Posted on 11/22/2016 6:29:40 PM PST by Kevin in California
You can kick anyone off your property for any reason you choose. I could require anyone on my property not wearing a suit and tie to leave, for example.
“How anal do you wish to be in this discussion? “
How outlandish do you want to be? You’re the one who wrote “NO ONE has the right to do ANYTHING on my property that I forbid.” I merely gave examples of where you’re statement is wrong.
“Seriously, do you think someone demanding sex from you and me forbidding you to say no is really germane to this conversation. “
Yes, because it’s an example of you being wrong when you wrote “NO ONE has the right to do ANYTHING on my property that I forbid.”
“If my rules included dying without resisting then you should have been gone a long time ago. “
Your property rights don’t include the right to make any such rule and you are wrong when you write “NO ONE has the right to do ANYTHING on my property that I forbid.”
Don’t misunderstand and think that I take property rights lightly. I don’t. But you are way out of line.
“Seriously, I expect better from a Freeper. Try to step it up if you are going to respond again please.”
Many people mistakenly see faults in others but are blind to those faults in themselves. Especially you, apparently.
Do you agree that you can kick anyone off your property for any reason you choose?
Oh goodie. A duel on Freerepublic.
Ok. 20 paces each. Turn, draw your weapon and fire off another snide salvo of demeaning insults.
U.S. v. Dalton (1991): This decision basically struck down the 1934, 1968 and 1986 gun control acts. It was not appealed by FedGov, I assume because a loss of this magnitude at the Supreme Court level would be devistating to all federal gun control laws.
United States v. Rock Island Armory (1991): Similar to the Dalton case above, this case would be extremely important to gun owners if only people knew about it. It held that the National Firearms Act was "originally passed as a taxing statute". Since Fedgov is not allowing citizens to purchase weapons covered under the act (machine guns and the like) because they will not allow them to purchase new tax stamps for them, they have effectively removed the 'tax nexus' from the act, which is what made it constitutional in the first place. Therefore, the entire house of cards of gun control at the federal level is struck down. That would include the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts.
Hey DU idiot! Did you read, that’s READ what I wrote? You moronic troll from DU are usually caught quickly! You’re caught! Now go back to your mom’s basement and back to DK or DU, your choice!
Exactly - the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Amendments applies to ALL Americans no matter where they reside in the States.
Mirrored your comment, moron!
Unless the wind blows your jacket or windbreaker, or you bend over to pick up a dropped item, or you sit carelessly...
Or, having conceal carried for over 30 years, one learns the do’s and don’t’s.
Welcome Newbie. Sometimes we take ourselves a bit too seriously. Sometimes Garth it’s best to just walk away from an online argument than to keep piling on.
Even when we’re confidant that we’re right, and the other bloke is wrong.
Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving.
Constitutionally laws can be passed and enforced against use of guns for anything at all but not against possessing or carrying them, including ammo and nuclear weapons. Libs profess to be horrified at the idea that individuals owning nukes or carrying around hand grenades and M-50s could be Constitutional, but the market puts some pretty sever limitations on what arms are actually carried and possessed. The crime, of course, is in the illegitimate use of arms, for settling arguments about what's for dinner or for sticking up banks, for instance. The ideal of preventing criminals or enemy soldiers (think jihadists and anarchists)from acquiring and using guns by laws against citizens is fatuous.
If he wins.
No. Individuals do not have that right. The RKBA does not give ANY exceptions. People have the right, of course, to not allow you on their property for whatever reason. It is a fine distinction but a distinction, nevertheless. Courts have held that companies cannot prevent their employees from having guns in their cars on company parking lots. Of course the company can fire an employee for some other reason (unless the employee is a black female illegal alien alcoholic).
So long as it doesn’t get to the USSC until after President Trump has appointed a Justice.
“Do you agree that you can kick anyone off your property for any reason you choose?”
If you mean do I have a right to kick someone off my property for some reason of my own, I agree.
Whether or not I actually can is another matter. If a SWAT team shows up with a faulty warrant or an outlaw gang shows up for whatever reason, I’d have the right to kick them off but that may not be something I actually can do, though I might die trying and even take some of them with me.
And I am reluctant to use the words “anyone” and “any reasons” as you did because I find them to be infinitely broad. For example “anyone” would include a spouse and infant child. “Any reason” may be that I unilaterally and without just cause decide to end the marriage contract. (Whether or not a particular property is their property as well as mine may be disputable depending on when and where we live.)
Now I’m reasonably sure you didn’t mean to include a spouse and child when you used the word “anyone” and you probably didn’t mean to include unilaterally ending the the marriage contract without just cause in “any reason”, but you did use those words and those things would be included.
By the way, depending on the terms, some sort of contract arrangement might be a reason I do not have a right to kick someone off my property, even if I actually can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.