Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: City Property has No Concealed sign posted...OC?

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Ok, the city's recreation center has a "no concealed weapons" sign posted out front. I know it has been discussed in the past that these signs are simply a statement of the property owner's policy, and "technically" one could legally carry concealed until asked to leave, and the only legal issue would be a matter of trespassing if you decided not to leave.

    It has also been stated that these signs obviously specify concealed weapons, so openly carrying a weapon would not be directly violating their posted request. I have tested this theory in the past, openly carrying in an establishment with a "no concealed" sign, and was not questioned.

    I'm a little reluctant to openly carry to the city's recreation center, since it is city property. I've spent some time reading over my various legal sources, and haven't come up with anyting that would make it illegal. I guess I'm just looking for a little clarification from others, lol.

    Anyone? :-)

  2. #2
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    (f) seems as if it may be the applicable part of the statute. However, I am just one of the common folk. I would agree if it only prohibits CC, then I would OC and they have a problem, refer them to their sign. Hope that this helps.

    ยง 14-409.40. Statewide uniformity of local regulation. (General Law)

    (a)It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, and that the entire field of regulation of firearms is preempted from regulation by local governments except as provided by this section.

    (a1) The General Assembly further declares that the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, sale, or transfer of firearms or ammunition to the public is not an unreasonably dangerous activity and does not constitute a nuisance per se and furthermore, that it is the unlawful use of firearms and ammunition, rather than their lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, sale, or transfer that is the proximate cause of injuries arising from their unlawful use. This subsection applies only to causes of action brought under subsection (g) of this section.

    (b) Unless otherwise permitted by statute, no county or municipality, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner the possession, ownership, storage, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms, firearms ammunition, components of firearms, dealers in firearms, or dealers in handgun components or parts.

    (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, a county or municipality, by zoning or other ordinance, may regulate or prohibit the sale of firearms at a location only if there is a lawful, general, similar regulation or prohibition of commercial activities at that location. Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the right of a county or municipality to adopt a general zoning plan that prohibits any commercial activity within a fixed distance of a school or other educational institution except with a special use permit issued for a commercial activity found not to pose a danger to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons attending the school or educational institution within the fixed distance.

    (d) No county or municipality, by zoning or other ordinance, shall regulate in any manner firearms shows with regulations more stringent than those applying to shows of other types of items.

    (e) A county or municipality may regulate the transport, carrying, or possession of firearms by employees of the local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.

    (f) Nothing contained in this section prohibits municipalities or counties from application of their authority under G.S. 153A-129, 160A-189, 14-269, 14-269.2, 14-269.3, 14-269.4, 14-277.2, 14-415.11, 14-415.23, including prohibiting the possession of firearms in public-owned buildings, on the grounds or parking areas of those buildings, or in public parks or recreation areas, except nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a person from storing a firearm within a motor vehicle while the vehicle is on these grounds or areas. Nothing contained in this section prohibits municipalities or counties from exercising powers provided by law in declared states of emergency under Article 36A of this Chapter.

    (g) The authority to bring suit and the right to recover against any firearms or ammunition marketer, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, seller, or trade association by or on behalf of any governmental unit, created by or pursuant to an act of the General Assembly or the Constitution, or any department, agency, or authority thereof, for damages, abatement, injunctive relief, or any other remedy resulting from or relating to the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, sale, or transfer of firearms or ammunition to the public is reserved exclusively to the State. Any action brought by the State pursuant to this section shall be brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the State. This section shall not prohibit a political subdivision or local governmental unit from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition marketer, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, seller, or trade association for breach of contract or warranty for defect of materials or workmanship as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision or local governmental unit. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 727, s. 1.)(Revised and Approved 7:24 p.m. this 15th day of August, 2002)

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    In reference to (f), it seems that the city COULD effect a firearms prohibition in their public parks and recreational areas, with exception to those kept in vehicles. I don't necessarily like that, lol. I was trying to avoid asking any questions, but it seems that I might have to at this point to clarify whether the city has any standing restrictions.

    I'm in Havelock, NC btw, if anyone cares

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Edit: Yikes, that got wordy. I guess the short version is that I asked the local PD about any firearm restrictions in city parks, and they told me I couldn't carry there, period, but couldn't quote an ordinance.. After I dug up the ordinances, and didn't find anything, I called them on it and they said they're still looking. :?....

    Ok, I should give some quick background information on this whole thing, because it's becoming a thing. ugh....

    My g/f's kid has soccer practice at the Havelock City Recreational Center. The gate for the rec center has a no concealed sign posted. When I went out there yesterday, we saw the sign and my g/f said "well, you've got it in your holster, that's not concealed ." I decided not to test it then, since I wasn't familiar with city property stuff. I decided I should find out if there were any restrictions on the city properties around here, including the rec. center, as well as Havelock City Park, which sits adjacent to the Havelock Police Station...

    Anyway,I started asking questions. I accessed the city's website, and called the Havelock City Police Department. The woman I spoke with told me to call the Sheriff's Dept, as they are the ones that deal with this sort of thing. I called, and was quickly transfered back to, get this,Havelock city police department. Fortunately, however, a different person answered this time. The conversation went something like this:

    Me:Well, I'mcalling to see if I can find out if there are any city ordinances that restrict otherwise legalfirearm possession in the city parks and recreational facilities.

    Officer: Ok, are you saying there's someone with a gun in a park?

    Me: Haha no, sir, I'm just asking for my own information.

    Officer: well you need a permit.

    Me: Yes, sir, to carry concealed you do. I'm actually referring more to openly carrying in this case, which, as you know, doesn't require a permit.

    Officer: well are you talking about the park right next to us here?

    Me: Yes, that park and any other city parks and property..

    Officer: oh um ok well...ok what are you asking?

    Me: I'm asking if there are any Havelock City Ordinances that restrict the possession of firearms, specifically at city parks and recreational facilities.

    Officer: Ok, hold on.

    --on hold for approx. 5 minutes--

    Officer: Sir? I'm trying to find out for you, could you hold on another moment?

    Me: no problem..

    --on hold for approx. 2 minutes--

    Officer: Sir? Ok I just spoke with one of my Lieutenants, and he said that you cannot have a firearm in the parks.

    Me: Oh, allll right well, could you tell me the city ordinance that states that?

    Officer: Well the lieutenant said..

    Me: Perhaps the Lieutenant would know the ordinance?

    Officer: That's something you'll have to talk to City Hall about. The number is ###-####. Ya know, I don't see why you'd want to have a gun in the park, ya know, with kids around.

    Me: Well, hehe I wouldn't be too worried about the kids. I'd be carrying there for same reason I carry any where else: For the protection of myself and my family. (I added emphasis to the statement.)

    Officer: ok well I uh...

    Me: Tell ya what, I'll give the City Hall a call. Thank you.

    Officer: Ok, have a good day.

    So I called city hall. I had a brief conversation with the woman there, during which she expressed her her dis-taste for the police department and their inability to quote the ordinance. She took my info and said she'd call me back when she found something.

    Once she had verified that it would indeed be an ordinance, I tried looking it up online. I found Havelock's city ordinances in their entirety, and proceeded to look for anything in reference to firearms, handguns, etc. The only thing I found were restrictions on discharging within city limits, and possessing "dangerous weapons" like switch blades and throwing stars, lol. So I called the woman at the city hall back discuss what I hadn't found. She agreed that there didn't seem to be anything, and that I should direct my question to the Chief of Police.

    So while I was sitting here typing this out, the officer from earlier called me back. He said that they had sent an officer out to the rec. center to verify that there is, indeed, a sign that prohibits guns on the premises. I agreed, and clarified that this sign only restricted concealed weapons, not openly carried ones. The officer argued that it specifies concealed ones, since you'd obviously be stopped if you were carrying openly. I explained that there are many establishments that wish only to restrict concealed weapons, similar to that of the restrictions forfinancial institutions in this state. He was pretty much speechless at this point, so I continued to say that while that property had a sign, the local park, being an open area, had no signs. He said well yeah, but uh.....well we're looking into it. I told him to let me know when they find out something, and to have a nice day.



    This really seems to me like there ISN'T any restriction. Rather,this police department apparently doesn't want to deal the law, and would sooner just make up their own rules.

    What do you guys think?




  5. #5
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Sometimes it feels the general consensus of uninformed Law Enforcement agents towards citizens is:

    "Statute? We don't need no stinkin' statute! Yee-haw!"


    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marietta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    Havelockshouldhave a 'city attorney' that you might try. I'd suggest a letter to him, with what you'vesaid here,with a cc to your citycouncilmanand mayor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •