Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Can't OC at my work anymore (or CC either)

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381

    Can't OC at my work anymore (or CC either)

    It was just handed down to me from the owner that guns are not allowed on the premises. I told my boss to tell the owner that the night before I was told by two different individuals that they felt more safe and secure knowing that I was up here carrying a firearm, as well as numerous others have said the same thing over the past few months. However, I don't feel it will go anywhere. I also told my boss that the owner needed a 11''x14'' sign stating that no guns are allowed on the property then if no guns are allowed by anyone.

    I was told that if I felt unsafe, I must instead rely on the very small bullet-proof glass window for safety and protection (which is part of a room with no door and one wall plain glass, and the front of the place is covered in 4 large plate glass windows with a douple entry door that is all glass as well... oh, and we have rock wall gardens right out front so we provide our own window-breaking missiles!). Fun fun...

    Wonder if a letter campaign would do anything to change my boss' mind, seeing as we host over 30 fishing tournaments a year here, as well as being a large vacation resort in our area.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  2. #2
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Just as an FYI - Your employer does NOT need to post signs in order to prohibit employees from carrying firearms into his place of business. His written or verbal policy is more than adequate. In addition, he does not have to post signs in order to keep customers from carrying firearms into his premises either, though they would certainly help to make his policy better known. In short, it's his property and he can do with it as he wishes, and he doesn't need a sign to exercise his private property rights.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Just as an FYI - Your employer does NOT need to post signs in order to prohibit employees from carrying firearms into his place of business. His written or verbal policy is more than adequate. In addition, he does not have to post signs in order to keep customers from carrying firearms into his premises either, though they would certainly help to make his policy better known. In short, it's his property and he can do with it as he wishes, and he doesn't need a sign to exercise his private property rights.
    I know he doesnt have to, I told my boss that signs would make it easier for the policy to be known by all, not that it was the law or anything.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  4. #4
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post

    Wonder if a letter campaign would do anything to change my boss' mind...
    Personally, having previously been the owner of a business for nineteen years, I recommend that you not resort to a letter-writing crusade to your employer.

    Instead, I'd respectfully suggest that you wait until an opportune time to have a sit-down, face-to-face discussion with the decision maker(s).

    My reason for saying this is that it is very easy for someone to take offense to something in written form, because you cannot adequately express your sentiment as well on paper as you can in a personal, face-to-face dialogue.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    Personally, having previously been the owner of a business for nineteen years, I recommend that you not resort to a letter-writing crusade to your employer.

    Instead, I'd respectfully suggest that you wait until an opportune time to have a sit-down, face-to-face discussion with the decision maker(s).

    My reason for saying this is that it is very easy for someone to take offense to something in written form, because you cannot adequately express your sentiment as well on paper as you can in a personal, face-to-face dialogue.
    Actually, I was thinking more on the lines of customers. As an example, one of the customers who told me he felt more safe and secure knowing that I was there with a gun just stopped in and commented that I was not armed. Somewhat alarmed, he asked me where it was. I told him the skinny on it and he said that if I wanted, he would be more than happy to jot down a letter to the effect that he wanted me to have a gun for his own peace of mind.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  6. #6
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    Bummer! Yes i understand that all pro gun people need to stick together weather your personal views tend to be CCW or Open Carry which i don't not want to debate but. there is definitely pro's and con's of each but there is collateral damage and fallout that can definitely come from each and a ban such as this to the definite negative fallout because of open carry is the reason i personally CCW carry as done properly no one even knows i am carrying.

    And the subject not coming up, and rule never having been addressed by the company makes it easy to keep exercising a person's rights. That is one thing I love about CCW I dont know who is carrying and they don't know if i am carrying.

    I have several friends who know i carry all the time and seem to make a game our of guessing if and where i am carrying my weapon. Over the time that i have been carrying i have found it Very easy to locate in various spots for different kinds of clothing and sometimes i don't carry but some times i do it all depends on where i am going and what i am going to be doing.

    Yes i agree that you getting on a letter writing campaign to your employer will most likely not change there views or rule from here on out. The one thing that has the highest success rate that I know of would be for people who spend there dollars there to voice there opinions that they will take there money elsewhere because of this ruling may have an effect.

    As for if enough people take there money to a business that does support 2nd amendment rights then maybe a change would be made. It all comes down to money! ---This is a tricky slope to travel as well if your boss were to get wind that you are promoting driving customers elsewhere I personally would fire you on the spot.

    Unless of course the persons view are anti- then it probably won't make a difference either way!---- Its like trying to get all the Liberal's to see the light and quit screwing this country but i just dont see that happening either---
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Just as an FYI - Your employer does NOT need to post signs in order to prohibit employees from carrying firearms into his place of business. His written or verbal policy is more than adequate. In addition, he does not have to post signs in order to keep customers from carrying firearms into his premises either, though they would certainly help to make his policy better known. In short, it's his property and he can do with it as he wishes, and he doesn't need a sign to exercise his private property rights.
    Something else that needs to be changed. If they choose to say no guns they need to be required to post it, no matter who they want to apply it to.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    It is a real hard call actually.

    The business owner takes on additional responsibility in the courts eyes, he is indeed accountable for his employees actions. He can only be held minimally accountable for his customers actions. If he feels his employee does not demonstrate the responsible behavior HE requires to be armed, he should retain the right to make that call. In other words, I feel he has just as much a right not to choose firearms as he does to choose them and since he takes the responsibility, I think he does get some say so even though I do not agree with his choice.

    On the requirement to post, well not really. The freedom of speech is clear and one never has to express their opinion and I am not sure I would ever want to see the government take that at any level from anyone no matter my opinions of the speech. I actually enjoy the freedom of speech a lot and feel very strongly that it really helps identify the stupid people.

    The only employer based law on firearms I feel should be changed is the "in the car" and eliminate the employer's assertions of a right to search employee vehicles on company property. It is not so much I seek to limit the employers use of their property in as much as it is the employers rights to gain access to the employees property. An employer should not have such power and while there is no requirement to drive to work or park on their lot, that would never pass the test of reasonable behavior in court and it is idiotic that such BS was ever handed to employers. The cool thing is, very few employers are stupid enough to do so.

    As much as I disagree with the OP's boss, I fully support his right to have made that call, it is HIS business. The only thing I would like to see legislated is the removal of workmans compensation protection and full liability for the security of his employees if he makes that choice.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman Universityís School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Joplin
    Posts
    4
    I know the feeling. Where I work, we have signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms onto the property. It is an official sign with an ordinance written on it. Oh well.......

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    It is a real hard call actually.

    The business owner takes on additional responsibility in the courts eyes, he is indeed accountable for his employees actions. He can only be held minimally accountable for his customers actions. If he feels his employee does not demonstrate the responsible behavior HE requires to be armed, he should retain the right to make that call. In other words, I feel he has just as much a right not to choose firearms as he does to choose them and since he takes the responsibility, I think he does get some say so even though I do not agree with his choice.

    On the requirement to post, well not really. The freedom of speech is clear and one never has to express their opinion and I am not sure I would ever want to see the government take that at any level from anyone no matter my opinions of the speech. I actually enjoy the freedom of speech a lot and feel very strongly that it really helps identify the stupid people.

    The only employer based law on firearms I feel should be changed is the "in the car" and eliminate the employer's assertions of a right to search employee vehicles on company property. It is not so much I seek to limit the employers use of their property in as much as it is the employers rights to gain access to the employees property. An employer should not have such power and while there is no requirement to drive to work or park on their lot, that would never pass the test of reasonable behavior in court and it is idiotic that such BS was ever handed to employers. The cool thing is, very few employers are stupid enough to do so.

    As much as I disagree with the OP's boss, I fully support his right to have made that call, it is HIS business. The only thing I would like to see legislated is the removal of workmans compensation protection and full liability for the security of his employees if he makes that choice.
    I agree with you. I know it is his right and am glad that he has that right.

    It just sucks because I am supposed to feel secure at night (I have a large amount of cash every night and am right next to three bars and get a lot of drunk people coming in at all times of the night) because there is one 2'x3' bullet-safe glass teller window right next to 4 tempered glass floor-to-ceiling windows which end in a set of glass doors. There are upwards of 15 entrances to my work, all but 3 of them are basic glass. We have 3 real security cameras that are not hooked up to anything, so in effect they are as useful as fake ones. We also have gardens out front lined with lose rocks. As you can see, I am not at all secure nor safe by any means. However, I complied immedietly with my boss' request and have not complained to her or my owner except to request a "No Guns" sign so that it will be easier to deal with other gun owners.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  11. #11
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    Something else that needs to be changed. If they choose to say no guns they need to be required to post it, no matter who they want to apply it to.
    Why should a private property owner be required to hang up signs in order to enforce his/her rights as a property owner? You do realize that a business owner would be well within his/her rights to tell customer "A" that he could not enter the premises with his gun, while at the same time telling customer "B" that he could, do you not? While I think signs are a good idea if a business owner wants his/her policy to be obvious, they should certainly not be required.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Why should a private property owner be required to hang up signs in order to enforce his/her rights as a property owner? You do realize that a business owner would be well within his/her rights to tell customer "A" that he could not enter the premises with his gun, while at the same time telling customer "B" that he could, do you not? While I think signs are a good idea if a business owner wants his/her policy to be obvious, they should certainly not be required.
    What about "No shoes, no service" signs? or "No Pets" signs? Signs are a way of letting people outside the business understand easily and quickly that certain activities will not be tolerated within said business and that you will not be treated as a customer if you do not follow the signs. I agree that a business should be required to place signs indicating what sort of activities that the business refuses to allow in their premesis. Since a business is just private property, it is no different that non-commercial private property and in my state, if you don't want someone to tresspass on your private property, you need to have signs posted ot purple painted bands on a few trees, otherwise an altercation may occur.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  13. #13
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post
    What about "No shoes, no service" signs? or "No Pets" signs? Signs are a way of letting people outside the business understand easily and quickly that certain activities will not be tolerated within said business and that you will not be treated as a customer if you do not follow the signs. I agree that a business should be required to place signs indicating what sort of activities that the business refuses to allow in their premesis. Since a business is just private property, it is no different that non-commercial private property and in my state, if you don't want someone to tresspass on your private property, you need to have signs posted ot purple painted bands on a few trees, otherwise an altercation may occur.
    In Missouri, a private property owner does NOT need to post signs or use purple paint in order to keep unauthorized people from trespassing on his/her property. We are all responsible for knowing where property lines start/stop and where we are/are not authorized to be. It is for that reason that you can drive through nearly any subdivision in the state and see yard after yard after yard that have no visible boundaries or "posted" signs, yet the owners of those parcels retain absolute rights over said property. Same thing with rural ground. It need not be "posted" in order to keep unauthorized persons out.

    The truth is, there are a lot of "rules" people are expected to observe while on private property without being "prompted" to do so; certain styles of dress, the use of obnoxious or profane language, observance of proper business hours, not cutting in line in front of other patrons, etc. None of them require that the proprietor post a sign in order for the proprietor to have an expectation that patrons will conduct themselves in a decent manner, and in each case, a proprietor is well within his/her rights to ask you to leave or have you removed from the premises if you fail to act in what in his/her view is an appropriate manner.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    In Missouri, a private property owner does NOT need to post signs or use purple paint in order to keep unauthorized people from trespassing on his/her property. We are all responsible for knowing where property lines start/stop and where we are/are not authorized to be. It is for that reason that you can drive through nearly any subdivision in the state and see yard after yard after yard that have no visible boundaries or "posted" signs, yet the owners of those parcels retain absolute rights over said property. Same thing with rural ground. It need not be "posted" in order to keep unauthorized persons out.
    You would be wrong. You have to have either visible boundaries (either as a fence, or signs, or purple paint) or stay vigilant 100% of the time in order to tell someone verbally that they are about to walk onto your land and you do not wish it to happen.

    First-degree trespass can occur in four situations:

    1. Coming onto land fenced against intruders (arguably more than just livestock fences, probably more like those high security fences with the sloping barbed-wire strands at the top);

    2. Ignoring verbal warnings to leave the premises;

    3. Coming onto land posted with signs against trespass reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; and/or

    4. Coming onto land with purple paint marks on trees or posts around the premises.

    Missouri Revised Statutes
    Chapter 569
    Robbery, Arson, Burglary and Related Offenses
    Section 569.140

    August 28, 2010

    Trespass in the first degree.
    569.140. 1. A person commits the crime of trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property.

    2. A person does not commit the crime of trespass in the first degree by entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or as to which notice against trespass is given by:

    (1) Actual communication to the actor; or

    (2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    The truth is, there are a lot of "rules" people are expected to observe while on private property without being "prompted" to do so; certain styles of dress, the use of obnoxious or profane language, observance of proper business hours, not cutting in line in front of other patrons, etc. None of them require that the proprietor post a sign in order for the proprietor to have an expectation that patrons will conduct themselves in a decent manner, and in each case, a proprietor is well within his/her rights to ask you to leave or have you removed from the premises if you fail to act in what in his/her view is an appropriate manner.
    Actually, in some cases, like in that of smoking, you have to have signs up stating that no smoking is allowed to be able to charge someone in violation of it.

    191.771. The person having custody or control of a public place or public meeting shall:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to prevent smoking in the public place or public meeting by posting appropriate signs indicating no-smoking or smoking area and arrange seating accordingly. These signs shall be placed at a height and location easily seen by a person entering the public place or public meeting and not obscured in any way;

    191.773. The following persons shall be guilty of an infraction:

    (1) A person who smokes in those areas where smoking is prohibited pursuant to the provisions of sections 191.765 to 191.773 and section 290.145;
    Now, anyone can call up the cops for tresspassing, as long as the requests to leave the property are not discriminatory, but discrimination can be murky, hence the need for signs to clearly illustrate the sort of activities/behavior that is not tolerated.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  15. #15
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post
    You would be wrong. You have to have either visible boundaries (either as a fence, or signs, or purple paint) or stay vigilant 100% of the time in order to tell someone verbally that they are about to walk onto your land and you do not wish it to happen.

    First-degree trespass can occur in four situations:

    1. Coming onto land fenced against intruders (arguably more than just livestock fences, probably more like those high security fences with the sloping barbed-wire strands at the top);

    2. Ignoring verbal warnings to leave the premises;

    3. Coming onto land posted with signs against trespass reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; and/or

    4. Coming onto land with purple paint marks on trees or posts around the premises.





    Actually, in some cases, like in that of smoking, you have to have signs up stating that no smoking is allowed to be able to charge someone in violation of it.



    Now, anyone can call up the cops for tresspassing, as long as the requests to leave the property are not discriminatory, but discrimination can be murky, hence the need for signs to clearly illustrate the sort of activities/behavior that is not tolerated.
    No, I would not be wrong. You are now trying to confuse the imposition of criminal penalties on someone with the property owner's right to control who comes and goes on his property. As I stated, a property owner does NOT need a sign posted to control who can or can't come on his/her property. Now in order for the charge of "criminal trespass" to be made, there are certain criteria that have to be met, but that has nothing to do with the property owner having control over his/her property. You can be denied access to the premises or asked to leave at any time - no signs required.

    As to smoking or some other activity, again, a property owner can ask you to leave for almost any reason he/she deems necessary, and he/she can enforce that request without any kind of sign being present. You walk into a grocery store, for example, and start having a loud and obnoxious conversation with a buddy, and a manager or someone else with authority over the premises is well within his/her rights to ask you to leave and subsequently have you forcibly removed if you refuse, and no sign needs to be present stating that "loud and obnoxious conversation is prohibited in this facility".

    The same thing applies to my 440 acres of property that I live on here in Central Missouri. I had a neighbor who was walking up on my property picking mushrooms, and he was entering through an area that I do not have marked with signs or purple paint (no clearly defined property line). I verbally told him twice that he was not to be on my property without calling and obtaining permission first. I set up a trail camera in the area a few days later to see if he was still coming on my property and sure enough, within 2 days, I had pictures of him walking up that old logging road through the woods. Needless to say, a sheriff's deputy paid him a visit the next evening and informed him that I had ample evidence to press 1st Degree trespass charges against him if I so chose to do so.

    Like I mentioned earlier, a private property owner has certain rights and the exercise of those rights does not hinge on the presence or absence of a sign. REQUIRING that signs be posted would actually diminish property owner's rights - something that I would not support at all.
    Last edited by cshoff; 10-14-2011 at 01:30 AM.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    The same thing applies to my 440 acres of property that I live on here in Central Missouri. I had a neighbor who was walking up on my property picking mushrooms, and he was entering through an area that I do not have marked with signs or purple paint (no clearly defined property line). I verbally told him twice that he was not to be on my property without calling and obtaining permission first. I set up a trail camera in the area a few days later to see if he was still coming on my property and sure enough, within 2 days, I had pictures of him walking up that old logging road through the woods. Needless to say, a sheriff's deputy paid him a visit the next evening and informed him that I had ample evidence to press 1st Degree trespass charges against him if I so chose to do so.

    Like I mentioned earlier, a private property owner has certain rights and the exercise of those rights does not hinge on the presence or absence of a sign. REQUIRING that signs be posted would actually diminish property owner's rights - something that I would not support at all.
    Ask the deputy if you could have pressed trespass charges against the guy if you had never verbally told him to not enter your property... he would tell you that you cannot do so unless you have signs, paint, or told the guy verbally. The law does REQUIRE you to have signs up, fence up, OR to be vigilant 100% of the time, 24/7, in order to verbally tell people that they are trespassing. WHile I get your point, please understand mine. The law says that signs, paint (which acts as though a sign were present), or verbal notification is required, and if you go the verbal route, if you are NOT there to tell someone verbally that they are trespassing, then no matter what your rights are as a private property owner, that person has not trespassed! It is as simple as that.
    Last edited by Verd; 10-14-2011 at 02:29 AM.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    As to smoking or some other activity, again, a property owner can ask you to leave for almost any reason he/she deems necessary, and he/she can enforce that request without any kind of sign being present. You walk into a grocery store, for example, and start having a loud and obnoxious conversation with a buddy, and a manager or someone else with authority over the premises is well within his/her rights to ask you to leave and subsequently have you forcibly removed if you refuse, and no sign needs to be present stating that "loud and obnoxious conversation is prohibited in this facility".
    You have to be careful here, since there are laws regulating what businesses can and cannot do in regards to refusal of service. For instance, they cannot refuse service based on discrimination. Nor can the refusal be arbitrary (like in the movie Pretty Woman, when Robert's character was refused service at the clothing store, that would be a case of arbitrary refusal of service and could easily turn into a lawsuit. Another example is that a person likely canít be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

    Now, you don't need a sign to throw someone out, this is true. It does, however, help to reduce arbitrary refusals by making a blanket statement. It also can depend on your city's codes. For instance, a local city has the following:

    How can I get rid of people who loiter or are rude, loud, and obnoxious?

    Make sure appropriate signs or notices are placed within clear view of your patrons which indicate that loitering is not allowed and that you reserve the right to refuse service. The proprietor, may politely request that the loiterer quietly leave your premises. If anyone refuses to leave your premises, you may call the Police Department.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  18. #18
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post
    Ask the deputy if you could have pressed trespass charges against the guy if you had never verbally told him to not enter your property... he would tell you that you cannot do so unless you have signs, paint, or told the guy verbally. The law does REQUIRE you to have signs up, fence up, OR to be vigilant 100% of the time, 24/7, in order to verbally tell people that they are trespassing. WHile I get your point, please understand mine. The law says that signs, paint (which acts as though a sign were present), or verbal notification is required, and if you go the verbal route, if you are NOT there to tell someone verbally that they are trespassing, then no matter what your rights are as a private property owner, that person has not trespassed! It is as simple as that.
    And if you are not there to catch a person trespassing even when signs are present, or monitor the property with video cameras, then your rights as a property owner are also irrelevant. In addition, the law does NOT require a property owner to have signs or fences in place, nor does it require you to be vigilant 24*7. You could randomly catch a trespasser just on pure luck and your authority over your property would be every bit as valid as if you were there patrolling the place 24/7.

    But I digress, the point you have to remember is that the act of trespassing is a crime, whether the notification of trespass came from a sign, purple paint, verbally, or through a notice posted in the local paper. On the other hand, the act of a CCW endorsement holder entering an establishment with his/her firearm is NOT a crime, regardless of whether or not there is a sign posted. So you are really trying to compare apples to oranges here. Making the posting of "no guns" signs mandatory will do nothing to change that and thus, would be nothing but a needless expense for a business owner. Why gun owners would advocate for more regulation on private property owners is beyond me.

  19. #19
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post
    You have to be careful here, since there are laws regulating what businesses can and cannot do in regards to refusal of service. For instance, they cannot refuse service based on discrimination. Nor can the refusal be arbitrary (like in the movie Pretty Woman, when Robert's character was refused service at the clothing store, that would be a case of arbitrary refusal of service and could easily turn into a lawsuit. Another example is that a person likely canít be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

    Now, you don't need a sign to throw someone out, this is true. It does, however, help to reduce arbitrary refusals by making a blanket statement. It also can depend on your city's codes. For instance, a local city has the following:
    Service can generally be refused for almost any reason as long as it isn't based on religion, race, or sex. You had better believe that if you are wearing a style of dress that a proprietor deems inappropriate (perhaps a t-shirt with vulgar slogans), you can be refused service.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Service can generally be refused for almost any reason as long as it isn't based on religion, race, or sex. You had better believe that if you are wearing a style of dress that a proprietor deems inappropriate (perhaps a t-shirt with vulgar slogans), you can be refused service.
    Yes, and the no shirt, no shoes no service signs are actually a health code requirement if a place serves food for consumption on the property, they HAVE to require shoes and shirts.

    Down in Florida it is not uncommon at all to see "no bathing suit only dining" and while some might think it is the view, it is not, it is the simple fact that no one wants to sit in someone's suntan oil and stain their pants.

    Trespass would really be no big deal except for the simple fact that too many do not respect the wishes of the property owner. I can tell you for a fact, anyone was welcome on our family farm, but they did have to follow the rules IE no disturbing the cattle, no littering, no destruction, don't steal our stuff you know real simple stuff. You would be amazed at how many a-holes there are in the world who can not follow such simple rules.

    I bet we had about 100 different folks who came to hunt, fish down where the property borders the river, hunt arrow heads, hike and even just look around. I also can not tell you how many we had to run off, likely just as many. Chasing the cows with your truck will even draw random gunfire, you can talk about the legality of it until you are blue in the face, I do not think you will ever convince grandma that it becomes a bad idea *wink*.

    Now IMHO back to the original topic at hand, the owners rights. Use caution when you choose to manipulate his rights for your beliefs as another may choose to manipulate yours for their beliefs. I do not AGREE with the owner, but I would support him 100% and would hope (not the case on 2a stuff I know) he would support mine as well.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman Universityís School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

Posting Permissions

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