I never meant to imply you were advocating breaking the law. I didn't see that at all.
If you hold the position that there are no situations, or so few they don't matter, that are serious enough to warrant overriding a property owner's no gun policy or making them liable for the consequences of having a no gun policy, then I respect (but disagree with) your position.
Ok, we have two different matters here, and while linked, they are not the same, nor are they inseparable.
Overridding property owner's rights is one issue, making property owners responsible for the results of a no gun policy is a quite different matter.
Overriding any right, by another citizen, and by the government are also two different matters. Government may override any right at direst need, for the greater good. (keeping them from doing that, and from doing it at their own convenience, rather than actual need is the trick
)
There is a legal framework and due process to allow for this.
You and I, as private citizens do not have that legal authority. Our desire to be armed, for our personal safety does not automatically override the property owner's right to set his rules on his property. Until, and unless the High Court rules otherwise, in order to follow the law, we must respect that.
Making property owners legally responsible for the potential (and forseeable) consequences of a no gun policy (and not legally requiring them to protect you -which is something we should not force them to do) makes them make a
choice.
They can keep their no gun policy, and do nothing. This exposes them to liability if something bad happens. it is then their choice to run that risk.
They can keep their no gun policy, and take steps to provide security, in which case, their liability is reduced if they make a good faith effort.
They can abandon the no (legal) guns policy, in which case, responsibility and liability fall back where they belong, on us, as individuals.
Sure, from their point of view they aren't good choices, but as I've pointed out, the law doesn't care if they are good choices, only that there are choices.
As for my prescription example though, what do you do if your prescription was stolen and you needed the meds right then?
IF you mean that your meds are stolen from your house, or from your person (purse, etc.) and you need a pill tonight or you're gonna die, you go to the hospital (emergency room to start with), or your regular pharmacy, if open. They will get you enough medication to get you through until you can obtain more through normal channels.
If you are someplace where you are at serious risk going to the hospital/DR/pharmacy unarmed, you should seriously consider making some of those very difficult choices. Like moving somewhere else.
I'm not trying to be snarky. People say, all the time, that they can't move. They can't afford it. What they really mean is they don't want to move because it will adversely affect their lifestyle. I understand that. I even agree with that, until you life (and family) is in danger. If you are in that situation, you need to get out, period. No job, no house, no amount of money is worth your life, and if you have a family its even more important.
Nobody wants to be a refugee with only the clothes on their back, but if it takes that much to stay alive, that's what you do.
Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.
