Return to “2nd amend becoming meaningless”
ScottDLS wrote:What about a CO-OP condo like in New York...?WildBill wrote:It's very different. A condominium is a property not a corporation owned by stockholders.pt145ss wrote:As a condo owner most give the operations over to the home owners board who in turn gives the day to day stuff over to a management company. Does not make the condo owner any less of an owner. Not much different then owning voter stock.
It's very different. A condominium is a property not a corporation owned by stockholders.pt145ss wrote:As a condo owner most give the operations over to the home owners board who in turn gives the day to day stuff over to a management company. Does not make the condo owner any less of an owner. Not much different then owning voter stock.
A real big stretch IMO. People who own condos actually have ownership of the property.pt145ss wrote:This is probably a bit of a stretch, but there is some case law here in Texas (I can’t recall the name off the top of my head), where a guy was OC in a common area on the grounds of a condominium. I do not recall the details but essentially the guy was arrested because of OC and I believe later convicted. I think the conviction was overturned on appeal mostly because as a condominium owner, who also owned a small fraction of the common area and therefore was OC on his own property. In that situation, it did not seem to matter that he owned only a very small percentage.WildBill wrote:As a stockholder you have part ownership in the company, but it is managed by the board of directors, not the stockholders.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here's a thought. I believe that any owner can give notice allowing a LTC to walk past a compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. So if a property is owned by Exxon Mobile, and I am a part owner of that property because I own a part of Exxon Mobile, can I give myself and anyone else effective consent to carry on that property regardless of signage?PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?
The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.
I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
Your best bet is to elect a new board that goes along with your position of LTC. I hope you own a whole lot of shares.
Also, just because you own stock, does not necessarily mean you have voting-stock. On the other hand, you, in theory, can own very little stock and have super-voting rights.
As a stockholder you have part ownership in the company, but it is managed by the board of directors, not the stockholders.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here's a thought. I believe that any owner can give notice allowing a LTC to walk past a compliant 30.06 / 30.07 sign. So if a property is owned by Exxon Mobile, and I am a part owner of that property because I own a part of Exxon Mobile, can I give myself and anyone else effective consent to carry on that property regardless of signage?PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?
The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.
I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
anygunanywhere wrote:Remember folks, what you want forced on someone else can be forced on you.
Precisely.People with LTCs are not a "protected class" and are not likely to become one.PhilBob wrote:Similar to what ScottDLS wrote, is "private property" owned by a publicly traded company really "private"?
The same goes with regard to any company/store that does business with the public. With regard to MY private property, my home, I can legally exclude or discriminate against anyone I please. Let's say I have an irrational fear or concern when it comes to people in wheel chairs because of liability concerns (similar to a business owner/manager having with regard to guns). I don't want to and don't have to put in ramps, widen doorways or provide handicapped parking. I don't have to let a wheel chair into my home. As soon as I get licensed by the State to do business with the public and do so on my property I, nor that business owner/manager, now can no longer discriminate and have to provide that accessibility. LTC people are a "class" of people and businesses licensed to do business with the public should not be able to discriminate against gun owners, IMHO. Should they be able to prohibit OC vs CC? I'd rather they not but that is similar to establishing a dress code or code of conduct.
I don't have my LTC, yet, but I have started to look for signs and, even now, will avoid doing business with companies that post 30.06 signs whenever there is an alternative.
The constitution is the foundation of the system of our government. It defines the powers of the various branches of government.OlBill wrote:They shouldn't.Scott Farkus wrote:DonFromTexas wrote:I have trouble understanding all this as well. From reading this then if an armed police officer comes to your door, you can tell him o buzz off and only come back after he has disarmed himself. That don't seem right either.
I think I disagree with the idea presented that the constitution ONLY applies to the government.
I can't speak to what authority an LEO does or does not have to disarm in your home, but for purposes of the discussion in this thread, we're specifically talking about commercial property, not someone's home. Neither I nor I dare say anyone who advocates my side of this argument would support a law forcing licensed concealed carriers to carry into someone's home (or private non-commercial land) land against the homeowner's wishes. But the rules change when you open your doors to commerce.
But, but, but, they do.OlBill wrote:They shouldn't.Scott Farkus wrote:I can't speak to what authority an LEO does or does not have to disarm in your home, but for purposes of the discussion in this thread, we're specifically talking about commercial property, not someone's home. Neither I nor I dare say anyone who advocates my side of this argument would support a law forcing licensed concealed carriers to carry into someone's home (or private non-commercial land) land against the homeowner's wishes. But the rules change when you open your doors to commerce.DonFromTexas wrote:I have trouble understanding all this as well. From reading this then if an armed police officer comes to your door, you can tell him o buzz off and only come back after he has disarmed himself. That don't seem right either.
I think I disagree with the idea presented that the constitution ONLY applies to the government.
People having a handgun in their car are not carrying under the authority of their LTC,Scott Farkus wrote:But the grocery store is also accessible to the public, that's exactly the point. And you could make a "non-starter" argument out of pretty much anything. If all grocery stores, or all banks, or all shopping malls posted 30.06 signs, you'd effectively be denied your right to carry on days when you had to go to those places to transaction business. But the point remains, at the end of the day, we decided (rightly, imho) that if you own a parking lot and you don't want guns on your property, that's too bad. Mr. Parking Lot Owner doesn't get his property rights because that creates too much of a burden on licensed carriers, but Mr. Grocery Store Owner gets his even though a concealed carry gun does absolutely no more harm inside his store as it does inside the car parked outside.Breny414 wrote:Well, if property owners could prevent us from carrying in our vehicles on to their property, which is accessible to the public, then they could effectively deny us the right to carry at all. So, that's a non-starter.
It's a long story. Too long to post in this thread. There are many others that explain it if you want to search.tiger1279 wrote:The 2nd amend says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet I see my right to bear arms being infringed everywhere I turn. How is it that these "no carry" signs that are popping up everywhere are not un-Constitutional? Where is the exception that allows property owners and business owners to infringe on my right to carry? Maybe I'm to thick headed; but can someone explain this to me?
