OC in Winco Reno, NV

wrightme · Oct 2, 2011

Felid`Maximus said:
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.

Felid`Maximus" said:
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.

Felid`Maximus said:
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.

Felid`Maximus said:
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.'

Felid`Maximus said:
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.

DVC · Oct 3, 2011

wrightme said:
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.

wrightme · Oct 3, 2011

DVC said:
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.

DVC · Oct 3, 2011

wrightme said:
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.

wrightme · Oct 3, 2011

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.'

DVC said:
"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."

gmijackso · Oct 4, 2011

wrightme said:
"Oral or written demand to vacate" is not evident in "guns are not allowed in this store."

Whenever I hear "guns are not allowed..." I always envision"This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun" <insert hand motions>. Is that what they mean?

john-in-reno · Oct 4, 2011

gmijackso said:
Whenever I hear "guns are not allowed..." I always envision"This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun" <insert hand motions>. Is that what they mean?

LOL, I haven't heard that in a long time

DVC · Oct 4, 2011

wrightme said:
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.'

Are you willing to be our test case for that assertion? I know of a private location where the "occupant" (lessee) would be "vexed" if you carry.

Remember, while it is difficult in the law to prove intent, they can make a strong case for it by your actions in many cases. This would be one of them. How will you answer the prosecutor, when he asks "Being made aware that there was a policy against carrying firearms, why did you continue to do so?"

Are you mistaking the word "intent" to mean PRIOR intent or premeditation, as in planning to go to the place in order to "vex" them? Please provide the case law which would agree.

YES, I can believe exactly that. Do you have case law to cite to support your contention or not?

Isn't the state law enough?

"Oral or written demand to vacate" is not evident in "guns are not allowed in this store."

Where is your case law to support this contention?

Read the law again. That is in Subsection 2, which the law is "not limited by" -- that means that Sub 2 is illumination, not requirement. Anything which meets the standards of Sub 2 is prima facie accepted as warning, but these examples are not the ONLY means of providing warning.

I don't have the Nevada casebook, so have no easy way to know how many cases of trespass have been tried, nor what the particulars or verdicts were. All I can do is look at the law, and the law doesn't have a specific definition for what is and is not "warning."

wrightme · Oct 4, 2011

DVC said:
Are you willing to be our test case for that assertion? I know of a private location where the "occupant" (lessee) would be "vexed" if you carry.

Nope, I am not discussing courses of action, but operation of law.

DVC said:
Remember, while it is difficult in the law to prove intent, they can make a strong case for it by your actions in many cases. This would be one of them. How will you answer the prosecutor, when he asks "Being made aware that there was a policy against carrying firearms, why did you continue to do so?"

"Being made aware the accused was shopping, why did you call the cops on him?"

DVC said:
Are you mistaking the word "intent" to mean PRIOR intent or premeditation, as in planning to go to the place in order to "vex" them? Please provide the case law which would agree.

Not my problem.

DVC said:
Isn't the state law enough?

Where is your case law to support this contention?

There is none needed. Unless you intend to assume that ANY mention of rules on a sign is "notice of trespass," it isn't applicable. The law states "verbal or written notice of trespass." Unless you are aware of case law that supports the contention that signage indicating a business policy constitutes "written notice of trespass" under NRS, there is NO rational reason to believe that a verbal notice of business policy is an "oral notice of trespass."

DVC said:
Read the law again. That is in Subsection 2, which the law is "not limited by" -- that means that Sub 2 is illumination, not requirement. Anything which meets the standards of Sub 2 is prima facie accepted as warning, but these examples are not the ONLY means of providing warning.

I do not need to "read the law again." That doesn't create a big blanket of ways. And, unless case law supports the method of notice you are alleging, it simply isn't supported by NRS.

DVC said:
I don't have the Nevada casebook, so have no easy way to know how many cases of trespass have been tried, nor what the particulars or verdicts were. All I can do is look at the law, and the law doesn't have a specific definition for what is and is not "warning."

Then your claim is not supportable.

OC in Winco Reno, NV

wrightme

Regular Member

DVC

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

DVC

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

gmijackso

Regular Member

john-in-reno

Regular Member

DVC

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member