PA trespassing laws

[DavidTM]

What I can tell so far is that you entirely missed my point about governmental mandates on private entities.

No. I didn't miss your point. OTOH, if our Gov't via the passage of laws, didn't mandate certain requirements concerning the disabled, then discrimination of the disabled would continue. Hell, it still does. To a lesser extent as now those who want to, must be a little more cautious as to how they go about it.

That's OK. You are entitled to be entirely obsessed about yourself, that's arguably your job, and the job of everyone to look after his own interests. But that hardly means that govt imposing burdens on others for your benefit is a pure good, because from THEIR point of view they have to shoulder additional burdens without receiving any benefit. That's involuntary servitude, which is bad in a small degree or a large degree. Ask your friends how they'd feel about "just being slaves 1 day of the year", see if "a little involuntary servitude" is acceptable. Hey, suggest it to your black friends, see how they react.

Go back and read my post and please show me where I was asking for something for nothing. In MY situation, all I was asking for was use of MY cart on property. The cart would cause NO damage, and NO noise. I needed NO additional special accommodations. Seems pretty simple.

And in fact, if you go back and re-read my post, I did agree with you concerning the additional burden imposed upon businesses by the ADA act. However, under Title III, it has nothing to do with Business.

Again, if you want to discuss this issue, then stick to the issue of Title III and the facts that I brought into the discussion. However, should you wish to blur the discussion and include Title I, and business employee issues (which has nothing to do with my issue) then feel free to do so. Just remember that your attempt to mix "the big mean governments" burdensome rules as it applies to employers, has absolutely nothing to do with Title III, and allowing one cripple guy to take a cart on a piece of dirt.



Dave

I would appreciate it if you would leave my family out of future discussions, because you know even less about them than I care about your personal situation. You made this about you and your former gun club, so for you to take personal offense when anyone discusses the subject that you raised is absurd. I was mostly discussing the general principle, none of that hinges on what's wrong with you. if you can't handle such a discussion, you might want to steer clear of them in the future.

And if your accusation of me "bringing in" your family into the discussion by my statement of "asking your mother" if she thinks it's a fair decision of what the Club did to me, then your way over the edge. Don't ask your mother....ask your frat brothers Mom. Ask any Mom.

Just quit blurring the real issue.

I mean face it, the Club by-laws require a hearing before tossing out any member. Every other member since the beginning of time got his hearing. Why did I not get a hearing?

Why do you think that happen? Maybe they ask their collective "Mom's" and the vote went against me? 'Cause....you know.....it's all about me.

[GunLawyer001]

No. I didn't miss your point. . . . .

I have zero interest in discussing the specifics of what happened at your club, because I know nothing about what happened except for your version of the story. Based on your personal outrage over my earlier post, which almost entirely ignored your situation and discussed the ADA as applied to employers (because I in fact DO know something about that), I find it easy to believe that you are prone to assuming the worst about others who deal with you. The easiest solution in such cases is avoidance, because you don't encourage interaction when your reaction to general comments is personal indignation.

As for the ADA and public accommodations, I'm only aware that there are some assholes who have made a fortune by sending their conspirators into gyms and restaurants and such with tape measures, and extorting money from the owners for failing to sufficiently accommodate people who had no intention of being paying customers. Here's some typical abuse (the first Google hit among many) of the California laws, the sort of thing seen under the Federal law as well:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/1...des-activists/

More:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...866666,00.html

[DavidTM]

I have zero interest in discussing the specifics of what happened at your club, because I know nothing about what happened except for your version of the story. Based on your personal outrage over my earlier post, which almost entirely ignored your situation and discussed the ADA as applied to employers (because I in fact DO know something about that), I find it easy to believe that you are prone to assuming the worst about others who deal with you. The easiest solution in such cases is avoidance, because you don't encourage interaction when your reaction to general comments is personal indignation.

GL, That's what I use to call "A swing and a miss." I have no personal outrage over anything you posted earlier. If you see it that way, I believe we have a misunderstanding. I will admit I am not at my best in a format of typing and attempting to get my point across.

I find your post (in general....all of your post) intelligent, comprehensive, and complete.

As for the ADA and public accommodations, I'm only aware that there are some assholes who have made a fortune by sending their conspirators into gyms and restaurants and such with tape measures, and extorting money from the owners for failing to sufficiently accommodate people who had no intention of being paying customers.

GL, I didn't click the link to your post, but I have read the case that was against Clint Eastwood where Eastwood got so pissed off that he said "take me to court." If memory serves me, Eastwood took his "loss" to appeals until he could appeal it no more. And your right, some of this crap is just that....crap. But there is a lot of stuff like this in the legal system.

And your discussion of "Government mandates on Business" kind of made me roll my eyes a bit. I just thought of the tax code and all of the "mandates" our Government requires small business to do via those laws. We can bitch about the ADA, and we can bitch about the tax code, but that and $1.25 will get you a coffee at Sheetz.

Why does the company have to pay for half of the employees SS retirement? Why does the company have to fund for an employees unemployment comp but the company owner can't collect if the company goes under? Yet, if the employee is fired because he\she is incompetent, he\she still can collect U.C.? Employers have to keep adequate time records and must pay 1.5 time rate for overtime. Yet, even if they do and they don't keep and adequate paper trail, should they get audited by Wage and Hour, the Wage and Hour will rely exclusively on the employee's verbal statements as to how much time they worked.

It's not just ADA. It's the way it is.

Oh....and your statement of "I find it easy to believe that you are prone to assuming the worst about others who deal with you." is ROFLMAO funny. I don't give a rat's ass if you do or don't want to know details. I'm well aware that there's two sides to every story and this is just one.

But I do find it interesting that you jump on your high horse over an issue that you wish to poo-poo away. If you don't wish to post about it, then it's simple....just don't respond to any more post. But you indirectly solicited enough information to then determine that you no longer wanted to post about it.

You are making it to hard.

Seems easy to me. Quit posting.

Dave

[DavidTM]

Well, at least I got someone's attention.

Just to complete this:

1) Me thinks GL location on his personal info may be a tad off where he really is.

2) If any Attorney is well versed in Title I, then they are also knowledgeable in Title II and Title III. If not, it's like saying I know how to complete a tax return....but I'm not sure it mortgage interest is deductible.

3) Title III doesn't "give" the option or the judgement of what a disabled individual can or cannot do over to the management of a recreational facility. All Title III does is state that a "reasonable accommodation must be made" for any disabled individual to use the facility, as long as the cost is within the organizations means. Of course, my request was at a cost of ZERO.

4) Me thinks that GL didn't want any additional details as he actually figured out who I was and what Club this was and perhaps was either involved in consultation or maybe even represented said organization. And should more disclosure happen he would have to recuse himself. Just a SWAG on my part....but I smell a lot of that here.

5) Individuals fear what they don't know. Lawyers put fear of "what if's" into individuals who run organizations for no good reasons. Lawyers who actually don't really know the laws advise organizations to do such things. So, it's fear of the unknown that drives people to do stupid. No wonder it's the Legal profession who is mistrusted. Perhaps if they spent more time researching and less time on forums, better advice could be given. But....when your older and retired like me....advice is freely given. Remember, I was once a "regular" healthy educated individual who advised for a living. But that was back in the day when research was done via paper libraries and forums were in large meeting rooms. We (our "group") didn't survive or tout fear as a way to live. Knowledge is power and knowing what can or cannot be done is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do. That's why we were one of the top organizations, and still are today.

Dave

PS,

You could Google the name of this Club until the ice caps melt, but you will not find a web site for them. Every thing about this Club is kept "secret" including much to the membership. The organization is run via the "fear" method and should you cross the board, it's likely you will be tossed out for a reason that will be fabricated. In my case, they were not smart enough to do that.

[GunLawyer001]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia

[DavidTM]

I got ties older that you kid.

[DavidTM]

Besides:

#1--If you know about Title I, you should know about Title III.....but you won't answer the question. Simple Yes or No.

#2--If your really located where you say you are, then just state it. Yes or no. Simple.

#3--I really don't know what put you over the edge on this one. I was having a "conversation" on my perception of what happen to me. You let it go until it hit a point where you suddenly "lawyered up" and got all worked up about it. Hey, I'm Ok with that. I find it interesting though. Back in the day I did a lot of fraud work. I can smell when 2+2=98.

FWIW

[GunLawyer001]

Besides:

#1--If you know about Title I, you should know about Title III.....but you won't answer the question. Simple Yes or No.

#2--If your really located where you say you are, then just state it. Yes or no. Simple.

#3--I really don't know what put you over the edge on this one. I was having a "conversation" on my perception of what happen to me. You let it go until it hit a point where you suddenly "lawyered up" and got all worked up about it. Hey, I'm Ok with that. I find it interesting though. Back in the day I did a lot of fraud work. I can smell when 2+2=98.

FWIW

Read below from 2 days ago, see if you can spot the subtle clue that I'm no expert in the ADA. You're an old guy, with cunning investigative skills and a vivid imagination. You can do it.

While you're at it, look at my user name and see if your psychic skills give you a clue about my area of vocational interest. I'll wait.

I'm no expert in the ADA, but I seem to recall that in an employment context, the courts consider it "reasonable" for an employer to pay the handicapped person the normal salary, plus pay up to 10% more in accommodation costs. For a truly skilled employee, that might make sense; but the law doesn't factor that in.
. . . . .

BTW, in my experience, people with handicaps, and people who are in protected groups that are perceived as being subject to invidious discrimination, often have bad interactions with others simply because of their bad personalities. You could be a gay black quadriplegic, but if you hypothetically demand special treatment in an obnoxious way, their hypothetical response is less due to your situation, and more due to you being an asshole about it. Ask anybody, a fat broad who tells the airline "you have to let me board first, you have to give me two seats, and if there's any resistance I'll sue your prejudiced asses into bankruptcy" is going to get some negative vibes that have nothing to do with her heiferness and everything to do with her personality.

I have no idea what your deal is at the gun club, despite your paranoid insinuations. But if they kicked you out without an explanation, it seems like maybe nobody wanted to talk to you any more. I know that's how I feel....and I notice that nobody else on PAFOA seems to be opening up a dialogue with you here.

[DavidTM]

Well, now that's it!!! You've gone and hurt my feelings!!

BTW, I don't see anyone else supporting your position. Hmmmm.....

Just an observation. And you don't see me screaming about you being "hypothetically gay, black, or....ghee....whatever other criteria you wanted to toss into the mix.

You do have a vivid imagination. But you can't stick to task nor answer a straight (not as in gay\straight) question to save your soul. (You have a soul? Being an attorney 'n all?)

Ha Ha Ha Ha ....A Joke!! It was A Joke!!!




I have no idea what your deal is at the gun club, despite your paranoid insinuations. But if they kicked you out without an explanation, it seems like maybe nobody wanted to talk to you any more. I know that's how I feel....and I notice that nobody else on PAFOA seems to be opening up a dialogue with you here.

#1--It doesn't matter if they wanted to talk to me or not. They by-laws required them to give me due process and a valid reason for booting me out. Get it Mr. Lawyer?

#2--See #1 above for the valid reason explanation. They are required to via by-laws. Boards have been successfully sued and Boards tossed out because of failure to follow the MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT! Look that up Mr. Lawyer.

[R.W.J]

Well, now that's it!!! You've gone and hurt my feelings!!

BTW, I don't see anyone else supporting your position. Hmmmm.....

Just an observation. And you don't see me screaming about you being "hypothetically gay, black, or....ghee....whatever other criteria you wanted to toss into the mix.

You do have a vivid imagination. But you can't stick to task nor answer a straight (not as in gay\straight) question to save your soul. (You have a soul? Being an attorney 'n all?)

Ha Ha Ha Ha ....A Joke!! It was A Joke!!!




I have no idea what your deal is at the gun club, despite your paranoid insinuations. But if they kicked you out without an explanation, it seems like maybe nobody wanted to talk to you any more. I know that's how I feel....and I notice that nobody else on PAFOA seems to be opening up a dialogue with you here.
#1--It doesn't matter if they wanted to talk to me or not. They by-laws required them to give me due process and a valid reason for booting me out. Get it Mr. Lawyer?

#2--See #1 above for the valid reason explanation. They are required to via by-laws. Boards have been successfully sued and Boards tossed out because of failure to follow the MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT! Look that up Mr. Lawyer.

Perhaps its because you took this thread off course.