Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: no firearms sign

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    If a building has a no firearms sign posted and you pass that are you breaking the law? In other words can you be arrested for that or you have to be asked by someone to leave and only then it becomes an offense if you refuse. In Texas we have a specific signage businesses can use and if you pass that you are in violation of the law.Iam not debating a business's right to establish rules I am just trying to see at what point the actual arrestable offense occurs if you decide to carry into a place with aprohibiting sign thatotherwise is not a place prohibited by law.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Count wrote:
    If a building has a no firearms sign posted and you pass that are you breaking the law?
    Depends on what kind of building!

    Utah law specifies a few types of organizations that can create legally-enforceable secure areas. Those include courthouses, mental hospitals, prisons and the like. If those locations put up a sign and provide storage lockers where you can put your gun while you go in, and you ignore the sign, you've committed a felony.

    In addition, federal laws prohibit carry in federal buildings, and they usually put up signs, too.

    Other than that, "no guns" signs in Utah have no legal force and you can freely ignore them. If you go into a store with a sign and the owner or manager happens to notice your firearm, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse (please don't), you may be cited for trespassing. If you choose to go to court over the trespassing charge, you can try to argue that you weren't interfering with the owner's business. If you succeed, you'll get off. If not, the charge will stick.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Thank you!!! Excellent answer!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    I could be wrong, but I would put private residences and churches on the list of signs you should probably follow, even if it is just an infraction.

    76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
    (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
    (a) transport a firearm into:
    (i) a house of worship; or
    (ii) a private residence; or
    (b) while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
    (i) a house of worship; or
    (ii) a private residence.
    (2) Notice that firearms are prohibited may be given by:
    (a) personal communication to the actor by:
    (i) the church or organization operating the house of worship;
    (ii) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or
    (iii) a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii);
    (b) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence;
    (c) announcement, by a person with authority to act for the church or organization operating the house of worship, in a regular congregational meeting in the house of worship;
    (d) publication in a bulletin, newsletter, worship program, or similar document generally circulated or available to the members of the congregation regularly meeting in the house of worship; or
    (e) publication:
    (i) in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the house of worship is located or the church or organization operating the house of worship has its principal office in this state; and
    (ii) as required in Section 45-1-101.
    (3) A church or organization operating a house of worship and giving notice that firearms are prohibited may:
    (a) revoke the notice, with or without supersedure, by giving further notice in any manner provided in Subsection (2); and
    (b) provide or allow exceptions to the prohibition as the church or organization considers advisable.
    (4) (a) (i) Within 30 days of giving or revoking any notice pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e), a church or organization operating a house of worship shall notify the division on a form and in a manner as the division shall prescribe.
    (ii) The division shall post on its website a list of the churches and organizations operating houses of worship who have given notice under Subsection (4)(a)(i).
    (b) Any notice given pursuant to Subsection (2)(c), (d), or (e) shall remain in effect until revoked or for a period of one year from the date the notice was originally given, whichever occurs first.
    (5) Nothing in this section permits an owner who has granted the lawful right of possession to a renter or lessee to restrict the renter or lessee from lawfully possessing a firearm in the residence.
    (6) A violation of this section is an infraction.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    manithree wrote:
    I could be wrong, but I would put private residences and churches on the list of signs you should probably follow, even if it is just an infraction.
    Good catch! Can't believe I missed that.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hooper, Utah, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Oh no!!! Does this mean you're human, too?

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Don't forget that churches can give notice in methods other than by posting a sign. Direct communication, publication in a church bulletin, or, via the BCI website carry equal weight.

    manithree wrote:
    I could be wrong, but I would put private residences and churches on the list of signs you should probably follow, even if it is just an infraction.

    76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
    (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
    (a) transport a firearm into:
    (i) a house of worship; or
    (ii) a private residence; or
    (b) while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
    (i) a house of worship; or
    (ii) a private residence.
    (2) Notice that firearms are prohibited may be given by:
    (a) personal communication to the actor by:
    (i) the church or organization operating the house of worship;
    (ii) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or
    (iii) a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii);
    (b) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence;
    (c) announcement, by a person with authority to act for the church or organization operating the house of worship, in a regular congregational meeting in the house of worship;
    (d) publication in a bulletin, newsletter, worship program, or similar document generally circulated or available to the members of the congregation regularly meeting in the house of worship; or
    (e) publication:
    (i) in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the house of worship is located or the church or organization operating the house of worship has its principal office in this state; and
    (ii) as required in Section 45-1-101.


    ...

    (6) A violation of this section is an infraction.
    The BCI website is http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html

    At this time, only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormons) are making use of this method of notification, but it does cover all LDS houses of worship in the State. That would include regular meeting houses, temples, tabernacles, the assembly hall on temple square, and the conference center north of temple square. One might have a case for whether it does or does not include seminary and institute buildings.

    However, it does not include parking lots or other outdoor areas, though I would advise against OCing on Temple Square or other high profile LDS Church property even if not illegal. You may well be asked to leave under the general ability of private property owners to ask anyone to leave for any reason. And there is really no need nor advantage in giving the LDS Church any reason to think it needs to lobby the legislature to expand the current gun-free zone.

    Charles

    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Count wrote:
    If a building has a no firearms sign posted and you pass that are you breaking the law? In other words can you be arrested for that or you have to be asked by someone to leave and only then it becomes an offense if you refuse. In Texas we have a specific signage businesses can use and if you pass that you are in violation of the law.Iam not debating a business's right to establish rules I am just trying to see at what point the actual arrestable offense occurs if you decide to carry into a place with aprohibiting sign thatotherwise is not a place prohibited by law.
    Other than a few, specific locations already discussed in this thread, a no-gun sign in Utah carries no legal weight.

    It does however, offer insights into the views of the owners/managers and if one is discovered to be carrying a gun in one of the rare establishments that has posted a sign (I can think of literally a handful in the metro SLC area, many owned by the same person) one may well expect to be asked to leave.

    At that point, failure to leave may result in a trespass charge. When it comes to commercial property open to the public, a good lawyer may be able to rebut that charge based on the specific definition of trespass in Utah code. One might also expect responding police officers to push for disorderly conduct or other charges related to not doing what they tell you to do in terms of leaving.

    My general position is, when practical, to avoid doing business with those establishment that are hostile to my RKBA. I also do my best to be respectful of the wishes of truly private property owners, regardless of the law.

    However, when legal to do so, and when, for whatever reason I need to be somewhere that guns are not welcome, I will simply carry a little more discretely than OC and leave my private decisions to be my private business. A Utah carry permit makes this legal.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Thanks. Will be skiing there next month for almost 10 days...... Last year I had no problems open carrying.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Count wrote:
    Thanks. Will be skiing there next month for almost 10 days...... Last year I had no problems open carrying.
    FYI, I find the best way to carry on the slopes is in a SmartCarry holster. Allows full freedom of movement, keeps the gun out of the snow, doesn't do anything to your balance, and depending on what you're wearing over it can be very accessible.

    You have to have a permit, of course.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    I do have a permit in Texas where I live and that's good in Utah. I normally don't carry while on the slopes. But once I reach the bottom the gun is on and in the open! Last year I open carried in the medical clinic, the gun store, a bar, many restaurants and some malls, in the Peppermill casino across the border, my hotel lobby, and so forth....only compliments...seriously! I have to visit your capitol building open carrrying...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Count wrote:
    I do have a permit in Texas where I live and that's good in Utah. I normally don't carry while on the slopes. But once I reach the bottom the gun is on and in the open! Last year I open carried in the medical clinic, the gun store, a bar, many restaurants and some malls, in the Peppermill casino across the border, my hotel lobby, and so forth....only compliments...seriously! I have to visit your capitol building open carrrying...
    I've never had any need for a firearm on the slopes, but I figure they're like anywhere else, and bad things can happen.

    Feel free to OC at the capitol! The police there are well-versed in the law and won't bother you a bit.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Awesome!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote
    And there is really no need nor advantage in giving the LDS Church any reason to think it needs to lobby the legislature to expand the current gun-free zone
    Excellent point. You do not want the LDS Church lobbying against you in Utah, or anywhere for that matter. They have tremendous resources and political clout.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote
    Other than a few, specific locations already discussed in this thread, a no-gun sign in Utah carries no legal weight.

    It does however, offer insights into the views of the owners/managers and if one is discovered to be carrying a gun in one of the rare establishments that has posted a sign (I can think of literally a handful in the metro SLC area, many owned by the same person) one may well expect to be asked to leave.

    At that point, failure to leave may result in a trespass charge. When it comes to commercial property open to the public, a good lawyer may be able to rebut that charge based on the specific definition of trespass in Utah code. One might also expect responding police officers to push for disorderly conduct or other charges related to not doing what they tell you to do in terms of leaving.

    My general position is, when practical, to avoid doing business with those establishment that are hostile to my RKBA. I also do my best to be respectful of the wishes of truly private property owners, regardless of the law.

    However, when legal to do so, and when, for whatever reason I need to be somewhere that guns are not welcome, I will simply carry a little more discretely than OC and leave my private decisions to be my private business. A Utah carry permit makes this legal.

    Charles
    All excellent points. I have a CFP but prefer to OC just because of the way I dress. This is typically with my shirt tucked in neatly and my .40 tucked nicely against my right side on my belt. It is a compact firearm and is seldom even noticed. I wear my firearm everywhere I go except the hospital and to church, where I securely lock it in my vehicle. I have only ever had negative comments in two places. Once I was asked to leave Costco, where it is not posted but is apparently prohibited in the member agreement, and the other was Newgate Mall, where it is apparently posted but I honestly did not see it because I was dealing with two fussy kids when I entered. No one said a word to me at Costco until I was finished shopping and was eating a hot dog with my kids. I was very politely informed of their flawed policy of prohibiting firearms, with the exception of law enforcement officers. I just told the manager that I was unaware of the policy, asked if it was ok if I finished eating with my kids, it was, and now shop at Sam's Club, where I have never had a problem.

    The second, at Newgate Mall, just happened on January 22, 2010. I had shopped at Lens Crafters for quite some time, trying to pick out new glasses for one of my kids, and then spent about two hours killing time while Lens Crafters made my son's glasses, bought a couple of games at Game Stop, got Haircuts for both of my boys, browsed several other stores, including one that sells some pretty impressive fighting knives, swords, and the like. I was at the far north end of the mall joking with the employees of TCBY while I ordered a yogurt when I was approached by a Security Officer. He asked if I was a police officer, I said, "no", showed him my CFP, he looked at it for a while, couldn't figure out what it was, and handed it back to me. I had to explain to him what it allowed me to do since I did have a round chambered and did need the permit to carry the firearm as it was. He then informed me I could not carry my firearm in the mall because it, "scares the other customers". I asked him if someone had complained and he said, "no", he was just checking because he had noticed the firearm. I politely told him that I did not want to scare anyone and that I would gladly conceal it in the future. He told me that would be fine, I un-tucked my shirt and put it over my firearm, which completely concealed it. I finished my shopping and had not further problems.

    In both places I had business patrons thank me for carrying my firearm after witnessing the exchanges between myself and the store representatives. I think most businesses have misconceptions about what their customers want. I don't believe I scare anyone and there wasn't a complaint at either business. I wish there was a good way to educate businesses as to what their customers want. I think they would find that, with the exception of the radical few, the majority of their customers don't care if law abiding citizens are armed, especially those who have taken a course that is accepted in 30+ states, been finger printed, and undergone a background check.

    Does anyone know if there is a way to do a good, valid survey of the public to see if my theory is true? We know what everyone on this website thinks but we need a statistically valid survey.

    By the way, a little politeness and respect will get you out of just about everything when it comes to carrying on private property. Hostility will just escalate an otherwise easily resolvable situation.

    Food for thought? Let me know what you think. Tell me where I am wrong. Please don't take anything out of context.

    Go!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Don't forget that churches can give notice in methods other than by posting a sign. Direct communication, publication in a church bulletin, or, via the BCI website carry equal weight.

    manithree wrote:
    I could be wrong, but I would put private residences and churches on the list of signs you should probably follow, even if it is just an infraction.

    76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
    (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, after notice has been given as provided in Subsection (2) that firearms are prohibited, may not knowingly and intentionally:
    (a) transport a firearm into:
    (i) a house of worship; or
    (ii) a private residence; or
    (b) while in possession of a firearm, enter or remain in:
    (i) a house of worship; or
    (ii) a private residence.
    (2) Notice that firearms are prohibited may be given by:
    (a) personal communication to the actor by:
    (i) the church or organization operating the house of worship;
    (ii) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence; or
    (iii) a person with authority to act for the person or entity in Subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii);
    (b) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the house of worship or private residence;
    (c) announcement, by a person with authority to act for the church or organization operating the house of worship, in a regular congregational meeting in the house of worship;
    (d) publication in a bulletin, newsletter, worship program, or similar document generally circulated or available to the members of the congregation regularly meeting in the house of worship; or
    (e) publication:
    (i) in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the house of worship is located or the church or organization operating the house of worship has its principal office in this state; and
    (ii) as required in Section 45-1-101.


    ...

    (6) A violation of this section is an infraction.
    The BCI website is http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFchurch.html

    At this time, only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormons) are making use of this method of notification, but it does cover all LDS houses of worship in the State. That would include regular meeting houses, temples, tabernacles, the assembly hall on temple square, and the conference center north of temple square. One might have a case for whether it does or does not include seminary and institute buildings.

    However, it does not include parking lots or other outdoor areas, though I would advise against OCing on Temple Square or other high profile LDS Church property even if not illegal. You may well be asked to leave under the general ability of private property owners to ask anyone to leave for any reason. And there is really no need nor advantage in giving the LDS Church any reason to think it needs to lobby the legislature to expand the current gun-free zone.

    Charles
    Many of the building the LDS Church claims, such as the conference center, do not properly fall under this prohibition because of the definition of a "house of worship":

    UCA 76-10-501 (13) "House of worship" means a church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or other building set apart primarily for the purpose of worship in which religious services are held and the main body of which is kept for that use and not put to any other use inconsistent with its primary purpose.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    Many of the building the LDS Church claims, such as the conference center, do not properly fall under this prohibition because of the definition of a "house of worship":

    UCA 76-10-501 (13) "House of worship" means a church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or other building set apart primarily for the purpose of worship in which religious services are held and the main body of which is kept for that use and not put to any other use inconsistent with its primary purpose.
    I can't think of anything going on in the SL Tabernacle, Assembly Hall, or Conference Center that would remove them from being a house of worship under this definition. I think a fine case can be made that Seminary and Institute buildings are not houses of worship per the definition. And certainly all those regular classrooms on BYU campus where Sunday services are also held do not qualify as houses of worship.

    Regardless, I avoid carrying (and most certainly avoid OCing) anyplace I have reason to believe the LDS Church prefers not to have privately owned guns. This, to me, is a matter of personal religious faith, basic civility toward a church, and political savvy in not needlessly creating an adversary of a very potent political force in Utah.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    rpyne wrote:
    Many of the building the LDS Church claims, such as the conference center, do not properly fall under this prohibition because of the definition of a "house of worship":

    UCA 76-10-501 (13) "House of worship" means a church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or other building set apart primarily for the purpose of worship in which religious services are held and the main body of which is kept for that use and not put to any other use inconsistent with its primary purpose.
    I can't think of anything going on in the SL Tabernacle, Assembly Hall, or Conference Center that would remove them from being a house of worship under this definition. I think a fine case can be made that Seminary and Institute buildings are not houses of worship per the definition. And certainly all those regular classrooms on BYU campus where Sunday services are also held do not qualify as houses of worship.

    Regardless, I avoid carrying (and most certainly avoid OCing) anyplace I have reason to believe the LDS Church prefers not to have privately owned guns. This, to me, is a matter of personal religious faith, basic civility toward a church, and political savvy in not needlessly creating an adversary of a very potent political force in Utah.

    Charles
    I have been to many concerts and events in all three buildings that I would not call "worship services". I even have video of the Tabernacle being used for political events back in the 1950s and 60s.

    I find it interesting that every president of the LDS church prior to Pres. Hinckley, if they made any statement regarding firearms at all it was to tell the members to never give them up. I also find it interesting how the media, the legislature and even the church bureaucracy have twisted Pres. Hinckley's statement. He never said that he was opposed to church carry, he only said that he hoped that people would not feel the need.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    Count wrote:
    If a building has a no firearms sign posted and you pass that are you breaking the law?
    Depends on what kind of building!
    ....
    Other than that, "no guns" signs in Utah have no legal force and you can freely ignore them. If you go into a store with a sign and the owner or manager happens to notice your firearm, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse (please don't), you may be cited for trespassing. If you choose to go to court over the trespassing charge, you can try to argue that you weren't interfering with the owner's business. If you succeed, you'll get off. If not, the charge will stick.
    I wouldn't be so sure. All signs have "legal force" or "legal weight" - the question is how much. The general Utah trespassing statute does not require personal notice - signage can be sufficient. Some folks assume if there is no specific law dealing with trespass by CCW holders, then no law applies. In many cases ignoring posted warnings will turn out to be merely an annoyance, in many cases not. I wouldn't stake my liberty on some dubious legal maxim found on the internet.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    It bewilders me why we would continue to give our money to businesses that openly do not want our second ammendment right to be exercised. If I approach a store with a no guns or weapons sign, I TURN and LEAVE! They are called Kill zones for a reason. I am much happeir to support other stores that have what I need even if it means paying a little more or waiting a little longer for it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    swillden wrote:
    Count wrote:
    If a building has a no firearms sign posted and you pass that are you breaking the law?
    Depends on what kind of building!
    ....
    Other than that, "no guns" signs in Utah have no legal force and you can freely ignore them. If you go into a store with a sign and the owner or manager happens to notice your firearm, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse (please don't), you may be cited for trespassing. If you choose to go to court over the trespassing charge, you can try to argue that you weren't interfering with the owner's business. If you succeed, you'll get off. If not, the charge will stick.
    I wouldn't be so sure. All signs have "legal force" or "legal weight" - the question is how much. The general Utah trespassing statute does not require personal notice - signage can be sufficient. Some folks assume if there is no specific law dealing with trespass by CCW holders, then no law applies. In many cases ignoring posted warnings will turn out to be merely an annoyance, in many cases not. I wouldn't stake my liberty on some dubious legal maxim found on the internet.
    I would disagree with the sentiment that all signs have legal force or legal weight. The trespass statute in Utah is specifically:
    76-6-206. Criminal [highlight= rgb(255,255,0)]trespass[/highlight].
    (1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body.
    (2) A person is guilty of criminal [highlight= rgb(255,255,0)]trespass[/highlight] if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary as defined in Section 76-6-202, 76-6-203, or 76-6-204 or a violation of Section 76-10-2402 regarding commercial terrorism:
    (a) he enters or remains unlawfully on property and:
    (i) intends to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section 76-6-107;
    (ii) intends to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony; or
    (iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;
    (b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
    (i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
    (ii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or
    (iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
    (c) he enters a condominium unit in violation of Subsection 57-8-7(7).
    (3) (a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a) or (b) is a class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a class A misdemeanor.
    (b) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is an infraction.
    (4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
    (a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
    (b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.
    Posting signs is only sufficient if you already know your presence is going to be unlawful and that you have to be an intruder. I would suspectthe sign would also have to say more than"No Yellow Shirts" or whatever the store owner is banning.Since there is nothing unlawful about carrying a firearm into a buisness especially one that is open to the public I would disagree that signs that say No Weapons/No Firearms carry any weight.

Posting Permissions

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