the truth shall set you free!!!!!! from your job, social setting, carrer, ect lol
come on man i thought i chummed the water and baited the hook good!!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
the truth shall set you free!!!!!! from your job, social setting, carrer, ect lol
come on man i thought i chummed the water and baited the hook good!!!!
All these replies and only one person even began to answer the OPs question. The question was related specifically to the mandate.
The OP is asking what would one be cited for when a LEO attempts to enforce the mandate.
It would be hard to be cited with remaining after forbidden unless the business owner or rep agrees with the mandate. Then again, you still aren’t being cited in accordance with the mandate itself, but for remaining after forbidden. If the business rep doesn’t agree, then they can’t use that statute because you haven’t been forbidden. I know, they could say you have been forbidden by the mandate. But those *rules* that you (would) have been forbidden by are at the discretion of the business and not the law…at all. Which is why you won’t get a *gun charge* for carrying in a private business with a sign. And since that business isn’t forbidding you, you have to be cited with a statute…which would be what?
I know, I didn’t answer the question either. Shame on me. I was just replying to the ones who brought up Remaining after Forbidden.
All these replies and only one person even began to answer the OPs question. The question was related specifically to the mandate.
The OP is asking what would one be cited for when a LEO attempts to enforce the mandate.
It would be hard to be cited with remaining after forbidden unless the business owner or rep agrees with the mandate. Then again, you still aren’t being cited in accordance with the mandate itself, but for remaining after forbidden. If the business rep doesn’t agree, then they can’t use that statute because you haven’t been forbidden. I know, they could say you have been forbidden by the mandate. But those *rules* that you (would) have been forbidden by are at the discretion of the business and not the law…at all. Which is why you won’t get a *gun charge* for carrying in a private business with a sign. And since that business isn’t forbidding you, you have to be cited with a statute…which would be what?
I know, I didn’t answer the question either. Shame on me. I was just replying to the ones who brought up Remaining after Forbidden.
My bad, I thought it was a discussion.
All these replies and only one person even began to answer the OPs question. The question was related specifically to the mandate.
The OP is asking what would one be cited for when a LEO attempts to enforce the mandate.
It would be hard to be cited with remaining after forbidden unless the business owner or rep agrees with the mandate. Then again, you still aren’t being cited in accordance with the mandate itself, but for remaining after forbidden. If the business rep doesn’t agree, then they can’t use that statute because you haven’t been forbidden. I know, they could say you have been forbidden by the mandate. But those *rules* that you (would) have been forbidden by are at the discretion of the business and not the law…at all. Which is why you won’t get a *gun charge* for carrying in a private business with a sign. And since that business isn’t forbidding you, you have to be cited with a statute…which would be what?
I know, I didn’t answer the question either. Shame on me. I was just replying to the ones who brought up Remaining after Forbidden.
im saying that may only work when the business agrees with the mandate. But if they don’t then what?There have been several comments saying the same thing you just said, not sure what you are talking about. You will be charged for remaining after being forbidden due to not wearing a mask under the guidelines of the governor at the request of the business owner. Is that better?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
im saying that may only work when the business agrees with the mandate. But if they don’t then what?
the OP is asking under what statute…The fire Marshall was enforcing those mandates last time when owners were not doing it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
the OP is asking under what statute…
the OP is asking under what statute…
You can’t be charged with that if the business allows you there.RS 14:63.3 as stated earlier in this this thread.
makes sense.The businesses are more than likely being cited with a civil penalty under the health code, not a criminal statute. Whether it be the Fire Marshall or Board of Health.
You can’t be charged with that if the business allows you there.
Which is common knowledge.
I’m not worried about what happens in a private business. I would really be concerned if arrest or tickets could be handed out while out in public such as walking your dog down the sidewalk. If we get to that point then I would hope LE would not follow orders.