IN: OC, Being the Designated Criminal, Unfriendly Cops

[ELB]

Final update to the saga added to the original post.

[Purplehood]

To open carry in someone else's house without permission is an invitation to failure (plus disrespectful).

If you come over to my house, you better leave all your books, newspapers, etc. outside in the car unless you ask for permission first.

Apples v Oranges.

No, it is the exact same thing.

[The Annoyed Man]

To open carry in someone else's house without permission is an invitation to failure (plus disrespectful).

If you come over to my house, you better leave all your books, newspapers, etc. outside in the car unless you ask for permission first.

Apples v Oranges.

No, it is the exact same thing.

Just curious.... on what basis? I think I know why you say this, but I would like clarification.

[Purplehood]

They both address the issues of Constitutional rights and the rights of a Property owner.

If a homeowner can restrict me from entering their property armed (and though I might find it distasteful, it is indeed their right), why couldn't they restrict me from entering with a copy of the Koran? Actually, I am pretty sure that they can.
They can also restrict me from entering their property for any old reason in the world, regardless of Constitutional issues.
Interesting...Property rights trump Constitutional rights. Or do they... eminent domain comes to mind.

[ELB]

They both address the issues of Constitutional rights and the rights of a Property owner.

If a homeowner can restrict me from entering their property armed (and though I might find it distasteful, it is indeed their right), why couldn't they restrict me from entering with a copy of the Koran? Actually, I am pretty sure that they can.
They can also restrict me from entering their property for any old reason in the world, regardless of Constitutional issues.
Interesting...Property rights trump Constitutional rights. Or do they... eminent domain comes to mind.

This was not a conflict of rights. The guy was carrying legally (and constitutionally) and the complainant admitted she did not know he was carrying until AFTER she told him to leave -- the gun was not a factor in her decision. He was with the person invited in, and IIRC, the complainant even admitted she did not specify who could and could not come in when she found people at the door. She decided after he was in that she didn't want him there and excercised her right to tell him to leave. She did not see the gun until he turned around (it was SOB) and was already leaving.

She further admitted that he was not threatening or rude, and basically didn't do anything wrong at all. Which is why the charges were dismissed.

Oh, and btw, property rights ARE constitutional rights. Unfortunately eminent domain has been used to abuse them just as 2A rights have been abused.

[Purplehood]

They both address the issues of Constitutional rights and the rights of a Property owner.

If a homeowner can restrict me from entering their property armed (and though I might find it distasteful, it is indeed their right), why couldn't they restrict me from entering with a copy of the Koran? Actually, I am pretty sure that they can.
They can also restrict me from entering their property for any old reason in the world, regardless of Constitutional issues.
Interesting...Property rights trump Constitutional rights. Or do they... eminent domain comes to mind.

This was not a conflict of rights. The guy was carrying legally (and constitutionally) and the complainant admitted she did not know he was carrying until AFTER she told him to leave -- the gun was not a factor in her decision. He was with the person invited in, and IIRC, the complainant even admitted she did not specify who could and could not come in when she found people at the door. She decided after he was in that she didn't want him there and excercised her right to tell him to leave. She did not see the gun until he turned around (it was SOB) and was already leaving.

She further admitted that he was not threatening or rude, and basically didn't do anything wrong at all. Which is why the charges were dismissed.

Oh, and btw, property rights ARE constitutional rights. Unfortunately eminent domain has been used to abuse them just as 2A rights have been abused.

I am not sure how the 5th Amendment contradicts anything that I am asserting. Of course, I am not a Constitutional scholar...I just don't see it.