'No Guns Allowed' what EXACTLY does this mean... ?

Does it only mean no 'CC/CC' ? OR does it mean 'NO GUNS' at all... not even those encased/cleared? And can any cite any definitive statute.

Could one logically argue that said sign is inclusive of ALL firearms...even those encased?

GlockRDH said:

Does it only mean no 'CC/CC' ? OR does it mean 'NO GUNS' at all... not even those encased/cleared? And can any cite any definitive statute.

Could one logically argue that said sign is inclusive of ALL firearms...even those encased?

Click to expand...

Where did you see it? What is a gun by their definition? Squirt gun? Cap gun? Grease gun? Frosting gun?

I'm just curious about any business that posted, 'No Guns Allowed'. There's generally never a mention of CC/OC or one that's been cleared/cased. IMO, the sign would by default include those cleared/cased.

FWIW, there could also be a 'gunbuster' present on the sign...

Just curious. What part of NO don't you understand?

It's not a legal sign that meets the definition of a "no CC" sign, so I would disregard it....

Grizz272 said:

Just curious. What part of NO don't you understand?

Click to expand...

I personally see this to mean NO...NONE...absolutely NONE are allowed on the property, regardless of how they are packaged...

Grizz272 said:

Just curious. What part of NO don't you understand?

Click to expand...

What he says.

kawisixer01 said:

It's not a legal sign that meets the definition of a "no CC" sign, so I would disregard it....

Click to expand...

Let us know how disregarding a "No Guns" sign that is at least 5x7 and is prominently placed at all public entrances of a business work out for you when you argue that in court.

markush said:

What he says.



Let us know how disregarding a "No Guns" sign that is at least 5x7 and is prominently placed at all public entrances of a business work out for you when you argue that in court.

Click to expand...

Did the OP state "5x7"? No. My statement was in regards to a sign that doesn't meet the requirements. Troll much?

kawisixer01 said:

Did the OP state "5x7"? No. My statement was in regards to a sign that doesn't meet the requirements. Troll much?

Click to expand...

lmao medicate much?

Actually, it is an interesting question if you put some thought into it. We already have exceptions written into law that supersede a property owner's right to bar firearms completely. For example: if property is posted "no guns", like many of our malls are, I am still within my legal rights to keep my firearm in my vehicle while on the posted property.

Another example that comes to mind would be an apartment complex. If I am a renter and my apartment complex is posted, I am still within my rights to have my firearms within my home. How would I get them there if the property is posted? In this case, I would think transport laws would come into play. Though the property is posted, I still have a right to transport my firearms.

I think it would stand to reason that as long as you're not "transporting" through a specifically prohibited by law location (e.g. courthouse, Federal building, school, jail, police station, etc), you would be within your rights to transport your cased and unloaded gun regardless if the property is posted against guns. All of the Trespass Statutes specifically mention "while carrying a firearm", which is defined as "going armed with".

Of course, IANAL and this is all just reasoned opinion.

markush said:

lmao medicate much?

Click to expand...

Actually, he is correct. There was no mention on the appropriate size of the sign. And it has to be posted at EVERY entrance to the facility, whatever it may be. In example, the Fox River mall tends to try and post their entrances, but stores such as scheels and target choose not to. One might happen to come into the mall through only one of the latter entrances, and are now free of the oppression of the mall. And we all know that any posted business cannot enforce any sort of "no guns" policy in their parking lot.


So, if the sign is too small, is not posted at every entrance, or a combination of both, then in that respect it does not follow the guidelines set forth by the law in question regarding posting a policy, by default the sign is null and void.


Snake161~

GlockRDH said:

Does it only mean no 'CC/CC' ? OR does it mean 'NO GUNS' at all... not even those encased/cleared? And can any cite any definitive statute.

Could one logically argue that said sign is inclusive of ALL firearms...even those encased?

Click to expand...

kawisixer01 said:

It's not a legal sign that meets the definition of a "no CC" sign, so I would disregard it....

Click to expand...

Snake161 said:

Actually, he is correct. There was no mention on the appropriate size of the sign. And it has to be posted at EVERY entrance to the facility, whatever it may be. In example, the Fox River mall tends to try and post their entrances, but stores such as scheels and target choose not to. One might happen to come into the mall through only one of the latter entrances, and are now free of the oppression of the mall. And we all know that any posted business cannot enforce any sort of "no guns" policy in their parking lot.


So, if the sign is too small, is not posted at every entrance, or a combination of both, then in that respect it does not follow the guidelines set forth by the law in question regarding posting a policy, by default the sign is null and void.


Snake161~

Click to expand...

The original post has nothing to do with the size of the sign!! kawisixer post about ignoring the sign because it doesn't say "no CC" is from left field and just plain wrong...I'm done, you guys enjoy your thread.

I shouldve stated in my initial post... 'proper size and proper located signage' to avoid any confusion...

Reading the 'trespassing statute', i see nothing about an allowance for 'encased'...especially with the presence of such signage indicating 'NO FIREARMS'.. Would the business owner be allowed to eject an individual for possessing one that is 'encased', also? (regardless of the nature of the persons reason to be on the business property)

GlockRDH said:

Reading the 'trespassing statute', i see nothing about an allowance for 'encased'...especially with the presence of such signage indicating 'NO FIREARMS'.. Would the business owner be allowed to eject an individual for possessing one that is 'encased', also? (regardless of the nature of the persons reason to be on the business property)

Click to expand...

Again, I'm just trying to reason this out for myself. I haven't consulted any legal experts on the subject.

Why is open carry legal in Wisconsin? Simply put: because there is no law against it.

The transport laws do a good job of spelling out how to legally transport a firearm where vehicles are concerned, but nothing really about physically carrying.

Likewise, the trespass laws spell out the regulations on going armed with, but don't address transport.

I'd think it would stand to reason that by the simple lack of laws surrounding it, it would be legal to do so.

It would certainly be tricky to sort out, though. If I'm carrying a properly encased firearm, how would anyone know for certain through ordinary observation what's actually in the case? Maybe it's just my lunch?

That being said, a property owner can ask you to leave for pretty much any reason, so long as it doesn't violate protected class laws. You'd have to comply or face those consequences.

In the particular case of transporting your firearms to and from your dwelling unit, I'd think you'd be afforded a certain amount of latitude and legal protection.

Id think that 'no firearms' is specific enough that if its a business, (and NOT a residence, which has a specific carve-out within in the statute), one would potentially be in violation of the sign...even if you have a 'dwelling' with in said business... be it a hotel, motel, or even a posted hospital (hospital rooms are private, with a privacy similar to a hotel...regardless of you reason for being in either one). Is my thinking wrong on this?

Can someone post the transport statute... I'm not sure if said statute extends from your vehicle onto someone else's private property...

As you stated NoTolerance.... one can be accused of trespassing for just about any reason.. (unless that reason is a matter of being a 'protected' group)

Signs, Signs

If an individual receives adequate notice that "X" is prohibited in a particular place, where "X" may be an activity or an object, and ignores such notice, he is trespassing (unless a particular exception is provided by law). Thus a sign that says "No Guns" or a graphic indicating that guns are forbidden or being told of the prohibition all operate to give notice. You cannot carve out of the general prohibition your own exceptions (concealed carry, guns that are blue, revolvers, from 3-5 p.m., etc.) although the property owner generally could. Conversely, you are not required to psychoanalyze the poster. "No Guns" does not prohibit knives, electrical weapons or billy clubs whereas "No Weapons" would. Any sign that you see and should understand (e.g. it isn't written in Turkish) is likely sufficient to support a trespass conviction. Saying "Your Honor, I saw the sign but it was 1/2 inch too small" isn't going to cut it. The only exception would be if the statute had a specific provision that barred prosecution based upon substandard signage. There is no such provision in Wisconsin, so it would be a "judge"ment call. Here's a test - imagine yourself before a judge giving an explanation of why you thought you could do whatever it is that you did. Do you sound like a reasonable person who might have made a factual error or do you sound like a wiseacre who thinks he cleverly skirted the law?

Not Exactly

Snake161 said:

Actually, he is correct. There was no mention on the appropriate size of the sign. And it has to be posted at EVERY entrance to the facility, whatever it may be. In example, the Fox River mall tends to try and post their entrances, but stores such as scheels and target choose not to. One might happen to come into the mall through only one of the latter entrances, and are now free of the oppression of the mall. And we all know that any posted business cannot enforce any sort of "no guns" policy in their parking lot.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify - it is not required that every entrance be posted in order to support a charge of trespass. If every entrance is posted according to the statute - that is sufficient to constitute notice whether or not you saw the sign or understood it. However this is not the only way that notice might be given. Furthermore if you know of the restriction and choose to use an entrance that for some reason (oversight, vandalism, a strong breeze) is without a sign, you are not necessarily in the clear. You might be in an improved position, especially if you are willing to commit perjury. Though laws are often interpreted to protect the innocent mistake it usually isn't done for the benefit of the knowing but slippery rascal.

Businesses can enforce company policies such as parking lot restrictions against non-licensee employees.

So, if the sign is too small, is not posted at every entrance, or a combination of both, then in that respect it does not follow the guidelines set forth by the law in question regarding posting a policy, by default the sign is null and void.

Click to expand...

Not true for the reasons stated above.

Can someone post the text for the 'trespassing' and 'transportation' statute? IIRC, the transportation statute allowance does NOT extend to individuals ON PRIVATE PROPERTY? Or am I wrong on this?

** Just because the law allows you to do something, is no guarantee that you can exercise said privilege on private/business property..