No-Gun signs in GA

This is a discussion on No-Gun signs in GA within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Again I ask you to prove that the BoR, 2A in particular limits individuals or organizations other than the government (Federal, Stat, Local) using Constitutional ...

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 172
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: No-Gun signs in GA

  1. #151
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Again I ask you to prove that the BoR, 2A in particular limits individuals or organizations other than the government (Federal, Stat, Local) using Constitutional Case Law. If what you claim is true then No Weapons policies woul be illegal everywhere. The SCoUS has already & consistently said that the BoR & 2A limit the government NOT individuals/businesses. I CAN tell you no weapons on my property & forcibly eject you if you fail to abide byny wishes. Any property owner can, if you fail to abide by the rules of that property. Once trespassed(told to leave) you can also be told not to come back.

    Do YOU actually WANT the government to tell you that you MUST allow anyone ANYONE to carry a weapon on YOUR property? How about forcing you to have a political parties sign on you yard, freedom of speech (FIRST ammendment) you cannot deny ANYONE from posting ANYWHERE they want. Basically you want an end of the 9th ammendment, and property rights.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #152
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Miamieddie View Post
    One more thing you can conceal in your car no matter where ur at because ur car falls under the castle law... Eddie
    Not commenting on the rest of the conversation, but this is simply not true. In GA, you can not have a gun in your car when entering school property. You may only do so if you are dropping off or picking up a student - or be a teacher and have it securely locked in your car. Both require a valid carry permit.

    As for state owned property, I think you are ok to have it in the car, but you need to check the law books for any stipulations.

  4. #153
    Member Array proliance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    La Vergne, TN
    Posts
    31
    I understand that the gunbuster sign does not carry the weight of the law. But if the owner says don't come in with a gun, then don't go in with a gun. You've already been told once not to enter, why would you wait until the owner threatens you with trespassing?

    We're supposed to be adults who are resposible enough to carry a deadly weapon. But what I see are some people who want to get away with whatever they can until they get caught. Its like a kid justifing that its OK to take cookies out of the cookie jar until Mom catches him redhanded.

  5. #154
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Well let me post a few United States Supreme Court cases for you to think on: But first let me quote the 2nd for you:
    Look I'm trying not to be a jerk here, it's just frustrating because you just quoted one of the foundations for my argument, and it looks like you're just ignoring it:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held
    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    This means if a landlord is banning a tenant from having a gun in their residence, the landlord is violating the tenant's rights.

    I further argue that carrying a concealed gun for self defense while engaged in commerce (working, shopping, school, etc) is one such "traditionally lawful purpose".

    Man I don't know how to put my finger on it any better than that. I've given sources and structured arguments expanding on that premise in detail, so if you still don't get it then I don't know where to go from here.

  6. #155
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,822
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Look I'm trying not to be a jerk here, it's just frustrating because you just quoted one of the foundations for my argument, and it looks like you're just ignoring it:

    This means if a landlord is banning a tenant from having a gun in their residence, the landlord is violating the tenant's rights.

    I further argue that carrying a concealed gun for self defense while engaged in commerce (working, shopping, school, etc) is one such "traditionally lawful purpose".

    Man I don't know how to put my finger on it any better than that. I've given sources and structured arguments expanding on that premise in detail, so if you still don't get it then I don't know where to go from here.
    Actually the only thing I have ever read from you are parts of decisions, your own opinion of court rulings, and your opinion of how and what "strict scritiny" means. All within your right and as I am not a Constituitional lawyer I do not refute every little thing you say. When I qoute or say something I try to distinguish whether I am an experton the topic or not. You appear to me to say things that suggest are fact when they are not. You have lost credibility as an expert in law or more accurately as someone that tries to look up the law before he writes about it when not once but twice you make a blanket statement that firearms are not allowed on aircraft which is an utter flasehood.
    If you can not figure out a relatively simple law/regualtion then I highly doubt you can speak as an expert on Constituional law.

    I have no problems with you sounding with an opinion, even if I disagree a wholeheartedly with it. I do have problems with the pretense that what you say about law is factual.

    If I am wrong on that then that is just how you come across to me and many others.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  7. #156
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Actually the only thing I have ever read from you are parts of decisions, your own opinion of court rulings, and your opinion of how and what "strict scritiny" means. All within your right and as I am not a Constituitional lawyer I do not refute every little thing you say. When I qoute or say something I try to distinguish whether I am an experton the topic or not. You appear to me to say things that suggest are fact when they are not. You have lost credibility as an expert in law or more accurately as someone that tries to look up the law before he writes about it when not once but twice you make a blanket statement that firearms are not allowed on aircraft which is an utter flasehood.
    If you can not figure out a relatively simple law/regualtion then I highly doubt you can speak as an expert on Constituional law.

    I have no problems with you sounding with an opinion, even if I disagree a wholeheartedly with it. I do have problems with the pretense that what you say about law is factual.

    If I am wrong on that then that is just how you come across to me and many others.
    This thread isn't abut me, or you, it's about no-gun signs on Georgia.

    If a business owner feels they have to post a sign so as to escape liability, I completely understand that. Yes, I respect that, and is why I will always immediately leave without a fuss. I would rather risk being ejected from a business then get caught in a robbery without a gun, so I accept ejection before I even enter the store...before I even put the holster on my belt in the morning, before I even buy the gun.

    Hopefully we can resolve the liability issue and the CCW issue with a piece of legislation like Florida's for every state.

  8. #157
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Let me interup you guys here for a second please, you both make a very good point and understanding on your explanations I credit you guys plural, but now all said and done let me give you my perseption,assumetion,and belief, oppinion,of this matter. This state(Ga.) Has no gun law signs !!! wich that allows us to carry w/liscense, I feel with that said that public establishment Not allowing us into there work of place under these cercumstances they are violating our constitutional rights to bear !!! Eddie.
    ArmyMan likes this.

  9. #158
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Miamieddie View Post
    Let me interup you guys here for a second please, you both make a very good point and understanding on your explanations I credit you guys plural, but now all said and done let me give you my perseption,assumetion,and belief, oppinion,of this matter. This state(Ga.) Has no gun law signs !!! wich that allows us to carry w/liscense, I feel with that said that public establishment Not allowing us into there work of place under these cercumstances they are violating our constitutional rights to bear !!! Eddie.
    To agree and reiterate: self defense while in places open to the public is a traditionally lawful purpose for carrying a firearm, thus protected under Heller.

    I empathize with a business owner's concern over liability and want to move to resolve it with explicit exemption in the law.
    Miamieddie likes this.

  10. #159
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Dont just blow me off and go back disputing with ech other read it absorb it and you'll understand better what were trying to say all this time its short and sweet. Thank you Eddie.

  11. #160
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    I understand. Thats true

  12. #161
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Look I'm trying not to be a jerk here, it's just frustrating because you just quoted one of the foundations for my argument, and it looks like you're just ignoring it:

    This means if a landlord is banning a tenant from having a gun in their residence, the landlord is violating the tenant's rights.

    I further argue that carrying a concealed gun for self defense while engaged in commerce (working, shopping, school, etc) is one such "traditionally lawful purpose".

    Man I don't know how to put my finger on it any better than that. I've given sources and structured arguments expanding on that premise in detail, so if you still don't get it then I don't know where to go from here.
    You again quoted PART of the Heller case, the part that fits with your view point, yes Heller said that "the Second Amendment protects and individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Alas you forget to notice that Heller was a case with a MUNICIPALITY, District of Columbia, NOT an individual, and not a private organization. Heller states that a CITY cannot impose laws on gun ownership which make such ownership moot, useless or impractical. Heller was because DC required that gun owners keep they firearms not just unloaded, but disassembled, effectively making them useless. Heller said that the CITY could not impose such LAWS on its residents; however they NEVER said that a private institution could not make RULES against gun ownership, so yes, a landlord can evict you if you have a weapon on their property when the lease prohibits it. The BoR does NOT limit the people, it limits the government, the SCoUS has stated that several times.

  13. #162
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    To agree and reiterate: self defense while in places open to the public is a traditionally lawful purpose for carrying a firearm, thus protected under Heller.

    I empathize with a business owner's concern over liability and want to move to resolve it with explicit exemption in the law.
    to reiterate, HELLER only applies to CITY/STATE laws, stating that they CANNOT limit weapon ownership to the point that the weapon is useless. It has no bearing on private organizations or individuals. A property owner CAN say what goes on on their property.

  14. #163
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by Miamieddie View Post
    Let me interup you guys here for a second please, you both make a very good point and understanding on your explanations I credit you guys plural, but now all said and done let me give you my perseption,assumetion,and belief, oppinion,of this matter. This state(Ga.) Has no gun law signs !!! wich that allows us to carry w/liscense, I feel with that said that public establishment Not allowing us into there work of place under these cercumstances they are violating our constitutional rights to bear !!! Eddie.
    Trying to read this hurt my head a bit, but I will try to explain.

    A work place denying you to bring your weapon is within THEIR rights a property owners/employers. They make rules you must abide by if you want to work there. I know that GA has no legal standing for NO GUNS signs; however I beilieve that they do allow employers to impose rules barring carry on company property as well as allow property owners/business owners to have people who carry removed (trespassed) from their property if they do not allow weapons on said property.

  15. #164
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    to reiterate, HELLER only applies to CITY/STATE laws, stating that they CANNOT limit weapon ownership to the point that the weapon is useless. It has no bearing on private organizations or individuals.
    Heller justifies city/state laws which prohibit business owners from banning lawful carry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    A property owner CAN say what goes on on their property.
    No right is unlimited, so here it is again:

    If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
    Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

    The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

    ~snip~

    Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.
    I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.


    ******
    If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

    For example:
    South Dakota Code 20-13-23

    20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.
    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.

    I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.


    *****
    The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.

  16. #165
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,822
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Armyman--can you just do a sticky for that post (the examples)of yours...we have seen it a hundred times
    BTW: Notice the use of the emoticon...it was meant to be in good fun
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

conceal carry ga posted no guns

,
ga no gun sign concealed carry
,
georgia conceal carry signs
,

georgia no gun signs

,
georgia violating no guns allowed store policy
,

is it legal to post signs in ga as

,

powered by mybb alcoholism signs of

,
powered by mybb toy safety
,
powered by mybb toys r us online store
,

signage for no guns in church in ga

,
the law and no gun signs in ga
,
whats does no gun sign mean
Click on a term to search for related topics.