So you are saying in designated sensitive areas where you have armed guards you no longer have the right to defend yourself. You must stand there and suffer any and all assaultive behavior until the armed guards intervene. If that is not the case then you acknowledge that the right to self defense is not dependant on access to a weapon. No one is saying you can not defend yourself in a posted store. You just can't bring in a weapon with which to do it.
Originally Posted by ArmyMan
It does not deprive anyone of a right to self defense. It denies them the privilege of legal access to that property.
The only time I will ever give a no-gun sign the time of day is when it would brake a law. Otherwise it's just the ignorant religious/political musings of the property owner and in no way has any right or authority to deprive any person from otherwise lawful self defense.
Including your right to self defense.
No right is unlimited.
Not in Texas he can't.
It's called the "Right to Public Access". This is how a licensed fisherman may walk onto your private residential coastline property against your expressed objection.
Ooooh! Tell you what, I will post the opinions that say your mythical right of public access to my proeprty is B.S. and you can post your SCOTUS opinions that refute mine. Because frankly I don't think you can back your claim. No need for a song and dance and lame attempt at misdirection. Just cite the cases please.
Yes, this means that a if a person is legally fishing while legally carrying a gun, that person has the *right* to bring that gun onto your personal residential property against your expressed objection. If you stop that person you are braking the law. That doesn't mean the person can go allover your property, or brandish his gun, or just do whatever he wants on your property, but it does mean he may enter your property with a gun against your will.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 U.S. 825 in which the court held the state could not require a property owner to have a public easement on their property
Dolan v Tygard 512 U.S. 374 in which the court held the city could not force the property owner to maintain a public greenway on their property.
The Texas Supreme Court also said you are wrong just this year:
High court upholds private property over public beach access | www.statesman.com
But aside from that access to beach is completely different from access to a place of business. Apples and oranges. And from your statement above it shows you do not even have a basic understanding of the laws regarding public beaches and private beach front property. In the states that do by statute guarantee public access to beaches there is also a legal standard as to where the beach ends and the private property begins. So while your theoretical fisherman can fish on the public beach between my property and the water, he can not fish on my property, carry a weapon on, or even be on my property without my permission.
And just to satisfy my curiousity what is the easily provided demonstrable need for a polling place?
This is how we're getting guns legalized to carry in grade schools and police stations. Take Oregon for example. It logically follows that a citizen who can lawfully carry a gun at all, should be able to carry that gun wherever the citizen can lawfully go. Exceptions require a demonstratable 'need', which Court Houses, ERs and polling stations can easily provide.
Property rights are vast, but they are not unlimited.
Please show a single SCOTUS case that says you have right to carry into someones private property over their objections. I don't believe you can find one.