IMHO, Negative.

The right of the property owner to tell you leave you or your sidearm someplace else is still going to take effect.

Warning, I am not a lawyer. Thank the gods.

Of course. And it's not going to take effect, it's already IN effect. Just like the private property owner can tell you to leave your hairbrush someplace else because they don't like your long hair. Nobody is saying that private property owners have to do, or not do, anything they don't want to. This has to do with governments.

Not quite true. Among other laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act and a list of other laws do - rather specifically - clearly establish laws that tell certain private property owners what they can and can't do with their property. You can't say "No Blacks Allowed at this Gas Station" and you can't say "No Wheelchairs Allowed in this Restaurant" and it's certainly conceivable that we're heading toward a Vermont-style "peaceable person" standard for firearms - meaning that if you're a "peaceable person" that's the only standard you have to meet to posses and carry a firearm, and that's all there is to it.

The cases that led to where we are in terms of firearms laws right now are fascinating to me, not just as a gun owner, but as a civil libertarian, because I really found these last two major SCOTUS decisions on the matter were exactly the kind of "Civil Liberties" issues that get my buddies over there to my right so worked up - except that this time it was the buddies over on my left who are freaking out about applying "equal protection" clauses when they don't quite like what that means this time. That 14th Amendment - it's a neat little bit of work, certainly is a powerful tool.

Anyway, we're deep into the political muck here, we should all know better, so let's try to wind this one down soon, OK?

With all due respect, I think you're the only one who brought up politics ("left" and "right"). Everybody else is talking about the law with respect to firearms, and the discussion is good.

"... it's certainly conceivable that we're heading toward a Vermont-style "peaceable person" standard for firearms - meaning that if you're a "peaceable person" that's the only standard you have to meet to posses and carry a firearm, and that's all there is to it."

What a wonderful concept! I had never heard of it before.

Sue

Short answer is no. The park doesn't generally have a duty to protect you from anything, short of dangers it creates, or hazards it conceals. As others have mentioned, the government doesn't even have an absolute duty to provide police protection. If you read some of the cases, this is more a practical matter, in that it would be impossible to prevent 100% of the crimes committed.

The distinction is that you are there voluntarily. If you feel a firearm is the only way you would feel safe, and firearms are prohibited, don't go to the park. It's much different in cases where the government compels people to be somewhere (schools, prisons etc.)

(I just can't resist!)

"It's much different in cases where the government compels people to be somewhere (schools, prisons etc.)"

If you're the invitee at either of the examples, you can't have a gun there, either. Mostly.

Sue

I thought it was funny that schools and prisons were lumped together in the example.

There are many similarities. Both are classic "Skinner Box" designs, and the "rats" are programed to move upon command in designated directions. That they prohibit firearms is a given, else the "rats" may revolt and overthrow the captors.

I like that "peaceable person" idea. That is basically how the great state of Illinois treats knives. There are some types are are specifically illegal (daggers, switchblades), but beyond that so long as its not used in a crime (my words, not the law) you're good to go ... except for places where they are specifically forbidden, such as public schools and courthouses.

If someone uses a gun, knife, or a pitch fork to aid in a crime, I'm OK if they throw the book at them.