Two separate issues mixed, again, here.
No, you clearly stated that YOU WILL carry onto private property where the owner's wishes are clearly posted against guns, in your 11:34 AM post yesterday, point #2.
But the points you are mixing up are that of carrying where it is against the property owner's wishes and carrying where it is
illegal. That is two
separate issues in many/most places. (Those two factors might overlap in your state -- I don't know.)
Carrying on private property, where the property owner has clearly and legally posted that they do NOT want firearms, puts me/all at risk of prosecution by the local Authority's discretion. All the slogans in the world about ..."judged by 12 than carried by 6." are NOT going to change the mind of a liberal DA, or Deputy, or Constable.
Ok, then I must assume that's because your local laws back up the property owner's signage or wishes with the force of law -- i.e. immediate arrest and prosecution for being caught violating that policy.
Here in PA, as in many other states, that just ISN'T SO. On the off chance the owner or his representative discovers my concealed firearm they may ask me to leave. That's it. And I must oblige, or
THEN I could face arrest for trespass. But no criminal charge attends being simply caught in violation of that policy, sign, or wish.
And, what are your ideas about private property?
They are varied and complicated. From a practical standpoint, they are whatever THE LAW says they are.
How can you NOT manage the privacy on YOUR property, and let others dictate/boycott your private decisions?
You're throwing around terms and issues again as if they were identical or equivalent when they are not.
Privacy? That's a wholly different question than anything we've been discussing here. Kind of hard to picture why you've included it.
(And I am concerned that you've included it as a dodge or red herring to extend your argument.)
As for "dictate/boycott" my private decisions? Not the same thing. No one (except the law/court) may
dictate my actions or decisions. A
boycott is not the same thing as dictating a course of action. It is merely a method of persuasion. A transactional arrangement between two people/entities with (more or less) equal rights. I can't FORCE Starbucks to allow me to carry my weapon -- with their knowledge and approval -- into their store. I can tell them that unless they do, I won't spend my money with them. If they want my money, they need to agree to my request. If they don't agree to my request, they don't get my money. They don't HAVE to have my money -- and don't HAVE to care about my opinion. I make my request, they decide whether to oblige. But I can express myself to them in the only way that they even remotely could care about. ($$$)
I am not violating their rights in ANY way. I'm expressing my opinion and spending my money where I choose.
Its a variation of the same sort of transactional relationships we have with every business (and other people) every day. I can tell McDonald's that I will patronize their business if they'll allow free refills on drinks, and have automatic opening bathroom doors. If they provide those services/accommodations, I'll spend my money with them. If they won't/don't, I'll spend my money somewhere that does. No one's rights are being violated.
Don't they have the
RIGHT to refuse my demands? Sure! Absolutely! But no one can make me spend my money there, either. All free will decisions, in response to real-world inputs.
