No Gun Signs Coming Down at Legislative Plaza

[btq96r]

If people want property rights, then they need stop opening their property to the public. The list of "rights" they give up when opening property to the public is pretty wide already, I honestly don't see why not adding this. Besides, our state Constitution doesn't give the legislature or property owners the right to restrict carry with criminal punishment.  The legislature has unconstitutionally given property owners something they are not allowed to do. Post? Yes. Post with criminal penalty? No.

 

For me, a decent parallel comes back to that thread we had a while ago about do you tell someone if you bring a gun into their home.  Acknowledging the differences in business vs. residential properties...I still use that line of thinking I had in that thread.  I either have a persons permission up front, or I don't, and if they expressly tell me they don't want me to (which is what the posting does in this case), I respect that.

[Omega]

I can only imagine how often the signs would be ignored if there isn't that legal consequence behind them, and I don't like the idea of that.  Permit holders want the criminal charges removed so they can ignore the signs by carrying concealed and not be subject to a fine, or worse, losing their permit for it.  And 99.9% of the time they would get away with it, nobody would be the wiser, and life would go on.  But I still think it's wrong, and a violation of property rights.  I want a stricter legal standard placed on HCP holders. 

 

 

 

With off duty police, they are in a special situation where they could be called into work, or in a position to take charge of a crime scene, so that's why they get the exception.  Retired LEO's shouldn't get any special exemptions at all, and same with prison guards, off duty or retired.

 

I'm all in favor of HCP holders being able to carry inside any government building, to include city hall, courthouses, legislative plaza, and yes public schools.  Now if someone doesn't have an HCP and decides to carry, then they're in violation of the law, and should be prosecuted accordingly.

 

I'm just on the side of private property owners with this one, and since a firearm is involved, the force of law and threat of punishment should be applicable.

Probably as many times as people go in with out shoes, shirts, or light up a smoke, and can be handled the same way.  LEOs have no more or less duty to come to anyone's aid as you or I, but I still feel they deserve the exception, to include retired LEOs.  

 

 

For me, a decent parallel comes back to that thread we had a while ago about do you tell someone if you bring a gun into their home.  Acknowledging the differences in business vs. residential properties...I still use that line of thinking I had in that thread.  I either have a persons permission up front, or I don't, and if they expressly tell me they don't want me to (which is what the posting does in this case), I respect that.

Again, they can have their rules, just like any private property owner.  And if one of your guests takes a piss in your sink, you can ask him to leave (or bounce him out), if they do not then they can be charged with trespass.  Again, no reason to have a whole different class of crime, there is already a law capable of enforcing the rules.