Greg Jacobs wrote:
[In Texas,] to forbid a non-employee from carrying a concealed
handgun onto one's private property one MUST post the statutory sign.
As I noted earlier (but was not specific), there are still a handful of
private properties where carrying a handgun is prohibited, but no
On 8/6/05 6:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If signage exempts the church, I'd be hard put to see a 1st Amendment issue. A
religious objection to firearms is conceivable, but I'm hard put to see a
religious objection to hanging a sign. Not that plaintiffs couldn't claim one,
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Lowell C. Savage
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:34 PM
To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Takings
What grounds does a religious organization have for using the
courts to compel the government to prohibit certain activity
As the original posted noted, the church has an available remedy simply
by posting the specified legal signage, which would eliminate the
conflict of rights problem.
Would it be a cheap shot to observe that a pacifistic church that must
rely on the government to keep its own congregation
zinging] blast it, not another one!
_
-Original Message-
From: C. D. Tavares [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Aug 6, 2005 7:17 PM
To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Takings
As the original posted noted, the church has an available remedy simply
Proprietors don't usually post notices prohibiting weapons to be brought onto the
property because they are pacifistic. They mainly do it because they are advised
by lawyers that they risk being successfully sued if someone uses a weapon
unlawfully on the property and they didn't cover
It might help if I post the text of the statute in question in Minnesota
(though I'm interested in the question more generally; the same arguments
are being made in Oklahoma, as previous noted).
2.27 (c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may
2.28 not prohibit the lawful
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Takings
On 8/6/05 6:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If signage exempts the church, I'd be hard put to see a 1st Amendment issue. A
religious objection to firearms is conceivable, but I'm hard put to see
What grounds does a religious organization have for using the courts to
compel the government to prohibit certain activity?
The MN case, in particular seems entirely outlandish. If a church thinks
that guns should not be carried on it's property, then it should be working
to convince any
On 8/4/05 12:07 AM, rufx2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rather than a taking issue, it seems instead one of whether the parties'
respective liberty interests coexist on either side of the car door. the
invitation to the premises in conjunction with transport to the parking lot
of employment does
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:37:18 -0500, Robert Woolley wrote:
This particular legislation doesn't cover anything except pistols. Knives,
e.g., are not mentioned.
But suppose that a radically pacifist religious group *did* want to go so
far as to ban possession on its premises of any object (not part
Robert Woolley wrote:
The general question I pose to the list is this: What constitutional or
general legal principles govern whether, when, and to what degree a state
legislature may intrude on private property rights, particularly the right
to exclude others from one's property, as it relates
Note that in these cases the property owner WANTS the person
on their property but objects to what is discretely secured in their POV (which
the property owner INVITES to park in his lot).
Here's an analogy. A gun (carried for securitry) is like
a seeing-eye dog. A piece of special purpose
13 matches
Mail list logo
