Trespassing

[marshaul]

What amazes me, leaving out the law, what kind of person outright goes against the wishes of a property owner.

I gotta be honest; there are wishes of property owners, and there are wishes of policy owners. The wishes of a sole proprietor seem, to me, much more significant than some stupid policy dreamed up in a boardroom for the purpose of political correctness.

For starters, I remain unconvinced that limited liability corporations (as practiced today) are a valid means of proprietorship (compatible with rights and a free market) in the first place.

Then there's the fact that the situation is rather one-sided in their favor; I feel quite comfortable asserting that such a policy enforced without explicit safety precautions (metal detectors, etc.) represents potential liability on the part of the business owners – liability which government has yet to enforce. As a result such businesses are making these decisions contingent on their ability to shift risk to other parties (their customers) without prior and explicit agreement. This is not a mechanism deriving from liberty or a free market.

So, when I avoid PF Chang's, it's not because I give a **** about the wishes of the "property owners" (a bunch of shareholders), or even accept that such entities are capable of possessing rights.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by WalkingWolf

What amazes me, leaving out the law, what kind of person outright goes against the wishes of a property owner.

What is really amazing is for folks who say they don't want government infringement on the right to bear arms to also say they want the government to infringe on the private property rights of others just because they would benefit from those infringements.

Wouldn't gun carriers who want the government to pass laws that infringe on private property rights just because they would benefit by being ... allowed... to carry their guns on/in private property be kinda like anti gunners wanting the government to pass more gun control laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms just because the anti gunners would benefit from those infringes by "feeling safe"?

 

[Grapeshot]

What is really amazing is for folks who say they don't want government infringement on the right to bear arms to also say they want the government to infringe on the private property rights of others just because they would benefit from those infringements.

Wouldn't gun carriers who want the government to pass laws that infringe on private property rights just because they would benefit by being ... allowed... to carry their guns on/in private property be kinda like anti gunners wanting the government to pass more gun control laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms just because the anti gunners would benefit from those infringes by "feeling safe"?

Nope - don't think it is the same at all.

One is clarifying for the judges and the fence sitters what is intended to be a clearly defined fact....the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment.

Besides which if we do not rise to the occasion then we will be buried by an avalanche from the other side.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Imposing/forcing your will on private property owners does nothing to normalize OC or CC, it alienates. If one person acts like a jack hole, to the uneducated it makes the whole look like jack holes.

 

[wrightme]

What is really amazing is for folks who say they don't want government infringement on the right to bear arms to also say they want the government to infringe on the private property rights of others just because they would benefit from those infringements.

Wouldn't gun carriers who want the government to pass laws that infringe on private property rights just because they would benefit by being ... allowed... to carry their guns on/in private property be kinda like anti gunners wanting the government to pass more gun control laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms just because the anti gunners would benefit from those infringes by "feeling safe"?

Can you show examples of those folks that you keep attempting to comment about?

 

[The Truth]

Dog hunters in Virginia have what's called a "Right to Retrieve" here in VA. It means they are allowed to trespass on private property in order to retrieve their deer dog. They cannot be armed, however.

 

[ProShooter]

What amazes me, leaving out the law, what kind of person outright goes against the wishes of a property owner.

Come on, you guys know damn well when they post a no guns sign they mean YOU with a gun. Why do some of you insist on being jerks and bringing excuses for the anti's to say we cannot be trusted.

IMO if you act like an A$$ you should be treated like one.

Best analysis yet.

Exactly on point.

 

[peter nap]

Can you show examples of those folks that you keep attempting to comment about?

Read the last 3 pages.

 

[wrightme]

Read the last 3 pages.

Which person and posts are doing that? I have not seen any post in this thread that advocates having the government pass laws restricting the rights of property owners.

 

[scouser]

Dog hunters in Virginia have what's called a "Right to Retrieve" here in VA. It means they are allowed to trespass on private property in order to retrieve their deer dog. They cannot be armed, however.

You mean § 18.2-136. Right of certain hunters to go on lands of another; carrying firearms or bows and arrows prohibited, which states

Fox hunters and coon hunters, when the chase begins on other lands, may follow their dogs on prohibited lands, and hunters of all other game, when the chase begins on other lands, may go upon prohibited lands to retrieve their dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls but may not carry firearms or bows and arrows on their persons or hunt any game while thereon. The use of vehicles to retrieve dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls on prohibited lands shall be allowed only with the permission of the landowner or his agent. Any person who goes on prohibited lands to retrieve his dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls pursuant to this section and who willfully refuses to identify himself when requested by the landowner or his agent to do so is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor

Is it enforced? Peter nap will tell you it is.

 

[The Truth]

Thanks for citing that, scouser. I've been meaning to do more extensive research.

 

[Marco]

§ 18.2-136. Right of certain hunters to go on lands of another; carrying firearms or bows and arrows prohibited, which states
Fox hunters and coon hunters, when the chase begins on other lands, may follow their dogs on prohibited lands, and hunters of all other game, when the chase begins on other lands, may go upon prohibited lands to retrieve their dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls but may not carry firearms or bows and arrows on their persons or hunt any game while thereon. The use of vehicles to retrieve dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls on prohibited lands shall be allowed only with the permission of the landowner or his agent. Any person who goes on prohibited lands to retrieve his dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls pursuant to this section and who willfully refuses to identify himself when requested by the landowner or his agent to do so is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor

After my dogs killed a few hunting dogs, folks stopped allowing their dogs to trespass on my property.

One guy complained .. stating" the law allows me to retrieve my dogs"
I replied " yeah, but the law doesn't state alive, dead or other wise."

Apparently the hunting dogs learned to read, as I have signs posted "Area patrolled by DOGS!

 

[davidmcbeth]

It always has been a common law exception to gather your property that has, by mistake, gone onto anothers. This statue seems to codify it and to limit the carry of guns. Clearly aimed or meant to be directed at concerns about poachers.

Can you shoot or arrest a 13 yrd old for getting his Frisbee back? Generally, no.

 

[The Truth]

It always has been a common law exception to gather your property that has, by mistake, gone onto anothers. This statue seems to codify it and to limit the carry of guns. Clearly aimed or meant to be directed at concerns about poachers.

Can you shoot or arrest a 13 yrd old for getting his Frisbee back? Generally, no.

If he threatens your life you can.

 

[scouser]

It always has been a common law exception to gather your property that has, by mistake, gone onto anothers. This statue seems to codify it and to limit the carry of guns. Clearly aimed or meant to be directed at concerns about poachers.

Can you shoot or arrest a 13 yrd old for getting his Frisbee back? Generally, no.

but then again, generally the 13 year old frisbee chucker isn't armed, nor is he driving a 4WD pickup and destroying a 6' wide path of vegetation

 

[davidmcbeth]

but then again, generally the 13 year old frisbee chucker isn't armed, nor is he driving a 4WD pickup and destroying a 6' wide path of vegetation

Or gettin' your game !

 

[scouser]

unless he delivered a knockout blow to the head with the frisbee.

On a totally unrelated note, david are there many kids playing with frisbees where you live?

 

[JamesCanby]

unless he delivered a knockout blow to the head with the frisbee.

On a totally unrelated note, david are there many kids playing with frisbees where you live?

Or.... perhaps he's recounting something from his OWN experiences...

 

[davidmcbeth]

unless he delivered a knockout blow to the head with the frisbee.

On a totally unrelated note, david are there many kids playing with frisbees where you live?

Too many....too many. Frisbee golf, Ultimate Frisbee, etc ...

 

[scouser]

unless he delivered a knockout blow to the head with the frisbee.

On a totally unrelated note, david are there many kids playing with frisbees where you live?

Too many....too many. Frisbee golf, Ultimate Frisbee, etc ...

explains a lot