The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Court Blocks N.Y.'s Requirement of Express Owner Permission to Carry Guns on Private Property
From a decision today by Judge John Sinatra (W.D.N.Y.) in Christian v. Nigrelli:
Another one of New York's new restrictions imposed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision is the private property exclusion. That new provision makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by express consent….
Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes. Thus, the motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants' enforcement of this private property exclusion is granted.
I have to run to class, but hope to have a bit more on this tonight or tomorrow. Congratulations to David Thompson, John Tienken, Nicolas Rotsko, and Peter Patterson of Cooper & Kirk, who represent plaintiffs. Note: One of the plaintiffs is the Firearms Policy Coalition, for which I sometimes consult; I wasn't involved in this case.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bravo!
Clairvoyant interpretation of the owner's wishes sorta violates due process mandates...
Clairvoyant interpretation of the owner’s wishes by the state is not permitted which will lead to clairvoyant interpretation of the owner’s wishes by armed individuals instead.
The legislators who enacted this provision may respond by increasing the penalties for possessing a firearm on posted property -- which, in educated, modern, and successful communities, may be most or nearly all private property.
How will the market incline most homeowners, office building owners, restaurateurs, retailers, etc. to choose with respect to posting a "no guns on property" sign? In rural areas, much of the public might refrain from patronizing businesses or visiting houses that prohibit guns. But in urban and suburban contexts, one might expect to encounter the converse -- customers would avoid premises that permit guns.
No animadversions anent judge Sinatra's opinion?
What other preferences of a property owner should be punished with a felony if they don't comply? I'm not talking about not leaving when asked, but not complying in first place.
Are you okay with it being a felony for a gay couple to walk into a bakery that has a "No gay wedding cakes" sign? If not, why not?
He would probably counter that no "educated, modern, and successful [jurisdiction]" would ever enact a statute making it a felony for a gay couple to walk into a bakery that displays a "No gay wedding cakes" sign.
Of course, he would unequivocally support legislation making it a felony for any "clinger" to enter any place of business sans mask.
Hypothetical hypocrisy is the worst!
By explicit constitutional command, owning and carrying a gun is a constitutional right. By judicial fiat and occasionally legislative act, so are SSM.
Barring people entering for one gets you the left's approbation, barring people entering for the other gets you a civil rights lawsuit. The hypocrisy is hardly hypothetical, it's on display every day.
Brett, I’m not sure you read carefully.
LibertyMike is making up stuff RAK will say in the future when it’s a felony not to bay the gays a wedding cake.
Yes, that is hypothetical. And yes, it’s dumb to get angry about stuff that isn’t real.
There is plenty of stuff you can get angry about that RAK actually says, I’m sure.
Hypothetical on RAK's part, but on display by the left as a whole on a continual basis.
Since the hypothetical law at issue is hypothetical, you are still wrong.
I think there is an individual right to self defense. I think the issues causing our mass shootings are more complex than just lotsa guns, so that blame is misplaced.
However these gun threads are just full of fiction. From certainty of bad faith in every decision that sees things differently, to massive leftist cabals stopped from their communist revolution only by guns, to getting righteous about what you have decided toe left would do.
None of this nonsense is needed to vindicate your legal case. I’m daft, such fringeyness hurts your policy options.
But gun rights advocate has turned an identity based on paranoia into a virtue.
What other private property right is enforced by a felony by the state if the visitor disregards the owner's wishes?
"From certainty of bad faith in every decision that sees things differently,"
Really, this is just you demanding we play Charlie Brown to your Lucy. That's all it is.
As I point out down thread, Heller came along and struck down literally the most outrageous gun law in the country: You could have a gun, disassembled in a safe, if you'd already owned it before the law was passed. If you took it out and reassembled it in your own home, you were a criminal. That's the law the Court struck down.
And did the gun control community say that the Court had done the reasonable thing, and that was was just too much? No. They went nuts.
Then with the McDonald decision, the Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to states, overturning a law scarcely less stringent.
Again, they went nuts.
And here we're discussing NY's incredibly obnoxious laws. And again, every gun controller seems to think them "reasonable".
What other conclusion can we reach except that you think "reasonable" just means "Every last measure we can get away with"?
You are sure you know what Heller means. Others disagree so you are sure it’s all bad faith.
You seem incapable of disagreeing with a court without calling them liars.,
Heller is fairly clear in what it means. If you disagree with its holding that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, what part of your ideology can you call "reasonable?"
Reading the Second Amendment to permit the law that Heller strukc down is like reading the Fourteenth Amendment to permit South African-style apartheid.
"However these gun threads are just full of fiction. From certainty of bad faith in every decision that sees things differently..."
Please explain to me the good faith that results in the 9th Circuit en banc upholding every single gun law that it has decided?
"No kissing" comes to mind.
"But in urban and suburban contexts, one might expect to encounter the converse — customers would avoid premises that permit guns."
I live in a suburban area. Very few stores or other businesses post signs forbidding gun possession on their property. Some businesses even post signs advising that those carrying guns (open or concealed) are welcome.
Are property owners required to post 'no guns' signs to avoid having concealed guns brought onto their property in your suburb? Or are concealed weapons forbidden (outside the home or fixed place of business) unless expressly authorized by the property owner?
Open carry is a different issue; in my experience, carrying a visible firearm onto business or residential property is met by a prompt demand to leave the premises immediately.
If gun possession becomes more common, so will resistance -- posting signs, having violators arrested, pushing for better gun safety laws, refusing to patronize businesses that permit armed customers -- by those who do not wish to live in a shoot-'em-up society. That's most of America, beyond the rural and southern stretches.
Your 'experience' has always been considered 'pissant' here "Rev".
When Minnesota changed from may issue to shall issue several years ago businesses that were open to the public had to post "no guns" signs if they wanted to prohibit armed visitors. Some did and most did not. Over the years many of those signs came down.
Turning away customers is not a very good retail sales strategy.
"If gun possession becomes more common, so will resistance "
It has become more common. Twenty-five States allow concealed carry without permit, and there are more firearms per capita than ever.
The resistance to it has not.
Gun possession is the resistance to people like him and their policies.
"If gun possession becomes more common, so will resistance"
Assumes facts not in evidence. The open carry movement in Washington was highly successful in normalizing firearm carry in the minds of the public. Fifteen years ago people called the police if they saw someone walking down the street with a firearm on their hip. Now they don't. I used to be challenged routinely, now I haven't had anyone say a word in years. Nobody cares anymore because they know that normal people with firearms aren't a threat to public safety. And yet the pols and the hard left still want to disarm everybody.
They know that an armed population gets in the way of their sick schemes.
I somewhat openly carry in our neighborhood when out walking our small dog, primarily from the 4 large coyotes in the area. Two people commented - Was I was the one open carrying? Yes. Keep it up! Not doubt, there are a bunch of other neighbors who are probably unsupportive - we have a lot of Teslas in the neighborhood. But no one has voiced a complaint.
I think people willing to openly complain to an armed person probably aren’t much afraid of that person using the weapon against them in anger. The people who *are* afraid of that person turning the gun on them in anger won’t complain.
Are there potential liability issues for people posting "guns welcome" signs?
Are there potential liability issues for people posting "guns prohibited" signs? You are far more likely to be injured or killed in a gun free zone so should the owner be liable if they prohibit you from defending yourself against a criminal nut job?
And if they do permit guns and a patron feels the need to defend themselves with deadly force, is the business liable for anyone they shoot by accident? (or on purpose?)
It's not the criminals I worry the most about; they have a clear goal and killing people complicates things. It's the nutjobs I worry the most about; the people who see conspiracies and threats everywhere or feel that deadly force and going out in a blaze of glory is their best option.
Seems to me a better use of taxpayer funds would have been to just make freely available some sort of "Guns are prohibited on these premises" sign.
That's what we had in Illinois. The Illinois State Police put a sign that was downloadable on their web site in 2013. Any merchant could print them out and post them at the door.
The "Mom's" gun control fanatics decided to "help" the store owners. They quietly posted them in stores in Naperville (IIRC) and several other Chicago suburbs without the owner's permission.
Store owners didn't find out until gun owners started handing out cards, telling them they'd take their business and $$$ elsewhere where they were welcome.
In time, after store owners realized there wasn't going to be the often promised "Bloodbath" over parking spaces, et. al. they've pretty much disappeared now.
I wonder who these fanatics are, and why they thought it was a good idea to mess with people.
So front doors on homes will now have signs for "No solicitation" and "no firearms?"
Hey, second stringer finally woke up to join the game.
Its the 2nd circuit. they will stay and eliminate the second amendment, save as it ever was.
Just like they did with Suddaby's ruling. They're acting in clear bad faith, and no one is holding them accountable.
New York is ultimately helping gun owners across the US. They’ve brought us lots more cases to establish 2A as a first class right and make the full extent of 2A rights clear. Now is a good time for it too.
They're also helping provide people in other states with some clarity about the aims of gun controllers, visa-vi "reasonable regulation". I expect that phrase fools fewer people these days.
Yes, New York Dems are exactly the same as Dems in every state, and everyone you disagree with is the same. And those disagreeing with you going to court and exercising their legal options is the height of bad faith tyranny.
Yes, they are all the same. All of their "common sense gun regulation" means ban as much as you can get away with.
Go fuck yourself, you liar.
Sarcastr0, recall when the Court overturned DC's strictest in the nation gun laws, and gun control advocates said, "A fair cop; We certainly wouldn't call THAT 'reasonable'!"
Neither do I.
At some point, in order to have claims that you're "reasonable" be taken seriously, you have to be willing to call SOMETHING "unreasonable". Gun controllers, with very few exceptions indeed, can't bring themselves to do that.
Huh. Most of this is utterly unresponsive to what I wrote, except for the part where you just state that everyone you disagree with on guns is the same.
It's perfectly responsive. Tell me in which state prominent advocates of gun control said that DC had gone too far, and that Heller was a good decision.
At this point the difference in gun controllers is just where you'd attack the right first, and how much you think you can get away with today.
Ah yes unless each state declaimed Lars by every other state you will assume NY Dems are like Arizona Dems.
Who is Lars?
The Squad does consist of one NY Democrat, one from Michigan, one from Massachusetts, and one from Minnesota. So there appears to be some similarity between Democrats across state lines. Particularly for those most dedicated to progressive politics.
The squad are not the ones passing MY laws.
Megalomania is treatable.
Thankfully YOUR laws are not real.
Meant NY laws.
What? This means that in NY I, as a home owner, can't say to a guest "no guns allowed in my house"? Am I missing something?
Not a lawyer (also not a NY resident).
Not at all. Were you a resident you would be perfectly at liberty to forbid guns on your property. The issue is solely what the status is if there is no signage either way. The New York law made carrying on private property illegal unless the owner specifically indicated that carry was allowed. Carrying on unposted properties was made illegal.
NY legislators know what is best for every property owner!
It means the government cannot say for you "no guns allowed" and require explicit permission from you though you are free to assert such a rule on your own though.
No, this is actually the other way around. You can always ask someone to leave, or post that no guns are allowed on your property.
Here, the state required explicit permission from the owners first. Which is a bit paradoxical, in many situations. Let's say you have a farm in the country somewhere. Your cousin comes to visit, he's been known to hunt, but you don't think much of it.
The very act of him driving onto your driveway, with a locked, unloaded hunting rifle in the trunk is now a felony crime. He can't even approach you to ask permission, because doing so would have the gun be on private property...even temporarily.
Now, perhaps you think that's fine. But extend this. He can't go to a gas station, unless he's got explicit permission from the owner, beforehand. Not even to gas the trunk up. And he can't just "leave" the firearm somewhere (which would be abandonment).
Now, part of the reason to have a firearm is for self defense, especially in a potentially dangerous gas station, late at night. This law basically evaporates that capability.
In fact, that's what NY has done in response to the federal law providing safe passage for gun owners so long as they are traveling from one point where they can legally have the firearm, to another point where they can: Interpret it as applying only so long as you are actively in transit, allowing them to arrest you for illegal firearms possession if you so much as stop for gas while passing through NY, or are legally flying with checked firearms, and get diverted to a NY airport for weather or maintenance issues.
In fact, IIRC, they have a standing arrangement with the airlines to be notified in that latter case, so that they can confiscate the guns and prosecute you.
Can you point to a single example anywhere in the history of the state of New York in which someone who was lawfully transporting a gun through the state pursuant to federal law who was prosecuted for illegal firearms possession for stopping for gas? Or is this just another paranoid delusion of yours?
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092029p.pdf
Educate yourself, moron.
Okay, so I started my education by looking at
an atlasWikipedia, and learning that New York and New Jersey are different states. Then I delved further into Wikipedia, and discovered that a hotel and a gas station are different businesses. And then I asked around, and I found out that sleeping and traveling are different activities.Other than that, brilliant comment, KKKman.
(To be clear, (1) I was already aware of this story; (2) I find the actions of the state of NJ outrageous in this story; but (3) the traveler in Brett's hypothetical was in technical compliance with § 926A, while the plaintiff in this actual case was not.)
Flight Diverted, Security Alerted...
It's a notorious problem for travelers with checked guns who get redirected to a NY airport for weather or mechanical reasons. Your only protection is to refuse to take possession of your baggage, even if this means you're stuck in a hotel overnight with nothing but the clothes on your back.
Not really clear to me why you linked to something that did not answer my question or support your claim.
WTF is wrong with you?
Sometimes he seems reasonable, but when ideology kicks in, he might as well be a chat bot.
What ideology would that be, Brett?
There's no question that prosecutors in New York have enforced gun restrictions against non-residents in fantastically unfair and unjust ways. Your link gives one example of how that could happen (though doesn't really present any evidence that what could happen actually has happened). But it doesn't say anything at all about whether it has ever happened that "someone who was lawfully transporting a gun through the state pursuant to federal law [] was prosecuted for illegal firearms possession for stopping for gas".
See, that's what I said. Just less pithily.
Your standard seems remarkably similar to the current QI jurisprudence.
Airport and highway "interceptions" have happened multiple times in New Jersey. That state is notorious for ignoring the Safe Passage provisions. And convictions there have been upheld.
While I don't personally know of any such examples in New York, the exact scenario above happened in Maryland about 4 years ago so you can't even say that it's just "Jersey crazy". In MD, the cop saw the person leave a shooting range, followed him to a gas station and arrested him because stopping for gas was not precisely "to and from the range" . The criminal charges were eventually dropped but at last report, the person is still in litigation to get his property back.
In the 80's I was in the Navy. We were flying to Philadelphia in a helicopter when we diverted to New Jersey because of weather. Instead of landing at a military base, we landed at a commercial airport. We had to overnight, so I had to stay with the aircraft to secure it. Somebody in the FBO called the police because I was armed. When the Police showed up I told them that I was legal to be armed and was authorized the use of deadly force to protect the aircraft and it's contents. The Cop took one look and said "Have a nice day." and left.
Smart cop...
Cool cop. Former Air Force who knew what was going on. We had two live torpedo's on the helo.
As I noted when it came up here several months ago, New York's law is (among other things) a backdoor way to ban guns in NYC. It bans firearms on all public transportation, which is how most New Yorkers get around the city. So unless you're among the minority of Manhattanites who drive, you can't carry a firearm. Even if you're only going within walking distance — and even if you manage to avoid everything that NY has called a "sensitive area" — you can't carry if you plan to enter any private business unless perhaps you know the owner, unless the business is one of the rare ones that proactively puts up a "guns allowed" sign. So, car travel is it. But you still need to store the gun unloaded, in your trunk, if you want to leave it there while you do enter the premises of a business, thus basically eliminating the utility of having the gun with you in the first place.
In suburban or rural areas where car travel is the norm, this is less of an issue, but it still poses similar problems regarding entrance to private property.
You as a property owner are perfectly welcome to make that decision. This is the government making the decision in advance on your behalf unless you actively contravene it. That's not how it's supposed to work.
Thank God for the Second Amendment. Otherwise Anderson Lee Aldrich might never have had the opportunity to shoot 23 people in just a couple of minutes in a Colorado Springs nightclub. I wonder whose nightclub or school or shopping center or house of worship will be next.
You're an idiot.
That is an insult to idiots.
Aren’t you supposed to blame the AR15 for shooting all those people?
God created man, Sam Colt made them equal.
Apparently you'd rather have the strongest beating up the meek, abusive husbands beating up wives, and the idle rich practicing their sword skills on peasants.
That moron would have had the opportunity to shoot up that gay bar, 2nd amendment nor not.
Look up Bataclan, Hypercasher and Charlie Hebdo you ignorant moron
Oh, you mean this guy? In case you were wondering why they were having trouble identifying a motive...
Unsubstantiated is enough for Brett this time!
What would you require to substantiate this?
Ask Brett.
Have you delegated Brett to answer your question?
He asked in court to be called "they" you stupid deviant.
Possibly sarcastically.
His lawyer's were in on the sarcasm? Hard to believe.
Would his lawyer have to be in on the sarcasm?
See filing at link:
https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/11/Aldrich-filing.png?ssl=1
I know his lawyers filed papers with that. The question is whether he means it or is just being sarastic.
...and why would his lawyers be sarcastic? How would that help his position?
If he's being sarcastic about it, that doesn't require him to let his lawyers in on the joke. Indeed, I expect they'd rather NOT be in on it, in that case.
More important than his pronouns is that fact that he previously engaged in very disturbing behavior, and yet the authorities failed to act:
https://apnews.com/article/gun-violence-shootings-colorado-politics-springs-ee6fe797a50cfca1bccfcc051c588187
This guy had red flags coming out of his ears, and yet the authorities did nothing. Whether that's from wokeness or just lazy incompetence (Occam's razor tells me the latter), we don't know. But it illustrates the problem that control laws are only as good as how they are enforced. Without enforcement, gun control laws just harass law-abiding citizens, while leaving the criminals and nut jobs to continue to do harm.
Just like every other gun law, red flag laws are not meant to actually accomplish the stated intent, but are only there to further an agenda. Straw purchases (or even just the attempt) are a federal felony - and supposedly NICS stops thousands upon thousands every year. Strangely the prosecution of this very common crime is extraordinarily rare. I simply can't imagine where anyone could have an issue as to the faith (good or bad) of gun control advocates.
There is no way to stop this, says frozen of only country where this happens regularly.
In this particular case, it could have been stopped by the authorities doing their job. The perp threated his mother (!) with a pipe bomb. It's insane that he was not prosecuted.
You are beating up on a straw man. The way to stop it is to enforce the laws we have. More laws that are not enforced do nothing but harass law-abiding criminals.
Why would you expect the left to change their position? Whether it's laws or regulations or spending the failure is because it wasn't enough, never is and never will be.
Apparently we allow a greater degree of liberty to people than other countries with the consequence that some abuse it.
Every signed 4473 that [legitimately] fails the NICS is a prima facie FELONY case. You would think that federal prosecutors would be all over those if for no other reason than padding their conviction stats.
Starting with Hunter Biden? Hahahahaha
Well, we wouldn't want federal prosecutors to treat him any differently than they treat every other liar, would we? In this case they aren't showing him any real favoritism, just the general disinterest in this crime.
Not sure how "wokeness" crept into this. But in a similar vein, you could add "the police were pro-2nd Amendment and didn't want to take his guns away" as one option.
If the pro-2nd Amendment crowd think red flag laws are just another attempt at banning guns, they'll resist them or refuse to enforce them.
Meanwhile, the assailant was stopped by unarmed good guys.
How about prosecuting him for threatening his mother and the neighbors with a pipe bomb? This is way beyond a red-flag law, it's dereliction of duty.
Gun control opposition does not mean that you think violent criminals should be given a pass. Quite the contrary.
Nice snark. Here are some facts:
* Before 2009 and the Heller decision, the 2d Amendment was a dead letter. There were still mass shootings before that date.
* There have also been mass shootings in other countries that do not have the 2d Amendment, many of which have strict gun control.
* There have been mass shootings in the US in states with relatively tight gun control. Like Connecticut.
So, sorry, the facts do not bear out your assertion.
Let's assume you've demonstrated that no amount of gun control will stop all mass shootings.
Will any type of gun control *reduce* them?
People in other societies seem not to shoot each other as much as US people do. What I don't hear in this discussion is any exploration of how to reduce mass murder shootings. I hear a lot of shrugging it off as the price of a free society. But the US isn't significantly more free from tyranny than many other societies with less shootings. So I struggle with why folks connect freedom (whatever that really means) and 2A absolutism so tightly. I think the facts also do not bear out that assertion either.
What would reduce mass shootings is identifying and constraining the nut cases. In almost all of the cases, there were clear warning signs about the person. This latest one in Colorado is an extreme example.
Let's go down that path. What constitutes a "clear warning sign" and what should be the consequence of exhibiting one? Doesn't that lead to either: (1) a hyper-sensitive system that chills 1A rights by stripping 2A rights from those who post "concerning" media or say "scary" things... or else (2) an ineffective one?
And short of locking someone up, what keeps them from simply procuring a gun in the private person-to-person market?
Locking them up is the answer. It's what we sensibly did until the 1970s.
"What constitutes a “clear warning sign”
Threatening to blow up your mother? Pretty hard to procure a gun in jail.
Okay, but the authorities knew he threatened his mother, had a law available, and still did not use it.
But more to the point -- if threatening one's mother is adequate to lock someone up (Noorondoor, really?) or strip their 2A rights, then there are an awful lot of people who fall into that category and presumably think they're not dangers to society.
You good with stripping off 2A rights from someone whose ex-girlfriend says he threatened to kill her during a spat? How often do you think that happens?
No, but I would never lay any consequences on a man for anything claimed by a woman.
Are you saying other countries with guns but with much lower gun violence are just "restraining the nutcases" better than we are? Or are there just more nutcases in the US than other Western countries?
I don't think "nutcases" explains the outsized volume of mass shootings in this country and as long as we frame it that way, we'll never come to a solution that respects the rights of people who need or want firearms while reducing the cost to society of having firearms available.
Ponder this, non-gun homicides in the US occur at higher rates than all homicides in most European countries.
"Will any type of gun control *reduce* them?"
It hasn't in California.
Charlie Hebdo has been mentioned here. I find it strange that it's never mentioned that those shooters had FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons and grenades. I still remember the video of the UNARMED French cop getting blown away with an AK-47.
I am getting really sick of this shit about how many mass shootings happen and how to stop them. Truth be told the Colorado Springs shooting (and similar mass shootings) happen once in a blue moon. The accepted definition of a mass shooting is when three or more peeps are shot, something that happens nearly every weekend in shiteating dem run cities like Detroit, Chicago, and the like.
But the perps are not mentally ill (in the medical definition of the term); rather they are corner boy goons enforcing gang territory limits. There have been somewhere over 3,000 mass shootings so far this year according to FBI statistics and well over 95% of them are related to gang beefs and often silly ones at that. Not to mention that often times the perps are underage and can not legally possess firearms.
Not saying the Colorado Springs shooter should have been able to buy or own a gun, he clearly is a nut case. But even if he had been red flagged it would not have made a dent in the number of mass shootings. Not to mention the stupidity of gun control nuts blabbing about assault weapon bans when long guns are responsible for only a tiny number of deaths and pistols are a far greater danger in terms of sheer numbers.
Libturds won't stop blabbing about follow the science but when it comes to gun laws they seem to be happy to ignore reality.
Hochul and the rest of the little Hitlers will never give up.
Also neither a lawyer nor NY resident.
Nope. The new NY law, as I understand it says that a person, even a licensed concealed carrier, having a weapon on private property (residential and commercial) is a crime UNLESS the owner gives their express permission to be armed.
So imagine that I'm a small business owner and licensed concealed carrier. I walk into the bank to make my daily deposit while carrying my weapon. Under the NY law I could be charged with a felony UNLESS the bank had, say, posted a sign saying something like "Weapons a permitted on these premises."
The movie theater across the street can still post their sign "Weapons are prohibited on these premises."
Now consider that you the homeowner called my small business, let's say it's a pharmacy, and ordered a refill on a prescription. I offer to bring it to your house as soon as I finish up at the bank.
Under that NY law I would be committing a felony if I stepped into your house while armed, again, UNLESS you EXPLICITLY granted permission.
Can you, the homeowner ban guns on your property? Obviously you can put up a sign like the theater. Could you call the cops and have me arrested if I did it anyway? I have no idea.
Anyway, that's what I think.
Why should the right to exclude be presumed vis-a-vis a private citizen but not with the Praetorian Guard?
"Could you call the cops and have me arrested if I did it anyway?"
Generally speaking, anyone who the owner tells to leave must do. If they refuse, that's the crime of trespass and the trespasser is indeed subject to arrest[1]. But, generally speaking, if the owner wants men to wear ties (as some restaurants do), he can put up a 'Ties Required' sign, but you aren't committing a crime if you ignore the sign and walk in anyway. The crime happens when he tells you to leave and you refuse.
Note that some states do have an exception for guns, where ignoring a 'No Guns' sign is a crime even if you aren't asked to leave, and even if no one knows you have the gun.
[1]I once saw a news article where someone had served his time in jail. When they went to release him, he refused to leave. I asked a cop friend what they would do then. His answer, of course, was 'arrest him for trespass' :-).
It means the government cannot say for you "no guns allowed" and require explicit permission from you though you are free to assert such a rule on your own though.
Social Justice is neither — I do not think that assertion of freedom is quite realistic. At the very least, any owner of an extensive property who posts, "No Guns," around the perimeter can expect repeated incoming gunfire, as feckless gun carriers target the signs.
At least for now, that would not be a realistic worry for the owner of a shop in a town. But such property owners will worry anyway about what may be coming their way. Few will choose to post signs which might provoke armed hostility.
Demands to increase gun prevalence are not viewed by arms opponents as a peaceable impulse. For them, it feels like license for intimidation and public coercion. It is an uncertain problem to assess the extent to which it feels that way to gun advocates too.
Imaginary gunfire is the worst gunfire!
LOL
Michael P — Not imaginary. You deny the way less-disciplined (or more feckless) members of the gun-nut community behave. Maybe you are just in denial.
There are large swaths of the American West where essentially every roadside sign is riddled with bullet holes. Stop signs. Directional signs. Information signs. With notably more bullet holes in signs which suggest exclusions or prohibitions. You cannot get far enough from settled America to get free of that.
Go to rural Idaho, drive 40 miles on a dirt road, climb over switchbacks to a crest dividing watersheds—where State Fish and Game authorities set up a sign to remind folks they are entering country where it is illegal to take and keep some rare and endangered fish species—and that sign will be riddled worse than any of the others you passed along the way. Want to see it? Go to Mackay Idaho. Take the Pass Creek Road east over the Lost River Range. Stop at the summit.
Or just pick any rural Idaho road at random. Or try Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Montana—or any other rural place where American gun culture remains loud and proud. The fact is there are plenty of gun nuts who just get itchy if they have a gun in their hands and nothing to shoot at. Too many of them get resentful at any suggestion they can't do it.
Gun possession does nothing to improve the character of gun owners. A policy to arm everyone is willy-nilly a policy to arm virtuous people of good character, but also to arm plenty of people with bad character and worse self-control. The case discussed in the OP shows a judge who is heedless of that.
Yes, we know you are a nut about guns. And speech. And everything else. You don't need to demonstrate further, especially with your verbal diarrhea.
Michael P, apologies for straining your attention span. Maybe bypass material too long for your Twitter training.
Stephen, brevity is the soul of wit.
Based on the length of most of your posts and their content, you are witless.
Bumble, I appreciate wit. One of the wittiest men who ever wrote in English pronounced this brief line one of the best he ever heard:
"We are all descended from grandfathers!"
Because it's short, I'm sure you get it. Or do you think maybe Mark Twain wrote too long to know what's funny?
"There are large swaths of the American West where essentially every roadside sign is riddled with bullet holes....Or just pick any rural Idaho road at random. Or try Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Montana—or any other rural place where American gun culture remains loud and proud."
I've lived/traveled extensively in those states for 40 years now and ... nope, that's just not true.
The last time I saw a bullet riddled sign, in the mountains of N.C., it was a "No Tresspassing" sign, and the bullet holes were pretty obviously there just to lend some urgency to the message.
Absaroka, do you assert that roadside signs riddled with bullet holes are not commonplace? Are you saying you seldom or never see them?
In the region where I lived in Idaho, they were ubiquitous—both during the 1970s–1980s when I lived there, and still during a return visit a few years ago. I can add that a fair amount of private property—especially abandoned-looking cars and old farm equipment left in sight of roadways—also got shot up.
I mentioned other states where I had seen similar gun vandalism, perhaps assuming mistakenly it was as common there as in rural Idaho. I did not mention any place where I did not have first-hand experience, so it would be helpful if you could qualify your disagreement.
"Absaroka, do you assert that roadside signs riddled with bullet holes are not commonplace? Are you saying you seldom or never see them?"
That is correct. I have seen signs with holes in them - more, IMHE, in say Virginia than anywhere out west. But "riddled with bullet holes are ... commonplace" - nope, not close.
"In the region where I lived in Idaho, they were ubiquitous—both during the 1970s–1980s when I lived there, and still during a return visit a few years ago."
This is south central ID, like Blaine County? I have spent a fair amount of time there, and I haven't seen what you say. Or anywhere else in those states.
This is also my experience in rural parts of California and Nevada.
Not the right places then. We spend half the year in rural NW MT, and outside the city limits, road signs very often show bullet damage. Teenagers.
In my experience, the only "nuts" are the anti-gun crowd. Their desire to remove my rights borders on obsession.
I can't recall the last time I agreed with Stephen Lathrop and I am not sure I completely agree with him about "where essentially every roadside sign is riddled with bullet holes". Not to say it doesn't happen just that it may not be as common as he claims.
The county where I live has a free public gun range that is well away from paved roads and many (but not all) of the signs on the dirt roads leading to it have holes from gun shots. On the other hand the NRA sponsored range has a similar out of the way location and there are no bullet holes on the road signs leading to it. As an aside I was involved in making a commercial vid at the county range and spent several hours on a Friday getting B roll. My first cameraman is quite the liberal (and very talented with lighting) noted that at 5:00PM (when the light starts to turn into what is called the golden light) all the white peeps started to leave and black peeps started to arrive. Clearly not a written rule but never the less a de facto rule. Needless to say we packed up and left in a hurry.
Where I live, no gun signs are not enforceable, so I don't honor them. I don't shoot at signs either, however, I do post 1 star yelp reviews on their pages.
PAGING Sarcastr0, Mr. Sarcastr0 to the hypotheticals hotline!
I don’t read that guy. Seems y’all have taken care of him.
I live in Texas, which has probably the strongest percentage of wacko gun nuts in the country. And yet I have never seen a single person shoot at a no-guns sign (and there are plenty) or in any way violently protest them. You're creating problems out of pure fantasy.
Oh, noes! Blood in the streets! Wild West!
With present knowledge, facts to justify a decision one way or the other are lacking. The legal posture to decide this case might be described accurately as equipoise founded on ignorance.
For this case, to make an informed decision requires detailed knowledge of the effects of public gun prevalence. A decision to prioritize public gun carrying on private property might be justified with firm knowledge that to allow it would improve public safety. If factual insight showed instead that increased public gun prevalence delivered increased public danger, then that same decision becomes an outrage, and an offense against rights of property ownership.
Remarkably, after decades of anxious uncertainty on the question, no research reliable to improve insight on public gun prevalence has yet been done. Largely that has happened because gun advocates oppose such research, and do what they can to block it politically. In that, they have succeeded.
Gun opponents with the political power to do so would use epidemiological methods and legal requirements to standardize questions everywhere. They would collect research based on gun deaths, and gun injury experience across the nation. That prospect frightens gun advocates. So far, gun advocates have prevailed.
That background colors the legal decision. It puts justifiable focus on whether a judge or a legislature is better qualified based on pure guesswork to make a legally binding imposition on property rights.
I would have thought the American legal tradition assigned that kind of uncertain policy question to the political branches. Pretty clearly, right-wing, politically inflected courts have set out to change that tradition. The Bruen case is exhibit A to show it.
This is not a decision to settle upsetting questions. It will make the upsets worse.
"no research reliable to improve insight on public gun prevalence has yet been done. "
I gather what you mean by that is gun registration? Which gun owners oppose as facilitating confiscation?
"It puts justifiable focus on whether a judge or a legislature is better qualified based on pure guesswork to make a legally binding imposition on property rights."
How about "neither"? Let the property owner bar carrying guns onto their property if they wish, but don't impose it on them?
I favor registration but don’t see anything about the that in what you quoted.
It's a possible reading of "research on gun prevalence"; Perhaps he meant something else, but what?
Bellmore, that is not a possible reading of this (quoting myself):
Gun opponents with the political power to do so would use epidemiological methods and legal requirements to standardize questions everywhere. They would collect research based on gun deaths, and gun injury experience across the nation. That prospect frightens gun advocates. So far, gun advocates have prevailed.
I will put you down as a frightened and evasive gun advocate. Why not try to do better, and join in an effort to use research which on your premises is bound to support the gun policy outcomes you prefer? If that happened it could convert people like me to more-assertive support for policies you like. But I would be a surprised convert, because I do not now expect research would show anything but a violent downside to increased gun prevalence everywhere.
I think that is what you expect too. It is why I judge you to be among the class of emotional and irrational gun supporters.
You have conspicuously omitted from the quote of yourself the precise language i was responding to...
“Gun opponents with the political power to do so would use epidemiological methods and legal requirements to standardize questions everywhere.”
In your telling, was widespread stop-and-frisk (before Floyd v. City of New York; dropping from 685,724 stops in 2011 to 13,459 in 2019) a resounding success for NYC by not only improving insight into “public prevalence” of guns, drugs, or other contraband, but also allowing police to immediately confiscate the contraband and arrest offenders — or was it largely a way for police to violate the constitutional rights of pedestrians based on essentially police whim?
I don't think approaches like "stop-and-frisk" would meet modern, ethical research standards or provide reliable data or analysis.
I am seriously concerned that something is actually wrong with you. This has nothing to do with whether it improves public safety or not. Constitutional rights exist even where they harm public safety. You could really cut down on crime by eliminating a whole bunch of constitutional provisions.
Practicalities are part of rights jurisprudence.
Okay, cool, so why not preemptively lock up all black males?
So you advocate for a "Minority Report" agency?
Careful, because you might be arrested under such a setup.
What kind of insane false choice is this?
Time place and manner restrictions are what I was thinking about.
Not such a false choice, since anti-gun advocates seem to think legal gun ownership is a predicate to crime.
Bumble, the accurate view of the question is that legal gun ownership is a predicate to both crime and continued legal behavior. It is also a force multiplier for the crimes, and arguably, but less certainly, for legal self-defense as well.
Anyone who takes that accurate view ought to be able to see why gun rights absolutism is nonsense, just as 1A absolutism would be nonsense. No rights can be absolute.
Gun advocates who recognized that would enjoy better long-term prospects to avoid draconian restrictions. As gun prevalence in densely-settled communities increases, expect a notable political backlash.
This has been a bad week for random mass shootings. What do you think would happen politically if this week's violence became a lull in a more-violent norm?
The only reason you have gun "absolutism" is because your "common sense compromises" are always a next step, never an end.
"Bumble, the accurate view of the question is that legal gun ownership is a predicate to both crime and continued legal behavior."
Ownership, period, is that predicate for crime. That it be legal ownership is only necessary for the legal behavior, trivially.
"As [the presence of people who are not like Stephen Lathrop] in densely-settled communities increases, expect a notable political backlash."
That’s not responsive to my objection to tkamenic’s ignorance of how rights operate.
It would, if the Second Amendment didn't exist. You don't seem to grasp that it — or the first amendment, for that matter — takes many of these issues out of the realm of policy questions.
Nieporent, the 2A with its protection of a state militia right says absolutely nothing about whether New York State is empowered to control private gun carrier intrusions on the private property of others. Even the more outlandish recent interpretations of the 2A (prior to the Uber-outlandish Bruen) do not come close to doing that.
Even in light of Bruen, the best you can say is that it is a question which could go either way. History and tradition support neither side of the argument. The 2A does not answer it. So this is not among the, "many of these issues out of the realm of policy questions."
Exactly what does "infringe" mean to you?
Laws like this are similar to sex offender laws that prohibited a registered sex offender from living within a certain distance from various locales; effectively prohibiting them from living anywhere within the jurisdiction.
The only infringements they're concerned with are telling a woman she can't kill her baby or a gay man with HIV that he can't bareback other men.
The 2A does not protect a "state militia right," so there's not really any reason to read further.
But I did. So of course New York is empowered to protect private property rights, so people who "intrude" on other people's property can be sanctioned, whether those intruders have firearms or not. But this law isn't about protecting private property rights; it criminalizes possession on other people's property even if the property owner is perfectly okay with it.
Nieporent, please try to spare me the effort to parse that last sentence. It makes no sense in any forthright layman's interpretation, but I'm sure you have some lawyerly gloss to support it with.
I found it perfectly clear.
This law has no impact on property owners' rights, it simply establishes a default rule that can be over-ridden by displaying a notice, and makes violating that default rule a felony.
With this law, a property owner can post a notice saying guns are permitted, and if they fail to, they are banned. Without this law, they could still post a notice saying they're not permitted. Either way, the owner can order any person on their property to leave, and if they fail to do so they're trespassing.
All the impact is on people entering the property.
Formerly, if you entered a property in NY that was posted against guns, carrying a gun, you were a trespasser. Now, if you enter a property in NY that is NOT posted FOR guns, carrying a gun, you are a trespasser AND a felon.
No impact at all on anybody who isn't exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment, but the impact on those people is overwhelming.
I think that your are ignoring that Bruen essentially banned interest balancing.
Stephen Lathrop what a pile of dog shit.
There is not much disagreement that if you walk along Lakeshore Drive in Chicago the chance of gun violence is minimal while if you walk in the black ghetto areas of the same city you are taking your life in your own hands.
I would also claim that the majority of gun presence on Lakeshore Drive is legal while in the ghetto it is not only illegal but a lot of peeps carrying are prohibited from owning/carrying a weapon by their age alone.
Point is the danger of gun presence is very much related to the geographical area where one is located.
ragebot — That is exactly the kind of claim I think we should use research to measure. Presumably it would at least somewhat confirm what you say. I am pretty sure it would also turn up some surprises. As a numbers-oriented kind of guy, what wouldn't you want to base policy on the best numbers you could get? Would you support me in a call for standardized data collection to cover every instance nationwide where someone suffers a gunshot wound, fatal or otherwise?
Another day, another mass shooting, another offering of hopes and prayers from gun fans and their political allies.
If those who favor substantial gun rights do not identify and implement sensible and effective gun safety laws, they should expect other Americans to do it for them, likely involving a mainstream backlash against guns absolutists generating laws many gun enthusiasts will dislike.
And hopefully that backlash leads to violence against the mainstrema.
All-talk, bigoted, disaffected gun nuts are among my favorite culture war casualties.
…another case of a failure to prosecute (the Colorado shooting) where the perpetrator was know to the police and prosecutors.
See Bored Lawyer post above.
Sure are more and more of these bloody prosecutorial failures in hindsight!
The excuse making regarding mass shooters is getting pretty lame these days. Current policies seem pretty clearly not equipped to prevent this. Dunno if guns are the only way to address the issue, but it is absolutely an issue.
Tell it to soft-on-crime leftist DAs. They insist that America -- or at least their captive voters -- demand that these policies get amped up to 11.
Righties cite this but never demonstrate cause.
Reflexive tough on crime won’t stop mass shootings.
“Reflexive tough on crime won’t stop mass shootings.”
Maybe in general but in the Colorado case (and others) it would have.
Leftists, who are stereotypically anti-gun, won't prosecute gun crimes? That's your argument?
It's not an argument,
it is a fact.
Yes. Because most of the prosecutions would be of black males, their political pets.
If those who favor substantial gun control do not identify and implement sensible and effective protections for gun rights, they should expect other Americans to do it for them, likely involving a judicial backlash against gun control generating rulings many gun opponents will dislike.
Either die by nutty gun owners who are unregulated, or die by angry gun owners who don't like being regulated?
"Either die by nutty gun owners who are unregulated, or die by angry gun owners who don’t like being regulated?"
Either way the bogeyman eats you. The only thing that could have saved you is becoming a sane, rational person. There may still be time for that if you stop making up stories soon.
Being on the wrong side of history and choosing the losing side of the American culture war seems destined to have severe consequences for gun nuts.
I am content to let time, reason, the continuing improvement of the American electorate, and the longstanding trajectory of the modern American marketplace of ideas sift this.
Over the long term, the clingers will continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans. The gun absolutists still get to whine and whimper about it as much as they like, of course.
You clearly think the "right side of history" is an America with a white minority, a mestizo Hispanic majority, and free gay sex for all.
When free gay sex becomes compulsory, I am off the bus. Until then, I will side with the liberal-libertarian mainstream, victors in the culture war, against the bigots and rubes on the right.
If your god inclines you to treat gay people like dirt and make life harder for them, your god is a paltry thing indeed (as well as illusory, existing solely in fairy tales).
You seem to think you are the target audience of this white, male, right-wing, disaffected fringe blog -- and you appear to be correct.
With respect to you and your "husband," are you the pitcher or the catcher?
Who decides who is the "husband" and who is the "wife?
Does it alternate weekly?
The recurring charms of a white, male blog operated by Federalist Societeers misappropriating the franchises of mainstream institutions to attract and flatter an audience of right-wing bigots and disaffected culture war casualties. . .
Yeah, but who decides and why use cis-gender terms?
With an attitude like that, you'll probably have to pay for your gay sex.
In Texas, the rule is flipped. Gun carry on private property and in private businesses is expressly authorized by the state. Those wanting to alter the rule must post signs that use specific language in order to reclaim the right of exclusion.
In my view, the NY rule defaults to "no entry unless allowed" and the TX rule defaults to "all entry unless excluded." In either state, property owners may assert control of their own land. But I fail to see how the NY rule is any more intrusive on those property rights than the TX rule.
First, I don't think the state should be punishing differently based on a private owner's desires. That aside, there is a huge difference between opt-in and opt-out, practically and legally.
"But I fail to see how the NY rule is any more intrusive on those property rights than the TX rule."
The failure here is in not noticing that property rights are not the only rights at stake here.
I assume you mean 2A rights? But even 2A absolutists do not argue the 2A prevents private property owners from excluding people carrying guns.
Correct. But I do think the state should prohibit them from so excluding people as long as they can't exclude deviant men from getting "wedding" cakes.
Of course not.
But, again, this law has no impact either way on the rights of property owners. It "just" establishes a default rule. If they want guns carried onto their property, they can appropriately post it, if not, they need do nothing. Previous to the law, the only difference was that they'd have had to have posted the property under the opposite circumstances.
All the onus is on the gun owner, who becomes a felon if they exercise this constitution right anywhere the property owner hasn't affirmatively authorized it.
This is meant to create a situation where carrying a gun is as a practical matter virtually impossible; Most property owners won't go to the trouble of posting the sign, even if they don't care either way, so the only way you can go anywhere carrying a gun, legally, is if you proceed directly from your own property to somebody else's property you already know to be so posted, without any intermediate stops.
You can only carry a gun when you know your entire itinerary, and the status of each point in it. No side errands, better hope no emergencies come up along the way.
I know you care about rights, so I appreciate that you are respecting the rights of private property owners to control the conduct of their invitees.
You're probably correct that the "opt-in" approach makes fewer gun-friendly establishments than the "opt-out" does. But that's just a legislature establishing a default rule that more closely aligns with the preferences of its populace. Texas assumes its citizens are good with guns on location, so it's an "opt-out" state. New York is the opposite. The two regimes are responsive to the citizens without either vitiating property rights or vitiating the right to keep and bear.
Even if you accept that private businesses should have the right to ban guns on their premises, it's a whole different story for the state to enforce those wishes with felonies.
If you walk into a restaurant and they tell you to leave because you're not wearing a shirt, it's not a felony. If you are carrying a gun it is. that shows that the law is predicated on animus to gun rights, not dedication to private property rights.
People who wear beards are not a protected class, AFAIK, so any property owner can exclude people with beards.
The usual approach to implementing this is that property owners who don't like the hirsute put up a sign, or otherwise inform, those with beards that they are not welcome. Society enables this with clear cut rules - if someone with a beard is informed they are not welcome, they must leave or face arrest. States may even go farther, and specify signage that indicates beard wearers are not welcome, and that any beard wearer who misses the sign is guilty of a crime.
All that may be silly - people with beards aren't more likely to be criminals[1] - but it is legal.
But now consider a law that says that beard wearers may only enter private property with express permission. The beard wearer goes to the supermarket - is there a 'beards welcome' sign? If not, find another store - if there is one. You car breaks down and you see a gas station in the distance, but when you walk there, no 'beards welcome' sign - keep walking into the storm! You're walking the dog past the hospital and feel chest pains - is there a sign - nope, no health care for you. Note that it doesn't matter that the emergency room in question is perfectly happy to have bearded patients - they just haven't posted a sign to that effect.
People can look at this two ways. One is 'eff them, let them shave'. The court looked at it differently - that in fact being armed isn't some optional fashion preference like wearing a beard, but a core constitutional right.
I don't know how you like to frame these kind of questions, but I like to consider how laws affect the least fortunate people in society. Consider the abused spouse who has finally made the break, but will live for years in fear of her whacko ex following through on his threats. Is it fair to her to build a society where, from a practical perspective, she must be constantly vulnerable to him picking the time and place of his attack?
[1]as opposed to CCW permit holders, who commit crimes at rates less than the population at large
All the onus is on the gun owner, who becomes a felon if they exercise this constitution right anywhere the property owner hasn’t affirmatively authorized it.
Explain why that is unjust. We are not talking about the public square. If there is ANY onus associated with gun carrying on private property, why shouldn't all of it fall on the gun carrier who initiates and controls the behavior? Are you seriously arguing that some onus should be shared by a property owner who doesn't even know it is happening?
Because the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, enumerated, right, and any deprivation of this right must pass strict scrutiny. This law did not. It greatly restricts where people can go armed, and there was no showing that it was a necessary restriction on that right. Maybe helpful. Maybe even beneficial. But not not the least restrictive way to further a compelling government interest. Too many counterfactuals to pass the least restrictive requirement.
But that right is to keep and bear... at home, in the public square, on roads, etc. The restriction on governmental action does not affect private owners, and never has.
By the way, the beard example is clever. I think it is flawed for two reasons. #1, a private owner can always permit a bearded person onto the property, regardless of signage. Signage removes the ambiguity and creates a defense for a person who is carrying. #2, it does not assume beards are widely disapproved of in the community, as guns are in NYC/NY state. The predicate for the NY law is a political sense that most private owners are against open carry. So the hypothetical plays on a modern sensibility that beards are harmless and popular, and therefore the decision to wear one creates absurd ostracization. Guns may be in the Constitution, but they are far from harmless--and the denser the population the less harmless they become.
Imagine it were another constitutional right, if it helps. Maybe one you don't despise, if you can think of one.
Easy. Free speech. Long held not to apply to (most) private property. Owner doesn't like your message? Out you go.
Well, now we know the answer to my earlier question about where the next shooting would happen. Relatively low body count, though, so maybe the Walmart incident should be counted as just a normal, everyday occurrence and not a mass shooting. Maybe someone could explain where the line is drawn. To put it another way, when do we stop being horrified and simply begin to just shrug our shoulders?
The Walmart story will disappear once the leftist media realizes it was your typical disgruntled black male.
Taking bets it will be gone by Friday.
Black male kills Blacks happens every day in most major cities.
MoreCurious you really need to get up to speed on things. See my post above about how every weekend there are more mass shootings (by the FBI definition) in Chicago (or many other shiteating dem run cities) and the MSM and gun control nuts simply shrug their shoulders about them because they are black on black mass shootings.
On the other hand when mental issues are involved the MSM seems to spare no expense in using all the ones and zeroes possible to get the story at the top of the news feeds.
Mass shootings *are* an every day occurrence already.
The Walmart (6 dead) and Colorado Springs shootings (5 dead) both qualify as mass shootings.
You of course forgot Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia.....
No, those are different. Don’t link things together because they help deflect blame.
"those are different"
Those individuals' lives are supposed to matter. Didn’t you hear?
Ignore their deaths if you want though. No political advantage for Dems means no interest from Dems.
Deflecting blame? Isn't that exactly what gun control advocates do -deflect it from the shooter to guns in general, and all other gun owners?
It is statistically clear, per the govt's own data, that the segment of society most prone to violent death (both victim and perp) are clearly identifiable; and never addressed specifically in discussions of remedies. Deflection indeed.
You just deflected again.
Who should be blamed?
The murderera.
Are the ones myrdered in Chicago, Baltimore,band Philadelphia any less dead?
Can we bring them back to life if we gather all seven dragon balls and summon ShenRon?
I believe that no "gun free zone" posting should be enforceable unless the property owner has metal detectors, and also provides a checking service. By forbidding concealed carry, you are assuming responsibility for patron safety.
-dk