John R. Lott, Jr., CPRSC. Should schools have teachers carry guns? AAHB Health Behavior Research December 2018

[color of law]

I asked because you seemed to be indicating that only a “verbal informing” constituted such a lawful order.

Clearly, you are now including signage also as a lawful order.

The cite I was asking for was the one that would define “lawful order”, if there is such a one. CoL seems to be indicating that there is not, opting for a plain language definition.

There you go, putting words in my mouth. Where have I heard that before? We are not your research engine.

 

[Ghost1958]

I asked because you seemed to be indicating that only a “verbal informing” constituted such a lawful order.

Clearly, you are now including signage also as a lawful order.

The cite I was asking for was the one that would define “lawful order”, if there is such a one. CoL seems to be indicating that there is not, opting for a plain language definition.

Just to head off confusion, no trespassing signs carry FOL.

No gun /weapon signs do not

 

[eye95]

There you go, putting words in my mouth. Where have I heard that before? We are not your research engine.

I said “seems to be indicating”, not “CoL said...”. My words took full responsibility for my inference.

If what I thought you seem to be indicating is not what you were indicating, I welcome a correction.

Until and unless you do, I won’t be losing any sleep.

 

[since9]

Where you are mistaken...

Dude, it's written. There's no "interpretation" involved. It's right there in black and white.

You're not reading it, much less following it.

 

[Ghost1958]

Dude, it's written. There's no "interpretation" involved. It's right there in black and white.

You're not reading it, much less following it.

OK. I've owned land and lived here for 60 yrs. Dealt with trespassers as land owner and for others as LEO.

You don't know what your talking about. But
No trespassing signs have FOL. No weapon signs do not.

OTHER THAN YOUR DWELLING
If no no tresspassing signs are up, one is NOT trespassing until told one is.

Even if the landowner has called LE , if no signs are up the officer must tell the person they are trespassing and to leave. If the person leaves , NO LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN and no arrest may be made.

Now. You can ressurect this dead thread again to argue but you'll have to argue with someone else.
Ky trespassing law is off topic for one thing, and you are never going to accept the fact you are simply mistaken on your understanding of ky law.

Have a fine day.

 

[solus]

Since9, give it a rest...’he said xyz, you say no its abc oh wait moo....’ but in truth you are acting like a cat hung out on a clothesline by its tail flaying around clawing at nothing.

Give it a rest since9, go OC in the great high plateau communities and breathe the clean rarified air ~ oh I forgot by your own admission, you haven’t OC’d for about 10 years!

Alternatively, go hit the scenic pull off on 25 and stare at Pike’s peak or better yet, go walk around his statute in town.

 

[color of law]

KRS 237.110 If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer or business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying concealed weapons is prohibited.

 

[Ghost1958]

That is true. Those signs however mean nothing in ky. One may open carry past one with a KSP trooper standing beside it and he can do nothing . No law is broken.

Only after the owner or a representative of the owner verbally tells the carrier to leave and the carrier refuses to leave can the officer cite for trespass.
The presence of a firearm , legally has nothing to do with it.

 

[color of law]

That is true. Those signs however mean nothing in ky. One may open carry past one with a KSP trooper standing beside it and he can do nothing . No law is broken.

Only after the owner or a representative of the owner verbally tells the carrier to leave and the carrier refuses to leave can the officer cite for trespass.
The presence of a firearm , legally has nothing to do with it.

Not necessarily true.

People think that businesses open to the public can just choose who can or cannot shop at their business. Not the case. Most business exists at the pleasure of the state. Businesses are usually required to have a business license and strings come attached to that license.

There are piles of cases where a person was arrested for trespass and then acquitted. Trespass is a fact based crime. It is not a cut and dried offense. I speak from experience.

 

[Ghost1958]

Not necessarily true.

People think that businesses open to the public can just choose who can or cannot shop at their business. Not the case. Most business exists at the pleasure of the state. Businesses are usually required to have a business license and strings come attached to that license.

There are piles of cases where a person was arrested for trespass and then acquitted. Trespass is a fact based crime. It is not a cut and dried offense. I speak from experience.

Agree. I was speaking specifically to carrying a firearm past a no weapons sign in ky .


Im not sure what would happen if say a gay person carrying a gun past a no gun sign here were told to leave by the owner.
Owner can't use the gun as a reason here. A carrier has the absolute right to be armed anywhere he can legally be.

He couldn't say it was because the carrier was gay or wind up in court.



Interesting scenario.
In practice at least in my local neck of the woods a business owner pretty much can just say he doesn't want the person there without giving a reason.

 

[color of law]

Agree. I was speaking specifically to carrying a firearm past a no weapons sign in ky .


Im not sure what would happen if say a gay person carrying a gun past a no gun sign here were told to leave by the owner.
Owner can't use the gun as a reason here. A carrier has the absolute right to be armed anywhere he can legally be.

He couldn't say it was because the carrier was gay or wind up in court.



Interesting scenario.
In practice at least in my local neck of the woods a business owner pretty much can just say he doesn't want the person there without giving a reason.

Don't you mean an OPEN carrier? As we know a concealed carrier should not be detected.

 

[Ghost1958]

Don't you mean an OPEN carrier? As we know a concealed carrier should not be detected.

True that lol.
In all honesty I have open carried past no weapons signs in the past on motorcycle trips. Mostly see them in the west central part of the state.

I've never been asked to leave or take my gun out even then.
One waitress over the years mentioned " we have a no weapons sign sir ".
I asked if she would like me to leave.
Her reply " No. I just wondered if anybody ever sees it because we have people coming in with guns on a lot.".

 

[since9]

OK. I've owned land and lived here for 60 yrs. Dealt with trespassers as land owner and for others as LEO...

I do not care about your experience and neither does the written law.

There's an old expression in the Air Force: There are pilots who're certain they know what their talking about and pilots who're willing to look it up, in the regulations, in writing. It's usually the first type of pilot who caused the fatal peacetime accidents. I knew some, flew with some. Some are dead, courtesy of cumulus granite, high velocity H20, or the complicated problem of two aircraft trying to occupy the same point in space at the same time. If they didn't manage to kill themselves, they were sidelined to a desk job for being arrogant and dangerous. Most of them, however, ate crow (busted checkrides for violating the written regulations) instead of six feet of dirt, and learned how not to assume they had all the answers just because they've been around "for 60 yrs."

When the the written law says something different, what you think your experience is telling you does not matter. It might matter to you, but it certainly doesn't matter to me, because I learned long ago to never take someone's word for it when I had the opportunity to look it up for myself and see how the law is actually written.

When you continue to espouse one thing while the the written law says something different, then the written law itself calls your statements into question, making them suspect. It calls your experience into question. When you continue to elevate your experience about the written law, it begins to call your integrity into question.

You don't know what your talking about.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Thankfully, I can read, and since you chose to side with your experience instead of written law, your opinion, while still respected, frankly, no longer counts for much.

OTHER THAN YOUR DWELLING
If no no tresspassing signs are up, one is NOT trespassing until told one is.

Amazing... That's what "I've" been saying for the past month or so, namely, because that's what the written law says.

Only now, however, did you put it in terms which mesh with written law. Before this post, you were saying something distinctly different.

So now, by your own choices, actions, statements and comments, your integrity is hereby called into question.

You may not like it, Ghost1958, but my comments in the other thread, made more than a month ago, very specifically confirm what you are now just beginning to say, along with the fact that you changed your story and are trying to pretend you didn't while maligning my own good name by claiming otherwise.

THAT, sir, is grossly disingenuous.

 

[Ghost1958]

I do not care about your experience and neither does the written law.

There's an old expression in the Air Force: There are pilots who're certain they know what their talking about and pilots who're willing to look it up, in the regulations, in writing. It's usually the first type of pilot who caused the fatal peacetime accidents. I knew some, flew with some. Some are dead, courtesy of cumulus granite, high velocity H20, or the complicated problem of two aircraft trying to occupy the same point in space at the same time. If they didn't manage to kill themselves, they were sidelined to a desk job for being arrogant and dangerous. Most of them, however, ate crow (busted checkrides for violating the written regulations) instead of six feet of dirt, and learned how not to assume they had all the answers just because they've been around "for 60 yrs."

When the the written law says something different, what you think your experience is telling you does not matter. It might matter to you, but it certainly doesn't matter to me, because I learned long ago to never take someone's word for it when I had the opportunity to look it up for myself and see how the law is actually written.

When you continue to espouse one thing while the the written law says something different, then the written law itself calls your statements into question, making them suspect. It calls your experience into question. When you continue to elevate your experience about the written law, it begins to call your integrity into question.



Thanks for sharing your opinion. Thankfully, I can read, and since you chose to side with your experience instead of written law, your opinion, while still respected, frankly, no longer counts for much.



Amazing... That's what "I've" been saying for the past month or so, namely, because that's what the written law says.

Only now, however, did you put it in terms which mesh with written law. Before this post, you were saying something distinctly different.

So now, by your own choices, actions, statements and comments, your integrity is hereby called into question.

You may not like it, Ghost1958, but my comments in the other thread, made more than a month ago, very specifically confirm what you are now just beginning to say, along with the fact that you changed your story and are trying to pretend you didn't while maligning my own good name by claiming otherwise.

THAT, sir, is grossly disingenuous.

Your good name? If you good name can be damaged on a gun forum it wasnt much to begin with.

L I knew we were talking past each other but your a tad arrogant so its hard to get you to settle down.

I've stated ky trespassing law and sinage law consistently. I can't help it if you can't grasp it . Now I'm done with with this off topic discussion.
Please drop it.

 

[JTHunter2]

While there are some states that these "No Guns" signs seem to be for decoration with no "teeth" in them, Ill-Annoy is NOT one of those states. Here, those signs do have the "force of law". First offenses (IIRC) are misdemeanors but with hefty fines and a temporary loss of your CCP. I believe a second offense becomes a felony.

 

[since9]

Your good name? If you good name can be damaged on a gun forum it wasnt much to begin with.

L I knew we were talking past each other but your a tad arrogant so its hard to get you to settle down.

Ok, now you're just trying to push buttons, the immature antithesis of good conversation and the epitome of troll-like behavior.

You're back on ignore.

I've stated ky trespassing law and sinage law consistently.

No. You've stated what you think it is, but you've not been consistent.

Where you stated your opinion, I've cited the actual written law.

BIG difference.

'Bye.

 

[since9]

While there are some states that these "No Guns" signs seem to be for decoration with no "teeth" in them, Ill-Annoy is NOT one of those states. Here, those signs do have the "force of law". First offenses (IIRC) are misdemeanors but with hefty fines and a temporary loss of your CCP. I believe a second offense becomes a felony.

(low whistle) Excellent example of how important it is to recognize two things:

First, the fact that some Internet poster's opinion (referring to another person here, JTHunter2, not yourself) doesn't mean squat when the actual written law should be referenced, instead. In fact, following someone's opinion when it conflicts with the written text of the law can easily get you into some serious hot water, and excuses like, "But I found it on the Internet... Guy said he's a cop..." are NOT going to cut it.

Second: Although many laws are similar between the states, you can often find key provisions of the law vary significantly. Thus, anyone who exercises CC reciprocity or OC between states absolutely must find out, from written law, exactly what the written law itself says.

There's absolutely no way I would ever trust what someone says, even if it's someone claiming to be a cop or my own attorney. We have the law at our fingertips. I look it up myself and know it through and through.

 

[since9]

In fact, back in 2010 I went on a hike with some friends of mine, one of whom was a cop. Some members of our group mentioned they were scared of bears, as it was summertime in the back country. They knew I routinely carried, and accepted that, but when I reassured them I'd be carrying in that area, Debbie (a cop / not her actual name) said, "Uh, I don't think you can do that." She was emphatic, even mentioning to us she'd heard it from both local and national law enforcement sources. I told her I'd look into it, which I did.

Turns out some anti-gun nutter had, years before, erected a number of signs along the road leading back into the wildernerness area where he lived. He did so because he was tired of people coming back there and shooting.

Turns out his property is but a postage stamp, and he put the signs along several miles of the road leading back to his place.

Once I'd gathered all the applicable written law, including boundary line maps, along with the real story behind the signs, Debbie reviewed the material, was satisfied, and we both OC'd. We did get quite a few stares, and one person had the gumption to inform us that "No firearms are allowed back here -- Didn't you see all the signs?"

I swear, some people are so gullible, and do you know why they're so gullible, why they continue to put out false information? Two reasons:

1. They think they know more than they do, either because, "That's the way it's always been" or they've "been there, done that," but apparently never stopped to READ THE LAW.

2. Laws change and memories aren't perfect. They may have read the the written law at one time, but the laws have changed or they're not remembering as clearly as they think they are.

 

[eye95]

3. Laws are complicated, leading to misunderstandings.

Ohio gun law is a good example. It is full of this-is-illegal with an except-when-this (that makes the act legal), later modified by an except-when-that (that makes the act illegal again). It’s not too bad when the original pronouncement is in the same section with all the exceptions. Sometimes that is not the case.

Years ago, Ohio had a magazine limit. Most people did not know. It was impossible to find. Reading all the sections regarding what you can do and what you cannot do proved fruitless. The ban was in the definitions! Automatic weapons were banned in the you-can’t-do-this sections. The definitions section included in the term “automatic weapons” firearms that, when the detachable magazine was inserted, had a capacity of greater than 30+1.

You shouldn’t have to have a law school education to know and understand the law fully. These days you do.

 

[solus]

3. Laws are complicated, leading to misunderstandings.

Ohio gun law is a good example. It is full of this-is-illegal with an except-when-this (that makes the act legal), later modified by an except-when-that (that makes the act illegal again). It’s not too bad when the original pronouncement is in the same section with all the exceptions. Sometimes that is not the case.

Years ago, Ohio had a magazine limit. Most people did not know. It was impossible to find. Reading all the sections regarding what you can do and what you cannot do proved fruitless. The ban was in the definitions! Automatic weapons were banned in the you-can’t-do-this sections. The definitions section included in the term “automatic weapons” firearms that, when the detachable magazine was inserted, had a capacity of greater than 30+1.

You shouldn’t have to have a law school education to know and understand the law fully. These days you do.

Again gotta a cite or viable resource for your 30+1 automatic handgun mag limit nonsense? [you are referring to handgun mags right eye95 since LG discussion is forbidden on the forum]