Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: OC in Winco Reno, NV

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    15

    OC in Winco Reno, NV

    Open Carried in Winco on Northtowne Lane today. No problems at all. Got a lot of looks from people. Also while in the store there was an unusual amount of calls for LP in areas I was traveling through. But with all the shootings going on here locally and the tragic events unfolding, I am proud and happy to say I can properly protect my family without worrying.

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    I shop and OC at WinCo too, and have never had a problem there.

    They've gotten a lot of money from my family, and the place I used to go to lost my family as customers as a result of not allowing open carry. (Scholaris [which owns Sak'N'Save] was where I used to go before they told me I couldn't open carry.)

    The prices at WinCo are also generally lower too!
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 09-26-2011 at 01:55 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    Scholaris [which owns Sak'N'Save] was where I used to go before they told me I couldn't open carry.
    Hmmm. I've been into the Scolari's on Pyramid while OC, and not a comment from them. Is it a corporate thing, or store-by-store?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I shop and OC at WinCo too, and have never had a problem there.

    They've gotten a lot of money from my family, and the place I used to go to lost my family as customers as a result of not allowing open carry. (Scholaris [which owns Sak'N'Save] was where I used to go before they told me I couldn't open carry.)

    The prices at WinCo are also generally lower too!
    Did the trespass you or just tell you that you couldn't carry? They can't tell you to not carry in their store unless they have a sign posted out front asking you not to do it. The only way they can do that is if their corporate office does this across the board to all their stores. Can't just do it with one store. So I would challenge them asking you to not carry and show them the Nevada Statute. By telling you that you can't carry in their store is a violation of your rights and you can sue them over that.

  5. #5
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by wdr89523 View Post
    Did the trespass you or just tell you that you couldn't carry? They can't tell you to not carry in their store unless they have a sign posted out front asking you not to do it. The only way they can do that is if their corporate office does this across the board to all their stores. Can't just do it with one store. So I would challenge them asking you to not carry and show them the Nevada Statute. By telling you that you can't carry in their store is a violation of your rights and you can sue them over that.
    They are a private enterprise and they can trespass you. A sign on the door means nothing. Anyone in authority can tell you to leave. It is not the same as a public building.

    I see you are a new member, welcome to the group. May I suggest that you go through the threads and you will learn a bit more about public vs private property rights. I don't believe that a publicly traded corp should be considered the same as a Mom & Pop store, but unfortunately that is not the case at this time.

    TBG
    Last edited by The Big Guy; 09-27-2011 at 12:15 AM.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    They simply told me I couldn't carry, and I'd prefer to spend my money where they want it anyway. I think I sent an e-mail to the corporate website and they said they don't allow open carry as a company policy, but I can't find the e-mail. That was a while ago so I don't know if anything has changed.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 09-27-2011 at 02:07 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by wdr89523 View Post
    Did the trespass you or just tell you that you couldn't carry? They can't tell you to not carry in their store unless they have a sign posted out front asking you not to do it. The only way they can do that is if their corporate office does this across the board to all their stores. Can't just do it with one store. So I would challenge them asking you to not carry and show them the Nevada Statute. By telling you that you can't carry in their store is a violation of your rights and you can sue them over that.
    Actually, they certainly can. If you do not comply, no statute defines that.

    If you do not comply, they can tell you to leave; i.e., trespass you. At that point, statute supports them and you need to beat feet to the door.

    Until the 2A is recognized as a civil Right, I see no avenue for lawsuit against a private business. As TBG points out, you should review the specifics a bit.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by wdr89523 View Post
    Did the trespass you or just tell you that you couldn't carry? They can't tell you to not carry in their store unless they have a sign posted out front asking you not to do it.
    A sign is merely a convenience and actually has no weight of law, nor is it required. Anyone from company president to boxboy can tell you not to carry in their store, and they have the weight of law behind them. You can be arrested for trespassing if you don't obey, sign or no sign. Or you can even be killed, which is why I turned my Costco membership card back in and now shop at Sam's Club.

    Stores like Sam's Club and Walmart have corporate policies specifically AUTHORIZING carry there, and if you know the policy and someone tells you not to carry, you can advise them but they STILL have the legal right to tell you to take your gun somewhere else (and if they argue with you about it, get their name and go, contact management and deal with it later).

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    A sign is merely a convenience and actually has no weight of law, nor is it required. Anyone from company president to boxboy can tell you not to carry in their store, and they have the weight of law behind them. You can be arrested for trespassing if you don't obey, sign or no sign. Or you can even be killed, which is why I turned my Costco membership card back in and now shop at Sam's Club.
    Are you sure? It isn't "weight of law" unless they tell you to leave the store. IMHO, telling you to not carry is NOT "tell you to leave." There IS a difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC
    Stores like Sam's Club and Walmart have corporate policies specifically AUTHORIZING carry there, and if you know the policy and someone tells you not to carry, you can advise them but they STILL have the legal right to tell you to take your gun somewhere else (and if they argue with you about it, get their name and go, contact management and deal with it later).
    That must be new. The most recent publicized policy of Walmart/Sam's, is to "follow state law." That does not mean "specifically authorizing carry." But, if you have reference to a current Wally policy that DOES "specifically authorize carry there," that would be fantastic.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Actually, they certainly can. If you do not comply, no statute defines that.

    If you do not comply, they can tell you to leave; i.e., trespass you. At that point, statute supports them and you need to beat feet to the door.

    Until the 2A is recognized as a civil Right, I see no avenue for lawsuit against a private business. As TBG points out, you should review the specifics a bit.
    Actually, no they can not. I was an executive with Wal-Mart and went through this with an individual that was OCing my store. I called the police once he refused to do so. The police looked up the Nevada statute. The only thing it said was unless a store has "metal detectors" or a "sign posted" then the store cannot force a citizen exercising their right to carry. They can trespass from the store for disturbing the peace or what not. But to that extent, that is it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by wdr89523 View Post
    Actually, no they can not. I was an executive with Wal-Mart and went through this with an individual that was OCing my store. I called the police once he refused to do so. The police looked up the Nevada statute. The only thing it said was unless a store has "metal detectors" or a "sign posted" then the store cannot force a citizen exercising their right to carry. They can trespass from the store for disturbing the peace or what not. But to that extent, that is it.
    Yes, they can. And, as you agree, AND as I stated, it carries no legal weight. You agreed with me, yet you try to say I was incorrect?


    What statute? "Metal detectors" or "sign posted" only refer to public buildings defined in statute, and have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with a business such as Walmart. The cops, AND you, are wrong.

    As for the trespass, they can trespass the customer for looking confused if they really want to.


    As example, if I OC in a Walmart, the greeter can tell me not to carry my gun in the store. I can freely pass the greeter.
    BUT, if the greeter or other employee, as representative of the store, tells me to leave the store, I must go; otherwise, take a great chance of being arrested for trespass.


    They can tell me not to carry. SO WHAT.
    They can tell me to leave. I MUST LEAVE.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by wdr89523 View Post
    Actually, no they can not. I was an executive with Wal-Mart and went through this with an individual that was OCing my store. I called the police once he refused to do so. The police looked up the Nevada statute. The only thing it said was unless a store has "metal detectors" or a "sign posted" then the store cannot force a citizen exercising their right to carry. They can trespass from the store for disturbing the peace or what not. But to that extent, that is it.
    And once again asking a cop produces a completely wrong answer. As Wrightme says the NRS only applies to Public owned buildings. Got to read the whole law not just cherry pick.
    Last edited by Vegassteve; 09-28-2011 at 03:18 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by wdr89523 View Post
    Actually, no they can not. I was an executive with Wal-Mart and went through this with an individual that was OCing my store. I called the police once he refused to do so. The police looked up the Nevada statute. The only thing it said was unless a store has "metal detectors" or a "sign posted" then the store cannot force a citizen exercising their right to carry. They can trespass from the store for disturbing the peace or what not. But to that extent, that is it.
    Metal detectors and signs posted at all public entrances have only to do with government buildings, and applies only to conceal carry per NRS 202.3673. Not open carry. Again, private enterprises can trespass you for anything they want and you must comply. If told to leave a store because they don't like you open carrying, then call the police because you refuse to adhere to their demand, you can be arrested for trespass, but not a gun related charge.

    The policy of Wally World appears to follow local law now. You can search through the threads and can read about contacts with upper management at WM and the results. It does not seem that anyone has problems there now.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    15
    As a representative for WM and an executive director for their Asset Protection department, I can tell you that WM doesn't prohibit firearms being carried within the stores. We reserve the right to refuse service from someone that is acting irresponsibly while carrying, but we will not prohibit it. We do follow all state and local regs as closely as possible. But we also rely on the local law enforcement to assist us with knowing and understanding them. There are certain incidents where managers are not familiar with laws or "rights" so to speak and act on their own accord to address people wearing firearms within their stores. I feel this is also their right to approach and question anyone that comes into their stores, especially when other customers and associates feel their safety are in jeopardy. They do have the right to ask questions, just like any person does. It is up to them to determine if there is a risk in safety. Sometimes it is not the right choice and tempers flare. But they still have to make a choice. As a corporation we do not place signs up in just one store. It is a decision that funnels down through the 4000 other stores we have and act as one unit. No one store is special and needs to place a sign up.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Are you sure? It isn't "weight of law" unless they tell you to leave the store. IMHO, telling you to not carry is NOT "tell you to leave." There IS a difference.
    I would not want my defense in court to be that when they told you that guns weren't allowed on their property, that didn't have the weight of law. While you could -- accurately -- argue that "you can't have guns here" is not the same as "please leave," the Reasonable and Prudent Person would understand that the gun isn't going to leave unless someone TAKES it, and that being told that it's not permitted there is a polite way of telling you that it has to be taken out of the store. When you add the factor that you are armed and they are not, there is an intimidation issue there, where they will want to weasel-word to avoid the possibility of "setting you off."

    In other words, if contacted by a person who is part of the business and advised in any way that your gun isn't permitted, I'm pretty sure that the court will see that as satisfying any legal requirement of a request to leave.

    The Costco backshooters certainly saw it that way, and they were vindicated by the coroner's inquiry.

    That must be new. The most recent publicized policy of Walmart/Sam's, is to "follow state law." That does not mean "specifically authorizing carry." But, if you have reference to a current Wally policy that DOES "specifically authorize carry there," that would be fantastic.
    Last year, as part of my response to the Costco shooting, I wrote the corporate offices in Arkansas to get confirmation of their policy, noting that I had been approached by one of their managers while OC. The letter they sent back offered an apology, and says that "Our store managers in states such as Nevada have been sent memos which advise that our policy is that carry of firearms is authorized in our stores, in accordance with state law."

    That last phrase is key. "In accordance with state law" means that if you are acting within the law, you are fine. If you are NOT actiing within the law -- for instance, shoplifting -- your gun is NOT authorized, so you are subject to whatever enhanced penalties there might be for being armed, without having the defense that "Walmart said it was okay."

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    And once again asking a cop produces a completely wrong answer.
    Well, a MOSTLY wrong answer, in that it was the right answer for some places and the wrong answer there.

    Remember that cops are NOT lawyers. They generally follow the Rude Rule, that being that if it looks wrong, it is probably against the law. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will arrest you, even if it means they get chewed out by their superiors (rarely are they wrong enough that their job is at risk).

    When asked to interpret the law, they will either look for a reason to enforce it or a reason NOT to. An anti-gun cop (or a busy one) will read the law one way (and not notice that the law doesn't actually apply), a pro-civil-rights cop will look for the things that make him not have to enforce it and find that it doesn't apply. In each case, they THINK that they are right, but only one is.

    This is why WE have to know the law better, and also why we have to not "run right up to the edge" unless absolutely necessary.

    A sign tells you nothing more than the opinion of whoever had it posted. That could be way out of date. A person telling you something is immediate and current (even if mistaken).

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    BTW, I OCed at the Walmart on Kietzke Lane the other day. This is the Reno Walmart where an employee shot several people last October.

    I was in the store for an hour. Nobody said a word to me about it, there or in the Sam's Club next door.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    I would not want my defense in court to be that when they told you that guns weren't allowed on their property, that didn't have the weight of law. While you could -- accurately -- argue that "you can't have guns here" is not the same as "please leave," the Reasonable and Prudent Person would understand that the gun isn't going to leave unless someone TAKES it, and that being told that it's not permitted there is a polite way of telling you that it has to be taken out of the store. When you add the factor that you are armed and they are not, there is an intimidation issue there, where they will want to weasel-word to avoid the possibility of "setting you off."
    So, is it your contention that trespass law does not require specific notice? Odd.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVC
    In other words, if contacted by a person who is part of the business and advised in any way that your gun isn't permitted, I'm pretty sure that the court will see that as satisfying any legal requirement of a request to leave.
    Feel free to present case law that supports that claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVC
    The Costco backshooters certainly saw it that way, and they were vindicated by the coroner's inquiry.
    Not a relevant case. He wasn't asked to leave. AND, he wasn't OC.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVC
    Last year, as part of my response to the Costco shooting, I wrote the corporate offices in Arkansas to get confirmation of their policy, noting that I had been approached by one of their managers while OC. The letter they sent back offered an apology, and says that "Our store managers in states such as Nevada have been sent memos which advise that our policy is that carry of firearms is authorized in our stores, in accordance with state law."

    That last phrase is key. "In accordance with state law" means that if you are acting within the law, you are fine. If you are NOT actiing within the law -- for instance, shoplifting -- your gun is NOT authorized, so you are subject to whatever enhanced penalties there might be for being armed, without having the defense that "Walmart said it was okay."
    No kidding. And?
    That doesn't mean that merely carrying a firearm is disallowed. Nor does it mean that carrying the firearm with intent to commit a crime becomes trespass because there is a firearm.
    Having a firearm in a business in violation of corporate policy, whether posted or not, whether told or not, is NOT a crime. Remaining after being told to leave the premises IS a crime.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    Well, a MOSTLY wrong answer, in that it was the right answer for some places and the wrong answer there.

    Remember that cops are NOT lawyers. They generally follow the Rude Rule, that being that if it looks wrong, it is probably against the law. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will arrest you, even if it means they get chewed out by their superiors (rarely are they wrong enough that their job is at risk).
    Then cops that do such are WRONG, and open up their department for lawsuit. I expect those who do what you claim will be in the minority....unless that is the view of the department.
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC
    When asked to interpret the law, they will either look for a reason to enforce it or a reason NOT to. An anti-gun cop (or a busy one) will read the law one way (and not notice that the law doesn't actually apply), a pro-civil-rights cop will look for the things that make him not have to enforce it and find that it doesn't apply. In each case, they THINK that they are right, but only one is.
    WHich is a good reason to NEVER ask cops what the law is. Just let them enforce laws. If they cannot cite a rule, they simply should NOT enforce their opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC
    This is why WE have to know the law better, and also why we have to not "run right up to the edge" unless absolutely necessary.

    A sign tells you nothing more than the opinion of whoever had it posted. That could be way out of date. A person telling you something is immediate and current (even if mistaken).
    Yet a person telling you has no more weight of law than the sign. Unless that person tells you to leave.

    Or, you could cite statute or case law that supports your claim that "guns are not allowed" verbally told to a customer is "notice of trespass" under the trespass statute.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    I'm all for forcing government buildings to obey the law and recognize our right to carry and for stubborn disobedience to unlawful commands given by government authority figures, but when it comes to private property rights, resisting the owner is a losing strategy with nothing to gain.

    If a person tells you your gun is not allowed, and he is the owner of private property, I think it is best to conform to the requests of the owner. If you want to win over the hearts and minds of the public, upsetting the owner by refusing his demands I think will not be helpful. If they want you off the property and they have to, they will ask you to leave, and ban you from the premises forever, and if it ever comes time for them to reconsider their firearm policy they will remember that that guy with a gun who refused to follow their rules. Further, if they are hostile to your gun rights, why would you want to support them with your money? Why try to pull some sort of civil disobedience on them, when there are plenty of places offering similar services that are more than happy to accept you as a customer and might even appreciate you carrying in their establishment, potentially scaring off miscreants.

    I think it is best to comply with the demands of the owner, and send them a letter using logic to persuade them that their position is wrong. Although this tactic rarely prevails in changing the mind of an anti-gun business owner, it is probably the only thing that really has any chance.


    Having a firearm in a business in violation of corporate policy, whether posted or not, whether told or not, is NOT a crime. Remaining after being told to leave the premises IS a crime.
    That is correct, but I think there is some risk here, especially when actually confronted by a person and given a verbal command. I'm unaware of what case law may have to say about how implicit or explicit a command from a property owner to leave must be, but in my ignorance of the case law, I would fear that an implicit command might be sufficient to stand as an oral demand to vacate the land or building. When a property owner tells someone, "You must do X," might one argue that the command is implicitly of the form, "do this, or get out," even if they don't explicitly say the "or get out" part? I could imagine circumstances where a prosecution might take place for trespassing, if the establishment owner is convinced that he gave one a notice to leave upon failure to abide his rules implicitly, or if he fails to remember what he told the OC'er, or intentionally distorts the facts to say that there was an explicit command to leave.

    Now if they just confront someone and say something like, "Just so you know, guns aren't allowed here, so don't bring your gun in the future," I agree that there is no way that could be construed as a notice to leave, because it does not have any implicit element of a request to leave.


    Here is the trespass law itself, for anyone who wishes to read it:
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-2...l#NRS207Sec200
    NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.
    1. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:
    (a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or
    (b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,
    is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.
    2. A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods:
    (a) If the land is used for agricultural purposes or for herding or grazing livestock, by painting with fluorescent orange paint:
    (1) Not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
    (I) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 1,000 feet; and
    (II) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary; and
    (2) Each side of all gates, cattle guards and openings that are designed to allow human ingress to the area;
    (b) If the land is not used in the manner specified in paragraph (a), by painting with fluorescent orange paint not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
    (1) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 200 feet; and
    (2) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary;
    (c) Fencing the area; or
    (d) By the owner or occupant of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.
    3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.
    4. An entryman on land under the laws of the United States is an owner within the meaning of this section.
    5. As used in this section:
    (a) “Fence” means a barrier sufficient to indicate an intent to restrict the area to human ingress, including, but not limited to, a wall, hedge or chain link or wire mesh fence. The term does not include a barrier made of barbed wire.
    (b) “Guest” means any person entertained or to whom hospitality is extended, including, but not limited to, any person who stays overnight. The term does not include a tenant as defined in NRS 118A.170.
    [1911 C&P 500; RL 6765; NCL 10447]—(NRS A 1969, 96; 1975, 1169; 1987, 2086; 1989, 997; 2005, 930; 2007, 981; 2009, 141)
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 10-02-2011 at 03:24 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I'm all for forcing government buildings to obey the law and recognize our right to carry and for stubborn disobedience to unlawful commands given by government authority figures, but when it comes to private property rights, resisting the owner is a losing strategy with nothing to gain.
    Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus"
    If a person tells you your gun is not allowed, and he is the owner of private property, I think it is best to conform to the requests of the owner. If you want to win over the hearts and minds of the public, upsetting the owner by refusing his demands I think will not be helpful. If they want you off the property and they have to, they will ask you to leave, and ban you from the premises forever, and if it ever comes time for them to reconsider their firearm policy they will remember that that guy with a gun who refused to follow their rules. Further, if they are hostile to your gun rights, why would you want to support them with your money? Why try to pull some sort of civil disobedience on them, when there are plenty of places offering similar services that are more than happy to accept you as a customer and might even appreciate you carrying in their establishment, potentially scaring off miscreants.
    My comments have NOT been about what course of action individuals should pursue, but ONLY about what is either supported by statute, or not supported by statute. In other words, the [i[legal-ness,[/i] not correctness of an act.
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus
    I think it is best to comply with the demands of the owner, and send them a letter using logic to persuade them that their position is wrong. Although this tactic rarely prevails in changing the mind of an anti-gun business owner, it is probably the only thing that really has any chance.
    Yet simple compliance may present a mistaken impression in the mind of a property owner as to what is and isn't "legal" under statute.
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus
    That is correct, but I think there is some risk here, especially when actually confronted by a person and given a verbal command. I'm unaware of what case law may have to say about how implicit or explicit a command from a property owner to leave must be, but in my ignorance of the case law, I would fear that an implicit command might be sufficient to stand as an oral demand to vacate the land or building. When a property owner tells someone, "You must do X," might one argue that the command is implicitly of the form, "do this, or get out," even if they don't explicitly say the "or get out" part? I could imagine circumstances where a prosecution might take place for trespassing, if the establishment owner is convinced that he gave one a notice to leave upon failure to abide his rules implicitly, or if he fails to remember what he told the OC'er, or intentionally distorts the facts to say that there was an explicit command to leave.
    Law isn't about personal opinions, or about "fear that an implicit command."
    IMHO, statute is explicit, and directions based upon statute MUST be explicit to be supported in court. Given the nature of the signage required by the trespass statute, I can not see the "implicit" as a logical result to be in fear of from a court. I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree that it is a legally valid 'fear.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus
    Now if they just confront someone and say something like, "Just so you know, guns aren't allowed here, so don't bring your gun in the future," I agree that there is no way that could be construed as a notice to leave, because it does not have any implicit element of a request to leave.
    Neither is there any explicit statement to leave. Without the "so don't bring your gun in the future," it is a simple statement, and does not kick someone out under trespass law. Such sign does not carry weight under trespass law, and neither does such statement. Telling a customer to leave DOES carry the weight of law.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-02-2011 at 04:11 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    So, is it your contention that trespass law does not require specific notice? Odd.
    A reasonable person would understand that being told that they are doing something which is not allowed (in this case, OC), is telling them to stop doing it. For OC, that means removing the weapon from the business.

    Unless your defense plan is to act stupid ("I didn't know that they actually wanted me to LEAVE"), there isn't a lot of wiggle room.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    A reasonable person would understand that being told that they are doing something which is not allowed (in this case, OC), is telling them to stop doing it. For OC, that means removing the weapon from the business.

    Unless your defense plan is to act stupid ("I didn't know that they actually wanted me to LEAVE"), there isn't a lot of wiggle room.
    No, that does not logically follow to a trespass charge.

    It isn't about "acting stupid." It is about actually understanding the powers under statute. For those who do not understand the statutes, your viewpoint is applicable.


    Is it your claim that the simple act of informing someone that their gun is not allowed fits a "notice of trespass" statutory violation? Seriously?
    (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
    Bring on the case law support.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Is it your claim that the simple act of informing someone that their gun is not allowed fits a "notice of trespass" statutory violation? Seriously?
    "NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.

    1. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:

    (a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to VEX OR ANNOY the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; OR

    (b) Willfully goes OR REMAINS upon any land or in any building after having been WARNED by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,

    is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4." [emphasis mine]

    Is it your claim that, if told by "owner or occupant" of a private business that guns aren't allowed, it would not "vex or annoy" them if you continued to do so?

    Is it your claim that having been specifically told about this prohibition doesn't amount to a "warning"? While subsection 2 states that "sufficient warning" is given by "oral or written demand to vacate," there is no limit specifying the form that such a warning must take, and (b), above, states that Sub 2 does not impose any limits anyhow.

    Do you believe that a reasonable and prudent person, either on the bench or in the jury box, would not consider the requirements of the violation to have been met if you ignored being specifically, individually and personally told that guns aren't allowed on their private property?

    A prosecutor could make a VERY strong case that they had gone as far as needed, and that they were intimidated from any further discussion of the issue by your pistol, so no more direct notice could have been given.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Tough to tell where your words begin and end, but.


    Carrying a firearm into a business is not "goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annyr the owner or occupant thereof." But, nice try.

    While I can understand that a business owner may be 'vexed' or 'annoyed' at a person so approached as you hypothesize, that does not make any case for 'intent.'

    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    "NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.

    1. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:

    (a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to VEX OR ANNOY the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; OR

    (b) Willfully goes OR REMAINS upon any land or in any building after having been WARNED by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,

    is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4." [emphasis mine]

    Is it your claim that, if told by "owner or occupant" of a private business that guns aren't allowed, it would not "vex or annoy" them if you continued to do so?

    Is it your claim that having been specifically told about this prohibition doesn't amount to a "warning"? While subsection 2 states that "sufficient warning" is given by "oral or written demand to vacate," there is no limit specifying the form that such a warning must take, and (b), above, states that Sub 2 does not impose any limits anyhow.

    Do you believe that a reasonable and prudent person, either on the bench or in the jury box, would not consider the requirements of the violation to have been met if you ignored being specifically, individually and personally told that guns aren't allowed on their private property?A prosecutor could make a VERY strong case that they had gone as far as needed, and that they were intimidated from any further discussion of the issue by your pistol, so no more direct notice could have been given.
    YES, I can believe exactly that. Do you have case law to cite to support your contention or not?


    "Oral or written demand to vacate" is not evident in "guns are not allowed in this store."
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-03-2011 at 11:04 PM.
    "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
  •