re: Meet 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken who took down the shooter last night

quote:

---

To be very honest, I have seen nothing here more sophisticated in the way of argument than “I want to carry my gun, whereever I want, and your property rights be damned.“ (stomps foot)

---

Haven't read the thread... so not disputing this.

All I have to add is that there is a difference imo between the two cases below:

1. Private property owned by an individual who wants invited guests unarmed

2. Private property owned by a corporation that allows unrestricted public access to property and wants (board votes) guests/customers unarmed

quote:

---

I am still waiting for someone to show the “nuance “ in this issue.

---

I think you're trying to compare private property with total restriction of trespass from any individual to private property with specific instances of trespass based on something that doesn't carry force of law.

Nuance.

quote:

---

To be very honest, I have seen nothing here more sophisticated in the way of argument than “I want to carry my gun, whereever I want, and your property rights be damned.“ (stomps foot)

---

You've just admitted that your argument is only as good as a "no blacks sign" being permissible. Let's not pretend that you've made complex and compelling points here.

quote:

---

You've just admitted that your argument is only as good as a "no blacks sign" being permissible. Let's not pretend that you've made complex and compelling points here.

---

We both know that this is not what I said. I specifically said that it would not be enforceable. I said only that that one statute would not prohibit it.

quote:

---

doesn't carry force of law.

---

You keep using this terminology. Please explain exactly what you mean by it.

Is it your position a statute which specifically prohibit certain behavior does not have “full force of law” because it is not fully enforced?

If your point is that there are some violations which I consider to be more consequential than others, I will certainly acknowledge that.

That first statement was certainly a bit rhetorical.

quote:

---

If your point is that there are some violations which I consider to be more consequential than others, I will certainly acknowledge that.

---

Some people would consider that "nuance", which you claimed to have trouble finding earlier.

The frick for? His aim is food enough.

You were conflating two issues.

One question is whether there exists a trespass. No nuance there.

The second question is whether such a trespass would be acceptable. Plenty of nuance to be discussed.

quote:

---

We both know that this is not what I said. I specifically said that it would not be enforceable. I said only that that one statute would not prohibit it.

---

Do we? Because you admitted that the statute that you've been hammering on for several pages is only good in a vacuum and that there are other factors which apply. No meaningful difference between that and "no gun signs" not inherently carrying any weight.

quote:

---

You keep using this terminology. Please explain exactly what you mean by it.

Is it your position a statute which specifically prohibit certain behavior does not have “full force of law” because it is not fully enforced?

---

It is my position that your personal interpretation of this single statute does not result in criminal sanctions in Indiana.

quote:

---

of course you have no problem with a law being broken if it's ok by you

---

All the while playing "holier than thou"....

Dude picks and chooses the laws HE thinks are important.....

No WONDER he became a pretend Lawyer on a message board...

This thread needs to be screen-shot before he does one of his deceptive edits to cover his azz....

Again, you keep using the term “force of law.” What does that term mean to you?

Why do you contend that the Indiana trespass statute (regarding posted notice) does not have the “force of law?”

These questions are independent of my personal (correct) interpretation of that statute. I am asking your views. I can usually see your line of reasoning, but it eludes me here.

====

The best definition I have seen of “force of law” is something like “a rule that has been laid down for determining rights and legal obligations, which is recognized by the courts of justice.”

Perhaps LEOs in Indiana do not arrest for trespass upon signage notice. But that is a question of discretion. In my view, the ultimate question is whether a court WOULD enforce the law, if charges WERE brought.