattern (which I pointed out above) which is rather classical inability to accept and acquiesce to someone else's superior argument which refutes your own suggestions.

You are being argumentative as well, but I'm not trying to use it against you as a character flaw instead of discussing the topic itself.

Hee hee! "I bring this up here to point out that I'm NOT MENTIONING THIS AT ALL!!!" Nicely done.

If you don't like being accused of such, a better choice would be to, at some point, say something along the lines of, "Oh, ok. I see how that is. You're right. Thanks for explaining that principle," or words to that effect. When you appear to abandon a point you "lost" and jump to strenuous defense of some other point, and then leap to decrying unfair ad hominem attacks, it all looks like deflection and deliberate argumentativeness.

Maybe this is something we can work on so it doesn't become a future distraction?