Jump to content
Brandyep

No gun signs starting to popup!

Recommended Posts

wallyworld.jpg

 

 

Quote

Where is that sign? (Which Walmart?...I'll have to go to my local walmart and check for signs now!)

 

There is one of these at my Wally World in FL.   But they are smart enough to know that No gun signs do not  carry the force/weight of law in Florida.  Do they have the force of law in NJ?    And that's the biggest bone of contention about getting Constitutional Carry passed in FL. If they try to do it, the "Rodent" and the FRF will demand that No gun signs acquire the force of law (which is what they demanded the last time it came up... the only way to stop no gun signs with the force of law was not to pass constitutional carry).

The only thing a merchant/store owner can do if you are caught carrying openly (or your concealed weapon is deliberately "exposed") in FL is order you to leave. If you refuse to leave, it then becomes a felony - "Armed Trespass."    If gun signs get the force of law, then if you're caught in that store, it becomes a crime immediately - no option to "just leave." 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2022 at 8:08 AM, Scorpio64 said:

Welcome to New Jersey, where everything is expressly forbidden, unless it is expressly permitted by a narrow carve out .

Living under the thumb of dems is such a joy.

 

I hate this frickin state.  Sabastian Forida here I come!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2022 at 8:47 AM, HBecwithFn7 said:

wallyworld.jpg

 

 

 

There is one of these at my Wally World in FL.   But they are smart enough to know that No gun signs do not  carry the force/weight of law in Florida.  Do they have the force of law in NJ?    And that's the biggest bone of contention about getting Constitutional Carry passed in FL. If they try to do it, the "Rodent" and the FRF will demand that No gun signs acquire the force of law (which is what they demanded the last time it came up... the only way to stop no gun signs with the force of law was not to pass constitutional carry).

The only thing a merchant/store owner can do if you are caught carrying openly (or your concealed weapon is deliberately "exposed") in FL is order you to leave. If you refuse to leave, it then becomes a felony - "Armed Trespass."    If gun signs get the force of law, then if you're caught in that store, it becomes a crime immediately - no option to "just leave." 

 

 

Much as I support 2A, if that is really the way Florida law is administered, I have a serious problem with it. 2A is not the only amendment in the Bill of RIghts. The 4th Amendment secures private property rights, which reasonably include the right to bar anyone you like from your property, for any reason you choose. Yes, I know that this has been compromised (wrongly, imo) by discrimination legislation, but it remains a fundamental right that I think is every bit as important as 2A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2022 at 11:34 AM, TOAD said:

I'm pretty sure Jeff Bezos said it's okay to shop Amazon while carrying...in the comfort or your home :rolleyes:

Alexa said it is ok, I didn't even have to ask.  He already has Alexa spying on me.  My android phone listens in as well.  Ever start getting adds for stuff you talked about on your phone?  I have.  I never take a picture of any of my items with my phone, I'm Pretty Sure they would just be added to some registry, serial number and all.  Ever take a picture of something and use Google lens?  I trust none of this technology.  Damn, I'm feeling paranoid today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2022 at 8:58 AM, samiam said:

Much as I support 2A, if that is really the way Florida law is administered, I have a serious problem with it. 2A is not the only amendment in the Bill of RIghts. The 4th Amendment secures private property rights, which reasonably include the right to bar anyone you like from your property, for any reason you choose. Yes, I know that this has been compromised (wrongly, imo) by discrimination legislation, but it remains a fundamental right that I think is every bit as important as 2A.

Where does Florida Law prevent a property owner from telling someone to leave who is presumably committing an act they disagree with? 

While I agree property owners have rights, however if they provided public spaces they cannot assume everyone entering will know or understand their policies. Putting up signage assumes that customers are required to read it, and its not assumed people will read every piece of information on a door while entering, neither are they required to. 

It's not specific to Florida, just about everystate requires the person be notified they have been ordered not to tresspass before a law is broken. 

And keep in mind, the 2a just like the 4a, applies to government respecting your rights. If for example an establishment wishes not acknowledge my 2a, why should we respect their 4a?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Where does Florida Law prevent a property owner from telling someone to leave who is presumably committing an act they disagree with? 

While I agree property owners have rights, however if they provided public spaces they cannot assume everyone entering will know or understand their policies. Putting up signage assumes that customers are required to read it, and its not assumed people will read every piece of information on a door while entering, neither are they required to. 

It's not specific to Florida, just about everystate requires the person be notified they have been ordered not to tresspass before a law is broken. 

And keep in mind, the 2a just like the 4a, applies to government respecting your rights. If for example an establishment wishes not acknowledge my 2a, why should we respect their 4a?

If you care to read back (one post) in the thread, a previous poster claimed that gun restrictive signs on private property in Florida carried no "legal weight" and stongly implied that passing constitutional carry would render all such signs completely impotent. I was replying to those contentions and to the apparent endorsement of the idea that 2A liberties trump private property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, samiam said:

If you care to read back (one post) in the thread, a previous poster claimed that gun restrictive signs on private property in Florida carried no "legal weight" and strongly implied that passing constitutional carry would render all such signs completely impotent. I was replying to those contentions and to the apparent endorsement of the idea that 2A liberties trump private property rights.

What did you mean by that?  Just to be clear, what I was stating is that, given the way things are, currently, if Constitutional Carry were to be passed in FL today, the "Rodent/FRF" would insist that no gun signs acquire the force/weight of law, where they currently do not.  But, even without the force/weight of law, the signs at least give you the merchant's position on the matter.  The only thing the merchant can do without force of law is order you to leave if you are caught carrying (either concealed or open). If you refuse to leave, it becomes a crime (armed trespass - A felony).  With Force/weight of law, the fact that you carried in the establishment, on its own, creates a crime, regardless of whether you leave or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the government starts passing laws, prosecuting gun owners it becomes a 2a issue. 

Property owners already have 4a rights, and this doesn't provide or remove them, it simply establishes a punishment for a violation. 

If the 2a states we have a right to keep and bear arms, if private property owners want to BAN guns from their property they can do it in civil court just like ever other fucking property dispute takes place. Or, they can process no tresspass orders for violaters, and have them arrested if they come back..

Like I said before, I've had people trespass on my property before and the cops would do nothing unless they had a certified document where the offender acknowledged he wasn't allowed. Even after the cop told him not to come back, the cop still said if he did it again he would only tell him to leave. I was blown away after an entire police report was documented, they still wouldn't do anything. We ended up having a letter drafted, served and certified, which was presented to the PD to be placed on file. 

I also agree samiam, that the government cannot compel you to allow firearms on your personal property. It should be widely acknowledged that property owners do not have to respect anyone's rights, and as such you can decide to enter the property. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HBecwithFn7 said:

What did you mean by that?  Just to be clear, what I was stating is that, given the way things are, currently, if Constitutional Carry were to be passed in FL today, the "Rodent/FRF" would insist that no gun signs acquire the force/weight of law, where they currently do not.  But, even without the force/weight of law, the signs at least give you the merchant's position on the matter.  The only thing the merchant can do without force of law is order you to leave if you are caught carrying (either concealed or open). If you refuse to leave, it becomes a crime (armed trespass - A felony).  With Force/weight of law, the fact that you carried in the establishment, on its own, creates a crime, regardless of whether you leave or not. 

I took "carries no legal weight" and ""no force of law" to be broader than you apparently meant it. I took you to mean that a property owner who wanted to bar certain conduct on his property, in this case the carrying of handguns, had no legal recourse to do so. I would have a very serious problem with that situation. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going have to disagree on the "property owner rights" when it comes Constitutional Rights such as 2A.  Perhaps I would have entertained the idea that property owners should have ultimate say in who can enter their property and under what conditions.  But the society, law (or abuse of it), and Govt (the abuser) strayed toooo far away from it.

Let me explain. Due to convoluted laws, unholy public / private "partnerships", insurance leverage, banking leverage etc, I am not sure the sign property owner puts up is what actually he/she believes in genuinely.   Businesses operate on license approved by Govt.  When Govt pulls leverage directly and indirectly, how can one really tell if its the business what is opposed to certain things or its the leverage thats causing them to oppose such things ?

This was very evident with the C-19 "pandemic".  Under the threat of business permit getting pulled, hammer of regulation (completely unrelated to actual nature of business) and insurance threats / costs, many businesses just folded and put the signs up.  When you walk into the business, you can even see the tell-tale signs of coercion.  If its REALLY upto the property owners, then Govt should not have directly and indirectly pulled leverage in the direction it wants those businesses to buckle.

So, as average citizen, what are your options ? Do nothing and stop doing giving money to businesses ? To what extent ? What if ALL corporate owned grocery stores in the town puts up signs (just like they are forced to do for C-19) ?   Are you supposed to stay quiet and go hungry ?  Or you supposed to exercise your 2A but just hope no one notices or some Karen doesnt call cops ? Or should People band together and sue the sh*t of everyone involved including the business ?

What if Airlines, Amtrak, Grayhound, Transit etc all put up signs saying no carry. Most of them are private "technically" but are HUGE recipients of public / tax money.   What are you supposed to do ? Walk, take a buggy ? How is that different from what NJ Court System told Carry Applicants before Bruen - "Find a different business or way to make a living, or move out of NJ".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CJack said:


What if Airlines, Amtrak, Greyhound, Transit etc all put up signs saying no carry. Most of them are private "technically" but are HUGE recipients of public / tax money.   What are you supposed to do ? Walk, take a buggy ? How is that different from what NJ Court System told Carry Applicants before Bruen - "Find a different business or way to make a living, or move out of NJ".

 

They already do that, to an extent. Amtrak does not allow the carrying on of firearms unless you are Amtrak Police.  And they only allow firearms to be "checked" on long distance trains where there's a baggage car with a secure cage.  Sadly, that knocks out the "Auto Train" as there's no "baggage car."  You may not see a sign on their premises but it's definitely in their regs on the website. And, just like airlines, all baggage is subject to search by dogs, etc. I believe the same applies to bus lines, and other forms of transportation, even if it's not always enforced.  I think it's more enforced on airplanes as that's an easier target to hit.  I have seen it enforced on the Auto Train. On occasion, they'll have the dogs do a quick sniff search of the cars before they're loaded onto the containers. They'll also bring the dog into the terminal at times (officially to give the dog a break from the heat) but unofficially to sniff people's carry on baggage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CJack said:

I am going have to disagree on the "property owner rights" when it comes Constitutional Rights such as 2A.  Perhaps I would have entertained the idea that property owners should have ultimate say in who can enter their property and under what conditions.  But the society, law (or abuse of it), and Govt (the abuser) strayed toooo far away from it.

Let me explain. Due to convoluted laws, unholy public / private "partnerships", insurance leverage, banking leverage etc, I am not sure the sign property owner puts up is what actually he/she believes in genuinely.   Businesses operate on license approved by Govt.  When Govt pulls leverage directly and indirectly, how can one really tell if its the business what is opposed to certain things or its the leverage thats causing them to oppose such things ?

This was very evident with the C-19 "pandemic".  Under the threat of business permit getting pulled, hammer of regulation (completely unrelated to actual nature of business) and insurance threats / costs, many businesses just folded and put the signs up.  When you walk into the business, you can even see the tell-tale signs of coercion.  If its REALLY upto the property owners, then Govt should not have directly and indirectly pulled leverage in the direction it wants those businesses to buckle.

So, as average citizen, what are your options ? Do nothing and stop doing giving money to businesses ? To what extent ? What if ALL corporate owned grocery stores in the town puts up signs (just like they are forced to do for C-19) ?   Are you supposed to stay quiet and go hungry ?  Or you supposed to exercise your 2A but just hope no one notices or some Karen doesnt call cops ? Or should People band together and sue the sh*t of everyone involved including the business ?

What if Airlines, Amtrak, Grayhound, Transit etc all put up signs saying no carry. Most of them are private "technically" but are HUGE recipients of public / tax money.   What are you supposed to do ? Walk, take a buggy ? How is that different from what NJ Court System told Carry Applicants before Bruen - "Find a different business or way to make a living, or move out of NJ".

 

The solution to that is to go after the quasi-governmental ownership abuses, along with the crony capitalism/corporatism on which those abuses are based, not concede private property rights to whoever feels like abusing them, no matter whether that concession is in an attempt to promote some other basic right, or not. Humans do not have individual basic rights (i.e.,speech, self-defense, property security) in a vacuum, each isolated from the other. Those rights exist as a gestalt: anything that dimishes one of them, for anyone, ultimately dimishes the status of all of them, for every individual. The idea that gun rights supporters can "win", while property rights and speech rights supporters simultaneously "lose" is, imo, a fallacy. Socialists, statists, and other collectivists know full well the utility of "divide and conquer". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...