Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
I can report one small Oklahoma victory for gun owners and the 2nd amendment!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow" data-source="post: 806578" data-attributes="member: 7123"><p>It doesn't matter at ALL whether there's any crime beyond trespassing. Trespassing itself is both of these things:</p><p></p><p>-ILLEGAL</p><p></p><p>-UNLAWFUL</p><p></p><p>So it most certainly has SOME force and effect of law, by creating a trespass scenario, however minor that CRIME may be. So it's technically incorrect to say that the stupid signs "don't have any legal effect" or "don't have the force and effect of law". So I understand the distinction you're making - you're right, LC, that it's not "unlawful carry", DEPENDING UPON how you define unlawful carry. But you are correct that it's not unlawful carry as most people define and use that term when talking about the SDA act. </p><p></p><p>Bottom line here is, that ignoring the signs is NOT <strong>"unlawful carry"</strong>, but it IS <strong>"unlawful".</strong> <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Good thing BigJake chimed in - he's contributed a lot to the substance of this thread. That's just so far - and I'm sure he's just getting warmed up.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, post: 806578, member: 7123"] It doesn't matter at ALL whether there's any crime beyond trespassing. Trespassing itself is both of these things: -ILLEGAL -UNLAWFUL So it most certainly has SOME force and effect of law, by creating a trespass scenario, however minor that CRIME may be. So it's technically incorrect to say that the stupid signs "don't have any legal effect" or "don't have the force and effect of law". So I understand the distinction you're making - you're right, LC, that it's not "unlawful carry", DEPENDING UPON how you define unlawful carry. But you are correct that it's not unlawful carry as most people define and use that term when talking about the SDA act. Bottom line here is, that ignoring the signs is NOT [B]"unlawful carry"[/B], but it IS [B]"unlawful".[/B] :) Good thing BigJake chimed in - he's contributed a lot to the substance of this thread. That's just so far - and I'm sure he's just getting warmed up. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
I can report one small Oklahoma victory for gun owners and the 2nd amendment!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom