Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:18 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 I think this is the right forum.. 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:45 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
cobb wrote:
For a person to ignore that posting, they are violating the property owners rights, period.


That's not true, and adding "period" doesn't make it true.

Ignoring someone's wishes is not violating their rights.

The "no guns" sign has about the same legal standing as "No shoes, no shirt, no service."

Also, a store is a "public accomodation" -- a quasi-public place with quasi-public rules. By law, you can't hang a "No Jews" sign. Also by law, you can hang a "no guns" sign, but it only provides a courtesy notice to permit holders that they may be asked to leave.

When you invite the public in, you agree to some diminishment of "private" property rights -- and the law has set the degree of balance between "private" property rights and self defense rights.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:41 pm 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
Andrew Rothman wrote:
cobb wrote:
For a person to ignore that posting, they are violating the property owners rights, period.


That's not true, and adding "period" doesn't make it true.

Ignoring someone's wishes is not violating their rights.

The "no guns" sign has about the same legal standing as "No shoes, no shirt, no service."

Also, a store is a "public accomodation" -- a quasi-public place with quasi-public rules. By law, you can't hang a "No Jews" sign. Also by law, you can hang a "no guns" sign, but it only provides a courtesy notice to permit holders that they may be asked to leave.

When you invite the public in, you agree to some diminishment of "private" property rights -- and the law has set the degree of balance between "private" property rights and self defense rights.


OK, not rights, as a property owner he/she has no rights in limiting service for a behavior or act that he does not approve of.
Always amazes me that the few that will dissect and decipher the law to fit their rights, needs or wishes. But if it is presented by an opposition this way, then their response is no, no, no, or that's stupid, because they don't agree.

As far as what I teach in class, I teach the law, it's penalties and not what I believe it should be. I do express in my class that this is still a great country and property owners do still have some rights, or excuse me, wishes. I respect those wishes and stay out of that business and take my hard earn money elsewhere.

Don't care how you spin it, a property owner has rights, wishes, preferences, etc., that should be respected and not ignored.
I like to treat those property owners they way I would like to be treated, if you don't have that standard, fine.

Now for those that don't agree, I have a question that relates to my example of posting property to keep hunters out. If the land is posted with a no hunting sign, you know it is posted by the property owner, but the sign is not signed or does not have the owners name and telephone number on it, do you enter on the property because it doesn't meet Minnesota's posting requirement?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:48 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
cobb wrote:
BurritoButt wrote:
... but doesn't it also violate our right to carry?


Nope, he is not violating your rights, you can still carry, just not on his property and violating his rights.

So in states that their constitution says that hunting is a right, is a land owner violating that hunter's rights by not allowing that hunter to hunt on the owners property?

Don't think so.
Nope. Then again, Bob's farm isn't a place of public accommodation. The laws -- and, IMHO, the rules around propriety -- are different when visiting private property that is a place of public accommodation than when visiting places that aren't. (Some folks, orthogonally -- not present company -- think that the Forum is a virtual place of public accommodation, when it demonstrably isn't.)

As for me, I think the laws should be changed to allow people to discriminate as they please at places of public accommodation; I think the marketplace can handle inappropriate discrimination, here and now, better than the legal system can. That said, that's just my carefully considered conclusion, and not the law and/or rules as they are.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:59 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
cobb wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
cobb wrote:
For a person to ignore that posting, they are violating the property owners rights, period.


That's not true, and adding "period" doesn't make it true.

Ignoring someone's wishes is not violating their rights.

The "no guns" sign has about the same legal standing as "No shoes, no shirt, no service."

Also, a store is a "public accomodation" -- a quasi-public place with quasi-public rules. By law, you can't hang a "No Jews" sign. Also by law, you can hang a "no guns" sign, but it only provides a courtesy notice to permit holders that they may be asked to leave.

When you invite the public in, you agree to some diminishment of "private" property rights -- and the law has set the degree of balance between "private" property rights and self defense rights.


OK, not rights, as a property owner he/she has no rights in limiting service for a behavior or act that he does not approve of.
Always amazes me that the few that will dissect and decipher the law to fit their rights, needs or wishes.
Amazes me, too. I think that all folks should dissect and decipher all laws to fit my rights, needs, and wishes, but I've found that happens much less often than you'd think, strangely enough.
Quote:
But if it is presented by an opposition this way, then their response is no, no, no, or that's stupid, because they don't agree.
Long form: could you unpack that a little? I'm not at all sure what you're saying, and I'd like to.

Short form: huh?
Quote:
As far as what I teach in class, I teach the law, it's penalties and not what I believe it should be. I do express in my class that this is still a great country and property owners do still have some rights, or excuse me, wishes. I respect those wishes and stay out of that business and take my hard earn money elsewhere.
I think that's an utterly reasonable position for you to take. Mine's similar, although a bit more nuanced -- which is why I'm not at all bothered when I carry at the Mall of America, but wouldn't carry at Sister Sludge . . . until the girls took those silly signs down. Worth noting, I think, that both of us -- you, not ever visiting the Mall; me, ignoring the signs -- are being utterly law-abiding.
Quote:
Don't care how you spin it, a property owner has rights, wishes, preferences, etc., that should be respected and not ignored.
I like to treat those property owners they way I would like to be treated, if you don't have that standard, fine.

Now for those that don't agree, I have a question that relates to my example of posting property to keep hunters out. If the land is posted with a no hunting sign, you know it is posted by the property owner, but the sign is not signed or does not have the owners name and telephone number on it, do you enter on the property because it doesn't meet Minnesota's posting requirement?

As to the latter, nope -- not because it would be unlawful to, but because, in my opinion, it's inappropriate for me to hunt on private land when the land owner hasn't made it clear that I'm welcome to. The only way I'd ever end up hunting on private land where I don't have explicit (not written, necessarily in theory or, in practice, ever) permission is accidentally -- say, if I cross over an invisible line onto such land when hunting where I do have that right (public) or permission (private).

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:01 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 1064
Location: Minneapolis, MN
1. If your 40 acres is not open to the public, I am not going on your land regardless of signs
2. If your 40 acres IS open to the public but posted no shoot / no hunt, I will not shoot or hunt on your land (regardless of sign requirements)
3. If it is shorter for me to walk through your yard to get to the convenience store, I will not walk through your yard (posted or not)
4. If Super America is posted and I am Open Carry, I will not go into SA
5. If Super America is posted and I am C.C., I will go into SA

Do you tell your students it is or is not legal to enter a posted establishment when carrying a gun?

cobb wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
cobb wrote:
For a person to ignore that posting, they are violating the property owners rights, period.


That's not true, and adding "period" doesn't make it true.

Ignoring someone's wishes is not violating their rights.

The "no guns" sign has about the same legal standing as "No shoes, no shirt, no service."

Also, a store is a "public accomodation" -- a quasi-public place with quasi-public rules. By law, you can't hang a "No Jews" sign. Also by law, you can hang a "no guns" sign, but it only provides a courtesy notice to permit holders that they may be asked to leave.

When you invite the public in, you agree to some diminishment of "private" property rights -- and the law has set the degree of balance between "private" property rights and self defense rights.


OK, not rights, as a property owner he/she has no rights in limiting service for a behavior or act that he does not approve of.
Always amazes me that the few that will dissect and decipher the law to fit their rights, needs or wishes. But if it is presented by an opposition this way, then their response is no, no, no, or that's stupid, because they don't agree.

As far as what I teach in class, I teach the law, it's penalties and not what I believe it should be. I do express in my class that this is still a great country and property owners do still have some rights, or excuse me, wishes. I respect those wishes and stay out of that business and take my hard earn money elsewhere.

Don't care how you spin it, a property owner has rights, wishes, preferences, etc., that should be respected and not ignored.
I like to treat those property owners they way I would like to be treated, if you don't have that standard, fine.

Now for those that don't agree, I have a question that relates to my example of posting property to keep hunters out. If the land is posted with a no hunting sign, you know it is posted by the property owner, but the sign is not signed or does not have the owners name and telephone number on it, do you enter on the property because it doesn't meet Minnesota's posting requirement?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:30 am 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
joelr wrote:
-- which is why I'm not at all bothered when I carry at the Mall of America, but wouldn't carry at Sister Sludge . . .

Mall of America is a whole different scenario, but if you realize it or not, I think you are agreeing with my point.

joelr wrote:
it's inappropriate for me to hunt on private land when the land owner hasn't made it clear that I'm welcome to.

Again I think we are on the same page. Or is it acceptable to ignore the posting against carrying, the owner or tenant has also made it clear that a permit holder carrying is not welcome?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:00 am 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
tepin wrote:
Do you tell your students it is or is not legal to enter a posted establishment when carrying a gun?


You are breaking no law when walking past the sign, it is a notification. If you are told to leave the premises and do not do so, then you are guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Hope that answers your question.

tepin wrote:
1. If your 40 acres is not open to the public, I am not going on your land regardless of signs
2. If your 40 acres IS open to the public but posted no shoot / no hunt, I will not shoot or hunt on your land (regardless of sign requirements)
3. If it is shorter for me to walk through your yard to get to the convenience store, I will not walk through your yard (posted or not)
4. If Super America is posted and I am Open Carry, I will not go into SA
5. If Super America is posted and I am C.C., I will go into SA


I have not been arguing the law, others have been doing so as to maybe justify their actions and why they ignore. Maybe going back and reading the first 5 to 7 post will clarify things abit.

My statement and question was about respecting property owners rights, er wishes and why some would ignore the signs. So in the above quote, it appears that when it come to hunting or trespassing the wishes of the property owner will be respected, but when it comes to posting against carrying, those wishes will be ignored. Is because you may get caught in one scenario and not in the other, is that why some feel they can ignore the property owner's rights,,,, damn it, I mean wishes?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:50 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 1064
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Well, getting "caught" would imply I have broken the law. Here are my two rules:
1. Avoid confrontation with anyone
2. Avoid interaction with law enforcement

If I am packing concealed and walk past a sign, no one is the wiser. I get my Coke and the business owner gets paid. I believe someone used the term "no harm no fowl" a few years ago in a related thread on the board. I would never OC in a posted business because I would violate my rule #1 and #2 most likely.

cobb wrote:
tepin wrote:
Do you tell your students it is or is not legal to enter a posted establishment when carrying a gun?


You are breaking no law when walking past the sign, it is a notification. If you are told to leave the premises and do not do so, then you are guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Hope that answers your question.

tepin wrote:
1. If your 40 acres is not open to the public, I am not going on your land regardless of signs
2. If your 40 acres IS open to the public but posted no shoot / no hunt, I will not shoot or hunt on your land (regardless of sign requirements)
3. If it is shorter for me to walk through your yard to get to the convenience store, I will not walk through your yard (posted or not)
4. If Super America is posted and I am Open Carry, I will not go into SA
5. If Super America is posted and I am C.C., I will go into SA


I have not been arguing the law, others have been doing so as to maybe justify their actions and why they ignore. Maybe going back and reading the first 5 to 7 post will clarify things abit.

My statement and question was about respecting property owners rights, er wishes and why some would ignore the signs. So in the above quote, it appears that when it come to hunting or trespassing the wishes of the property owner will be respected, but when it comes to posting against carrying, those wishes will be ignored. Is because you may get caught in one scenario and not in the other, is that why some feel they can ignore the property owner's rights,,,, damn it, I mean wishes?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:50 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
cobb wrote:
OK, not rights, as a property owner he/she has no rights in limiting service for a behavior or act that he does not approve of.

Of course they do, as we've already discussed.

Quote:
Always amazes me that the few that will dissect and decipher the law to fit their rights, needs or wishes. But if it is presented by an opposition this way, then their response is no, no, no, or that's stupid, because they don't agree.

<...>
Don't care how you spin it, a property owner has rights, wishes, preferences, etc., that should be respected and not ignored.

And it amazes me that some people won't acknowledge the black and white print in front of them. The law is clear; if you disagree with it, fight it, but don't assert that the plain text of the law is somehow spin.

They have a right to run their store as they see fit, and I have a right to self defense. There will have to be some compromises.

In 2003, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce was consulted about the carry law. They agreed to the law as it stands. Why? They didn't want strict liability for protecting those that they disarmed.

The legislature had to balance the fundamental human right of self defense against that of private property rights. That balance was reached, and the result is the law we have.

I prefer to honor the wishes of store owners and take my money elsewhere, but I'm not an absolutist: if the family wants to go to a posted restaurant, I'll go, and I certainly won't bother to accommodate the ignorant, irrational fears of the owners by leaving my gun in the car. On the other hand, I won't shoot the place up, spit in the salad bar or pee on the couch, so everyone leaves happy.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:22 am 
1911 tainted
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm
Posts: 3045
So basically I am correct, permit holders will ignore the wishes of property owners to meet their own personal wishes.
Andrew Rothman wrote:
...if the family wants to go to a posted restaurant, I'll go, and I certainly won't bother to accommodate the ignorant, irrational fears of the owners by leaving my gun in the car.

And yes, this justifies it all.
Andrew Rothman wrote:
I won't shoot the place up, spit in the salad bar or pee on the couch, so everyone leaves happy.

Permit holders can legally do what they do, so piss on everyone else. :bang:

Over and out................


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum..
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:05 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
A sign, to me, means they do not want my money. Plain and simple. the great majority of the time, I won't give it to them. I can see Cobb's point about property rights and I don't want to reward their poor business decision (pre-emptively banning a law abiding member of the public.)There are some notable exceptions to this policy.

I teach the law as it's written, highlighting the 2 step process(notice and demand for compliance), pointing out when specifically it becomes a crime and how many of the special tickets we're aware of. I mention concealment's advantages and counter that with property rights. "How would you react if someone flagrantly disregarded your property rights?"

The law is pretty clear on what makes it a crime. Personal choices, morals, and ethics take over from there ... It's their decision to post. It's your decision to go there. Here's what the law says, we all get to make our own decisions.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group