As long as gun owners fervently believe that all some twerp has to do to deprive them of their right is to take out papers incorporating himself as a limited liability "artificial person" and open a commercial property to the public, gun owners will never regain their right to keep and bear arms.

A corporation is an government-created "artificial person" and has no natural rights.  Like government, is has only certain delegated authority.

A corporation is a "creature of government" and has no lawful authority not delegated to government -- if government doesn't have the lawful authority, it cannot delegate the lawful authority to its creation.

A person or group of persons seeking incorporation do so for the specific purpose of exempting themselves from the legal consequences of any action they take in the name of the corporation.  This is the exact analogue of, and exists for the same reasons as, the feudal "Title of Nobility" that is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States at Article I Section 9 Clause 8 and Article I Section 10 Clause 1.

A private individual may prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms (or designate who may and who may not exercise the right) on his private property maintained exclusively for his private use.  He may open his property to the public for commercial purpose and he may at his choice retain, or relinquish, his right to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms on his property PROVIDED he personally remains responsible for any injury, death, or damage to property that results.  Unless he expressly informs members of the public that arms are prohibited, AND that members of the public traffic upon his premises exclusively at their own risk, he is and rightfully should be personally liable for the safety of those who traffic upon his premises.

The exercise of rights has a concurrent responsibility:  If a private individual deprives members of the public of their right to defend themselves while on his property, then his concurrent responsibility is to guarantee their safety while on his property.

Conversely, if such a private individual honors and respects the right of the people on his property to keep and bear arms, both he, and they, have a mutual responsibility to protect and defend each other and the property of the owner.  This is a condition of the invitation to traffic on the private property of another, whether for personal or commercial purpose.

None of the above applies to commercial property owned by a corporation.  The corporation itself, and the commercial property upon which it does business, exists for the specific purpose of exempting the owner(s) from any personal accountability derived from opening the premises to the public and doing business with the public.  If the law specifically exempts an individual from personal accountability for depriving others of their right to self-defense while on the corporate commercial premises, then the law MUST prohibit that individual from enforcing a policy, in the name of the corporation, that deprives members of the public of their right to self defense.

If the law fails to so restrict a corporation from enforcing such a policy, then we have a cat's paw doing the subversive work of a government which it has no lawful authority to do itself.

I urge the members of this board to stop assuming some twerp with limited liability exemption from responsibility has any lawful authority to tell members of the public on his premises that are open to the public that they may not exercise their right to keep and bear arms on said premises.

I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above.

Wow thanks for sharing.






Move along folks nothing to see here.

Quoted: If the law specifically exempts an individual from personal accountability for depriving others of their right to self-defense while on the corporate commercial premises, then the law MUST prohibit that individual from enforcing a policy, in the name of the corporation, that deprives members of the public of their right to self defense.

Not true whatsoever.  You assume a zero sum game, and the law does not provide for that.  Even though a nonperson owns land X, the owner still reserves the right to define who is welcome and who is not.  The remedy for not wanting to be 'defenseless' on land X is to go elsewhere.

Not a lawyer...

FALSE.

Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution.

Whatch you talkin' 'bout Willis?

Gee, no "Hello, I'm new here" or "Long time lurker checking in" just a multi-screen manifesto/spleen vent for Post Number One.

Do you also do the same when someone invites you into their home for the first time?

Yeah, you'll go far here.  

I read it twice and I still couldn't find the punchline.

Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution.

Bingo

Liberals have no soul....

Quoted: I read it twice and I still couldn't find the punchline.

I couldn't get all the way through it once!

frdmftr1
Member
Joined :: August 2004
Post Number :: 1

AZ, USA

 

Colt_SBR  

Cite please, I do not remember the category-corporations- gauranteed any of the rights of the individual.

Quoted: <big snip> I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above.

Anyone would be a fool to take advice from the internet; more so from the first post.  What an entrance, welcome aboard.

Somebody call the TROLL PATROL

Quoted: Do you also do the same when someone invites you into their home for the first time?

Of course...thats why they dont let him bear arms on their property.

Bye Bye Now.

What was the term those guys use for being, uh, not really a citizen but you have all your rights but don't have to pay taxes?  And no laws apply to you?  

At least Q3131A's dolls are girls, unlike sgtar(What are you wearing right now?)15's boy dolls.

Quoted: IBTL.......I am just gonna go out on a limb here.hr

Okay.  I'll go for the bait:  What means "IBTL"?

Quoted: Wow thanks for sharing. Move along folks nothing to see here.

Especially if it reveals government subversion of the rights of the people, right?

!0 words or less plz

Quoted: Quoted: If the law specifically exempts an individual from personal accountability for depriving others of their right to self-defense while on the corporate commercial premises, then the law MUST prohibit that individual from enforcing a policy, in the name of the corporation, that deprives members of the public of their right to self defense. Not true whatsoever.  You assume a zero sum game, and the law does not provide for that.  Even though a nonperson owns land X, the owner still reserves the right to define who is welcome and who is not.  The remedy for not wanting to be 'defenseless' on land X is to go elsewhere. Not a lawyer...

To the contrary, I presume a game in which government is compelled to obey the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution of the United States.  I am postulating the demonstrable fact that government is violating a whole raft of its compelled mandates in order to convince you that you have no rights unless some twerp in a position of power -- particularly corporate power -- says so.  Government has no lawful authority to deprive you or I of our right to keep and bear arms (20,000 gun control colors of law notwithstanding) and it advances its feudal agenda by creating corporations and claiming (as you do, like a government agent) that "you don't have to go there".

Well, friend, where are you going to go?  Practically every township, municipality, country, shire, parish, and state is now incorporated.  There is already a doctrine of law in development that says if you "go there", you are presumed to waive your fundamental rights, and you may be arrested, charged, and incarcerated if you try to exercise them.  Are you aware that many cities -- Denver, Colorado is one of them -- whose corporate charter presumes to EXEMPT the city from the Constitution of the United States and the fundamental individual (not corporate) rights it protects?

Are you sure you want to hang on to your theory that if we don't like to be serfs we shouldn't go where the law treats us as serfs?  If so, where does that leave us to go?

Quoted: Post number one and he earns the coveted Purple home

Not post number one.  I was here three years or so ago and I posted a lot, and I think I left because I was so disappointed with the lack of interest in or understanding of liberty and rights among the gun owners here.  From what I see here today I get the impression this is some kind of policy wonk hangout for government bureaucrats whose livelihood depends upon keeping the people under their thumb, not a conclave of freedom advocates who have taken a vow to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and support the Constitution of the United States regardless of the consequences.

While it doesn't prove it, I think it argues strongly that there are no freedom conclaves left that haven't been infiltrated by fascists and fascist puppets.

Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution.

You can actually say that with a straight face -- you are wearing a straight face, aren't you? -- and then invoke George W. Bush and the shade of Ronald Reagan in your tagline?

Regardless.  What you said is nonsense.  To the extent corporations are "persons" (I gag at the mere thought) they are "persons" because government currently chooses to regard them as "persons".  They can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if government decides they are not in the best interests of those in power.  They may be currently "entitled" to due process, but they have no "right" to due process and never have had, sleazy pronouncements by government propagandists notwithstanding.

Quoted: Gee, no "Hello, I'm new here" or "Long time lurker checking in" just a multi-screen manifesto/spleen vent for Post Number One. Do you also do the same when someone invites you into their home for the first time? Yeah, you'll go far here.  hr

Gee, hi!  I've been away a long time and I just heard about that ridiculous situation at Harkins Theatres where even the victim of that fascist subversion bowed and scraped with the presumption that his oppressor had the right to oppress him, and my password wouldn't work, so I had a friend post my response.  Everyone ignored it, so I figured you weren't interested, and from what I see here today I am beginning to conclude my first impression was right:  You people have no clue how deep in the hole you are, and you are doing your darndest to give the guy with the shovel instructions on how to fill it in.  What the heck has happened to the American fighting spirit?  Have we really turned into a collection of wimps with all the substance of a bowl of Jell-O?

Quoted: I read it twice and I still couldn't find the punchline.

(Sigh.)  I hope you won't take it amiss if I point out that the dumbest, least educated farmhand that picked up a musket and joined the American Revolution was smart enough to know tyranny when he saw it.

Quoted: I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above.

You're not telling us anything we don't know about already. What's your point?

Quoted: Quoted: IBTL.......I am just gonna go out on a limb here. Okay.  I'll go for the bait:  What means "IBTL"?

In Before The Lunatic....

Quoted: Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution. Bingo

Don't holler bingo until you have your five markers in a row.  So far you don't even have them on the board.  Perhaps you can explain where government gets the lawful authority to exempt any person from accountability for his actions done in the name of a legal fiction.

Quoted: Liberals have no soul....hr

You are probably right -- or maybe it is more likely that liberals think you have no soul, and that's why they try to force you under color of law to pay their charity obligations for them -- and want to deprive you of your firearms, because they know what you will do if you ever wake up.

If you think I am a liberal, for God's sake, there isn't enough time in this millennia to bring you up to speed.

Quoted: www.nzghosts.co.nz/images/troll.gif frdmftr1 Member Joined :: August 2004 Post Number :: 1 AZ, USA   Colt_SBR

And your point is?

Quoted: Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution. You can actually say that with a straight face -- you are wearing a straight face, aren't you? -- and then invoke George W. Bush and the shade of Ronald Reagan in your tagline? Regardless.  What you said is nonsense.  To the extent corporations are "persons" (I gag at the mere thought) they are "persons" because government currently chooses to regard them as "persons".  They can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if government decides they are not in the best interests of those in power.  They may be currently "entitled" to due process, but they have no "right" to due process and never have had, sleazy pronouncements by government propagandists notwithstanding.

The SCOTUS first ruled that corporations are entitled to the full equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment in the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. This case has NEVER been overturned, and is treated by  the courts as a binding precedent.

And I say that with a very straight face. I did my doctoral work in Constitutional Law and History. Try to at least make a cogent argument in reply. Citing legal precedent would be nice, since your opinion on the matter has exactly ZERO force of law.  

So If I own a piece of property, and my friend has the lot next to it, and we deceide to form a corporation and use our lots to build a factory on we have, under your theory, lost all our rights to do what we wish or make our own rules on that property if we put it in the corporations name?

You seriously believe that?

Quoted: They can't steal a bagel under the auspices of the .corp and expect not to be held accountable.

Great, there goes my entire business plan.

Quoted: And your point is?

 

IMHO.  You are acting like a troll.  

Not post number one. I was here three years or so ago and I posted a lot.

 

May I ask, why did you choose to log on under a different member name?  Why didn't you use your original member name from three years ago?  I guess people can have multiple member names but why?  

Colt_SBR  

Quoted: Quoted: <big snip> I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above. Anyone would be a fool to take advice from the internet; more so from the first post.  What an entrance, welcome aboard.

Thank you.  You are right, but government routinely attacks people who point out its subversion and corruption if it can claim they are giving legal advice.

Quoted: Somebody call the TROLL PATROL hr

Actually I didn't come here as a troll.  I came here actually expecting gun owners, of all people, to be interested in the liberty they have illegally lost, and the kind of fight they can mount to recover it.  I certainly did not expect to find people who seem prepared to support and defend the same kind of feudal system we fought off in the American Revolution.  

Quoted: Quoted: Do you also do the same when someone invites you into their home for the first time? Of course...thats why they dont let him bear arms on their property. hr

Is this someone's "home"?  Gee, I'm sorry.  I wouldn't want to inflict anything as despicable as the subject of liberty and how you have lost it on your household.

Quoted: home.t-online.de/home/Brigitte-Scholz/barbimages/stewardess.jpg Bye Bye Now.

You are leaving?  'Bye.

Quoted: What was the term those guys use for being, uh, not really a citizen but you have all your rights but don't have to pay taxes?  And no laws apply to you?

I've been having an argument with a guy who claims that status; he calls himself an "Arizona national".  Is that what you mean?

I don't buy the "status" argument; government does what it does because government has abdicated its lawful authority to govern under the U.S. Constitution, not because of any claim we gave up our status as a free people.  "Our rights being the gift of Almighty God, it is not within the power of Man to renounce them."  (Sam Adams.)

Quoted: !0 words or less plz

Sorry.  Freedom requires intelligence, formal or self education, and intense study, not to mention the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Quoted: Quoted: FALSE. Corporations are persons and entitled to due process of law under the US Constitution. You can actually say that with a straight face -- you are wearing a straight face, aren't you? -- and then invoke George W. Bush and the shade of Ronald Reagan in your tagline? Regardless.  What you said is nonsense.  To the extent corporations are "persons" (I gag at the mere thought) they are "persons" because government currently chooses to regard them as "persons".  They can cease to exist in the blink of an eye if government decides they are not in the best interests of those in power.  They may be currently "entitled" to due process, but they have no "right" to due process and never have had, sleazy pronouncements by government propagandists notwithstanding.

Under the law, a corporation is a person. Period.  Corpus -> body, corporation is a legally 'created body' -> 'created person'

As a legal person, they have the same legal rights as anyone else, with the exception that they may be bought & sold.

And it should stay that way...

If I don't want you on my premises, weather I am the owner of the corp, or the sole proprietor, your ass is OFF, or the police haul you off... Just like an unwelcome guest in my home...

Property rights apply, universally...


Oh, as for why you're being called a troll...

We've had enough 'lunatic fringe' posters show up with post #1, spouting off stuff about how the law isn't what it is,, or how 'you too can legally evade taxes',. and so on... It generally gets regarded as trolling...

Most of us recognize that OUR RIGHTS only go so far as to when they don't infringe on SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS.

Property rights, in most states, trump carry rights... It's just the way the law is written.

In AZ, in that case, the real question was did the owner take the proper steps to exercise his rights (consensus: NO), not weather or not he had the right to decide 'what goes' on HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The Constitution only protects you from actions of government - the market protects you from commercial abuse, That is life in a FREE MARKET society. The correct response is not to scream 'AH HAV MUH RIGHTS!!! AH GONNA SUE U!!!', it's to recognize that they are within their rights to ask you to leave, and you are within YOUR rights to never spend a penny there again...

Quoted: [GOBBLEDEGOOKTRANSLATOR] I think you can carry a gun on property owned by a corporation even if the owners don't want you to.[/GOBBLEDEGOOKTRANSLATOR] did I win?

If the object was to restore liberty, no.  You just came off as a dime-a-dozen smart-mouth.  Sorry.

At this rate, frdmftr1 will be passing my post number in about a week.  Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.  

I better start posting 24/7.  

Colt_SBR  

Quoted: A corporation is an government-created "artificial person" and has no natural rights.  Like government, is has only certain delegated authority.

Actually, a corporation is deemed a legal entity that holds its identity separate from the ownership.  As such, it is entitled to certain protections guaranteed under the due process clause and other areas of the constitution to protect the rights of the entity.  However, I have never seen a corporation that has been granted substantive due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.  Nor can a corporation vote or serve on a jury.

A corporation may be considered a citizen of two states dependent upon its state of incorporation and state in which its principal place of business reside, however the term citizen really only applies in the area of person jurisdiction and state regulation of the corportations affairs.  

A corporation is a "creature of government" and has no lawful authority not delegated to government -- if government doesn't have the lawful authority, it cannot delegate the lawful authority to its creation.

 

Now you are starting to lose it.  A corporation is a creature of STATE government.  Therefore our duly elected representatives MAY agree to create such an entity.

A person or group of persons seeking incorporation do so for the specific purpose of exempting themselves from the legal consequences of any action they take in the name of the corporation.  This is the exact analogue of, and exists for the same reasons as, the feudal "Title of Nobility" that is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States at Article I Section 9 Clause 8 and Article I Section 10 Clause 1.

I must tell you that anyone who quotes the "Title of Nobility Clause" in any legal argument should be instantly recoginzed as a complete NUT.  It instantly tags one as a follower of some right-wing-pseudo-intellectual cult who lacks the ability to think for himself.  

Furthermore, the legal analysis in your first sentence is completely flawed.  There are methods in the law for holding the individuals behind a corporation accountable.  Do a seach on the internet for a concept called "piercing the corporate veil" or "alter ego" and you will see what I mean.  Additionally, the corporate limitation of liability does not provide immunity to the individuals for there criminal liability or civil liability resulting from an intentional tort.  In such cases, the individual can be held PERSONALLY LIABLE even if the corporation is legit.  

A private individual may prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms (or designate who may and who may not exercise the right) on his private property maintained exclusively for his private use.  He may open his property to the public for commercial purpose and he may at his choice retain, or relinquish, his right to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms on his property PROVIDED he personally remains responsible for any injury, death, or damage to property that results.  Unless he expressly informs members of the public that arms are prohibited, AND that members of the public traffic upon his premises exclusively at their own risk, he is and rightfully should be personally liable for the safety of those who traffic upon his premises.

WTF does this mean?  Its gibberish.  Its worse than one of those stupid "Redemption Schemes" that I have seen floating around.  Honestly, I don't like the tactics of the FBI and the ATF anymore than the next man on this board, but Jeseus freaking Christ you cannot actually believe this???

Do the terms invitee, licensee and trespasser mean anything to you?  Additionally, where in the history of the common law (upon which our tort system is based) do you find justification for this?  

The exercise of rights has a concurrent responsibility:  If a private individual deprives members of the public of their right to defend themselves while on his property, then his concurrent responsibility is to guarantee their safety while on his property.

Again, I take issue with your legal analysis, but I can agree with the general intention.  Unfortunately, as a private citizen no one is making me go onto the private property of such individual so therefore you cannot impose this "duty" of personal defense.  I may have a duty to protect you form defects and hazards on my land, but I have almost no duty to protect you from another person.

Conversely, if such a private individual honors and respects the right of the people on his property to keep and bear arms, both he, and they, have a mutual responsibility to protect and defend each other and the property of the owner.  This is a condition of the invitation to traffic on the private property of another, whether for personal or commercial purpose.

NO NO NO.  There is not such thing as a mutual duty of defense under U.S. law.

None of the above applies to commercial property owned by a corporation.  The corporation itself, and the commercial property upon which it does business, exists for the specific purpose of exempting the owner(s) from any personal accountability derived from opening the premises to the public and doing business with the public.  If the law specifically exempts an individual from personal accountability for depriving others of their right to self-defense while on the corporate commercial premises, then the law MUST prohibit that individual from enforcing a policy, in the name of the corporation, that deprives members of the public of their right to self defense.

Why must the law prohibit the corporation from enforcing its policy?  Like the individual, the corporation extends permission to the priviate individual to enter its land.  Such permission may be therefore be withdrawn, thus rendering the individual a trespasser.

I urge the members of this board to stop assuming some twerp with limited liability exemption from responsibility has any lawful authority to tell members of the public on his premises that are open to the public that they may not exercise their right to keep and bear arms on said premises.

So in essence, while you are advocating personal freedom and liberty, in doing so you attempt to justify violating the most basic concept of property rights?  

I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.  The above is based upon my personal knowledge, research, and ethics, and is expressed as an exercise of my right to free political speech.  Do not take or omit any action based upon the above without first consulting your own lawdog or legal beagle, for the judicial system subversively disagrees with much of the above.

No shit?  Actually, the first time I read this post I thought that my dog had got out of hiskennel again, drank my bottle of Jim Beam, chowed down on my extra spicy chili and let his bowels erupt all over my screen.  

I respect your right to free speech, but you have no right to be free of the repercussions of your blather.

SBG