Open Carry @ Gilbert Arizona Workforce Connection

So I lost my job yesterday and I went to Maricopa Workforce Connections in Gilbert this morning and I got all excited because I thought they had a bar based on the sign.



Turns out they don't.

I asked the armed security guard what he would do if I was carrying and he said he would take my gun. I said "no you wouldn't. Do you have secure storage?" He said they don't. I then asked if they served alcohol and he said no. I explained the sign was in error and he said I should bring it up to the director.

After I went outside I took a picture and he practically ran out to question me, then said he would bring it up to the director. Other than his momentary panic he was professional and polite, however, I wasn't carrying.

I think we need to organize an open carry even at that location this week. I never thought I'd say that in AZ.

ETA You are welcome to use their services even if you are employed so you can still have a legitimate reason to be there while carrying. I never said carrying at a place where a prospective employer might be is a good idea.

Change title of thread

Ughh, I want to change the title of this thread to "Open Carry @ Gilbert Arizona Workforce Connection".

Can that be done?

Moderator comment:

Yep - did it for you. Sorry I didn't catch it earlier.

Just for the record, original title was "Illegal Sign Arizona Workforce Connection."

Click to expand...

Is the Arizona Workforce Connection "operated" by a state or local government agency or is it some cooperative project with the private sector? I couldn't figure it out from the website.

Because the sign uses the wrong reference it makes me wonder if it's a private sector thing.

Costco uses the wrong reference (ARS 13-3102) on their sign but it's irrelevant since it's private property.

Fred

I have no doubt that they are trying to confuse and trick people who read that and don't immediately have the resources to actually check the law referenced. Even a cursory reading of 4-229 A.1. reveals that it cannot possibly be applicable in this situation.

4-229. Licenses; handguns; posting of notice
A. A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises. The sign shall conform to the following requirements:

1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to the liquor license posted on the licensed premises.
2. Contain a pictogram that shows a firearm within a red circle and a diagonal red line across the firearm.
3. Contain the words, "no firearms allowed pursuant to A.R.S. section 4-229".

B. A person shall not carry a firearm on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer if the licensee has posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section.

C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection B of this section if:
1. The person was not informed of the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section before the violation.
2. Any one or more of the following apply:
(a) At the time of the violation the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section had fallen down.
(b) At the time of the violation the person was not a resident of this state.
(c) The licensee had posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section not more than thirty days before the violation.

D. The department of liquor licenses and control shall prepare the signs required by this section and make them available at no cost to licensees.

E. The signs required by this section shall be composed of block, capital letters printed in black on white laminated paper at a minimum weight of one hundred ten pound index. The lettering and pictogram shall consume a space at least six inches by nine inches. The letters comprising the words "no firearms allowed" shall be at least three-fourths of a vertical inch and all other letters shall be at least one-half of a vertical inch. Nothing shall prohibit a licensee from posting additional signs at one or more locations on the premises.

F. This section does not prohibit a person who possesses a handgun from entering the licensed premises for a limited time for the specific purpose of either:
1. Seeking emergency aid.
2. Determining whether a sign has been posted pursuant to subsection A of this section.

azcdlfred said:

Is the Arizona Workforce Connection "operated" by a state or local government agency or is it some cooperative project with the private sector? I couldn't figure it out from the website.

Because the sign uses the wrong reference it makes me wonder if it's a private sector thing.

Costco uses the wrong reference (ARS 13-3102) on their sign but it's irrelevant since it's private property.

Fred

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the emissions place in Phoenix (the one you have to go to if you attempt emissions too many times when the car's computer isn't ready ) used title 4 too.

Government. Maricopa County Department of Human Services.

Operations Manager
Diana Shepherd
(602) 506-4812

http://www.maricopaworkforceconnection.com/about/documents/062410MinutesMWCFullBoard.pdf

I sent an email to Dave Kopp at president@azcdl.org. I never did on the azdeq one though. Sorry.

lol @ the rent-a-cop threatening to take your gun.

sharkey said:

I sent an email to Dave Kopp at president@azcdl.org. I never did on the azdeq one though. Sorry.

Click to expand...

I have not received any email on this subject, and I check my email at least once every day. It may have gotten eaten by a spam filter at some point along the line.

Would you resend it please? ...

hdwizard said:

I have not received any email on this subject, and I check my email at least once every day. It may have gotten eaten by a spam filter at some point along the line.

Would you resend it please? ...

Click to expand...

Resent. Is president@azcdl.org the correct email?

sharkey said:

Resent. Is president@azcdl.org the correct email?

Click to expand...

Yes!

You can find all contact info on AzCDL Directors and Officers here (scroll down the page).

Fred

azcdlfred said:

.... Costco uses the wrong reference (ARS 13-3102) on their sign but it's irrelevant since it's private property.
Fred

Click to expand...

That sign at COSTCO is why I let my membership lapse.

No such sign at Sam's Club though

EnufIs2Much said:

That sign at COSTCO is why I let my membership lapse...

Click to expand...

If you had canceled your membership and told them why, you would have received a full refund.

First of all, the subject line here is misleading. The sign is NOT illegal. Signs of any type carries the weight of the law in AZ. The ARS quoted is incorrect, but that does NOT negate the sign. In AZ, posted is posted. Any sign will do.

Learn a bit more about AZ posted establishments at Constitution Watch.


Chris

Sharkey,

Point taken re; post #2.

However:

The fact you want(ed) to change the title is irrelevant to the incorrect info being promulgated.

Title 4 [4-229] is just the way the legislators drew up the law to allow CC in an establishment that serves alcohol. No more no less. Poorly thought out. However in 4-229, criteria is laid down on the correct TYPE and SIZE of sign, but also where it is to be posted and is ONLY VALID if the establishment is posting under 4-229 ONLY. This SAME establishment, that serves alcohol does not need to post under the criteria of 4-229. Posting a ghostbuster, or any other sign at the entrance(s) accomplishes the same, and carries the weight in law. There is NO CRITERIA on signs posted outside 4-229, so any sign will suffice.

Now, let’s get to the dispute as to whether or not these OTHER postings carry the weight of law in AZ. Any posted establishment, including a hardware store, carries the weight in law because it ultimately leads to:

ARS 13-1502

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

....snip....

I’m not the only source for this. May I politely suggest you consult handgunlaw.us.

You may want to edit out the last two sentences of your last post along with the last quote.

Chris

Ok.......please explain the difference between a "No Guns" sign and a "No Trespass" sign. I would love to know the difference.

BTW.....Govt buildings located in AZ ALSO...................repeat..............ALSO come under AZ law.

Posted is posted.

Re: Handgunlaw.us..........Just checked again.......my backup is still there.......Sorry sir. You not only need to READ the law, but you also need to understand what you read.

Chris

Ok.....

Given:
Hardware store posted with:
Gunbuster sign
No shoes, No service.

Both signs hold the same weight in law as previously stated.

Now, the hardware store owner just happens to own the establishment across the street that serves alcohol for consumption.

The hardware store owner can post EXACTLY the same signs on his establishment across the street at the entrance(s) and achieve his desired effect. He DOES NOT need to post under 4-229 to achieve the results he wishes.

If you really think about it, 4-229 has minimal effect on the establishment under AZ law. As stated previously, ANY sign at the entrance(s) suffice.

However, 4-229, while it has a minimal effect on the business owner, it had a big effect on the firearm carrier. If the establishment is NOT posted, it is WE who MUST fulfill the requirements of 4-229.

The law specifies the height and lettering of postings UNDER 4-229 ONLY. As I pointed out earlier, an establishment can easily post any sign at the entrance(s) and bypass 4-229 entirely.

Anyway, the topic here has strayed. You ORIGINALLY said that the posting was illegal when in fact it was not.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the difference between 'no guns' and 'trespass' signs.

Chris

Can’t change the title of the thread. Well either you did, or a Mod did. I don’t know.

Your ‘no storage’ point is taken.

The rest is entirely incorrect, and the reasons have been stated previously. No shirt, no shoes no service, or no guns EXACTLY equal ‘no trespassing’.

If you believe differently, then please be good enough to quote the relevant ARS that each case ultimately leads to.

Chris

Varmiter said:

Can’t change the title of the thread. Well either you did, or a Mod did. I don’t know.

Your ‘no storage’ point is taken.

The rest is entirely incorrect, and the reasons have been stated previously. No shirt, no shoes no service, or no guns EXACTLY equal ‘no trespassing’.

If you believe differently, then please be good enough to quote the relevant ARS that each case ultimately leads to.

Chris

Click to expand...

Start a new thread. Stop hijacking mine about government buildings.

You yourself strayed off topic by engaging others bringing in say 4-229 LONG before I entered into the debate.

I have NOT hijacked your thread. You yourself chose the course of the thread.

In any event, I’m still waiting for the relevant ARS’s of which you CLAIM to be so knowledgeable.

Until you can come up with the relevant ARS’s as far as I concerned, you have lost all credibility and the discussion need go no further.

Chris

Thank you.

You made my point for me in your understand of the law.

Chris