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
CC workplace legal question
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="Flyboy" data-source="post: 917196" data-attributes="member: 91"><p>Christ, there's a lot of misinformation in here!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12px">WRONG</span></strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px">You cannot carry on private property when the landowner (or his authorized agent) tells you "no guns on my property." Signs on the door are an effective means of notifying people that guns are prohibited, but they are not required--a landowner could instead leave his door clear and whisper in everybody's ear, and that would still be binding notice.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px">In this case, the landowner has chosen to post, providing notice to all, but is now authorizing Silverant specifically and individually to disregard the sign. Getting that in writing is a good idea as a defense to later confusion, but so long as the person giving permission is an agent of the landowner, the permission is effective.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px">(Whether he is, in fact, an agent is another matter, but I think it would be an uphill battle to argue that an executive-level employee--a VP, in this case--isn't an agent of the company.)</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12px">WRONG</span></strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px">A landowner may generally set whatever rules he feels like on his property, subject to certain discrimination laws. Those laws largely apply to certain protected classes: race, sex, religion, handicap, etc. So long as he doesn't hit those buttons, he's generally free to set rules for his guests, even if different guests get different rules.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span> </p><p></p><p>Half-wrong. You're correct in that your constitutional rights don't end at the property line; you're wrong in thinking that the Constitution has anything at all to do with your relationship with a private individual. The Constitution limits itself to your relationship with the government (more specifically, the Federal government, though some parts have been incorporated to the states as well). Right now, the Second Amendment hasn't even been held to be an individual right outside the District of Columbia, which has special legal status. We're all hoping and praying that SCOTUS incorporates the Second to the states in <em>McDonald v. Chicago</em>, but until that happens, the Second Amendment is (legally) moot out here in the several states. Even after we win, it will still only control your relationship with government entities, not private property owners.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Flyboy, post: 917196, member: 91"] Christ, there's a lot of misinformation in here! [B][SIZE=3]WRONG[/SIZE][/B][SIZE=3][SIZE=2] You cannot carry on private property when the landowner (or his authorized agent) tells you "no guns on my property." Signs on the door are an effective means of notifying people that guns are prohibited, but they are not required--a landowner could instead leave his door clear and whisper in everybody's ear, and that would still be binding notice. In this case, the landowner has chosen to post, providing notice to all, but is now authorizing Silverant specifically and individually to disregard the sign. Getting that in writing is a good idea as a defense to later confusion, but so long as the person giving permission is an agent of the landowner, the permission is effective. (Whether he is, in fact, an agent is another matter, but I think it would be an uphill battle to argue that an executive-level employee--a VP, in this case--isn't an agent of the company.) [/SIZE][/SIZE] [B][SIZE=3] WRONG[/SIZE][/B][SIZE=3][SIZE=2] A landowner may generally set whatever rules he feels like on his property, subject to certain discrimination laws. Those laws largely apply to certain protected classes: race, sex, religion, handicap, etc. So long as he doesn't hit those buttons, he's generally free to set rules for his guests, even if different guests get different rules. [/SIZE][/SIZE] Half-wrong. You're correct in that your constitutional rights don't end at the property line; you're wrong in thinking that the Constitution has anything at all to do with your relationship with a private individual. The Constitution limits itself to your relationship with the government (more specifically, the Federal government, though some parts have been incorporated to the states as well). Right now, the Second Amendment hasn't even been held to be an individual right outside the District of Columbia, which has special legal status. We're all hoping and praying that SCOTUS incorporates the Second to the states in [I]McDonald v. Chicago[/I], but until that happens, the Second Amendment is (legally) moot out here in the several states. Even after we win, it will still only control your relationship with government entities, not private property owners. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
CC workplace legal question
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom