As gun owners, can we always call ourselves law abiding citi

[Varmiter]

With Judge Napolitano making a rather dramatic statement, I felt the implications of what he said needed to be addressed.

My feeble attempt at addressing his remarks can be read here.
http://www.examiner.com/x-38782-Tucs...ding-citizens-

As usual, if the above link fails, click on my signature.

Chris

[fltsrgn]

I think the Judge was stating that the Bill of Rights trumps a sign on a public store stating "No Guns". Thus, you would not be breaking the law by carrying, but the store would be by infringing your rights.

Not that I would want to be the test case!

[Varmiter]

That is the whole point. You ARE breaking the law, regardless of what Napolitano says. Just because he says it does not make it so, and he, of all people should know that.

Your rights, regardless of which ones you are exercising, cease and no longer exist, when in exercising those rights they infringe or violate the rights of others. You regain your rights when they no longer infringe on other’s rights.

Property rights, either private or a business, trump your 2A rights at all levels.

Simplistically posted.
“No Shirt - No Shoes = No service. Perfectly valid in law.
“No Shirt - No Shoes + Gun = No Service. Again, perfectly valid
“Yes Shirt - Yes Shoes - Yes Gun = No Service. Yet again, valid.

In all three, you have violated the law if you ignore the posting.

Whether we like it or not, property rights are there for a very good reason.

[jasestrong]

I can't read those signs!

I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6.

[Tbone]

I can't read those signs!

I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6.

YES SIR!!!

I bet they wouldnt be so adamant about enforcing their little sighn if you used your weapon to stop some big diseased thug from raping his daughter.

[a|ex]

something to consider. certain civil rights trumps over private businesses. i also remember when motorcycles were banned in certain areas. that was removed by the AMA. if a business wants to ban firearms, it's their business. but they are gonna lose some customers.

-a|ex

[mrcharlie]

In Texas they must have a sign permit and regulation state issued sign titled oddly enough 30:06. Any homemade sign or sticker on the door is not valid. A picture of a gun with a circle and line through it means nothing if they do not have the 30:06 sign to go with it. The 30:06 sign will give clear instructions if concealed carry is or is not allowed on their premises. This is more than likely an attempt for the state to gain revenue from issuing the signs.

[SgtStrykerUSMC43]

something to consider. certain civil rights trumps over private businesses. i also remember when motorcycles were banned in certain areas. that was removed by the AMA. if a business wants to ban firearms, it's their business. but they are gonna lose some customers.

-a|ex

The difference [which you miss] is a business is an entity, whereas a person is a being. I'm seeing a pattern of trolling from you. A piece of friendly advice - stop trolling.


Yup, we can't ride motorcycles wherever we dam well please. It's called laws. We are a nation of laws, and if we feel the laws are unjust, we change them. Some of us do it quietly through the ballot box, while others do it through media outlets. Either way, we abide by the law until it's modified or rescinded.

Hopefully one day you'll understand they way things work here, as opposed to your native Philippines.

[Varmiter]

Well, with the various responses I think I made my point, both here and in my article.

Chris

[RC57]

In my opinion, a business shouldn't be allowed to ban concealed carry, just like they can't ban certain races. However, the law being what it is, when I see one of the anti-gun signs I give my business to someone else who respects the Constitution and realizes that those signs infinge upon the right to bear arms.