Absolutely none of that matters.Hi Mr. @The Night Rider and Mr. @HansGruber,
I appreciate your discussion. I understand and appreciate the points you raise. It is certainly a "make your choices and live with the consequences" scenario. "FAFO" as the kids like to say.
At this point in the conversation a few questions, somewhat rhetorical, somewhat related to case law, precedent, and the Constitution, come to mind. (Note: Everybody should know their state and local laws.)
Who has the right to insist upon his rights?
Who has the right to expect someone else give up their rights?
As Mr. @WellArmed pointed out, if I am exercising my right and nobody knows, is there a downside?
Does the owner of the mom-and-pop shop I frequent realize that they could be putting me and themselves in a dangerous situation, a defensive disadvantage, by insisting I give up my right to keep and bear arms?
Do the owners have the right to take away my right to self-defense? Again, if I am concealed, nobody will know. And yes, if asked to leave I will certainly do so rather than violate any trespassing law.
You all may remember the Greenwood Park Mall shooting. Eli Dicken was legally carrying inside the mall, which was against the property owner's "Shopper Code of Conduct" which states "no weapons".
An armed bystander shot & killed the Greenwood mall shooting suspect. Did he break the law?
An armed man shot and killed the suspect in the Greenwood mall food court shooting.www.indystar.com
A snippet from the above article, I quote:
--------------------------------------------------
...Dicken confronted the gunman within the first two minutes [Note: It was within 15 seconds] of the shooting. Dicken, who could legally carry the firearm under the permitless carry law, was armed with a pistol and fired several rounds, striking the gunman.
"Many more people would have died last night if not for the responsible armed citizen who took action very quickly within the first two minutes of the shooting," Ison said during a news conference on Tuesday.
When asked if shoppers could legally carry guns inside of Simon malls for any reason, a spokeswoman for Greenwood Park Mall referred to owner Simon Property Group's Shopper Code of Conduct, which simply states "no weapons." She did not elaborate.
If customers ignore those policies or signs in some states, they are violating the law and can be charged with a crime. That's not the case in Indiana; not exactly.
Indiana gun laws:A look at what changed July 1
Greenwood Park Mall's no-weapons policy is akin to a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign you might see at a gas station, or a sign requiring masks in order to shop, said Guy Relford, an Indiana attorney and firearms instructor who is a prominent voice on the state's gun laws. Such signs are simply stating a business owner's policy.
Attorney: No-gun policy won't create legal issue for armed bystander
If a customer does not adhere to the policy, a business owner can demand that the customer leaves. And if the customer ignores that demand, the customer is now trespassing, which is an Indiana crime.
But if no one asked Dicken to leave, then he wasn't trespassing.
"So the fact that (Greenwood Park Mall) had a no-gun policy creates no legal issue whatsoever for this gentleman," Relford said, "and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on his ability to use force to defend himself or to defend the other people in the mall."
Jody Madeira, an Indiana University law professor, echoed Relford's sentiment, agreeing that Dicken may have violated Simon Mall’s policy prohibiting firearms at the mall, but “he wasn’t committing a crime unless they asked him to leave and he refused.”
“It’s disrespectful,” she said of violating the mall’s policy, “but it’s not unlawful.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose for a private residence, if I was asked not to bring my firearm I would honor that request, to be respectful. But honestly, no one I know would make such a request of me. Those that might make that request do not know that I usually carry for self-protection, so they won't be asking either.
I used to take pictures of all the "no guns" signs on the doors of places I would frequent. Then I thought, "Well, this is stupid." What am I going to do? Make a scrapbook?
I try to practice common sense. I did not carry into the stadium when I saw the Browns lose to the Jets last summer. There were metal detectors there. I did not carry into the post office when I applied for my passport even though there were no metal detectors. I don't carry into my doctor's office. The reason why is private.
It seems we may agree on some things and disagree on others. I can live with that.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
Are you allowed to say if someone is allowed to come onto your property armed? Open or concealed makes no difference are you allowed to make the rules for your families or the visitors in your property safety?Hi Mr. @The Night Rider and Mr. @HansGruber,
I appreciate your discussion. I understand and appreciate the points you raise. It is certainly a "make your choices and live with the consequences" scenario. "FAFO" as the kids like to say.
At this point in the conversation a few questions, somewhat rhetorical, somewhat related to case law, precedent, and the Constitution, come to mind. (Note: Everybody should know their state and local laws.)
Who has the right to insist upon his rights?
Who has the right to expect someone else give up their rights?
As Mr. @WellArmed pointed out, if I am exercising my right and nobody knows, is there a downside?
Does the owner of the mom-and-pop shop I frequent realize that they could be putting me and themselves in a dangerous situation, a defensive disadvantage, by insisting I give up my right to keep and bear arms?
Do the owners have the right to take away my right to self-defense? Again, if I am concealed, nobody will know. And yes, if asked to leave I will certainly do so rather than violate any trespassing law.
You all may remember the Greenwood Park Mall shooting. Eli Dicken was legally carrying inside the mall, which was against the property owner's "Shopper Code of Conduct" which states "no weapons".
https://www.indystar.com/story/news...policy-bystander-carried-legally/65375923007/
A snippet from the above article, I quote:
--------------------------------------------------
...Dicken confronted the gunman within the first two minutes [Note: It was within 15 seconds] of the shooting. Dicken, who could legally carry the firearm under the permitless carry law, was armed with a pistol and fired several rounds, striking the gunman.
"Many more people would have died last night if not for the responsible armed citizen who took action very quickly within the first two minutes of the shooting," Ison said during a news conference on Tuesday.
When asked if shoppers could legally carry guns inside of Simon malls for any reason, a spokeswoman for Greenwood Park Mall referred to owner Simon Property Group's Shopper Code of Conduct, which simply states "no weapons." She did not elaborate.
If customers ignore those policies or signs in some states, they are violating the law and can be charged with a crime. That's not the case in Indiana; not exactly.
Indiana gun laws:A look at what changed July 1
Greenwood Park Mall's no-weapons policy is akin to a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign you might see at a gas station, or a sign requiring masks in order to shop, said Guy Relford, an Indiana attorney and firearms instructor who is a prominent voice on the state's gun laws. Such signs are simply stating a business owner's policy.
Attorney: No-gun policy won't create legal issue for armed bystander
If a customer does not adhere to the policy, a business owner can demand that the customer leaves. And if the customer ignores that demand, the customer is now trespassing, which is an Indiana crime.
But if no one asked Dicken to leave, then he wasn't trespassing.
"So the fact that (Greenwood Park Mall) had a no-gun policy creates no legal issue whatsoever for this gentleman," Relford said, "and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on his ability to use force to defend himself or to defend the other people in the mall."
Jody Madeira, an Indiana University law professor, echoed Relford's sentiment, agreeing that Dicken may have violated Simon Mall’s policy prohibiting firearms at the mall, but “he wasn’t committing a crime unless they asked him to leave and he refused.”
“It’s disrespectful,” she said of violating the mall’s policy, “but it’s not unlawful.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose for a private residence, if I was asked not to bring my firearm I would honor that request, to be respectful. But honestly, no one I know would make such a request of me. Those that might make that request do not know that I usually carry for self-protection, so they won't be asking either.
I used to take pictures of all the "no guns" signs on the doors of places I would frequent. Then I thought, "Well, this is stupid." What am I going to do? Make a scrapbook?
I try to practice common sense. I did not carry into the stadium when I saw the Browns lose to the Jets last summer. There were metal detectors there. I did not carry into the post office when I applied for my passport even though there were no metal detectors. I don't carry into my doctor's office. The reason why is private.
It seems we may agree on some things and disagree on others. I can live with that.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
I guess it's a matter of respect then. I choose to respect thier rules as I would hope someone would respect mine. Guess that's how I was brought up, to be respectful of others and thier propert and the rules they have for THIER property. I can always go to another establishment. That is using the economic power that I have to show disapproval.
Most establishments have a no weapons policy. I can't speak for small towns and mom & pop shops in red states, but still, the overwhelming number of companies have a no weapons policy.
Maybe. The little mom and pop grocery store here in rural, red Missouri had a No Firearms sign in their window. I went in and asked to see the manager. I told him that I was fully prepared to pay more for his stuff as opposed to driving to the next town and going to Walmart, but thanks to his sign I wouldn't be patronizing his establishment. A couple months later I had to go back and was going to go in even though I didn't want to, because I needed something right now. When I got to the door the No Firearms sign had been replaced by an NRA sticker.
I respect the right of the private individual to establish their rules on their property and place of business. If they don't want firearms on their property, I can either leave, or comply with their rules. They are liable should anything happen to me while on their property.Hi Mr. @The Night Rider and Mr. @HansGruber,
I appreciate your discussion. I understand and appreciate the points you raise. It is certainly a "make your choices and live with the consequences" scenario. "FAFO" as the kids like to say.
At this point in the conversation a few questions, somewhat rhetorical, somewhat related to case law, precedent, and the Constitution, come to mind. (Note: Everybody should know their state and local laws.)
Who has the right to insist upon his rights?
Who has the right to expect someone else give up their rights?
As Mr. @WellArmed pointed out, if I am exercising my right and nobody knows, is there a downside?
Does the owner of the mom-and-pop shop I frequent realize that they could be putting me and themselves in a dangerous situation, a defensive disadvantage, by insisting I give up my right to keep and bear arms?
Do the owners have the right to take away my right to self-defense? Again, if I am concealed, nobody will know. And yes, if asked to leave I will certainly do so rather than violate any trespassing law.
You all may remember the Greenwood Park Mall shooting. Eli Dicken was legally carrying inside the mall, which was against the property owner's "Shopper Code of Conduct" which states "no weapons".
An armed bystander shot & killed the Greenwood mall shooting suspect. Did he break the law?
An armed man shot and killed the suspect in the Greenwood mall food court shooting.www.indystar.com
A snippet from the above article, I quote:
--------------------------------------------------
...Dicken confronted the gunman within the first two minutes [Note: It was within 15 seconds] of the shooting. Dicken, who could legally carry the firearm under the permitless carry law, was armed with a pistol and fired several rounds, striking the gunman.
"Many more people would have died last night if not for the responsible armed citizen who took action very quickly within the first two minutes of the shooting," Ison said during a news conference on Tuesday.
When asked if shoppers could legally carry guns inside of Simon malls for any reason, a spokeswoman for Greenwood Park Mall referred to owner Simon Property Group's Shopper Code of Conduct, which simply states "no weapons." She did not elaborate.
If customers ignore those policies or signs in some states, they are violating the law and can be charged with a crime. That's not the case in Indiana; not exactly.
Indiana gun laws:A look at what changed July 1
Greenwood Park Mall's no-weapons policy is akin to a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign you might see at a gas station, or a sign requiring masks in order to shop, said Guy Relford, an Indiana attorney and firearms instructor who is a prominent voice on the state's gun laws. Such signs are simply stating a business owner's policy.
Attorney: No-gun policy won't create legal issue for armed bystander
If a customer does not adhere to the policy, a business owner can demand that the customer leaves. And if the customer ignores that demand, the customer is now trespassing, which is an Indiana crime.
But if no one asked Dicken to leave, then he wasn't trespassing.
"So the fact that (Greenwood Park Mall) had a no-gun policy creates no legal issue whatsoever for this gentleman," Relford said, "and it certainly has no effect whatsoever on his ability to use force to defend himself or to defend the other people in the mall."
Jody Madeira, an Indiana University law professor, echoed Relford's sentiment, agreeing that Dicken may have violated Simon Mall’s policy prohibiting firearms at the mall, but “he wasn’t committing a crime unless they asked him to leave and he refused.”
“It’s disrespectful,” she said of violating the mall’s policy, “but it’s not unlawful.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose for a private residence, if I was asked not to bring my firearm I would honor that request, to be respectful. But honestly, no one I know would make such a request of me. Those that might make that request do not know that I usually carry for self-protection, so they won't be asking either.
I used to take pictures of all the "no guns" signs on the doors of places I would frequent. Then I thought, "Well, this is stupid." What am I going to do? Make a scrapbook?
I try to practice common sense. I did not carry into the stadium when I saw the Browns lose to the Jets last summer. There were metal detectors there. I did not carry into the post office when I applied for my passport even though there were no metal detectors. I don't carry into my doctor's office. The reason why is private.
It seems we may agree on some things and disagree on others. I can live with that.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
That might work in a little mom and pop shop in a rural area of a red state, but in most of America, that wouldn't change a thing. There aren't even any mom and pop grocery stores that I know of in my area, and if I lived in a small rual town, I'd be more comfortable with just leaving my gun in the car. With that said, if I had more convenient* alternatives, I'd go that rought.
Well that's probably true. I have purposely situated myself in a very red county in a very red state.
They aren't liable if a criminal walks in and robs and shoots you. Most store employees are told and trained to never get involved, and to just follow the demands of the criminal while memorizing key details to give to police after the fact. You are on your own irregardless of where you go and shop. L.E. aren't even liable or responsible to be responsible for your well-being.
Except they're not
These shootings are happening anywhere and everywhere. These are only two of many very recent incidence in the videos below out of thousands of other of self defense shootings (many of which are in "no gun zones") that do not make the front page of NY Times, WashPost, HuffPost, etc, and aren't talked about ad nauseam by the President, politicians, or mainstream news organizations.Hi,
As I have alluded to several times, I would be happy to vacate the premises rather than be arrested for trespassing.
Here's an interesting article dealing with private property regarding landlord/tenant legalities:
Again, know your state and local laws and also, as stated above, exactly what is in the lease you are signing. Whatever is in the lease, like a clause that prohibits guns, you must abide by. If it's not in the lease, the landlord can't legally ban guns.
Mr. @HansGruber, you would be very welcome in my home with your concealed firearm. Much more so than the two hoodlums who last summer committed a couple of armed home invasions in my neighborhood and stole two cars along with cash and valuables. I would have no problem with any of you honest law-abiding, responsibly armed citizens sharing a meal at my table, while armed for bear. Perhaps the feeling is not mutual, and that's OK. I can deal with it.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
Hi,
As I have alluded to several times, I would be happy to vacate the premises rather than be arrested for trespassing.
Here's an interesting article dealing with private property regarding landlord/tenant legalities:
Again, know your state and local laws and also, as stated above, exactly what is in the lease you are signing. Whatever is in the lease, like a clause that prohibits guns, you must abide by. If it's not in the lease, the landlord can't legally ban guns.
Mr. @HansGruber, you would be very welcome in my home with your concealed firearm. Much more so than the two hoodlums who last summer committed a couple of armed home invasions in my neighborhood and stole two cars along with cash and valuables. I would have no problem with any of you honest law-abiding, responsibly armed citizens sharing a meal at my table, while armed for bear. Perhaps the feeling is not mutual, and that's OK. I can deal with it.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
What makes you different than the gun grabbers then. We complain they do not respect our rights and do whatever they want.
)
