I think this is the right forum..
Author |
Message |
tepin
|
Post subject: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm Posts: 1064 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Brits Pub downtown Minneapolis pulled their signs. Probably not "pro" but the signs are gone. I always ignored the signs, but it is nice to see someone else thought they were dumb and pulled them. I blew $70 there today on Snake Bites and had a wonderful time on the roof (as usual).
|
|
|
|
|
cobb
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:03 am |
|
1911 tainted |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
tepin wrote: ... I always ignored the signs, ... Aren't you an upstanding example of a Minnesota permit holder.
|
|
|
|
|
BurritoButt
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:31 am |
|
Member |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:30 am Posts: 33 Location: Brooklyn Park
|
cobb wrote: Aren't you an upstanding example of a Minnesota permit holder. cobb, aren't you being a little hard on tepin? I mean, I guess that if I were carrying, I'd probably find some other place to go, but do you really think that tepin ignoring the sign reflects badly on all permit holders? He was still legal, correct? And I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that his weapon was concealed? Okay, yes, I'm new to all this and I'm learning quite a bit by reading this forum, but I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning. Please educate me a bit (and no, there's no sarcasm in that statement. Like I said, I'm still learning.). -BB
_________________ *** My butt is not actually a burrito, nor does it resemble one. Wife still chews it quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
cobb
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:41 am |
|
1911 tainted |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
BurritoButt wrote: but do you really think that tepin ignoring the sign reflects badly on all permit holders? Yes, he is basically ignoring the wishes and rights of the property owner. Same as a person that ignores a posting of property and hunts it anyway, he is violating the property owner's rights. It doesn't matter if the property owner doesn't want guns or hunting on his property, it does reflect badly on permit holders, as it does on hunters that ignore postings.
|
|
|
|
|
BurritoButt
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:18 am |
|
Member |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:30 am Posts: 33 Location: Brooklyn Park
|
cobb wrote: Yes, he is basically ignoring the wishes and rights of the property owner. Understood. Thanks for the clarification. tepin wrote: I blew $70 there today on Snake Bites If tepin drank all of this, then I might have a real problem with him carrying at the time. BTW, I'm glad that Brits decided to pull the signs. It would be interesting to know what changed their minds.
_________________ *** My butt is not actually a burrito, nor does it resemble one. Wife still chews it quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
cobb
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:33 am |
|
1911 tainted |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
cobb wrote: .... ignore postings. Let me clarify this maybe a bit. Yes, I do think it reflects badly on all permit holders when a permit holder purposely ignores the posting and then put it out on the internet for all to see. Maybe I am getting older and overly cautious, but posting negative activities for anti's to possibly save and use in the future against a group is never a good practice.
|
|
|
|
|
BurritoButt
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:52 am |
|
Member |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:30 am Posts: 33 Location: Brooklyn Park
|
cobb wrote: Maybe I am getting older and overly cautious, ... Hell, we're all getting older. And I don't think overly cautious is necessarily a bad thing. cobb wrote: Yes, I do think it reflects badly on all permit holders when a permit holder purposely ignores the posting and then put it out on the internet for all to see. That's a good point, and one that I hadn't considered. I agree that carrying in a posted business certainly does violate the owners rights, but doesn't it also violate our right to carry? I suppose in this case that the owners rights trump our rights. An interesting discussion, cobb. Thanks for your insight.
_________________ *** My butt is not actually a burrito, nor does it resemble one. Wife still chews it quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
cobb
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:13 am |
|
1911 tainted |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
BurritoButt wrote: ... but doesn't it also violate our right to carry? Nope, he is not violating your rights, you can still carry, just not on his property and violating his rights. So in states that their constitution says that hunting is a right, is a land owner violating that hunter's rights by not allowing that hunter to hunt on the owners property? Don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
tepin
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:02 am |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm Posts: 1064 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Oh my. I guess my additional comments left too much room for making assumptions and we all know what that leads to... 1. My gun was at home and has been (mostly) for some time now (I didnt drink all $~70 either nor was I driving). 2. The few times in the last few years that my gun did leave the house, the gun remained in my car (mostly), sometimes loaded and sometimes unloaded in a secure case specifically designed for gun storage. I do know the difference between carry and transporting. 3. I generally try not to frequent places that 'post' but on the rare occasion that I did have a gun on me, I saw the sign, the sign was legal and compliant and I deliberately ignored the sign, I would have been happy and willing to leave the establishment when asked to do so in order to avoid a $25 ticket and or be charged with trespass. 4. Cobb, I believe your analogy between concealed carry in a posted establishment in MN and killing a deer on posted land is flawed. My opinion. Has the big debate been settled? Sign only? or sign plus a verbal? and only when refusing to leave is it a crime (petty at that)?
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:05 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
tepin wrote: :roll: Oh my. I guess my additional comments left too much room for making assumptions and we all know what that leads to...
1. My gun was at home and has been (mostly) for some time now (I didnt drink all $~70 either nor was I driving). 2. The few times in the last few years that my gun did leave the house, the gun remained in my car (mostly), sometimes loaded and sometimes unloaded in a secure case specifically designed for gun storage. I do know the difference between carry and transporting. 3. I generally try not to frequent places that 'post' but on the rare occasion that I did have a gun on me, I saw the sign, the sign was legal and compliant and I deliberately ignored the sign, I would have been happy and willing to leave the establishment when asked to do so in order to avoid a $25 ticket and or be charged with trespass. 4. Cobb, I believe your analogy between concealed carry in a posted establishment in MN and killing a deer on posted land is flawed. My opinion.
Has the big debate been settled? Sign only? or sign plus a verbal? and only when refusing to leave is it a crime (petty at that)? Debate? Other than whether or not it's a good idea (which is currently running in at least a couple of other threads at this very moment), no debate here. The signs mean what the law says they mean. I'll leave it at that. -Mark
|
|
|
|
|
tepin
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:31 am |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm Posts: 1064 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
I like this answer better:Thread HereAndrew Rothman wrote: Quote: Why is signage no longer required? In the 2005 version of the law, a business can notify that guns are banned EITHER with a compliant sign, OR verbally. But in both the 2003 and 2005 versions, the business must "demand compliance" -- a separate action from the sign or the verbal notification. IF that demand is ignored, and IF the cops are called, and IF the permit holder is still there when they arrive, the cops may issue a $25 petty misdemeanor ticket. To the best of anyone's knowledge, no such ticket has ever been issued. What does this mean? It means that carrying past a "proper" sign is COMPLETELY LEGAL. Refusing to leave AFTER a demand for compliance is the only time an infraction occurs. Every permit holder should understand this. If your carry instructor didn't make this clear, it's time to look for another class.mrokern wrote: tepin wrote: :roll: Oh my. I guess my additional comments left too much room for making assumptions and we all know what that leads to...
1. My gun was at home and has been (mostly) for some time now (I didnt drink all $~70 either nor was I driving). 2. The few times in the last few years that my gun did leave the house, the gun remained in my car (mostly), sometimes loaded and sometimes unloaded in a secure case specifically designed for gun storage. I do know the difference between carry and transporting. 3. I generally try not to frequent places that 'post' but on the rare occasion that I did have a gun on me, I saw the sign, the sign was legal and compliant and I deliberately ignored the sign, I would have been happy and willing to leave the establishment when asked to do so in order to avoid a $25 ticket and or be charged with trespass. 4. Cobb, I believe your analogy between concealed carry in a posted establishment in MN and killing a deer on posted land is flawed. My opinion.
Has the big debate been settled? Sign only? or sign plus a verbal? and only when refusing to leave is it a crime (petty at that)? Debate? Other than whether or not it's a good idea (which is currently running in at least a couple of other threads at this very moment), no debate here. The signs mean what the law says they mean. I'll leave it at that. -Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:43 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
cobb wrote: BurritoButt wrote: but do you really think that tepin ignoring the sign reflects badly on all permit holders? Yes, he is basically ignoring the wishes and rights of the property owner. Same as a person that ignores a posting of property and hunts it anyway, he is violating the property owner's rights. It doesn't matter if the property owner doesn't want guns or hunting on his property, it does reflect badly on permit holders, as it does on hunters that ignore postings. Sorry, but your analogy is badly flawed. Hunting on posted property is illegal trespass. Carrying past the sign is perfectly legal. The property owner DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT or expectation that no one will carry just because there is a sign. As the law says, he must both demand compliance and insist that the carrier leave, and no offense has occurred until the carrier refuses. Whether there is a moral right of business owners to keep blacks, Jews or permit holders out of public accommodations is a separate issue.
_________________ * NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
jaysong
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:29 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:09 am Posts: 983 Location: Brewster
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: cobb wrote: BurritoButt wrote: but do you really think that tepin ignoring the sign reflects badly on all permit holders? Yes, he is basically ignoring the wishes and rights of the property owner. Same as a person that ignores a posting of property and hunts it anyway, he is violating the property owner's rights. It doesn't matter if the property owner doesn't want guns or hunting on his property, it does reflect badly on permit holders, as it does on hunters that ignore postings. Sorry, but your analogy is badly flawed. Hunting on posted property is illegal trespass. Carrying past the sign is perfectly legal. The property owner DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT or expectation that no one will carry just because there is a sign. As the law says, he must both demand compliance and insist that the carrier leave, and no offense has occurred until the carrier refuses. Whether there is a moral right of business owners to keep blacks, Jews or permit holders out of public accommodations is a separate issue. IMO cobb's analogy is a good one. The only difference we are discussing is that one is illegal and the other is not. Just because something is not illegal does not make it smart or right to do. Cobb never said it was illegal. What he said was Quote: he is basically ignoring the wishes and rights of the property owner I agree with that. I am a supporter of private property rights and also the freedom to go somewhere eles and do business. Now if it were a government building or something like that ............
_________________ Professional Firearms Training. LLC.
http://www.mngunclass.com
|
|
|
|
|
cobb
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:36 pm |
|
1911 tainted |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
tepin wrote: Cobb, I believe your analogy between concealed carry in a posted establishment in MN and killing a deer on posted land is flawed. Please go back and reread. I never mentioned killing a deer or killing anything for that fact, when ignoring a posting, not even close. I wrote about ignoring a posting on purpose and how that looks negative, especially when opening proclaiming such on a public forum. For a person to ignore that posting, they are violating the property owners rights, period.
|
|
|
|
|
tepin
|
Post subject: Re: I think this is the right forum.. Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:25 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm Posts: 1064 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
LOL - The deer wasnt the point of my reply but, okay, you didnt use the word "deer" in any of your posts. For myself and maybe others, I am more concerned about what is and what is not legal. Like Andrew said, "Whether there is a moral right of business owners to keep blacks, Jews or permit holders out of public accommodations is a separate issue." - I hope you draw the distinction in your classes with regard to posted establishments and how all that stuff works. There have been many open discussions regarding the signs over the years and I dont believe one more dialog will help or hurt anything. Ignoring signs looks negative [on the permit to carry community]? This is like saying, "That driver with the whiskey plate and 3 DUI convictions makes ALL drivers look bad". But, alas, even this analogy is flawed because DUI is a crime and ignoring "We BAN...." signs isnt. cobb wrote: tepin wrote: Cobb, I believe your analogy between concealed carry in a posted establishment in MN and killing a deer on posted land is flawed. Please go back and reread. I never mentioned killing a deer or killing anything for that fact, when ignoring a posting, not even close. I wrote about ignoring a posting on purpose and how that looks negative, especially when opening proclaiming such on a public forum. For a person to ignore that posting, they are violating the property owners rights, period.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|