| Author | Post |
|---|
jmelvin
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 390 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 1st, 2009 04:03 am |
|
I realize that up until recently that Arizona was "no carry" where alcohol was sold, I was simply letting y'all know that the rest of the states don't suffer from Chipotle's supposed ban on carrying, where legal. 
|
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 1st, 2009 04:49 am |
|
Kildars wrote: Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV wrote: Kildars wrote:
In texas you can still own property in allodial title. I'm not sure if there are other states that allow that. However when you own something in allodial title, you own it 100%.
Just FYI.
Limited allodial title
Two states, Nevada and Texas, have created limited allodial title provisions in order to protect property owners from the burden of highly increased property taxes which often occur when unincorporated land becomes part of a town or city.
There is no full allodial title anywhere in this country (contrary to what the allodial fantasy folks want to believe).
Out of my whole post, that's all you put?
It's not very limited. It just means it is still subject to eminent domain. You can still own the property free and clear and not have to pay property taxes on the property.
I was just trying to post some pertinent info. However, I'll need a cite for your "no property taxes" statement. Everything that I found indicates that you still have to pay property taxes under a "limited allodial" title. I haven't been able to find anything officially verifiable to the contrary.
|
LuvmyXD9
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 72 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 1st, 2009 05:00 am |
|
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV wrote: Kildars wrote: Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV wrote: Kildars wrote:
In texas you can still own property in allodial title. I'm not sure if there are other states that allow that. However when you own something in allodial title, you own it 100%.
Just FYI.
Limited allodial title
Two states, Nevada and Texas, have created limited allodial title provisions in order to protect property owners from the burden of highly increased property taxes which often occur when unincorporated land becomes part of a town or city.
There is no full allodial title anywhere in this country (contrary to what the allodial fantasy folks want to believe).
Out of my whole post, that's all you put?
It's not very limited. It just means it is still subject to eminent domain. You can still own the property free and clear and not have to pay property taxes on the property.
I was just trying to post some pertinent info. However, I'll need a cite for your "no property taxes" statement. Everything that I found indicates that you still have to pay property taxes under a "limited allodial" title. I haven't been able to find anything officially verifiable to the contrary.
Ten seconds in google while on break from a video editing job:
"Once a property owner receives a certificate of allodial title, he is relieved from the payment of all further property taxes, "unless the allodial title is relinquished by the homeowner or his heirs." NRS 361.905 (2). Instead, the state treasurer is responsible for the payment of the taxes due. NRS 361.905 (3)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title
|
DMGNUT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | Chandler, AZ |
| Posts: | 48 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 06:03 am |
|
Wikipedia is at best questionable, but 10 seconds at the link you provided also revealed this...
True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple.
In the United States, "To say that land is owned 'allodially' is fiction. All land under United States government jurisdiction is subject to expropriation by way of eminent domain".
Even when allodially owned property was granted, it was generally reserved for Ecclesiastical ownership.Last edited on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 06:06 am by DMGNUT
|
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 06:07 am |
|
I think that we need to bury this OT discussion. I'm aware of the history and precedent behind true allodial titles, but in spite of his assertion otherwise, Kildars has not shown anywhere in the US where true allodial (i.e. no property taxes, no eminent domain, no zoning codes, no restrictions on use whatsoever) title exists, as it doesn't.
As you point out, "church property" comes as close as anything, but even that can be violated by eminent domain.
Anyhow, back to our regularly scheduled topic...
|
Kildars
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 07:32 pm |
|
Allodial title does exist. I've asked you, and I'll ask you again. What is the "limitation" on the allodial title? The only one I can see is it still subject to eminent domain. Eminent domain is another conversation all together, I completely disagree with the premise that can government can take property at anytime -- considering we the people give government power not the other way around.
However, in TX and NV both have allodial title.
|
dreamcro
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 04:32 am |
|
lostone1413 wroteLike the way you think Brother!!. I've seen more then a few places I had to go in that had a no guns sign but I had no choice but had to go in. I guess most never grew up in areas like I grew up in. I've seen people shot get knifed and even beat with bats. Guess its safe in the house away from the real world What do you think Brother
I've seen it also. There are some who will argue more for the rights of the places where they don't want you to carry. All need to take heed, we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is first and foremost. Those rights are Inalienable!!!! Endowed by who?!? Not politicians.
End rant.
!!
|
chesphoto
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 05:02 am |
|
jmelvin wrote: I realize that up until recently that Arizona was "no carry" where alcohol was sold, I was simply letting y'all know that the rest of the states don't suffer from Chipotle's supposed ban on carrying, where legal.
Thanks for letting us know that, now we have an legitimate compliant if they only ban weapons in Arizona.
|
Notso
Activist Member
| Joined: | Sun May 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | Laveen, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 291 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20th, 2009 05:52 pm |
|
| Saw a 'No Guns Allowed" sign in Macayo's on 75th and Thomas last night.
|
armyman29340
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 01:19 pm |
|
| I can't believe I'm saying this as a South Carolinian, but we see the signs so seldom (we have concealedc carry only in this state), that you'd have to search multiple counties to come up with enough busiunesses to count on one hand.
|
r6-rider
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Az |
| Posts: | 631 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 02:40 pm |
|
armyman29340 wrote: I can't believe I'm saying this as a South Carolinian, but we see the signs so seldom (we have concealedc carry only in this state), that you'd have to search multiple counties to come up with enough busiunesses to count on one hand.
thats why. who needs signs if no one knows whos carrying. the sheeple arent getting scared
|
Notso
Activist Member
| Joined: | Sun May 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | Laveen, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 291 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 05:03 pm |
|
armyman29340 wrote: I can't believe I'm saying this as a South Carolinian, but we see the signs so seldom (we have concealedc carry only in this state), that you'd have to search multiple counties to come up with enough busiunesses to count on one hand.
We're seeing the increase in number of signs due to the recently passed 'guns in bars' law, places were guns were previously banned by state law but will now be legal unless the business posts a sign. I have no doubt that over time, the signs will come down.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25th, 2009 06:00 pm |
|
| This is gonna be interestin' next month during Helldorado in Tombstone.
|
ogroup
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 02:15 am |
|
Like I stated in a earlier email let's all boycott the businesses with the signs eventually their sales will sales go down.
The reason before was due to state law that would not allow it so it is different today they are stoping you from 2nd A rights.
No guns allow= No $$$$$
Please tell everyone to do the same.
Last edited on Tue Sep 29th, 2009 02:17 am by ogroup
|
brokenbarrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29th, 2009 04:48 am |
|
i found somone with an awsome anti answer for her "cocktail lounge" she said her insurance will not allow guns.I guess she'll never be robbed at gun point cuz the insurance will not allow it...My wife was gonna be a bartender there but asked about the guns and said oh my husband will not allow me to work in an anti-BAR
We're broke but we have our morals,california accepted anti- little by little and now they accept nothing less,dont worry i burned the bridge behind me when i got here..
|
crisisweasel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Marana, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 01:57 am |
|
Kildars makes some interesting assertions about the hierarchy of rights. He says the right to life is derived from property: that is to say, self-ownership -- we own our bodies and our thoughts. Ayn Rand was big into this particular concept -- that survival as "man qua man" (she loved that qua) required self-ownership, and by extension, a kind of individual sovereignty.
This is a radical and particularly American conception of Rights.
It is one I hesitantly share.
However:
Can a property owner invite you onto his or her property, and then shoot you, once he has done so? Consider a situation where a property owner invites you into his home which is situated on a 500 acre property. You unwittingly insult his ludicrous mustache, at which time he then gives you 30 seconds to vacate his land - an unreasonable amount of time - or he will shoot you for trespassing.
Can the property owner shoot? In other words, can he set any standards, however reasonable, for conduct on his land?
Or more specifically, can your right to self-ownership be infringed by the owner of a piece of land or a building in which you stand? If indeed all of this is property, it is an interesting question, and to some extent it ties in with the guns in cars on private property question.
If a property owner cannot deprive you of your right to life, derived from self-ownership, can he deny you your means of self defense, which is tied intimately to that right?
Let's say you're on this 500 acre property again, which consists of wilderness. You have not informed the property owner you have a gun. At that time, a rabid badger comes rampaging toward you. The property owner demands you surrender your gun, or leave - the only exit being in the direction of the badger.
Can he do so, even though your property - your life, which presumably you still have control over and dominion over even though you are on his property, is endangered?
Can a property owner shoot a six year old boy who has unwittingly strayed onto his property looking for his dog - a boy who for whatever reason could not read the No Trespassing signs? We are not speaking statutorily now, but rather within the larger frame of property rights?
These are not loaded questions (meaning I'm not trying to advocate a position or point), because I don't know. What I do know is the antiseptic cleanliness of most rights theories, be they from Rousseau, or Locke, or Rand, all have these weird imperfections when you attempt to apply them to cover all circumstances. And I realize these examples are ridiculous: they are meant theoretically.
In practice, if a business does not allow guns, I don't bring my gun in, and I recommend this course of action to everynoe.
A no gun sign is a sign which says, "You cannot defend your life here," but you may enter the property provided you agree not to take measures protect your life. I think we all understand a sign, and I think most of us would at that point just avoid going there.
I suppose the (fairly abstract) question I am asking: is self ownership - the right to life - exactly the same thing as owning a building or land?
Should you be able to shoot to kill for trespassing?
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30th, 2009 04:44 am |
|
| Weasel... lay off the sauce! 'Use of deadly force' is well defined.
|
wardog911
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 7th, 2009 12:06 am |
|
I have started to hand out this business card to all the "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" Business posters. Pleas feel free to print and start passing around.
Attachment: notice of liability card.doc (Downloaded 36 times) Last edited on Wed Oct 7th, 2009 12:07 am by wardog911
|
Kildars
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 11:14 am |
|
crisisweasel wrote: Kildars makes some interesting assertions about the hierarchy of rights. He says the right to life is derived from property: that is to say, self-ownership -- we own our bodies and our thoughts. Ayn Rand was big into this particular concept -- that survival as "man qua man" (she loved that qua) required self-ownership, and by extension, a kind of individual sovereignty.
This is a radical and particularly American conception of Rights.
It is one I hesitantly share.
You think I'm a radical? :x
Can a property owner invite you onto his or her property, and then shoot you, once he has done so? Consider a situation where a property owner invites you into his home which is situated on a 500 acre property. You unwittingly insult his ludicrous mustache, at which time he then gives you 30 seconds to vacate his land - an unreasonable amount of time - or he will shoot you for trespassing.
Can the property owner shoot? In other words, can he set any standards, however reasonable, for conduct on his land?
He can set any standards for what occurs on his land, he can have you removed, if you refuse to leave he can use reasonable force to remove you which generally would include calling the police to have you removed if he's not touching you or committing a crime. Clearly if the person is retreating and not threatening you would not be justified in shooting him especially considering he had not committed any crime or violated your property rights because you invited him to your property.
Or more specifically, can your right to self-ownership be infringed by the owner of a piece of land or a building in which you stand? If indeed all of this is property, it is an interesting question, and to some extent it ties in with the guns in cars on private property question.
No because his right to property does not supersede your right to property of your body. He could have you removed though.
If a property owner cannot deprive you of your right to life, derived from self-ownership, can he deny you your means of self defense, which is tied intimately to that right?
He is not denying you self defense, he is simply denying you a way to defend yourself. You can still use your fists if need be. Again, if you choose to enter his property you follow his rules.
Let's say you're on this 500 acre property again, which consists of wilderness. You have not informed the property owner you have a gun. At that time, a rabid badger comes rampaging toward you. The property owner demands you surrender your gun, or leave - the only exit being in the direction of the badger.
Can he do so, even though your property - your life, which presumably you still have control over and dominion over even though you are on his property, is endangered?
You would then have the option to decline to surrender your firearm because the land owners intentions were not known at the time you entered. Shoot the badger, then leave his property.
Can a property owner shoot a six year old boy who has unwittingly strayed onto his property looking for his dog - a boy who for whatever reason could not read the No Trespassing signs? We are not speaking statutorily now, but rather within the larger frame of property rights?
If the six year old was posing a threat to his life, then yes he could. You have the right to determine what happens on your property, you do not have the right to the other persons body just because they entered your land.
Should you be able to shoot to kill for trespassing?
Depending on the intent of the trespasser, yes.
Last edited on Wed Oct 28th, 2009 11:18 am by Kildars
|
Current time is 07:49 am | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|
