Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Cite Needed. No Firearms On Private Property

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Cite Needed. No Firearms On Private Property

    I know of course, that a private property owner can ask you to leave for any reason, including the possession of a firearm, but where is the cite for the actual written law in case someone wanted to look it up.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Look up "Trespass" law.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I got 81 results in that search.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I got 81 results in that search.
    Some of those are likely to be relevant.

    http://law.justia.com/michigan/codes...931-lxxxv.html

    Or maybe:
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...L-TRESPASS-731

    Google "Michigan Trespass Law" (Google is your friend)
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    MCL 750.552

    750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
    Sec. 552.

    (1) A person shall not do any of the following:

    (a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

    (b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

    (c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

    (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.
    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  6. #6
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248
    it will be on your indictment papers..just kidding

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Thanks Bronson, thats exactly what I was looking for.

  8. #8
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533
    one of the greatest things about america, other than the right to bear arms, free speech, secure in papers, is private property rights.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Personal and public safety should always trump property and money.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    (1) A person shall not do any of the following:

    (a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
    That right there is the sticky part. Does a sign on the door that clearly expresses the wishes of the property owner, that firearms are forbidden, constitute sufficient notice to warrant an arrest for trespassing without the owner having to ask you to leave?

    In other words if you ignore a "no guns" sign can the owner just call the police and have you arrested instead of asking you to leave?

    We keep hearing/reading that "all they can do is ask you to leave" and "you can't be prosecuted unless you refuse to leave" but that's not how I read it. I read it as IF you are asked to leave and you don't then, yes, you may be arrested/prosecuted for trespass, but section (a) says that you may also be arrested/prosecuted for trespass for simply entering property from which you have been forbidden. I know we don't have case law that says a prominently posted sign = sufficient notice but I can definitely forsee a judge interpreting it that way....I probably would.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I agree. If they post a sign, then they have asked already, and retain the right to prosecute.

  12. #12
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Personal and public safety should always trump property.
    welcome to China and Waco Texas

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Cant speak for China, but Waco is a black eye in the face of democracy.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Personal and public safety should always trump property and money.
    Safety is the tyrants tool for who would be against safety.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    That right there is the sticky part. Does a sign on the door that clearly expresses the wishes of the property owner, that firearms are forbidden, constitute sufficient notice to warrant an arrest for trespassing without the owner having to ask you to leave?

    In other words if you ignore a "no guns" sign can the owner just call the police and have you arrested instead of asking you to leave?

    We keep hearing/reading that "all they can do is ask you to leave" and "you can't be prosecuted unless you refuse to leave" but that's not how I read it. I read it as IF you are asked to leave and you don't then, yes, you may be arrested/prosecuted for trespass, but section (a) says that you may also be arrested/prosecuted for trespass for simply entering property from which you have been forbidden. I know we don't have case law that says a prominently posted sign = sufficient notice but I can definitely forsee a judge interpreting it that way....I probably would.

    Bronson
    "There's a sign?"
    "What sign?"
    "Sorry, I was distracted while holding the door open for an elderly couple and didn't see any sign."

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Yes, the way things are now, your God given blood paid rights can be pi$$ed away at the whim of the anti, an idiot, or a 7$/hr teenage store manager.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by dougwg View Post
    "There's a sign?"
    "What sign?"
    "Sorry, I was distracted while holding the door open for an elderly couple and didn't see any sign."
    Ignorance is no excuse. We won't know until there is case law but I'd guess that an anti-gun judge would say that a business prominently placing a sign as to their wishes has met their obligation at a good faith effort to inform gun owners of the policy.

    Not to mention that when they pull the security camera footage and see you walking in without stopping to help an elderly couple....well now you have just lied in court.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Ignorance is no excuse. We won't know until there is case law but I'd guess that an anti-gun judge would say that a business prominently placing a sign as to their wishes has met their obligation at a good faith effort to inform gun owners of the policy.

    Not to mention that when they pull the security camera footage and see you walking in without stopping to help an elderly couple....well now you have just lied in court.

    Bronson
    I cannot speak to WI statute, but in NV, a sign prohibiting any specific act in an otherwise public establishment carries no weight; until the authorized agent of the establishment informs you that your presence is no longer desired (trespassed). Then anyone told this must leave. The ONLY signs that carry the weight of law are those that reference specific statute that prohibit carry; such as in specific municipal buildings.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    I cannot speak to WI statute, but in NV, a sign prohibiting any specific act in an otherwise public establishment carries no weight; until the authorized agent of the establishment informs you that your presence is no longer desired (trespassed). Then anyone told this must leave. The ONLY signs that carry the weight of law are those that reference specific statute that prohibit carry; such as in specific municipal buildings.
    So far it's the same here but we're really talking about getting hit with a trespassing charge not a firearms specific charge.

    The way our tresspassing law reads, if you enter a place you have been forbidden to enter then you can be charged with trespassing. We don't have any case law yet that determines if you must be individually told you are forbidden or if a sign posted at the entrance is sufficient. Other states/places have ruled that a sign is sufficient notice of the owner's policy.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    So far it's the same here but we're really talking about getting hit with a trespassing charge not a firearms specific charge.

    The way our tresspassing law reads, if you enter a place you have been forbidden to enter then you can be charged with trespassing. We don't have any case law yet that determines if you must be individually told you are forbidden or if a sign posted at the entrance is sufficient. Other states/places have ruled that a sign is sufficient notice of the owner's policy.

    Bronson
    Just like I said, the sign alone cannot prohibit your lawful entry while carrying, unless the property owner's agent informs you to leave. It does not matter if the sign says "No blue shirts" or "No firearms." It does not carry the weight of law, unless there is a statute specifying that business owners can post discriminatory signs that carry the weight of law.

    In other words, the sign alone does not forbid your entry.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I dont think it really works that way in Michigan. I could be wrong, but IMHO, if you walk past a "no firearms" sign, ignoring it, youre probably going to be talking to LEO. An agent will probably talk to you, but not always, not if they are afraid. In such a case, they will have the police talk to you. Most cops Ive met, would ask you to leave, and if you did, then you would be fine, but not all of them. If you run across some that Ive met, or a true anti, I can easily see you being charged.

  22. #22
    Regular Member DetroitBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Just like I said, the sign alone cannot prohibit your lawful entry while carrying, unless the property owner's agent informs you to leave. It does not matter if the sign says "No blue shirts" or "No firearms." It does not carry the weight of law, unless there is a statute specifying that business owners can post discriminatory signs that carry the weight of law.

    In other words, the sign alone does not forbid your entry.
    Michigan is just like Nevada when it comes to the signs.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    unless the unless there is a statute specifying that business owners can post discriminatory signs that carry the weight of law.
    What we have is a statute that says it is unlawful to enter a place you have been forbidden to enter. What we do NOT have is a case law that outlines just what "have been forbidden" means. It is my belief that it would not be a far reach for a judge to determine that a prominently displayed sign DOES constitute sufficient notice of your being forbidden to enter. We will not know until somebody goes to court over this issue.

    Since "forbidden" isn't defined in the statute the courts would use a dictionary definition of the word.

    Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as: 1 : not permitted or allowed

    Cambridge Dictionaries Online defines it as: to refuse to allow something, especially officially, or to prevent a particular plan of action by making it impossible

    So according to the definitions posted if a store does not permit something then it is forbidden. In MY opinion if that store can demonstrate it made a good faith effort to inform gun carriers of their policy before the carrier entered the store they could make a good case for skipping over the part where they ask you to leave and go right to the part where they ask the police to come arrest you for trespassing. I'm not saying it WILL happen but I'm just saying it is pretty easy to interpret it that way and I'm sure there are prosecutors out there that would do exactly that.

    I just don't want anyone to ignore "no guns" signs because they don't carry the weight of law or because we believe that the store owner must ask us to leave first when it isn't really clear whether or not they DO have to ask you to leave before they call the police.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  24. #24
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Ignorance is no excuse. We won't know until there is case law but I'd guess that an anti-gun judge would say that a business prominently placing a sign as to their wishes has met their obligation at a good faith effort to inform gun owners of the policy.

    Not to mention that when they pull the security camera footage and see you walking in without stopping to help an elderly couple....well now you have just lied in court.

    Bronson
    Sorry, small point...

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance of a sign posted can be.

    You're mixing sound bites up.

    I understand what you're saying though.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    What we have is a statute that says it is unlawful to enter a place you have been forbidden to enter. What we do NOT have is a case law that outlines just what "have been forbidden" means. It is my belief that it would not be a far reach for a judge to determine that a prominently displayed sign DOES constitute sufficient notice of your being forbidden to enter. We will not know until somebody goes to court over this issue.

    Since "forbidden" isn't defined in the statute the courts would use a dictionary definition of the word.

    Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as: 1 : not permitted or allowed

    Cambridge Dictionaries Online defines it as: to refuse to allow something, especially officially, or to prevent a particular plan of action by making it impossible

    So according to the definitions posted if a store does not permit something then it is forbidden. In MY opinion if that store can demonstrate it made a good faith effort to inform gun carriers of their policy before the carrier entered the store they could make a good case for skipping over the part where they ask you to leave and go right to the part where they ask the police to come arrest you for trespassing. I'm not saying it WILL happen but I'm just saying it is pretty easy to interpret it that way and I'm sure there are prosecutors out there that would do exactly that.

    I just don't want anyone to ignore "no guns" signs because they don't carry the weight of law or because we believe that the store owner must ask us to leave first when it isn't really clear whether or not they DO have to ask you to leave before they call the police.

    Bronson
    Does MI statute operate as most statute? If so, what is not prohibited by statute is allowed. Unless MI statute states that a sigh that limits entry to a public business to "no blue shirts" or "red shirts only" or "no firearms," it carries no weight of law behind it. The ONLY ones in NV that do either Deny ALL entry (i.e., No Trespassing), or specify "No firearms pursuant to NRS202.265" (NRS202.265) Otherwise, as I stated an agent of the property owner must inform the person to leave. And no sign needs be present at all for an agent of the property owner to do so.

    The sign means nothing, except as a policy statement of the business in question.


    What it seems you actually have is an unwillingness to pass a sign that does not really "forbid" you to enter.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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