cracker barrel on gaskins

peter nap · Jun 4, 2013

TFred said:
I guess I am basing my point of view here on some long-ago discussions about "proof of notice" and whether or not a sign was sufficient for that.

I can only quote the statute TFred and as far as I know, except to clarify that signs have to be posted by someone with the authority to do so, the courts haven't changed it.

does that make a shirtless person a trespasser, subject to immediate arrest, or someone who must leave (or comply with policy) when asked to do so?

Actually, it does!

I can't imagine anyone would propose we arrest shirtless people on sight, without being asked to leave first, even if there is a sign. So why should we treat a gun carrier any differently?

That's where the trouble is. You're confusing common sense and law. One should never make that mistake:lol:
No one but an idiot wants to have someone arrested if they don't have to. Not only is it bad for business, you have to go to court, be humiliated and groped by Deputies (No offense Jim:uhoh and waste all that time for absolutely nothing. They simply want the person to conform to whatever policy they have.
That doesn't change the law though and the fact is...IF THEY SO DESIRED, THEY COULD HAVE THE PERSON ARRESTED.

Now perhaps someone telling me face-to-face what their policy is might be sufficient proof of notice, which is why I would go back to "What are you asking me to do?", which gives them the opportunity to indeed, ask the person to leave.

There will never be a consensus, even if we all agreed to one, we would certainly be wrong in some situations. The law is just not that clearly written.

TFred

.......

TFred · Jun 4, 2013

drdan01 said:
But again, wasn't the point that he made that if having been asked to leave reentry as CC was the trespass? Or perhaps I'm not understanding which point you're discussing?

I have never said, or believed that refusing to leave after having been asked, or re-entering after having been asked was not a trespass. At least I don't think I did. There was some confusion on the OP's situation because there was both OC and CC. The OP did seem to clarify the situation if I remember right, removing all question of proper notice.

TFred

peter nap · Jun 4, 2013

TFred said:
I have never said, or believed that refusing to leave after having been asked, or re-entering after having been asked was not a trespass. At least I don't think I did. There was some confusion on the OP's situation because there was both OC and CC. The OP did seem to clarify the situation if I remember right, removing all question of proper notice.

TFred

There's a little more confusion for me TFred. If you listen to the recording I posted, the official CB Policy is that OC is not allowed but CC is.
That may have changed but I don't think so.

If the policy has not changed, the manager did not have the authority to make that demand.

thedevilrobyjohn · Jun 4, 2013

no response

heard nothing from corporate. For clarity....I had a fiveseven openly holstered, i had a .38 on ankle concealed, i had a .22 mag in pocket concealed....manager said...i need to take the gun to the car....i said what if i pull my shirt over it, i have a license....he said take it to the car....so that particular gun was in question...he couldnt have known of the other two....so the other two remained.....when i came back inside, he asked to see the empty holster, i complied. what a sticky tangled web. side note...in bennetts in pigeon forge, TN. there is a huge sign on the podeum upon entering where the hostess stands. you must approach it before setting down.....it stated that no firearms what so ever and it had a copy of tennessee law. it stated that it was a criminal offense. I was open carrying under a vest so really half open half concealed. I stated to the man that it was late, we are hungry and our vehicle was 2 miles away and i have a weapon upon me with a license. he said thats fine with him and enjoy your meal.......

roscoe13 · Jun 4, 2013

peter nap said:
There's a little more confusion for me TFred. If you listen to the recording I posted, the official CB Policy is that OC is not allowed but CC is.
That may have changed but I don't think so.

If the policy has not changed, the manager did not have the authority to make that demand.

Assuming that this is a locally owned franchise location, if the manager was representing the owner, he had the legal authority to make the demand in spite of being in violation of corporate policy...

Roscoe

peter nap · Jun 4, 2013

roscoe13 said:
Assuming that this is a locally owned franchise location, if the manager was representing the owner, he had the legal authority to make the demand in spite of being in violation of corporate policy...

Roscoe

I don't think there are any franchises Roscoe but even if there are, this isn't one. That CB is the cause of the policy being made and the Manager had to go to Corporate to get the authority. I spoke to him for an hour or so about the policy and why we weren't coming there any longer.

marshaul · Jun 4, 2013

Some folks need to take the law down off its pedestal. It doesn't belong there.

roscoe13 · Jun 4, 2013

peter nap said:
I don't think there are any franchises Roscoe but even if there are, this isn't one. That CB is the cause of the policy being made and the Manager had to go to Corporate to get the authority. I spoke to him for an hour or so about the policy and why we weren't coming there any longer.

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that there were any large chains of that type that weren't largely made up of franchises.

Roscoe

ProShooter · Jun 4, 2013

thedevilrobyjohn said:
.................. For clarity....I had a fiveseven openly holstered, i had a .38 on ankle concealed, i had a .22 mag in pocket concealed....manager said...i need to take the gun to the car....i said what if i pull my shirt over it, i have a license....he said take it to the car....so that particular gun was in question...he couldnt have known of the other two....so the other two remained......

BUT!!!!!!!!!!!! You said....

thedevilrobyjohn said:
he said no guns in the store. I pulled my shirt over it and explained that I am licensed to conceal....he said no guns at all.

So, although you only told him about the one gun, you knew that you had two more and they were not allowed either based upon what the manager told you. Now, you've played the "seen one, didn't see two" game to make the situation fit your needs.

thedevilrobyjohn · Jun 4, 2013

ProShooter said:
BUT!!!!!!!!!!!! You said....

So, although you only told him about the one gun, you knew that you had two more and they were not allowed either based upon what the manager told you. Now, you've played the "seen one, didn't see two" game to make the situation fit your needs.

you are correct. and it would have been worth a trespassing charge had a jealous boyfriend came in to blow his girlfriend away and didnt like my looks or my familys looks. happened at the pizza place on jeff davis a year or so ago while my niece was working there. next time, ill go as usual, ill conceal and there will be no problems, im sure.....i got the strong impression from him and from what little the lady told me from corporate that they dont wnt weapons displayed....its not posted and they perform no searches....i jnow its an open carry forum but im just concerned about being armed period......another sid note will be posted as a new post.......shortly about a cinema and fantastic thrift

thedevilrobyjohn · Jun 4, 2013

thedevilrobyjohn said:
you are correct. and it would have been worth a trespassing charge had a jealous boyfriend came in to blow his girlfriend away and didnt like my looks or my familys looks. happened at the pizza place on jeff davis a year or so ago while my niece was working there. next time, ill go as usual, ill conceal and there will be no problems, im sure.....i got the strong impression from him and from what little the lady told me from corporate that they dont wnt weapons displayed....its not posted and they perform no searches....i jnow its an open carry forum but im just concerned about being armed period......another sid note will be posted as a new post.......shortly about a cinema and fantastic thrift

ps, the managers name was gil hutchins a light skinned fella bragging to other employees of how it is nothing to him and how he deals with it all of the time

Blk97F150 · Jun 4, 2013

thedevilrobyjohn said:
ps, the managers name was gil hutchins a light skinned fella bragging to other employees of how it is nothing to him and how he deals with it all of the time

So... tell me again why you want to continue to give these people money?

skidmark · Jun 4, 2013

TFred said:
So you would arrest a shirtless or shoeless person on sight in a store with such a sign, but without having been asked to leave?

Just seems unreasonable, with shirts, shoes OR guns...

TFred

I think we have hit upon the point where the two camps find divergence!

Trespass is a misdemeanor. Under Virginia law (when everybody follows it) a police officer cannot arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence. Further, a police officer who arrests for a misdemeanor must release the person arrested on a summons unless the police officer has reason to believe the person will not stop committing the illegal act or will not show up in court for the adjudication of the charge.

Thus, when Mr. PropertyOwner calls the cops to deal with (arrest him!) someone who will not leave after being told to (or being given written notice not to enter in the first place) the cop is faced with two choices:

1) stand there and explain to the individual that they were asked to leave and would they please do so so everybody can get back to their regularly scheduled life, and then find themselves in some sort of discussion about rights and fairness and the like; or

2) explain to Mr. PropertyOwner that they (the police) cannot arrest just because Mr. PropertyOwner says he told the peresion to leave and the person (obviously) has not yet left. The police officer may even say he needs to hear/see Mr. PropertyOwner tell you to leave and then see you refuse to do so. So Mr. PropertyOwner once more tells you to leave. Police officer sees you refuse to leave, which is a misdemeanor crime committed in his presence. Voila! You just won a set of stainless steel bracelets because your refusal to leave is reasonable belief that you will not stop committing the illegal act.

Both Officer Friendly and Officer Krupke see option #2 as the quicker way to get back to whatever it was they were doing before thewy were dispatched to deal with you. Also, neither Officer Friendly nor Officer Krupke wants to discuss the finer points of the law - their attitude is that's what Commonwealth's Attorneys and judges are for.

See? What you were really trying to argue about was the power of the police to arrest for a misdemeanor crime not committed in their presence.

stay safe.

scouser · Jun 4, 2013

skidmark said:
I think we have hit upon the point where the two camps find divergence!

Trespass is a misdemeanor. Under Virginia law (when everybody follows it) a police officer cannot arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence. Further, a police officer who arrests for a misdemeanor must release the person arrested on a summons unless the police officer has reason to believe the person will not stop committing the illegal act or will not show up in court for the adjudication of the charge.

well we all know how much notice they take of that !!!

Thus, when Mr. PropertyOwner calls the cops to deal with (arrest him!) someone who will not leave after being told to (or being given written notice not to enter in the first place) the cop is faced with two choices:

1) stand there and explain to the individual that they were asked to leave and would they please do so so everybody can get back to their regularly scheduled life, and then find themselves in some sort of discussion about rights and fairness and the like; or

2) explain to Mr. PropertyOwner that they (the police) cannot arrest just because Mr. PropertyOwner says he told the peresion to leave and the person (obviously) has not yet left. The police officer may even say he needs to hear/see Mr. PropertyOwner tell you to leave and then see you refuse to do so. So Mr. PropertyOwner once more tells you to leave. Police officer sees you refuse to leave, which is a misdemeanor crime committed in his presence. Voila! You just won a set of stainless steel bracelets because your refusal to leave is reasonable belief that you will not stop committing the illegal act.

Both Officer Friendly and Officer Krupke see option #2 as the quicker way to get back to whatever it was they were doing before thewy were dispatched to deal with you. Also, neither Officer Friendly nor Officer Krupke wants to discuss the finer points of the law - their attitude is that's what Commonwealth's Attorneys and judges are for.

See? What you were really trying to argue about was the power of the police to arrest for a misdemeanor crime not committed in their presence.

stay safe.

.

DrMark · Jun 4, 2013

TFred said:
Example: Theaters routinely have signs that say no outside food, and outside food is routinely smuggled in. Are they trespassing? Maybe technically, yes, but have you ever, and would you advocate, arresting a popcorn smuggler based on a sign, or even a verbal notice, with NO request to leave the property? If you won't arrest for popcorn, you should not arrest for a gun.

I'm with you... I don't understand the claim that trespassing has been committed without a request to leave.

DrMark · Jun 4, 2013

peter nap said:
Currently if a business says no guns, either on a sign posted where people are likely to see it (Even if they don't) or verbally and you bring one in anyway....you've committed a crime.

Maybe I missed it... is there a cite, or is this just case law that has led you to this conclusion?

peter nap · Jun 4, 2013

DrMark said:
Maybe I missed it... is there a cite, or is this just case law that has led you to this conclusion?

No, it's not a conclusion Mark and I cited the law a couple of pages ago.

§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian, or the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen,

ed · Jun 4, 2013

skidmark said:
1 - Cracker Barrel's no gun policy has been fairly well known for several years.

2 - Some folks have gotten away with OC at some CBs apparently beause the managers were not enforcing the rule, That does not change the fact that the rule has been there for several years.

3 - Apparently you are under the impression that Cracker Barrel is some sort of government agency to which the Second Amendment applies. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news, but 2A carries no weight with private property/private businesses. If and when OCers/CCers become a "protected class" (race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.) 2A will be enforced against private businesses - but not till then.

4 - It has been found that standing there arguing with management or employees about your "rights" and that what you are doing is "legal" tends to only make those folks dig their heels in deeper due to the impression they form not only of you, but their notion that you are a fair representation of all OCers/CCers. There are other ways of dealing with the situation that seem more likely to result in a change of policy.

5 - Be sure to post the response you get from CB coroprate HQ, as well as te correspondence you sent them. It's often easier to show folks what did or did not work than to try and describe it.

stay safe.

Well said.

Grapeshot · Jun 4, 2013

peter nap said:
No, it's not a conclusion Mark and I cited the law a couple of pages ago.

§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian, or the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen,

I believe it was ProShooter that pointed out the statute wording to us some long time ago - I had forgotten about it.

DrMark · Jun 4, 2013

peter nap said:
No, it's not a conclusion Mark and I cited the law a couple of pages ago.

§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian, or the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen,

I'm well familiar with that law. It's cited in any thread about trespassing, and appropriately so.

Its basis is that going on or remaining on property after having been told not to (i.e. told to keep out or to leave) is trespassing. I'm wondering how you drew the conclusion that one can be trespassing without having been told to keep out or to leave.

cracker barrel on gaskins

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Lone Star Veteran

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Legendary Warrior

Lone Star Veteran