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="ez bake" data-source="post: 806619" data-attributes="member: 229"><p>Carrying past the sign isn't unlawful - it isn't even trespassing (not in a public business anyways). Trespassing doesn't even come into play even if the business owner spots you going against their sign. At that point, they can ask you to leave. If they call the police before asking you to leave, guess what the police are going to do? If you said "ask you to leave", you have a basic understanding of the law.</p><p></p><p>I love how the argument about how "there are no laws regulating blue shoes" is used against the SDA, but somehow that makes it where the SDA is subject to a different level of trespassing and somehow you will be immediately arrested. This is a major misunderstanding of how the laws (specifically regulating trespassing in a public business) work.</p><p></p><p>Case precedence has been set - numerous public businesses have had to ask someone to leave for a variety of reasons. Upon being asked, if the individual complies, there has never been an arrest (that I can find) so long as the citizen complied peacefully and without doing any harm to the public's business.</p><p></p><p>If you resist, then that's another story (also, if you get caught - again, poor concealed carry effort).</p><p></p><p>If it has nothing to do with the SDA, and we're only talking about trespassing - then look at the numerous examples of trespassing (on public business property - not private homeowners' property).</p><p></p><p>This is a flawed argument that is attempting to shoehorn a specific agenda into the twisted interpretation of current laws. No current law or regulation says that if you carry past a gun-buster sign that you are guilty of breaking any law - period.</p><p></p><p>Who's side are we all on?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ez bake, post: 806619, member: 229"] Carrying past the sign isn't unlawful - it isn't even trespassing (not in a public business anyways). Trespassing doesn't even come into play even if the business owner spots you going against their sign. At that point, they can ask you to leave. If they call the police before asking you to leave, guess what the police are going to do? If you said "ask you to leave", you have a basic understanding of the law. I love how the argument about how "there are no laws regulating blue shoes" is used against the SDA, but somehow that makes it where the SDA is subject to a different level of trespassing and somehow you will be immediately arrested. This is a major misunderstanding of how the laws (specifically regulating trespassing in a public business) work. Case precedence has been set - numerous public businesses have had to ask someone to leave for a variety of reasons. Upon being asked, if the individual complies, there has never been an arrest (that I can find) so long as the citizen complied peacefully and without doing any harm to the public's business. If you resist, then that's another story (also, if you get caught - again, poor concealed carry effort). If it has nothing to do with the SDA, and we're only talking about trespassing - then look at the numerous examples of trespassing (on public business property - not private homeowners' property). This is a flawed argument that is attempting to shoehorn a specific agenda into the twisted interpretation of current laws. No current law or regulation says that if you carry past a gun-buster sign that you are guilty of breaking any law - period. Who's side are we all on? [/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