no guns alowed signs invalid?

imported post

Trespass law and its details vary among jurisdictions. Very often a sign of any sort is not effective constructive notice of trespass.

In Wisconsin there is a presumption of notice in the statute. I-ANAL and a coward and an aśśhole and a liar and a disruptor and a troll.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Trespass law and its details vary among jurisdictions. Very often a sign of any sort is not effective constructive notice of trespass.

In Wisconsin there is a presumption of notice in the statute. I-ANAL and a coward and an aśśhole and a liar and a disruptor and a troll.

Click to expand...

May I ask you, in Wisconsin if someone with a CCW is "seen" carrying in or on a property that has been posted(presumably by the owner) what are the consequences? In MO all that would happen is the person would be asked to leave, if they refuse the police would be called(if they were not already) they would ask you to leave and if you failed to do so, you would be cited for criminal trespass. In Mo someone can paint purple paint on a tree and it is recognized as a "No Trespass" sign, and you will be cited if you cross it, not simply asked to leave and cited if you refuse. I guess my question is if they are both "trespass" why does one (gun) require an affirmative action(asking the CC'er to leave) and the other doesn't?

imported post

Here is the primary element of criminal trespass to land, from Chapter 941;
Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture: Enters any enclosed, cultivated or undeveloped land of another ... without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupant.

There is no CC in Wisconsin. Property does not need to be posted to retain all rights. the consequence is a fine. In Wisconsin there is no differentiation of with or without a gun.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Here is the primary element of criminal trespass to land, from Chapter 941;
Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture: Enters any enclosed, cultivated or undeveloped land of another ... without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupant.

There is no CC in Wisconsin. Property does not need to be posted to retain all rights. the consequence is a fine. In Wisconsin there is no differentiation of with or without a gun.

Click to expand...

No CC in Wisconsin. Duh :bangheadlease forgive my ignorance. I've looked at the Map many times and just didn't think. Thank you for your patience.

imported post

Most Tennessee State parks have signs prohibiting firearms. Ignore them, the Legislature passed public chapter 428 tca 39-17-1311 last year which says that carry in state parks is legal, but they do not have to remove signs. The AG issued aopinion stating that the state has no liability from the signs which state something contary to law.

Here is a sign whichis invalid.

imported post

In Nevada the "no guns" signs serve only to warn you of something that will get you kicked out. If you refuse to leave, you can be charged with trespass. About the only thing the signs do is tell me to spend my money somewhere else.

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

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,

Click to expand...

Seeing that you are in Arizona, let me give ya some info that might save you some future headache:

Wrong on all counts.

Private property is private property, and their rules apply. You accept those rules by entering the property. Seeing 'the sign' at the local mall, ignoring it, and entering armed anyway is criminal trespass in the state of Arizona, and likely many others. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a business, operating on private property, from enforcing just about any rule they deem fit from 'you must wear a pink polka dot shirt to shop here' to 'no guns allowed.'

Class 3 misdemeanor:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01502.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

As others have said, I too would love to see relevant case law that would apply here, but I am not aware of any myself.

imported post

SavageOne wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

http://law.justia.com/idaho/codes/18ftoc/180700011.html

In states like Idaho, someone must tell you to leave private property (open land) or you have to force your way in somewhere (maybe a house) before you are trespassing. "No Trespassing" signs carry the force of law in some cases. (See above) In a business open to the public, a "no guns" sign is simply a posted rule, like Chucky-Cheese having a sign that says "no running" or a movie theater that has a sign that says "Cell Phones on Silent!". They can ask you to leave if they discover you've broken the rule, but the sign itself carries no force of law.

Could you imagine putting the force of law behind the above examples and arresting someone for breaking those rules? Sure, you have property rights; the right to have me leave. Why should guns be treated any differently than "no gum chewing" or "no running"?

I choose to spend my money elsewhere if their policy can not be changed.