• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

trespassed out of Metcalf's Sentry in Tosa today

P

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Brass Magnet said:
I received an email reply from the owner already.

He stated that he did what the insurance company told him to do but is waiting on them to give him their reason. If they don't give him one, he's taking down the signs.

I replied with the pertinent sections of ACT 35 that absolve him from liability resulting from his decision to allow firearms. I also included a link to the .pdf. Hopefully the sings will come down soon.
Click to expand...

He should go one step further and tell them they could be losing his business.
 
scm54449

scm54449

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Marshfield, WI
Since the signs were pulled it is a small point but that little circle doesn't meet the requirements for prohibiting concealed carry, so CCL would have been OK...since the sheeple can feel "comfortable"...:D
 
E

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
scm54449 said:
Since the signs were pulled it is a small point but that little circle doesn't meet the requirements for prohibiting concealed carry, so CCL would have been OK...since the sheeple can feel "comfortable"...:D
Click to expand...

Maybe that could be the compromise:

Let shop owners and such post undersized prohibition signs to make the sheeple feel comfortable.

While we are aware of the legal requirements for this type of signage:

943.13(2)(bm)1. In this paragraph, "sign" means a sign that states a restriction imposed under subd. 2. that is at least 5 inches by 7 inches.
Click to expand...
 
A

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
Just a note on the topic: It does not appear that you were actually "Trespassed out" as that would involve a law enforcement officer and a notice that you were barred from the property. You were told to leave.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
amaixner said:
Just a note on the topic: It does not appear that you were actually "Trespassed out" as that would involve a law enforcement officer and a notice that you were barred from the property. You were told to leave.
Click to expand...

I dug up this thread basically to ask about Sentry corporate policy. The OP has been resolved long ago.


To all, please do not contact Metcalf's Sentry, that issue has been resolved. I'm still dealing with the issue at the Sentry in Prairie du Sac however.


Sorry, I probably should have started a new post to avoid this confusion.
 
A

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Not Black and White

Brass Magnet said:
I received an email reply from the owner already.

He stated that he did what the insurance company told him to do but is waiting on them to give him their reason. If they don't give him one, he's taking down the signs.

I replied with the pertinent sections of ACT 35 that absolve him from liability resulting from his decision to allow firearms. I also included a link to the .pdf. Hopefully the sings will come down soon.
Click to expand...

Once again - do not think that this provision is cut and dried - it ain't. Application of any immunity will be determined on a case by case basis. Giving a link is fine, playing lawyer in the grocery store (or on TV) is risky.
 
Last edited:
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
apjonas said:
Once again - do not think that this provision is cut and dried - it ain't. Application of any immunity will be determined on a case by case basis. Giving a link is fine, playing lawyer in the grocery store (or on TV) is risky.
Click to expand...

I agree it isn't cut and dried. I'm not too worried about someone taking anonymous legal advice from me, which I didn't purport to give, in an email. My purpose is solely to get rid of the sign. I gave him "the pertinent sections of ACT 35 for his perusal" for an exact quote, in my email.
 
A

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Observations

I am not sure what "trespassed out of" means but you had already left the store, nobody asked you to leave nor were you charged with trespassing (which you could have been - be observant).

Even if a sign does not meet the statutory requirement, if you know that firearms are not permitted (e.g. by recognizing the intent of the sticker or from prior experience), you still may be tagged with a trespass charge. I know that you did not see the sticker in this case but don't listen to those you say you can ignore a 4.99 x 6.99 inch sign with impunity.

Comparisons to discrimination on racial (or religious or gender or other protected class) grounds make you look silly. There are specific statutes that make such behavior unlawful. It doesn't win the pro-carry movement any points to say that being barred from a retail outlet because of your pistol makes you a lunch counter sit-in equivalent. Focus on the "loyal customer" relationship instead. It doesn't make the merchant feel put upon and highlights his self-interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top