Man Arrested For Carrying Gun into South Lansing Meijer

[stainless1911]

They have already done it, not only with smoking, but guns too, in churches, businesses and in schools. Some are public, some private, and some constitutionally protected. It makes no difference whose rights the legislature or the police violate.

 

[TheQ]

They have already done it, not only with smoking, but guns too, in churches, businesses and in schools. Some are public, some private, and some constitutionally protected. It makes no difference whose rights the legislature or the police violate.

So why not just ban all guns then?

 

[PDinDetroit]

How am I advocating it?

Here...

THe cop that broke the law by arresting him should be arrested himself.

I believe DrTodd tried to help you here:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...nsing-Meijer&p=1738342&viewfull=1#post1738342

As the Founders of OCDO stated in Forum Rule #15, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

I believe you will understand that "repeal it" means legislative action, which is one of the primary goals to get things changed. This is why you see people here advocating for Legal Language Changes in the form of Bills.

To "defeat it in the courts" does not mean "break the law, get caught doing so" as you give up the "legal advantage" by having to defend yourself instead of challenging the law (although it can be done this way, not what I would recommend). To "defeat it in the courts" is to bring a Legal Challenge to the Existing Law based upon some factor (like a constitutionality challenge).

I invite you to read the following from McDonald v City of Chicago. Otis McDonald petitioned the "court system" for a change in law based upon a constitutionality challenge.

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf

 

[PDinDetroit]

They are not opening their property to public use. The public can't go in and use it as they please. The store owner opens his business to certain customers for the specific purpose of exchanging currency for goods. Those customers may be refused service for any reason (as pointed out, no shirt, no shoes, no service).

The question that comes up for me is what is the demarcation for how many Rights a person can be denied on Private Property that maintains a Public Accommodation?

 

[stainless1911]

So why not just ban all guns then?

They are trying. That's part of my point.

According to 425o, I can exercise my second amendment at church, but only with permission, and only with a CPL. Despite the fact that it violates the right to freedom of religion, as bearing an arm is part of the Christian doctrine. 425o also dictates how and where the RKBA can be exercised at a public and private school. It already dictates how and where the right can be exercised within the private property of a hospital, a stadium, a bar, and at a college dorm, where btw, a person should have their tenants rights as in any other rented dwelling. 234d also dictates how and where the right can be exercised, nevermind the feelings of the owners of the establishment, or the rights of the people who may visit these establishments. A person who owns or operates such a business cannot grant a permission to carry openly or concealed, yet they can deny it without cause or thought. A person also cannot give another permission to CC in his or her own home, and that is supposed to be the most protected area of all the private property rights.

The .gov is already dictating where and how a person can or cannot do this or that, even in his or her own home.

 

[stainless1911]

How is it, that you get "Advocating lawlessness" out of wishing for charges to be brought to an officer for violating a mans rights?

 

[PDinDetroit]

How is it, that you get "Advocating lawlessness" out of wishing for charges to be brought to an officer for violating a mans rights?

Based upon the current laws, he did not violate the person's rights.

 

[ManInBlack]

The question that comes up for me is what is the demarcation for how many Rights a person can be denied on Private Property that maintains a Public Accommodation?

All and any. A person is under no obligation to visit private property, and if he finds the conditions for his stay to be unduly burdensome, he is free to LEAVE. Therefore, his rights can only be denied by his own, voluntary actions, and as such, don't really represent a denial at all.

 

[stainless1911]

as you give up the "legal advantage" by having to defend yourself instead of challenging the law (although it can be done this way, not what I would recommend).

And you saw how well that is working out for Rob and Scott in the video that 623 posted last week. Thew only way they could get resolution to that infuriating situation would have been to get arrested and then they would have gained access to the system for resolution to the problem.

That isnt advocating lawlessness either, as neither Scott nor Rob would have broken any laws, despite the possibility of arrest. False arrest charges would have found their way into the mix before the dust settled.

 

[stainless1911]

Based upon the current laws, he did not violate the person's rights.

Yes, he did. It just has to go through high courts, (as DrTodd correctly pointed out), in order to bring it to a resolution.

 

[stainless1911]

All and any. A person is under no obligation to visit private property, and if he finds the conditions for his stay to be unduly burdensome, he is free to LEAVE. Therefore, his rights can only be denied by his own, voluntary actions, and as such, don't really represent a denial at all.

Denial through duress.

ie. facing felonious criminal charges for attempting to exercise a right, or the necessity of being charged and fighting to the supreme court, at his own expense, in order to regain rights lost by a legislature which enacted an unconstitutional law.

 

[PDinDetroit]

All and any. A person is under no obligation to visit private property, and if he finds the conditions for his stay to be unduly burdensome, he is free to LEAVE. Therefore, his rights can only be denied by his own, voluntary actions, and as such, don't really represent a denial at all.

How about where a City/Township/Village/etc has established Voting at a Private Property with a Public Accommodation Location?

You see no difference between Private Property and Private Property with a Public Accommodation?

You believe that a person can be deprived of their Right to Life on Private Property with a Public Accommodation?

 

[PDinDetroit]

Yes, he did. It just has to go through high courts, (as DrTodd correctly pointed out), in order to bring it to a resolution.

Until it has gone through the courts and been found with the result you hope for, the action is still lawful to arrest. In fact, only after the laws have been found to be unconstitutional (MCL 750.227 and MCL 750.234d), could a cause of Unlawful Arrest be charged to an Officer.

 

[PDinDetroit]

And you saw how well that is working out for Rob and Scott in the video that 623 posted last week. Thew only way they could get resolution to that infuriating situation would have been to get arrested and then they would have gained access to the system for resolution to the problem.

That isnt advocating lawlessness either, as neither Scott nor Rob would have broken any laws, despite the possibility of arrest. False arrest charges would have found their way into the mix before the dust settled.

And, in the Marysville Incident, both Rob and Scott decided to keep the legal "upper hand" and not be arrested. This should be a clue.

 

[stainless1911]

My statements clearly do not violate the rules against advocating for the lawless. You are obviously petitioning the mods that I be banished again.

 

[stainless1911]

And, in the Marysville Incident, both Rob and Scott decided to keep the legal "upper hand" and not be arrested. This should be a clue.

I know what they were doing. I watched the threads intently, but in an attempt to keep the upper hand, they wound up empty handed.

 

[PDinDetroit]

My statements clearly do not violate the rules against advocating for the lawless. You are obviously petitioning the mods that I be banished again.

Absolutely not. No need to be paranoid. I am simply asking you to think first before you act so that you do not get into further trouble.

 

[PDinDetroit]

I know what they were doing. I watched the threads intently, but in an attempt to keep the upper hand, they wound up empty handed.

Are you so sure about that?

 

[stainless1911]

Thanks. I do try.

 

[stainless1911]

Are you so sure about that?

So far. I do hope that they have other options and that at least something is in the works under the radar.