no guns alowed signs invalid?

jeremy05 · May 7, 2010

imported post

Ok here goes, we all see the no guns signs on doors to some of our favorite places, or we accidently miss them.
Well from what i understand is that places like a mall that are private property, but open for public use can not deprive us of ANY of our constitutional rights as long as the property is open to the public.

A store can not tell you to stop carrying a firearm no more than they can tell you to stop expressing your political views.

I remember seeing a judge say something similar to this effect about Starbucks, if you have A link i would like to see it.

also this was typed on a cell phone so sorry if hard to read.

Discuss if you heard this before or have other views on this, or if you know any case law that would pertain to it,

Master Doug Huffman · May 7, 2010

imported post

South Carolina makes it plain. In other jurisdictions trespass law does as well.

SECTION 23-31-220. Right to allow or permit concealed weapons upon premises; signs.
Nothing contained in this article shall in any way be construed to limit, diminish, or otherwise infringe upon:
(1) the right of a public or private employer to prohibit a person who is licensed under this article from carrying a concealable weapon upon the premises of the business or work place or while using any machinery, vehicle, or equipment owned or operated by the business;
(2) the right of a private property owner or person in legal possession or control to allow or prohibit the carrying of a concealable weapon upon his premises.
The posting by the employer, owner, or person in legal possession or control of a sign stating "No Concealable Weapons Allowed" shall constitute notice to a person holding a permit issued pursuant to this article that the employer, owner, or person in legal possession or control requests that concealable weapons not be brought upon the premises or into the work place. A person who brings a concealable weapon onto the premises or work place in violation of the provisions of this paragraph may be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620. In addition to the penalties provided in Section 16-11-620, a person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this paragraph must have his permit revoked for a period of one year. The prohibition contained in this section does not apply to persons specified in Section 16-23-20, item (1).

SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.
(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:
(1) clearly visible from outside the building;
(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;
(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;
(5) a diameter of a circle; and
(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.
(C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained in subsection (A) must be:
(1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;
(2) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black three- inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two inches wide;
(4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;
(5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

groats · May 7, 2010

imported post

The constitution does not say what private property owners cannot do. It only controls what the Government cannot do.

You can be tossed off private property for ANY reason, or be charged with trespass if you don't go.

(Later, you can file a discrimination lawsuit if you are in one of the protected classes - race, handicap, etc)

eye95 · May 7, 2010

imported post

It is correct that a store owner cannot enforce a policy stopping gun carry. They can, however, ask you to leave because you are carrying. If you refuse, you commit the infraction of trespassing, not any kind of firearm infraction.

The no-gun sign lets you know that one of the reasons that they will ask folks to leave their premises is the possession of a gun.

jeremy05 · May 7, 2010

imported post

Really Doug? I didnt expect a cut and paste post from you.

I guess i should try again, I know there are laws in place, but there are also laws that prohibit open carry in cities where the state says its ok.

What im trying to get at is has anyone challenged these private property laws? Now private property used for the general public is very different from personal private property.

You also dont shed your constitutional rights depending on where you stand, the bill of rights was incorporated into the states remember.

eye95 · May 7, 2010

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Really Doug? I didnt expect a cut and paste post from you.

I guess i should try again, I know there are laws in place, but there are also laws that prohibit open carry in cities where the state says its ok.

What im trying to get at is has anyone challenged these private property laws? Now private property used for the general public is very different from personal private property.

You also dont shed your constitutional rights depending on where you stand, the bill of rights was incorporated into the states remember.

You don't lose your rights based on where you are standing.

But, I will exercise my right not to let you stand on my property if you are exercising your rights in a way that I find grossly objectionable. You know, others have their rights too!

Master Doug Huffman · May 7, 2010

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Really Doug? I didnt expect a cut and paste post from you.

Your faulty rhetoric/reasoning is worth no more. You presume too much.

IndianaBoy79 · May 7, 2010

imported post

I seem to recall past decisions that treated places that are "open to the general public" a little differently than my home or other property. Anyone recall the Denny's civil rights case?

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-25/news/mn-61982_1_civil-rights

Personally, I think the decision is a bad one. I should be able to kick you out for being black, yellow, while, stupid, or simple because I don't like you. In a free market world, I would assume places like this would soon go out of business. It reminds me of so called equal opportunity laws that require employers, schools, and government agencies to fill certain quotas.

eye95 · May 7, 2010

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

I seem to recall past decisions that treated places that are "open to the general public" a little differently than my home or other property. Anyone recall the Denny's civil rights case?

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-25/news/mn-61982_1_civil-rights

Personally, I think the decision is a bad one. I should be able to kick you out for being black, yellow, while, stupid, or simple because I don't like you. In a free market world, I would assume places like this would soon go out of business. It reminds me of so called equal opportunity laws that require employers, schools, and government agencies to fill certain quotas.

Places of "public accommodation" may not discriminate against protected classes. Carrying a gun does not constitute membership in a protected class.

It is the attempt to use the idea of a "public accommodation" to strip property owners of their constitutional rights that reveals the insidious nature of this legal doctrine. I understand and applaud the motives in using this concept of law to redress discrimination, however the ends do not justify the means.

IndianaBoy79 · May 7, 2010

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Places of "public accommodation" may not discriminate against protected classes. Carrying a gun does not constitute membership in a protected class.

It is the attempt to use the idea of a "public accommodation" to strip property owners of their constitutional rights that reveals the insidious nature of this legal doctrine. I understand and applaud the motives in using this concept of law to redress discrimination, however the ends do not justify the means.

No attempt on my part. I think both protected classes and gun owners have no right to be on any private property. I'm just saying I see the logic of where they're going with that.

You nailed it on the head.

eye95 · May 7, 2010

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Places of "public accommodation" may not discriminate against protected classes. Carrying a gun does not constitute membership in a protected class.

It is the attempt to use the idea of a "public accommodation" to strip property owners of their constitutional rights that reveals the insidious nature of this legal doctrine. I understand and applaud the motives in using this concept of law to redress discrimination, however the ends do not justify the means.

Click to expand...

No attempt on my part. I think both protected classes and gun owners have no right to be on any private property. I'm just saying I see the logic of where they're going with that.

You nailed it on the head.

I'm sorry if I made it sound like you were attempting to push this theory. That was not my intent. The comment was more or less nebulously directed at those who do push the theory.

Again, I apologize.

skidmark · May 7, 2010

imported post

Getting back to the assertions of the OP as those assertions relate to his situation as a citizen of the State of Arizona:

13-204. Effect of ignorance or mistake upon criminal liability

A. Ignorance or a mistaken belief as to a matter of fact does not relieve a person of criminal liability unless:

1. It negates the culpable mental state required for commission of the offense; or

2. It supports a defense of justification as defined in chapter 4 of this title.

B. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of law does not relieve a person of criminal responsibility.

13-205. Affirmative defenses; justification; burden of proof

A. Except as otherwise provided by law, a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence. Justification defenses under chapter 4 of this title are not affirmative defenses. Justification defenses describe conduct that, if not justified, would constitute an offense but, if justified, does not constitute criminal or wrongful conduct. If evidence of justification pursuant to chapter 4 of this title is presented by the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification.

B. This section does not affect the presumption contained in section 13-411, subsection C and section 13-503.

13-302. Criminal liability based upon conduct

A person may be guilty of an offense committed by such person's own conduct or by the conduct of another for which such person is criminally accountable as provided in this chapter, or both. In any prosecution, testimony of an accomplice need not be corroborated.

13-1501. Definitions

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Critical public service facility" means:

(a) A structure or fenced yard that is posted with signage indicating it is a felony to trespass or signage indicating high voltage or high pressure and is used by a rail, bus, air or other mass transit provider, a public or private utility, any municipal corporation, city, town or other political subdivision that is organized under state law and that generates, transmits, distributes or otherwise provides natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, electricity or a combustible substance for a delivery system that is not a retail-only facility, a telecommunications carrier or telephone company, a municipal provider as defined in section 45-561, a law enforcement agency, a public or private fire department or an emergency medical service provider.

(b) A structure or fenced yard or any equipment or apparatus that is posted with signage indicating it is a felony to trespass or signage indicating high voltage or high pressure and is used to manufacture, extract, transport, distribute or store gas, including natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas, oil, electricity, water or hazardous materials, unless it is a retail-only facility.

2. "Enter or remain unlawfully" means an act of a person who enters or remains on premises when the person's intent for so entering or remaining is not licensed, authorized or otherwise privileged except when the entry is to commit theft of merchandise displayed for sale during normal business hours, when the premises are open to the public and when the person does not enter any unauthorized areas of the premises.

3. "Entry" means the intrusion of any part of any instrument or any part of a person's body inside the external boundaries of a structure or unit of real property.

4. "Fenced commercial yard" means a unit of real property that is surrounded completely by fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers, or any combination of fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers, and that is used primarily for business operations or where livestock, produce or other commercial items are located.

5. "Fenced residential yard" means a unit of real property that immediately surrounds or is adjacent to a residential structure and that is enclosed by a fence, wall, building or similar barrier or any combination of fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers.

6. "Fenced yard" means a unit of real property that is surrounded by fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers or any combination of fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers.

7. "In the course of committing" means any acts that are performed by an intruder from the moment of entry to and including flight from the scene of a crime.

8. "Manipulation key" means a key, device or instrument, other than a key that is designed to operate a specific lock, that can be variably positioned and manipulated in a vehicle keyway to operate a lock or cylinder, including a wiggle key, jiggle key or rocker key.

9. "Master key" means a key that operates all the keyed locks or cylinders in a similar type or group of locks.

10. "Nonresidential structure" means any structure other than a residential structure and includes a retail establishment.

11. "Residential structure" means any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, that is adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

12. "Structure" means any vending machine or any building, object, vehicle, railroad car or place with sides and a floor that is separately securable from any other structure attached to it and that is used for lodging, business, transportation, recreation or storage.

13. "Vending machine" means a machine that dispenses merchandise or service through the means of currency, coin, token, credit card or other nonpersonal means of accepting payment for merchandise or service received.

I'll lethim go to http://www.azleg.state.az.us/arizonarevisedstatutes.asp?title=13for the rest of the law inhis State of Arizona.

If he can find the lopophole he's looking for there or in other case law regarding either trespass or public accomodation I encourage him to post it so we can all learn from his diligence.

What does concern me is that "we" all seem to get a bit touchy if we preceive that someone is coming close to infringing on our right to keep and bear arms when that right is only protected from infringement by the actions of the government. As much as it frosts me that some goober sees fit to throw his PSF in such a manner as to keep me from providing for my personal defense while on his property, while at the same time saying he is not liable for either protecting me or compensating me/my heirs & assigns if I am injured because I could not defend myself while on his property, it frosts me even greater that so many throw their own PSF over that situation. Personally, I prefer to inform him of my reasons for declining to purchase his goods or services and for recommending that all and sundry also refuse to do so.

If, and only if, said individual/corporation wishes to seek an amicable resolution will I have further discussion with them. On the other hand, if I feel the situation warrants it I will expend energy to educate others of the danger posed by the individual/corporation's policy (informational picketing being one of the ways).

What I will NOT do is intentionally violate his policy by hiding behind the ruse of ignoring signs by saying they are not enforcable in and of their own right. A sign is a notice -- a publically displayed sign is public notice. Even if it carries no legal weight of its own accord I have enough respect and courtesy to conform with the notice given.

stay safe.

skidmark

open4years · May 7, 2010

imported post

Regarding the law about signage stating "concealed carry" is not allowed: Doesn't this then imply that OC has not been denied?

eye95 · May 7, 2010

imported post

open4years wrote:

Regarding the law about signage stating "concealed carry" is not allowed: Doesn't this then imply that OC has not been denied?

Well, the quoted law was from SC, where OC is illegal. When they make it legal, they will need to change this law.

Master Doug Huffman · May 7, 2010

imported post

As I-95 says, no. Open carry is explicitly illegal in South Carolina.

SECTION 16-23-20. Unlawful carrying of handgun; exceptions.

It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law:

The signage law previously posted was our (I lived in SC and was a bit active in GRGRSC) defense against shop keepers posting postage stamp sized signs and claiming criminal trespass. That was instigated, in part, by the state CofC sending a dis-informative letter stating that liability was increased without their free no-guns ghostbuster style sign.

simmonsjoe · May 7, 2010

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Really Doug? I didnt expect a cut and paste post from you.

I guess i should try again, I know there are laws in place, but there are also laws that prohibit open carry in cities where the state says its ok.

What im trying to get at is has anyone challenged these private property laws? Now private property used for the general public is very different from personal private property.

You also dont shed your constitutional rights depending on where you stand, the bill of rights was incorporated into the states remember.

Who the **** do you think you are? I buy the property, it is mine to do with as I please. How do your rights trump my rights? On my property?

THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS NOT INCORPORATED. Some individual amendments were incorporated, THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT INCORPORATED (Yet).

You have not posted a single correct fact in your first post. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
No judge ruled anything about Starbucks. The company made the decision to allow open carry on their own. A store owner sure as hell can tell you to leave for expressing your political views.

Understand, You have a RIGHT to carry, It does not make you a privileged class of person.

simmonsjoe · May 7, 2010

imported post

eye95 wrote:

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

I seem to recall past decisions that treated places that are "open to the general public" a little differently than my home or other property. Anyone recall the Denny's civil rights case?

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-25/news/mn-61982_1_civil-rights

Personally, I think the decision is a bad one. I should be able to kick you out for being black, yellow, while, stupid, or simple because I don't like you. In a free market world, I would assume places like this would soon go out of business. It reminds me of so called equal opportunity laws that require employers, schools, and government agencies to fill certain quotas.

Click to expand...

Places of "public accommodation" may not discriminate against protected classes. Carrying a gun does not constitute membership in a protected class.

It is the attempt to use the idea of a "public accommodation" to strip property owners of their constitutional rights that reveals the insidious nature of this legal doctrine. I understand and applaud the motives in using this concept of law to redress discrimination, however the ends do not justify the means.

Protected class = privileged class. I do not want to be part of a privileged class as a gun owner, and I think all other privileged classes should be abolished.

+1. I've been trying to tell people this for years. I understand where it came from but it is time to repeal this @#$%.

I'd rather be forewarned than go into a business, start a transaction, and then have the person I just handed money to make a "n****r joke."
(Happens a lot, because I'm a fat southern white guy that is somewhat of a redneck so people assume I'm racist, or at least racism-tolerant. I'm actually intolerant and object whenever I hear something.)
Now I have to try and cancel the transaction and get my money back. That can be a little difficult if you've already consumed something on the property. I'd rather be informed ahead of time that my business isn't welcome.

EDIT

Sorry to continue expanding on this. My service isn't shitty because the business doesn't know they are offending me. I can't imagine what it would be like to be black/jewish/etc and go into a restaurant, and get treated like trash after I ate some food. Then my meal would be suspect. Did they pee/jizz/sneeze/wipe turds in it? etc.

One place I've seen this too often is gun stores. I go to Green Top to peruse once in a while, and the one black person who comes in to learn more about guns gets treated poorly and lied to. I think I've felt obligated to follow all but one black person I've seen in there out into the parking lot, stop them, tell them not all gun owners are like that, and give them a few web sites to look at (including VCDL and OCDO) and encourage them to buy a gun and obtain a CHP. (Yes I tell them about OC as well). The one I didn't had like 3 custom 700's sniper rifles and obviously had a very expensive and knowledgeable accuracy addiction.

I have gone into black owned establishments and received shitty service, but being a person of majority it isn't as big a deal, even if its just as wrong.

dubya4472 · May 7, 2010

imported post

While I am an adamant supporter of the OC movement, I am also a supporter of individual rights of a business owner. I believe they should be able to ban firearms or OC on their private property for any reason they deem fit. However, I don't agree they should do it, I believe theyshould have the right to.

Tell me why I'm wrong? If OC is our constitutional right, shouldn't private business owners have the right to say they do not want OC in their business? What if they found out that people OCing in their business is actually causing them to lose customers because their customers find it objectionable, for whatever reason.

Am I misguided in my thinking?

GLOCK21GB · May 8, 2010

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Really Doug? I didnt expect a cut and paste post from you.

I guess i should try again, I know there are laws in place, but there are also laws that prohibit open carry in cities where the state says its ok.

What im trying to get at is has anyone challenged these private property laws? Now private property used for the general public is very different from personal private property.

You also dont shed your constitutional rights depending on where you stand, the bill of rights was incorporated into the states remember.

I expected it...that's all he is good for.:?

SavageOne · May 8, 2010

imported post

I have had a similar discussion on another forum and I was wondering what some of your views are. It was put out that Fuddruckers has a "no weapons" policy in it's corp. owned restaurants(franchiserestaurants apparently don't have to follow it). My question was if that's the case isn't CC illegal in these stores whether or not the person who is CCing is "seen" CCing or not. What I mean is in many states if you are found to be CCing in a posted place the most that can happen is you can be asked to leave or face a trespass charge. My thought was that you are already trespassing if it has been posted you cannot enter OCing or CCing. If you cross on to someones property that is posted "No Trespassing" you are not just asked to leave or be cited, you have already trespassed. Why is it different if you CC in a place were the owners have already posted they want no weapons?

no guns alowed signs invalid?

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Banned

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Well-known member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member