Cite Needed. No Firearms On Private Property

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

unless the unless there is a statute specifying that business owners can post discriminatory signs that carry the weight of law.

Click to expand...

Bronson said:

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

Click to expand...

Bronson said:

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

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...