No-Gun signs in GA - Page 9

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; Originally Posted by 2700 Why are you obsessing with this? Because when confronted with states where signs do not carry the force of law, where ...

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 172
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: No-Gun signs in GA

  1. #121
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by 2700 View Post
    Why are you obsessing with this?
    Because when confronted with states where signs do not carry the force of law, where walking past a sign is not in and of itself a criminal act, folks still respond with "well it's trespassing if you refuse to leave if asked"...implying a gun carrier was ever made, implying they were asked to leave if made, implying they refused to leave if asked, implying that's not a crime anyway even if no gun was every involved in any way.


  2. #122
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    People who violate property owners rights are the problem with society. You should respect their wishes and be decent human beings. You would want your property respected and you should do the same.
    Makes you wonder why property owners disrespect lawful gun owners like that.

  3. #123
    Member Array romansten9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    In line with Ogre's post above. The signs do not have force of law, meaning it is not a violation of GA weapons carry law to carry on the location unless the location is statutorily off-limits. That being said, it is a trespass on your part, and if you refuse to leave when asked, you will likely be arrested (and should be).

    My view is this - we should respect the rights of property owners. Simple as that. Simple as leaving your gun locked in your car, or just not frequenting the business.

    (* By the way, I am a lawyer, but you aren't my client, and neither this post nor any of my other posts should be taken as legal advice, and only a crazy, misguided person would rely on such posts as legal advice! I mean, seriously, who in their right mind would rely on an internet post as legal advice???]

    The state I live in passed a law that business owners may not restrict the right of their employees from having a gun on company property. So the wishes of the property owner are irrelevant. As they SHOULD be. (in regard to a person's right to self defense) The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and the 2nd Amendment protects a God given right that we already have. Yes, the law only refers to the employer/employee relationship, but its something anyway.
    Last edited by romansten9; October 26th, 2012 at 05:26 AM. Reason: typo

  4. #124
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Makes you wonder why property owners disrespect lawful gun owners like that.
    I guess theaters and bars and restaurants disrespect people when they post signs saying no outside food or drink, wouldn't you agree? I don't understand why that would be as they have the right to say what happens on their property and doesn't. It is like when I was at my buddies church and they said I couldn't smoke in the pews. What about my rights?

  5. #125
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by romansten9 View Post
    The state I live in passed a law that business owners may not restrict the right of their employees from having a gun on company property. So the wishes of the property owner are irrelevant. As they SHOULD be. (in regard to a person's right to self defense) The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and the 2nd Amendment protects a God given right that we already have. Yes, the law only refers to the employer/employee relationship, but its something anyway.
    Exactly. When they said I could not have Voodoo ceremonies at work in the lunch room, they were violating my First Amendment rights! It is my right and the Constitution is the highest law of the land and the 1st Amendment protects a God given right that we already have.

  6. #126
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    I guess theaters and bars and restaurants disrespect people when they post signs saying no outside food or drink, wouldn't you agree? I don't understand why that would be as they have the right to say what happens on their property and doesn't. It is like when I was at my buddies church and they said I couldn't smoke in the pews. What about my rights?
    Here's the difference:
    Carrying a gun is protected by an amendment, eating snacks is not.

    And stop generalizing. Just because we want to do one thing doesn't mean the land owner has no rights and no say on what goes on. That's just silliness on your part.

  7. #127
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    Exactly. When they said I could not have Voodoo ceremonies at work in the lunch room, they were violating my First Amendment rights! It is my right and the Constitution is the highest law of the land and the 1st Amendment protects a God given right that we already have.
    A ceremony is disruptive, a concealed gun is not.

    Just ask my boss, he'll tell you.

    Oh wait, that's right, he doesn't know I carry at work. How would he know? It's not disruptive and it doesn't violate the dress code.

  8. #128
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    Here's the difference:
    Carrying a gun is protected by an amendment....
    not on private property, its not.

  9. #129
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by romansten9 View Post
    The state I live in passed a law that business owners may not restrict the right of their employees from having a gun on company property. So the wishes of the property owner are irrelevant. As they SHOULD be. (in regard to a person's right to self defense) The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and the 2nd Amendment protects a God given right that we already have. Yes, the law only refers to the employer/employee relationship, but its something anyway.
    oh, so you think the 1st Amendment should ALSO be applied on private property?

    Skinheads and Satanists should have the right to hold a protest on your front lawn and in your kitchen?

    and no, the right to possess and carry a firearm, is NOT a "God-given right".

  10. #130
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    People who violate property owners rights are the problem with society. You should respect their wishes and be decent human beings. You would want your property respected and you should do the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    I guess theaters and bars and restaurants disrespect people when they post signs saying no outside food or drink, wouldn't you agree? I don't understand why that would be as they have the right to say what happens on their property and doesn't. It is like when I was at my buddies church and they said I couldn't smoke in the pews. What about my rights?
    That is a financially motivated sign....they want you to buy their food & drink. It's not the same thing.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  11. #131
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    not on private property, its not.
    The amendment is still there. The ink hasn't gon anywhere.

  12. #132
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    I laugh at those who think that the Second Ammendment applies to anything OTHER than the US Government, it says the GOVERNMENT may not inrfringe on the right to keep and bear arms. ALL 10 ammendments of the Bill of Rights pertain to what the GOVERNMENT may not deny. When will people remember that the Bill of rights is SUPPOSED to limit the GOVERNMENT and NOT the people.

    The government may not tell you that you cannot worship how you wish, or say what you like where you like, or promote a political ideology, I (on my property CAN). The GOVERNMENT cannot deny anyone the right to keep and bear arms for defense, I (on MY property can) etc. etc. You don't believe me, just try to hold a political speech on my front yard and when I call the cops, guess who gets told to shut up, and move along; try to carry on my property and when I bodily throw you off my property guess who WONT get the backing of a lawyer for "violating your rights", in either case. Try to hold a political rally in a business parking lot without permission, try to say Islamic prayers on the steps of a baptist church, both of these places are "open to the public" however your 1st Ammendment rights are LIMITED by the property owner; you can be TOLD, not asked, to cease and desist despite your first ammendment rights. A person or business CANNOT "violate" your rights, they CAN tell you what you can and cannot do on their property.

    Yes the Constitution is the highest law of the land, but the Bill of Rights ONLY limits the GOVERNMENT. Note that even in Heller, the SCoUS only said that GOVERNMENTS could not place such limits on weapon ownership as to make it impossible to own arms. It said NOTHING about private individuals or businesses limiting the carry of weapons.
    Last edited by Ogre; October 26th, 2012 at 08:45 PM. Reason: attempt to clean up grammer....

  13. #133
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    The amendment is still there. The ink hasn't gon anywhere.
    The ammendment only limits how the GOVERNMENT can interact with your rights, not individuals.

  14. #134
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    I laugh at those who think that the Second Ammendment applies to anything OTHER than the US Government, it says the GOVERNMENT may not inrfringe on the right to keep and bear arms. ALL 10 ammendments of the Bill of Rights pertain to what the GOVERNMENT may not deny. When will people remember that the Bill of rights is SUPPOSED to limit the GOVERNMENT and NOT the people.
    If that were true then we wouldn't have things like the civil rights act, or fair housing act, or various employment laws, etc.

    But we do have those things, which means you're wrong, and profoundly so.

  15. #135
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    The ammendment only limits how the GOVERNMENT can interact with your rights, not individuals.
    That's just not true, and here's exactly how.....

    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.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 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

,
georgia concealed carry laws a sign on the door
,
georgia no firearms signs
,
georgia no gun sign
,

georgia no gun signs

,
is it legal to carry in a restaurant in georgia
,

is it legal to post signs in ga as

,
no guns allowed signs in georgia can i carry there
,

official no gun sign for ga

,

powered by mybb alcoholism signs of

,
powered by mybb early signs of alcoholism
,

signage for no guns in church in ga

Click on a term to search for related topics.