• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What is the Legal definition of private property?

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Here's my personal opinion (no law justification provided -- but ones do exist, only the opinion if me, Dr. Rand Paul, and Dr. Ron Paul):

A person holding (owning, managing) any privately owned (individual, corporation, business, privately owned public accommodation) has the natural right to eject anyone for any reason -- including but not limited to:

*Their Race
*Their hair color/style
*Dress choices
*Freckles

This view is controversial, no, I'm not a racist. If I found out about a business with such a policy, me nor my house would patronize that business. I believe having that policy is their right as not doing business with them is mine.

I know Harem -- a night club in Lansing -- has and enforces a dress code.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Watch the Judge Napolitano video he posted t is clearly not private if it is a store or public venue. Read the legal descriptions of private property they agree with the Judges statements. How many times must some be told, proven to before they finally let go of wrong headed notions? Sometimes this site gets to the point that a few here are afraid to admit error. This kind of pride is deadly, dangerous and disastrous to our rights.

Private property is owned by a natural born person and not for public use. It's really a simple concept and we don't need idiots from the Bar association to tell us what's obvious, and I will add that we should remember the 100 Lawyers from the Bar association say we have NO 2nd amendment rights that it is a right of the Militia only. Over the years I have heard a few hundred BAR Members say this. They are traitors for the most part and am betting very few would back us..

Don your loaded riffle and walk into Total Firearms then. When they tell you to leave, refuse. When the Sheriff shows up to escort you out, refuse. If they let you go after they haul you outside, go back in.

Hey man, it's your right.

Let me know what happens...
 

Master Control

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
144
Location
SE Regional / Augusta, Michigan
Tell you all what. Next time your asked to leave -- for any reason -- just stay. We'll all be watching you as a test case to your theories.

Don't want to risk it? Afraid the courts may disagree? Risk too big?

Then shut up...

OK thats just not the way I had hope we'd handle this or the attitude or results of this thread I had in mind.
many of you have seen the video opinion of the judge, some have even read the definitions I posted in the first post. if the Kentucky secretary of state agrees with the judges opinion, how would we affect change here in Michigan? Black's Law Dictionary online has no results for the term "Private Property" nor was I successfully able to find results in the Oxford Dictionary online.
I Thank You malignity , Coded-Dude & Others for your input, let's not wait until one of us gets jammed up. I yield to my brothers & sister for your constructive opinions and research in an effort to get a plan for a definitive answer.
I can only think that we would have to start with the poster of civil rights vs. liberty, which took me back to the drawing board. :)

Carry On
 
Last edited:

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
I WILL 'hold onto my wrong headed opinions." Why don't you step back from your keyboard and walk the walk? You are gonna sit back and give everyone else a dissertation on private property law but you don't DO anything to back your points. Sure you quote resources, retired Judges and what not...but you don't DO anything to put your own words into practice. Until that day my friend, why don't you get off all of us who'd rather not spend the day in jail and thousands of OUR(not your) own hard earned money to defend ourselves in court when were are arrested for trespassing...all because YOU said so. Can I use your words in my defense in court? Will you be my expert witness to explain to a jury how private property really isn't private afterall?
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9349

Employers Must Pull the Trigger

by Robert A. Levy


This article appeared in the Tampa Tribune on April 22, 2008.


The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide a Second Amendment challenge to the gun ban in Washington, D.C.

I am co-counsel to Dick Heller in District of Columbia v. Heller, so I take a backseat to no one when it comes to vindicating Second Amendment rights.

But the "Take Your Guns to Work" law signed by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist last week, with vigorous backing from the National Rifle Association, has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

More by Robert A. Levy
It has everything to do with violating the rights of private property owners.

Despite the bill's overwhelming support among his Republican colleagues in the state Legislature, Gov. Crist should have vetoed it. Still, if the business community challenges the constitutionality of the legislation, perhaps a proper respect for property rights will be restored.

Essentially, the new law prohibits business owners from banning guns locked in cars on company property. It applies to employees, customers, and others who have been invited onto the property, provided they have a permit to carry the gun.

The NRA campaigned aggressively in support of the Florida law and comparable laws passed by four other states. Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre explained that it's "your constitutional rights the ban crowd is after."

He went on to note, "the Second Amendment cannot be trumped by corporate power."

Florida Sen. Durell Peaden, Republican, chimed in: "The second thing they wrote about in that Constitution (no doubt, he meant the Bill of Rights) was the right to bear arms."

With due respect to LaPierre and Peaden, these comments reflect a profound misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is not a code of conduct that private citizens and companies must obey.

It has two primary objectives: to secure individual rights, and to limit the power of government. It's the government, not private parties, which is required to obey the Constitution.

he Constitution is not a code of conduct that private citizens and companies must obey.
That threshold distinction between private rules and public laws is critical. We will soon find out from the U.S. Supreme Court whether the Second Amendment can be invoked to invalidate Washington, D.C.'s ban on all functional firearms.

I am cautiously optimistic that the court will affirm a lower court ruling that the D.C. government has violated the Second Amendment rights of the city's residents.

But I am even more confident that the court would never consider whether the Second Amendment prevents a private company from banning firearms on its property. Quite simply, that question does not implicate the U.S. Constitution.

LaPierre attempts to skirt the public-private distinction. He notes that a "company parking lot" is "public-access." That, too, is misleading.

Private property does not belong to the public. Employing a large staff, providing services to lots of customers, or permitting public access to a parking lot is not sufficient to transform private property into public. The litmus test for private property is ownership.

The owner of the property should be able to determine — for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all — whether to admit gun owners, non-gun owners, neither or both. Customers, employees and guests who object may go elsewhere. That's the controlling principle.

Courts should not trivialize the Constitution by pretending it controls private behavior.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
What scot623 said at 18:16...

+1

I am a proponent of all natural rights -- including ones pertaining to privately owned property.
 

budlight

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
454
Location
Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
There are a lot of opinions floating around. Let’s trying looking at this from a different angle.

Over the years in Michigan there has been countless times where someone has been arrested/cited for trespassing in a private business that is open to the general public. How many of these cases had a successful defense of “It’s open to the general public, it doesn’t matter if they told me to leave, and it’s my right to be there?” I'm willing to bet the number is zero.

So given that, if I am ever asked to leave a private business, I will do so and not risk a trespassing charge. I can always take my business elsewhere.

Below is the trespassing statute which doesn’t appear to make any exceptions for firearms rights.

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552.
(1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.
 
Last edited:

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
While the Judge is right.. Quasi public private property does not retain the full rights of closed to the public or by invitation only private property. Most people do not understand this and that includes most of the LEO's and prosecutors out there.

I think that many posting in this thread need to step back and research instead of pontificating from their own opinion. NOTE I have been proven wrong on this and other sites many times... I would rather be proven wrong before I or another gets into trouble based on my wrong position.

In this case as I said while the Judge is right... you still could get jammed up as this is an area of law that is not well understood anymore... and many people have assumed that private means private no matter what. That could not be further from the truth. That does not meant that Scott623 should have chosen to buck the mall though. Each of us must choose our battles and based on the situation at hand decide how to handle it.

Malignity did just fine IMOP and he is right the manager MUST follow corporate policy as that is his LAWS so to speak. The fact that Corporate policy is to follow state and federal law means he cannot make rules stricter than state and federal law on his own. EDITED TO ADD it seems that the local stores in MI are franchise stores and are not bound by corporate policy therefor what I said may or may not be true... would have to read the franchise agreement to know for sure.

In stainless1911's case if there is nothing in his lease about them being able to change the park rules then the rules they put in the memo hold NO water.

Private property rights are very important.. but they are not iron clad. One must give up some power when one chooses to do business with the general public. One cannot operate a business without a state business license therefor IMOP one cannot infringe on anthers rights as you are now when open for business operating at the pleasure of the state. This of course would not apply if your facility is not open to the general public the same as secure areas of state buildings.

These are just my thoughts on the topic based on several years of research and thought.

You can take em or leave em it is up to you :lol:
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
yes, but there are property owners and patrons who would disagree with that. I agree that any privately owned property that is open to the general public should not be allowed to deprive another of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you want to infringe on people's rights close your doors to the public and require membership.

This is pretty much how I see it as well, my opinion only.

If someone is obeying the law, then you shouldn't be able to ask them to leave a public place. If I am carrying a gun, and otherwise acting normally, then those rights should be protected. If I'm brandishing, then no, there are charges for that. I have a constitutionally recognized right to bear arms. I don't read an amendment for private property owners which specifically states that their right is greater than all the other rights granted to people. Of course amendments are meant to be a check and balance for government, but by nature, the rights themselves apply to, and belong to, the people. Those people go to the store, and to work, and so on, therefore, they should be able to bring the rights they were endowed with, and which rights were recognized by .gov, to wherever they may be.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I really don't like seeing women with their faces covered, and I realize that some people really don't like seeing my gun, but I respect her right, and expect the same. I would never ask such a woman to uncover, or leave, and I expect the same. I expect the government to back up her rights, and mine, with legal force if necessary.
 

budlight

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
454
Location
Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
This is pretty much how I see it as well, my opinion only.

If someone is obeying the law, then you shouldn't be able to ask them to leave a public place. If I am carrying a gun, and otherwise acting normally, then those rights should be protected. If I'm brandishing, then no, there are charges for that. I have a constitutionally recognized right to bear arms. I don't read an amendment for private property owners which specifically states that their right is greater than all the other rights granted to people. Of course amendments are meant to be a check and balance for government, but by nature, the rights themselves apply to, and belong to, the people. Those people go to the store, and to work, and so on, therefore, they should be able to bring the rights they were endowed with, and which rights were recognized by .gov, to wherever they may be.

The heart of the problem is that if you are charged with trespassing it is unlikely a judge will side with you. IMHO I think the thought process will be that private property rights trump other rights. The only thing I can see being looked at differently and it's a big MAYBE is your case with the trailer park since you reside there.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
You signed a piece of paper. I'd start there. Don't like what you signed? Move.[/QUOTE

I didn't sign what they ate attempting to subvert the law with.

If I could do things the way they do, I would be rich, I would get an object, sell it to a very rich man for a low price, then post a note on his door telling him that I had changed the price, and would legally bankrupt him if he refused to pay.

Isn't this what some software makers do?
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
The heart of the problem is that if you are charged with trespassing it is unlikely a judge will side with you. IMHO I think the thought process will be that private property rights trump other rights. The only thing I can see being looked at differently and it's a big MAYBE is your case with the trailer park since you reside there.

I agree.
 
Top